Persian North Africa

The Persians move into N. Africa after conquering Egypt in 618 AD, during the reign of Chosroes II. The demoralized population offers little resistance and the Persians advance as far as Carthage. This means that the counter offensive against the Persians offered by Hercalius can't happen now. Would the Byzantines survive in eastern Europe? What happens during the Islamic invasion, if the Arabs are confronted by an immense Persian empire?
 
Still take them over? It's fairly well-known either way by this time the Persians and Byzantines are exhausted from all the incessant warfare the two have given each other. And Persia's only spread out farther and thinner in TTL...
 
I think Persia would get *really* overextended in this scenario, although it would be rather hilarious of the Arab eruption occurs in the middle of it and we get a Persian army isolated in North Africa.
 
Hey, I resent that. The Sassanids were by far the greatest truly Persian dynasty. What grounds do you have for calling them pussies?

rcduggan

I would agree that they were a great Persian dynasty but would you really say they were greater than the Achaemenes? Cyrus and his descendants established an even larger empire and held it for several centuries. Also the tolerance of his system seems to have been markedly different from most later empires and was probably a big factor in its success.

On the main question I'm not sure, if Byzantium had folded, the Arabs would have had as much success against the Sassanid’s. Without the bloody slog of the latter period of the long war the state would be a lot stronger. Especially without the defeats their moral and prestige would be markedly higher. Also they would have the taxes from Egypt, Syria and most of Anatolia to maintain their regime. If nothing else the subsidies to the fringe tribes/satellites would likely have continued, making any Arab breakout from the deserts much more difficult.

The awkward problem might be how the population of Egypt and Syria react to prolonged Persian rule. Large numbers welcomed the Sassanid’s and later the Arabs because it meant an end to Byzantium rule and especially religious intolerance. However the Sassanid’s were fairly intolerant themselves and with Byzantium removed from the scene might they become fairly unpopular themselves? If not I can't see the Arabs having any lasting success. Without that dissatisfaction the Arabs can raid and plunder outer regions and possible defeat some armies but can't really threaten the major towns and urban areas. Without those successes they would fail to have the same momentum and the Sassanid’s might well revive like Byzantium did.

Steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenes
 
Persia has a problem in this scenario: It needs a Mediterranean fleet. And not just any fleet, one that can go toe-to-toe with the Byzantines and cut off Africa and Europe. Being able to transport the Persian army from Egypt to Carthage or Tripoli would be pretty helpful as well.

Without a fleet, the Persians might have a much harder time trying to siege coastal cities that can be resupplied or reinforced by sea, especially while the main Byzantine army may be preparing to drive through Anatolia and the Levant. Persian armies in North Africa are in constant danger of being cut off and isolated, and what's worse will be largely out of communication with Persia proper.

So Persia needs a fleet, otherwise this would be an extremely risky move. Chosroes II also needs a reason to go after Carthage with that fleet instead of Ionia or the Aegean sea in general.
 
Top