Romans don't fight Persia in the early 600s

Let's say that after Phocas the Tyrant takes power in 602, Khusrau II has a dream from Zoroaster commanding him to recognize Phocas and any successors, whether by force or inheritance, as legitimate. This means that Khusrau II does not invade the Empire shortly thereafter, and even if Heraclius the Younger topples Phocas for losing the Balkans, that Persia still doesn't invade (at least, not for that reason). So, what happens when the Caliphate invades from the south with the Persians and the Romans at, more or less, full strength?
 

Keenir

Banned
Let's say that after Phocas the Tyrant takes power in 602, Khusrau II has a dream from Zoroaster commanding him to recognize Phocas and any successors, whether by force or inheritance, as legitimate. This means that Khusrau II does not invade the Empire shortly thereafter, and even if Heraclius the Younger topples Phocas for losing the Balkans, that Persia still doesn't invade (at least, not for that reason). So, what happens when the Caliphate invades from the south with the Persians and the Romans at, more or less, full strength?

After having their northern borders blockaded by two empires (who will later be converted by traders), the Yemeni tradition of sailing spreads young Islam to Africa and India.
 
Then you'd need a dynasty starting with that nut Phocas. If Heraclius tries to take power Khusrau will invade to keep the Zoroaster appointed Emperor on the throne. Your best bet would be for Khusrau to have a dream where he is told to support Heraclius. Otherwise you'd have Phocas in charge for the long haul, which would weaken the Empire.
 
Then you'd need a dynasty starting with that nut Phocas. If Heraclius tries to take power Khusrau will invade to keep the Zoroaster appointed Emperor on the throne. Your best bet would be for Khusrau to have a dream where he is told to support Heraclius. Otherwise you'd have Phocas in charge for the long haul, which would weaken the Empire.

My post has already covered this - in his dream, Zoraster tells him to recognize any successor, whether by force or by inheritance.
 
My post has already covered this - in his dream, Zoraster tells him to recognize any successor, whether by force or by inheritance.

I'm sorry i mis-read it. Still seems like a pretty specific dream and i'm also of the school of thought that most dreams or visions that historical figures had was just a excuse for them to legitamize whatever they had already decided to do.

ex. Constantine the Great, Joseph Smith etc.
 
Romans & Persia

The Arabs would still have an advantage since Byzantine rule was not very popular among the largely Semitic populations of Syria and Egypt.
 
The Arabs would still have an advantage since Byzantine rule was not very popular among the largely Semitic populations of Syria and Egypt.

Actually its more to do with religion. The Egyptians were Monophysites; many (most?) Syrians were Nestorians. But it comes to the same thing- the Byzantines were indeed unpopular.
 
Right, because they were Orthodox Melkites. Without the war Persian War weakening Constantinople, they don't need to fear the conversion of the Heretics to Islam, though. Maybe the dream from Zoroaster would hint at the destruction of the Empire from an attack on Byzantium and lead him to fully invade Arabia to stop it. The Romanoi either take no action or perhaps reinforce Syria against the possibility it's a feint.
 
Right, because they were Orthodox Melkites. Without the war Persian War weakening Constantinople, they don't need to fear the conversion of the Heretics to Islam, though. Maybe the dream from Zoroaster would hint at the destruction of the Empire from an attack on Byzantium and lead him to fully invade Arabia to stop it. The Romanoi either take no action or perhaps reinforce Syria against the possibility it's a feint.
Its not so much that they were worried about the heretics converting to Islam as the heretics simply being unwilling to fight for Byzantium (which of course they considered heretical).

Invading Arabia is a non-starter. Its huge, and mostly desert. No way of supporting an army.

However, without the debilitating war between Persia and Byzantium, the Arabs would've had a lot more difficulty expanding. And its even possible that the Persians and Romanoi would co-operate against the new enemy. In which case the Islamic Empire gets restricted to Arabia.
 
Depending on the difficulties with the Byzantines (can't assume they go completely swimmingly), could still be possible for the Muslims to go towards Africa, possibly Sub-Saharan given than Byzantine Egypt (largely Copt and still hating the Melkites) could be better defended. Or maybe Egypt still falls, as before and still leads them across North Africa and thence to Visigoth Spain....
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Sorry for the shameless plug, but read the TL in my Signature. I need the comments, and my timeline has a similar premise

Watch Along the Danube
 
Depending on the difficulties with the Byzantines (can't assume they go completely swimmingly), could still be possible for the Muslims to go towards Africa, possibly Sub-Saharan given than Byzantine Egypt (largely Copt and still hating the Melkites) could be better defended. Or maybe Egypt still falls, as before and still leads them across North Africa and thence to Visigoth Spain....
Agreed. A lot will hinge on how relations between Byzantium and Persia pan out. If they are forced to maintain a large army on the Persian border (or even worse fight the Persians) then Palestine/ Sinai will be relatively undefended, and vulnerable to an Arab invasion.
Its also possible that at some juncture Monophysite Egypt and/or Nestorian Syria will actually rebel against their Melkite oppressors. In which case the invading Arabs could have a very easy time.
 
Who are "heretics" in this instance?
There was essentially a 3-way doctrinal split within Christianity. The issue was the nature of Christ.

The Melkites followed the position adopted by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated that Christ had two natures (i.e. human and divine) united in one person. This was the doctrine followed by the Emperors in Constantinople, and remains the doctrine of both the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches (plus many many other Christian churches) today.

The Nestorians held that Christ had two natures and two persons- i.e. that Christ the Man and Christ the Son of God were distinct individuals. Nestorianism was the dominant form of Christianity in Syria and Mesopotamia, and Nestorian missionaries were very active in Asia- I seem to remember that some got as far as China (!).

The Monophysites believed that the nature of Christ was purely divine. Monophysitism was dominant in Armenia, Egypt, Axum (Ethiopia) and some of the Sudan.

Each group viewed the other 2 as heretics.

As an Atheist, I find it difficult to get my head around how much the fine points of Theology mattered to people back then, but there we are.
 
The Monophysites believed that the nature of Christ was purely divine. Monophysitism was dominant in Armenia, Egypt, Axum (Ethiopia) and some of the Sudan.
Actually, that's not quite correct. Monophysites believed Christ had one nature, true. But there seemed to be a lot of difference of opinion within Monophysitism as to just WHAT that nature was.

I BELIEVE that most Monophysites (at least today) argue that the one nature was both human AND divine, which is not so horribly far from Orthodox theology, really. I think I heard it said (I'm thinking by Leo Caesius) that the real problem was as much the connotations of 'nature' in Greek vs Aramaic, that two words had a different 'feel' to them.

Certainly, the Chalcedonians/Melkites/Orthodox felt free to demonize the Monophysites and portray their doctrine as being way off 'standard', and the Monophysites, similarly, liked to portray a caricature of Orthodox theology. And, yes, whether or not they actually significantly agreed they certainly demonized each other. That I'm not disagreeing with. I'm just quibbling about the oversimplification of the Christology.
 
Sometimes you wonder..

Religion was very important to people in those days. But sometimes I wonder if they were just looking for something to fight about.
 
Top