Plausablity Check - Byzantines, Sasanids and Arabs

Disclaimer. This idea did come about after playing in a Europa Universalis IV mod which played with the idea of a byzantine+Sasanid team up against the Muslim invaders in the 7th century. This case would surly butterfly the destruction of the Eastern Romans at the Hand of the Ottoman Turks.

Anyway I just wanted to know you folks opinions of this?

1) Is it Plausible, could the two nations put aside their hatred and push back a mutual enemy? Or did they both not think it was a big enough threat.
2)What would the possible aftermath of such a win for the old empire.

Thank you - Zrew :)
 
It's plausible that the Byzantines and Sassanids could join forces against the Arabs - the real issue is getting them to react fast enough, and be prepared for such an invasion.

Really, you need a POD before the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars of 602-628. Get rid of these wars, and the Sassanids and Byzantines could probably handle the Arabs on their own without each other's help.
 
Thanks :)

If we excuse the fact if it could be possible, would the Arabians still have enough momentum to drive across North Africa and into Spain?

I take the ramifications of this weakened Islam would effects its spread into the Mali Kingdom and into Asia?

(I do want to apologize for my lack of Historical knowledge)
 
Really, you need a POD before the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars of 602-628. Get rid of these wars, and the Sassanids and Byzantines could probably handle the Arabs on their own without each other's help.

Which is a tall order. The ERE and the Sassanids were supreme competitors each seeking hegemony over areas claimed by each side and had been doing so for centuries. It is hard to completely butterfly even the latest war. But, if somehow each side had not battled each other other so completely into exhaustion and a peace or truce had been established more or less, status quo ante bellum, each side not only would have been separately more able to fend off Arab attack, as well as opening up the possibility of ERE-Sassanian cooperation.

However, I could just as easily see, say, the ERE cooperating with the Arabs to attack the Sassanians. Hey, at least the ERE and the Arabs are both "peoples of the book" who would be fighting against "pagans"...
 
Last edited:
Thanks :)

If we excuse the fact if it could be possible, would the Arabians still have enough momentum to drive across North Africa and into Spain?

I take the ramifications of this weakened Islam would effects its spread into the Mali Kingdom and into Asia?

(I do want to apologize for my lack of Historical knowledge)

If the Byzantines and Sassanids successfully repel the Arabs then they can't reach Spain, since the lands of Egypt, Libya and the Berber coasts were all Byzantine provinces.
 
......THEY DID. Yazdegerd and Heraclius did team up to check the Rashudian advance but they got their campaign movements wrong and the Arabs checked the two empires in separate battles.
 
Honestly it would be easier to tweak things so that either the Byzantines or Sassanids defeat the Arabs by themselves rather than having them work together but its doable.

Personally I'd start with having Shahrbaraz remain in power as he actually got along with Heraclius and was a comptent general but that is a bit tricky seeing as he only lasted 40 days IOTL. So lets have it that instead of him usurping and killing Ardashir III lets have the boy die along with his father Kavadh II during the plague. Now lacking a strong male claimant from the Sasanian Dynasty left the way is open for Shahrbaraz to take the throne without having to engage in regicide and he likely ends up alienating fewer people in the process.
I'd also have Heraclius remain in better health maybe avoiding a few wounds and illnesses earlier in life could be enough for that.

Now in 636 both the Romans and Persians have suffered losses at the hands of the Arabs and both are still hurting from the two decade long war between each other so neither one finds easy to raise the needed troops to crush the Arabs alone especially as the cost of said campaign in blood and gold would leave them extremely vulnerable elsewhere.
So Emperor Heraclius and Shahanshah Shahrbaraz correspond with each other and agree to launch simultaneous attacks on the upstart Arabs. Thus making their opponent focus on a two front war while ensuring that the two Empires biggest rival (each other) are occupied at the same time.
 
......THEY DID. Yazdegerd and Heraclius did team up to check the Rashudian advance but they got their campaign movements wrong and the Arabs checked the two empires in separate battles.

That alliance is alleged but not a proven fact to historians. Yes there was a royal marriage involving the 2 powers. Anyway, too little, too disorganized, and probably too late.
 
Now in 636 both the Romans and Persians have suffered losses at the hands of the Arabs and both are still hurting from the two decade long war between each other so neither one finds easy to raise the needed troops to crush the Arabs alone especially as the cost of said campaign in blood and gold would leave them extremely vulnerable elsewhere.
So Emperor Heraclius and Shahanshah Shahrbaraz correspond with each other and agree to launch simultaneous attacks on the upstart Arabs. Thus making their opponent focus on a two front war while ensuring that the two Empires biggest rival (each other) are occupied at the same time.

Would they have enough funds to possibly hire enough mercenaries to help? not sure if that too much to ask interms of War effort?
And seriously considering writing a alt time line around this idea
 
If the Byzantines and Sassanids successfully repel the Arabs then they can't reach Spain, since the lands of Egypt, Libya and the Berber coasts were all Byzantine provinces.

Sorry to double post but (From limited reading on the subject) didn't the Romans just gain these from the Sasasinds therefore they might not be alright with there occupation.. so might not feel care about Arabs running around there province? Just a thought.
 
Sorry to double post but (From limited reading on the subject) didn't the Romans just gain these from the Sasasinds therefore they might not be alright with there occupation.. so might not feel care about Arabs running around there province? Just a thought.

No, Egypt had for a long time been one of the most important Roman provinces. The Byzantines won't be so pleased to lose it to the Arabs (As they weren't OTL)
 
Would they have enough funds to possibly hire enough mercenaries to help? not sure if that too much to ask interms of War effort?
And seriously considering writing a alt time line around this idea
They really don't need additional mercenaries over what they had historically especially if both offenses are launched simultaneously as that lack of coordination allowed the Caliphate to first shift forces to its army facing the Romans at Yarmouk and then turn around and use part of that army against the Persians at Qadisiyah. Compound that with Leadership issues for both Empire i.e. the Romans not having anyone comparable in ability to Khalid except for perhaps Heraclius himself who wasn't in good enough health to take the field. And for the Persian losing Rostam during the battle was a deathblow.
 
Top