Roman-Persian Wars without Islam.

It doesn't seem like the Roman Persia wars would have stopped without Islam, as each side proved rather incapable of completely subjugating the other. This went on for centuries. For how many more centuries could the situation remain like that? Would Turkish horded eventually take Persia anyway?
 
It doesn't seem like the Roman Persia wars would have stopped without Islam, as each side proved rather incapable of completely subjugating the other. This went on for centuries. For how many more centuries could the situation remain like that? Would Turkish horded eventually take Persia anyway?

For either side to learn their lesson is probably implausible at best, in fact the last war between the two likely made future more likely; plenty of heroes to emulate, lots of scores to settle and damaged pride on both sides of the Euphrates.

That situation lasts until either of the two managed to break the other, not decisively but accidentally, ie. a simultaneous Roman invasion of Mesopotamia during a particularly heavy series of invasions from the steppe and the opposite for a situation wherein Persia comes out on top. If you have either of the two empires in healthy condition with competent leadership they can keep going so long as the full weight of either stays out of the fight. The Romans managed to reverse insane losses during the last war and the Persians managed to overrun not only their East's major source of manpower, but also the greatest of its financial assets and a vital breadbasket. By all means the war should have killed Rome but in the end the status quo was reinstated. Both sides had the capacity to kill each other in brutally exhausting fashion but thankfully always had some other problem to keep a portion of their strength away from the minefield which was their border.
 
It doesn't seem like the Roman Persia wars would have stopped without Islam, as each side proved rather incapable of completely subjugating the other. This went on for centuries. For how many more centuries could the situation remain like that? Would Turkish horded eventually take Persia anyway?
I see what you mean.
The Roman (Byzantine) - Parthia (Persian) wars went on for six centuries or so. In the world without Islam we have these empires staying and whence your question.

My opinion that some things are going to change.
Even during the last Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 the outcome of this war was seriously (if not decisively) influenced by the Western Turkic Khaganate.
So we already have the third really big independent player in the traditional game of two (Rome vs Iran).

And that 'third big guy' stays in ATL - Khazaria as a successor state of the Gokturks. It stayed in OTL but was seriously crippled by the Arabs.
Here without Caliphate we would have one more "great world power" in addition to the Roman Empire, Persian Empire and China. And that Empire would stay for good.

And that is exactly in between the Byzantines and the Persians.

The Khazar State would not be a "horde" of the mindless barbarians, that would be even more sophisticated Empire than it was in OTL, as in this ATL it would probably include territories to the South of the Caucasus.

That would be an interesting game.
The point here is - if the two players ally against the third player, this third player is actually in great danger. But it is not certain that "this third player" destined to loose is necessarily Persia.
The Khazar Khagan and Persian Shahanshah might unite against the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor. Khazaria getting Anatolia and Persia getting Syria and Egypt.
 
I see what you mean.
The Khazar State would not be a "horde" of the mindless barbarians, that would be even more sophisticated Empire than it was in OTL, as in this ATL it would probably include territories to the South of the Caucasus.

That would be an interesting game.
The point here is - if the two players ally against the third player, this third player is actually in great danger. But it is not certain that "this third player" destined to loose is necessarily Persia.
The Khazar Khagan and Persian Shahanshah might unite against the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor. Khazaria getting Anatolia and Persia getting Syria and Egypt.

I agree with the first part if only because the Khazars would borrow a lot from the Romans and Persians they succeeded from, but the second part I find unlikely, considering that the Sasanians, as well as any Persian dynasty that succeeds them would consider themselves as heirs to the Achaemenids and of course their desire to restore the Achaemenid Empire in full, that includes Anatolia. (and possibly Northern Greece if not all of Greece)
 
I agree with the first part if only because the Khazars would borrow a lot from the Romans and Persians they succeeded from, but the second part I find unlikely, considering that the Sasanians, as well as any Persian dynasty that succeeds them would consider themselves as heirs to the Achaemenids and of course their desire to restore the Achaemenid Empire in full, that includes Anatolia. (and possibly Northern Greece if not all of Greece)
Maybe you are right.
But maybe after the Persians got a bloody nose in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 their imperial ambitions became a little bit humbler.
 
The dynasty might have been humbled, but any resurgent native Persian dynasty in this scenario would keep the same ambitions, I think. The Sassanians did a good job annihilating the hellenic influences and promoting their own unique Persian urban civilization.

There's nothing much to build a dynasty on except those ancient Persian influences.
 
The dynasty might have been humbled, but any resurgent native Persian dynasty in this scenario would keep the same ambitions, I think. The Sassanians did a good job annihilating the hellenic influences and promoting their own unique Persian urban civilization.

There's nothing much to build a dynasty on except those ancient Persian influences.

Indeed, besides who knows, Khazaria, being where they are and where they're from might consider themselves heirs to the Scythians of old, only less nomadic.
 
The Arabs are also unlikely to just disappear; the Ghassanids are becoming stronger (especially with the defeat of their traditional Lakhmid rivals), and the various Bedouin tribes won't vanish, even if they don't have Islam to unite them.

And Italy is still going to be a distraction for the Byzantines.
 
The Arabs are also unlikely to just disappear; the Ghassanids are becoming stronger (especially with the defeat of their traditional Lakhmid rivals), and the various Bedouin tribes won't vanish, even if they don't have Islam to unite them.

And Italy is still going to be a distraction for the Byzantines.

Ghassanids may be stronger, but they still can't unite an Arabian Peninsula of which most of the major states are still ruled by Sasanian Persia. The only independent polity being the Banu Quraysh.
 
Top