Sassanid Persia

abc123

Banned
What if Khosroe I decided not to attack Eastern Roman Empire in 540?
Say that he decides to let Justinian fights in the west while he can spread Persia somewhere else, or he just thinks that Persia should conserve strength.
 
Khosrau I

Byzantines would have been able to better solidify their hold on Italy if Belisarius wasn't withdrawen to fight Persia. Khosrau I if he decided not to break the "eternal peace" he could have kept him self busy by battling nomadic raiders, expanding Sassanid holding in Yemen, under taking more buidling projects and strengthing the Empire. If the Byzantines and Perisans stayed at peace they would have fared a lot better against the Muslim invasions of the next century.
 
Byzantines would have been able to better solidify their hold on Italy if Belisarius wasn't withdrawen to fight Persia. Khosrau I if he decided not to break the "eternal peace" he could have kept him self busy by battling nomadic raiders, expanding Sassanid holding in Yemen, under taking more buidling projects and strengthing the Empire. If the Byzantines and Perisans stayed at peace they would have fared a lot better against the Muslim invasions of the next century.

Even better if the muslim invasions are butterflied as well.
 
My own guess is, if the Persian/Roman war was only deferred, which seems likeliest, the Near East would have been less war torn. Both Empires might have defended it harder, but the Arabs probably would have won, and it would have been a richer conquest for the Arabs.


If Persia and Rome had managed to keep the peace, I'd think the Arabs would be more likely to concentrate on whichever state was weaker at the time. The Arabs might end conquering them both, but Islam would be more diversified from an early stage.

Another wild guess is that the Arabs would have concentrated more on Africa.


Since both the Romans and the Persians made a virtue of religious intolerance, I think the Islamic states might acquire that early, and Dar-el-Islam would have been darker.
 
My own guess is, if the Persian/Roman war was only deferred, which seems likeliest, the Near East would have been less war torn. Both Empires might have defended it harder, but the Arabs probably would have won, and it would have been a richer conquest for the Arabs.


If Persia and Rome had managed to keep the peace, I'd think the Arabs would be more likely to concentrate on whichever state was weaker at the time. The Arabs might end conquering them both, but Islam would be more diversified from an early stage.

Another wild guess is that the Arabs would have concentrated more on Africa.


Since both the Romans and the Persians made a virtue of religious intolerance, I think the Islamic states might acquire that early, and Dar-el-Islam would have been darker.

The Eastern Romans would probably defeat the Arabs. They came damn near close to in OTL, and that was after they were exhausted from their long war with Persia. Really, the Arabs could not have come at a better time.

A time when both the superpowers in the area were completely exhausted. It was the perfect time to invade.
 
The Arabs might end conquering them both, but Islam would be more diversified from an early stage.

Simply put, most unlikely. Arabs were no match for either the Persians or the Byzantines if the big empires were not totally exhausted by the slugfest under Khusrau Parvez. If there is no large scale war between the empires, the Arabs would be most likely a footnote in history, a bunch of migrating tribes that fought the big empires for a generation or two, but were crushed and assimilated into the empires. The Persians already had Yemen, so they would take Hejaz, Yemen and the Gulf coast. The Byzantines, expanding from their Syro-Judean strongholds would take Northern Arabia.

Another wild guess is that the Arabs would have concentrated more on Africa.

If the Arabs are defeated by the Byzantines and/or Persians comprehensively (as seems most likely), then there won't be Islam and they will be assimilated into Zoroastrianism and Christianity.

Since both the Romans and the Persians made a virtue of religious intolerance, I think the Islamic states might acquire that early, and Dar-el-Islam would have been darker.

Persia was far more tolerant than the Byzantines. Proof positive? The Persian empire was made up of Zoroastrians, Buddhists, various Christian sects, Afghan and Turkish pagans, and Manichaenids. What hostility existed towards Christians was mainly towards the official Byzantine version of Christianity, and followers of that sect were seen as a fifth column. But other forms of Christianity (Arianism and Nestorianism, in particular, did far better under Persian rulers than they did under Byzantines). Most likely, the Arabs will convert to Zoroastrianism/Christianity and form their own version of the two.
 
Both slydesertfox and maidras have very good posts, and are likely to be closer to the right answer than me.

But Rome and Persia were both bound to have crisises and low points, even if not with each other.
 

abc123

Banned
It is my opinion too that less war between Persia and Byzantines can do only good for their later war against Arabs. It is maybe possible to butterfly them completely...
After all, 100 years of Persian possible conquest of Arabia is not a small thing....
 
Both slydesertfox and maidras have very good posts, and are likely to be closer to the right answer than me.

But Rome and Persia were both bound to have crisises and low points, even if not with each other.

Low points? Sure. But you'd be very hard pressed to find anything that's going to bring them to their knees like the war with the Sassanians did. Much less one that brings them both to their knees at the same time.
 

abc123

Banned
Is it possible that if "Eternal Peace" is preserved, Justinian is too distracted in the West ( conquest of Hispania, North Africa, Italy ) and his sucessors too exhausted to resume warfare with Persians?
Also, could Persians be too exhausted by conquering Arabia and making wars against nomads in the north so that they can't/won't attack Byzantium?
Some sort of uneasy peace?
 

abc123

Banned
Low points? Sure. But you'd be very hard pressed to find anything that's going to bring them to their knees like the war with the Sassanians did. Much less one that brings them both to their knees at the same time.

IMO comparable thing for Arab conquest of Persia is like Mexico conquers USA after USA is defeated by Soviet Union/China...
 
Since both the Romans and the Persians made a virtue of religious intolerance, I think the Islamic states might acquire that early, and Dar-el-Islam would have been darker.

OH DEAR.

Early Arab racism (which is what it was, not religious intolerance, given non-Arabs were initially all but banned from becoming a Believer) used exactly the tools that the Romans had used to shackle the Jews, but imposed these tools upon Christians and Zoroastrians as well. This racism was replaced in the eighth century when Islamised Iranians seized the commanding heights of the Caliphate and Arab chauvinism morphed into something that could be shared by all Muslims.

The Arab Empire was not a whit more tolerant than the empires that proceeded it, and I'm really not sure where the idea that it was comes from. An over-reaction to European colonial ideas about "barbaric Arabs", perhaps?
 
OH DEAR.

Early Arab racism (which is what it was, not religious intolerance, given non-Arabs were initially all but banned from becoming a Believer) used exactly the tools that the Romans had used to shackle the Jews, but imposed these tools upon Christians and Zoroastrians as well. This racism was replaced in the eighth century when Islamised Iranians seized the commanding heights of the Caliphate and Arab chauvinism morphed into something that could be shared by all Muslims.

The Arab Empire was not a whit more tolerant than the empires that proceeded it, and I'm really not sure where the idea that it was comes from. An over-reaction to European colonial ideas about "barbaric Arabs", perhaps?

That and taking the example of the Emirate come Caliphate of Cordoba and extending it across the entire Arab Empire.
 
That and taking the example of the Emirate come Caliphate of Cordoba and extending it across the entire Arab Empire.

Makes sense.

I think the basic point to be made is that Late Antique empires- and I include the Umayyads as part of "Late Antiquity"- were intolerant in theory, but forced to be tolerant in practise due to the lack of modern technology. It seems that a lot of people get easily dazzled by hectoring late Roman legislation, and don't see that constant repetition of laws by late Emperors is more a reflection of their inefficiency than a hitherto unknown degree of evil-ness on the part of the Roman state.
 
Top