Sasanian Empire conquered Constantinople

Had the Sasanian Empire realistic chance to conquer the city? And what consequences it would have for the Eastern Roman Empire?
 

Deleted member 67076

Not a chance. The Sasasnids would need have a fleet in the Black Sea, and more importantly, one that can go toe to toe with the Roman fleet.

Unless they can do what the Arabs did and hold Egypt for several decades and build a fleet there, they're out of luck.
 
Not a chance.

Afaik, but I am no expert in late roman history, the Sassanids once managed to invade entire Asia Minor. The Romans stroke back and rescued their capital coming from Africa. But that was rather luck than strategy.

So I would'nt say, that they never had a chance. Even if I agree, that the fortress of Constantinople itslef was hard to siege in ancient times.

PS: Was'nt it arab auxiliaries who rescued the romans during this attack? Maybe I mix something up .....
 
Not a chance. The Sasasnids would need have a fleet in the Black Sea, and more importantly, one that can go toe to toe with the Roman fleet.

Unless they can do what the Arabs did and hold Egypt for several decades and build a fleet there, they're out of luck.

Why would you need Egypt? What's wrong with Syria?
 
Why would you need Egypt? What's wrong with Syria?

Maybe Alexandria is just better for shipbuilding in comparison to anything in the Levant; Syrian frontier is where much of the skirmishes, raids and invasion hit first during wars between the Romans and Persians.

So I guess industry would be better developed in insulated Egypt than the far more vulnerable Syria.

Plus, Egypt is farther away from Greece and the Balkans than Syria by sea. That still leaves Africa, but for whatever reason I want to say the Persian weren't even considering Africa. Maybe it's my stupid gut making hunches.:p
 
Until the Romans loose their capability to build Greek fire naval ships, which is roughly after basil 2 reign.
 
Not just the fact that the Roman Navy has Greek Fire, I think its more so the case that the fact that the Romans have a Navy in general is the reason why it's pretty much ASB for the Sasanians to conquer Constantinople. The Sasanians were primarily a land power. (In fact, I have not found any sources that said that the Sasanians had a navy, let alone one with a significant presence.)

Frankly, I feel you have a better chance partitioning the Empire between Sasanian Asia and Africa and Avar Greece and Thrace, besides it's not like Khosrau actually wants to take Greece as a grudge against the failures of the Greco-Persian Wars over a thousand years ago...right?
 
Not just the fact that the Roman Navy has Greek Fire, I think its more so the case that the fact that the Romans have a Navy in general is the reason why it's pretty much ASB for the Sasanians to conquer Constantinople. The Sasanians were primarily a land power. (In fact, I have not found any sources that said that the Sasanians had a navy, let alone one with a significant presence.)

Frankly, I feel you have a better chance partitioning the Empire between Sasanian Asia and Africa and Avar Greece and Thrace, besides it's not like Khosrau actually wants to take Greece as a grudge against the failures of the Greco-Persian Wars over a thousand years ago...right?
Not yet,Greek Fire didn't debut until after large portions of the East were overrun during Arab-Byzantine Wars.
 
Not yet,Greek Fire didn't debut until after large portions of the East were overrun during Arab-Byzantine Wars.

Doesn't Procopius discuss something quite similar in his accounts of Belisarius' campaigns?

As for the OP: I'm inclined to agree that it's pretty difficult for the Sasanians to have a good shot at conquering Constantinople. I'd suggest you'd need at the very least total naval supremacy as the Venetians and Ottomans both had later on, which requires sustained Iranian occupation of the eastern Mediterranean ports. On top of that, the walls themselves have to be overcome: possibly the city could fall to a Sasanian-backed pretender and then the Sasanians themselves? Remember that the Iranians will also be operating at the end of a very long supply chain.
 
It's actually quite possible. If Heraclius was killed during the concurrent civil war, with the Byzantines under the horrible emperor Phocas, the Persians have a chance of conquering Constantinople, even if for a short time.
 
Doesn't Procopius discuss something quite similar in his accounts of Belisarius' campaigns?

As for the OP: I'm inclined to agree that it's pretty difficult for the Sasanians to have a good shot at conquering Constantinople. I'd suggest you'd need at the very least total naval supremacy as the Venetians and Ottomans both had later on, which requires sustained Iranian occupation of the eastern Mediterranean ports. On top of that, the walls themselves have to be overcome: possibly the city could fall to a Sasanian-backed pretender and then the Sasanians themselves? Remember that the Iranians will also be operating at the end of a very long supply chain.
Incendiary weapons aren't new,but they aren't Greek Fire.Greek Fire was produced by a refugee who fled Phoenicia after the Arabd conquered said province.
 
Top