No Heraclius (or his sucesses)

Nikephoros

Banned
Sorry if this has been asked before but:

What would happen if Heraclius never became emperor, or if he had not defeated the Persians?
 
First: Persian Empire for a few years, looking rather strong on paper, while reducing Byzantium to its European territories and some of North Africa. Maybe even fall of Constantinople to the Persian/Avar forces - it is not as if they did not try, and without Heraclius or similar leader, they could have succeeded. In this case, Byzantium as a coherent power is pretty much over with, maybe a few small holdouts claiming the title can remain, but otherwise, it is gone and not able to do much in the larger scheme of things.

Second: Caliphate from the sea to the shining sea. Seriously. Even in its weakened state, Byzantium was able to mostly stop Arabs from crossing over into Europe, largely due to two factors: Greek Fire (which the Persians are unlikely to have), and geographical position of Constantinople as a heavily fortified "bottleneck" (which, if Persia captures it, is likely to be in a much reduced state). Since I think Persia would have had even less of a success repelling the Arab invasion than Byzantium, this means Arab Persia, Arab Anatolia, Arab Greece, and, well, down the line, Arab Mediterranean, depending on how well the Umayyads can hold it together.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Thanks for your help.

I was listening to a lecture by podcast about the emperor Heraclius. I heard the lecturer's view on what would happen if Heraclius would have failed, so I wondered what others would think.

Yeah, if Heraclius would have failed, there would likely be a much later Tours-type event, but Islam would continue to spread.
 
Second: Caliphate from the sea to the shining sea. Seriously.
I disagree. Consider the luck the Arabs had in having a very large, very weakened empire right beside them at just the time they were ready to expand. Where do they build up the strength to attack Persia, if Persia is not severely weakened by decades of war and attendant succession disputes as they were OTL? I say that the Muslims go nowhere, unless they take to seafaring.
 
I disagree. Consider the luck the Arabs had in having a very large, very weakened empire right beside them at just the time they were ready to expand. Where do they build up the strength to attack Persia, if Persia is not severely weakened by decades of war and attendant succession disputes as they were OTL? I say that the Muslims go nowhere, unless they take to seafaring.

The thing is though, Persia WOULD be weakened if they had such a total victory - the Byzantines would take a long time to fall, and Greeks and Christians are likely to give them quite a bit of trouble. In other words - think the reverse of OTL situation, with Persia in Byzantium's OTL role.
 
The thing is though, Persia WOULD be weakened if they had such a total victory - the Byzantines would take a long time to fall, and Greeks and Christians are likely to give them quite a bit of trouble. In other words - think the reverse of OTL situation, with Persia in Byzantium's OTL role.

Heraclius came back after Egypt had already fallen; without him, the Empire is kaputt.

Where is the podcast, anyway?
 
Heraclius came back after Egypt had already fallen; without him, the Empire is kaputt.

Where is the podcast, anyway?

Until Thrace falls, the Empire has somewhat of a chance... after all, they fought back to an extent for a while. If this fighting goes on at least until 620 or so, well, then my scenario will occur.
 
The thing is though, Persia WOULD be weakened if they had such a total victory - the Byzantines would take a long time to fall, and Greeks and Christians are likely to give them quite a bit of trouble. In other words - think the reverse of OTL situation, with Persia in Byzantium's OTL role.

Though I agree that Persia would be weakened by the extensive war againest the Byzantines, I don't think that it would be as hopelessly weak as you describe.

Without the humiliating defeats at the hands of Heraclius in Azerbaijan and at Nineveh, Khusrau's position would remain strong, or at least strong enough to prevent the chain of events that begun with Kavadh's liberation and coronation, and ended with the collapse of the Sassanid Empire.

And instead of being demoralized by the defeats againest Heraclius and the general anarchy following Khusrau's death, the Persian army would still be at the peak of their morale due to their recent victories againest the Byzantines. And their leadership would be stronger too.

That could make a lot of difference - even if the Arabs do manage to take Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt, then, with some proper leadership and without the anarchy that befell Persia IOTL, the Persians could successfully defend areas like Fars, Azerbaijan, Khoresan, and perhaps even Kerman againest the Arabs.

In such a scenario, they would retain a viable empire, just like Byzantium IOTL.

..
However, the Arabs still have the advantage that the Persians are still concentrating their troops in the recently conquered territories, and to a lesser extent, in Transoxiana.

Heraclius managed to archieve his OTL victories thanks to Khusrau's tactical mistake of having almost no forces defending Mesopotamia and the other heartlands of the Persian Empire.

And ITTL, Khusrau would only be more overconfident, and he would certainly not expect the Arabs to become a serious threat, ever.

And not only does barely defended Mesopotamia border the Arabian desert - Khusrau had also made the crucial mistake of destroying the Lakhmid kingdom for such a trivial issue as the Lakhmid king's refusal to let Khusrau marry his daughter.

The Arabian Lakhmids were loyal vassals of the Sassanids, and had their kingdom remained strong, then the Arab conquest of Persia would have taken a lot longer, and it might even have been prevented - even in a scenario that does include Heraclius.

But IOTL, the remnants of the Lakhmids were defeated by the Muslims and incorporated in the Caliphate without too much effort, which only made their conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia easier. And ITTL, the Lakhmids won't be able to do much againest the Muslim invasion either, thus leaving a rather serious weak spot in the Sassanid frontier, right in an area that would be among the first to be attacked by the Muslims.

..
So, in the end, I'd say that things could go either way, with the destruction of Persia, the (near-)destruction of the Caliphate, and the survival of both empires being possebilities.

But exactly what will happen will depend on a few factors, such as wether Khusrau II will still be alive when the Arabs invade, how he will handle the Arab invasion if he is, and who his successor is and what he'll do if he isn't.
 
Last edited:
Guys

One other point might be how relations are, after the effective end of the war with Byzantium, between the Persian rulers and the Christian populations of Syria and Egypt? Historically I think the Persians faced relatively little resistance from the populations of those areas because they had been persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines. As such they would probably be both favourable to continued Persian rule, making it a lot stronger and probably far too strong, without appalling leadership and/or luck for the Arabs to take down.

Alternatively, if the Persians, after Byzantium is defeated, seek to tax the region more heavily, or start discriminating too much against the Christians the Muslims could find themselves largely welcomed again.

Does anyone have any ideas how well the Egyptians and Syrians got on with the Persians during the period the latter were occupying them? And also how they might have been ruled later on? How quickly and easily the Persians win the conflict might be important. Too quickly might make them arrogant. Too long and costly might make them eager to raise taxes, to repair weakened economies.

Steve
 
Guys

One other point might be how relations are, after the effective end of the war with Byzantium, between the Persian rulers and the Christian populations of Syria and Egypt? Historically I think the Persians faced relatively little resistance from the populations of those areas because they had been persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines. As such they would probably be both favourable to continued Persian rule, making it a lot stronger and probably far too strong, without appalling leadership and/or luck for the Arabs to take down.

Alternatively, if the Persians, after Byzantium is defeated, seek to tax the region more heavily, or start discriminating too much against the Christians the Muslims could find themselves largely welcomed again.

Does anyone have any ideas how well the Egyptians and Syrians got on with the Persians during the period the latter were occupying them? And also how they might have been ruled later on? How quickly and easily the Persians win the conflict might be important. Too quickly might make them arrogant. Too long and costly might make them eager to raise taxes, to repair weakened economies.

Steve


From what I understand, the Persians were quite harsh on the Christian populations once they felt more or less in control, so we might end up with the same scenario as in OTL, only in reverse, with Persia instead of Byzantium getting thoroughly hammered by the Arabs. The main difference, of course, would be that the Zoroastrian Persians are a step further from Islam than the Christian Byzantines, and while ultimately it got conveniently resolved in OTL, this might cause the Arabs to try just a little harder, which can make all the difference in the long run.
 
From what I understand, the Persians were quite harsh on the Christian populations once they felt more or less in control, so we might end up with the same scenario as in OTL, only in reverse, with Persia instead of Byzantium getting thoroughly hammered by the Arabs. The main difference, of course, would be that the Zoroastrian Persians are a step further from Islam than the Christian Byzantines, and while ultimately it got conveniently resolved in OTL, this might cause the Arabs to try just a little harder, which can make all the difference in the long run.

Midgard

Thanks. Suspected that might be the case but wasn't sure. Think prior to Constintine the Persians had supported Christians as a group that might aid them then afterwards viewed with deep mistrust the Christian minorities in their own territories.

Steve
 
Top