Sassanids successfully take Constantinople; Rome returns west?

Byzantine exile to Carthage and nominal and temporary alliance with Arabs during mid seventh century while Eastern and Western Roman "Empires" gradually reunite. Meanwhile, the Arabs push further and further into Africa and slowly conquer the Balkans.

Eventual war with Rome moved Roman seat of power back to the city of Rome and Muslims expand further into Spain and Eastern Europe. Possible Roman push north into France and Germany to secure territory and resources for reconquista against Islam?

How am I doing so far?

Sounds like a story. ;)

I doubt there would be any alliance with the arabs. The romans have to defend Africa in the 7th century, no matter what. If they loose, they will move to Ravenna and defend Sicily, Sardinia and Southern Italy against the Arabs. This attack happened in OTL, too.

I doubt this rather small roman empire can reconquer France and Germany. But an alliance with the Franks and even the Visigoths sounds feasible. Italy alone is just not strong enough to rebuild the former WRE from there. Perhaps a unified Italy during mid-age is an option. A roman emperor in Italy might also lead to an interesting conflict with the pope.

If you like the see the Roman Empire survive, the romans better never loose Anatolia, Egypt and Africa!
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Much hinges on what the Sassanids decide to do next after they take Constantinople. Where do they stop? Do they take Athens? Do they go to Sardica (Sofia)? Nis? The Ljubljana Gap? Across to Rome itself?
Assuming that they reach a natural stopping point after Sardica, Nis and Athens, do the Sassanids see the threat building in Arabia and mount a force to secure Arabia? After all, they conquered the Lakhmids? Why not the Ghassmids and then down the caravan route to subdue the Quraysh in Makkah and then to San'a and Arabia Felix? Only then will the Empire be safe.
 
I dont think the Romans would be able to hold off in Carthage. There are no natural defenses unlike in Anatolia, and with Egypt conquered (which the Sassanids would hold in this scenario) there is little stopping the Muslims from sweeping across North Africa. Maybe not immediately but perhaps sooner rather than later. OTL the Exarchate of Africa was quite powerful but was still defeated by the Arabs. In order to ensure Roman survival I think the Emperor would have to relocate to Rome itself which is far from Arab grasps.
 
Here’s the first thing that I’d like to know: how did the navy-less Sassanians manage to take Constantinople?

***​
Now, if we manage to believe that The City was taken during the 626 siege, that doesn’t mean that Ctesiphon won an easy victory. By then, Romans and Persians have been at war for 24 years. Exhaustion was already there, so the fruit is already low enough for the Arabs to take it. The Caliphs beat Khosrau, or whoever’s on the throne, and seize it all. A weaker Rome, might survive in Italy, and the Islands.

If somehow the Sassanians managed to take The City earlier, then the Empire is stronger by default, and in a position to launch a counterattack that could retake the capital. Which brings you back to what happened OTL.

The Iranians weren’t ever in a position to dealt the Romans a deathblow AND take Constantinople. If there were dire times for such a thing to happen, was later, in the conflicts between a much weaker Rome and the Saracens.
 
Here’s the first thing that I’d like to know: how did the navy-less Sassanians manage to take Constantinople?

Actually, there were both Sassanian and Avar/Slav fleets present at the siege. They, however, weren't strong enough to first defeat their ERE counterpart and were largely destroyed in the attempt.

The superior ERE fleet would either not have to be present (lured elsewhere?) or be badly defeated (not likely) for the City to be taken in 626.
 
Actually, there was both a Sassanian and an Avar/Slav fleet present at the siege. They, however, weren't strong enough to first defeat their ERE counterpart and were largely destroyed in the attempt.

The Avar dugouts were hardly a "fleet." One coordinated attack by the Roman Navy swept them away and the whole siege crumbled. If the Persians are to take The City, they are going to have to do better than that.
 
The Avar dugouts were hardly a "fleet." One coordinated attack by the Roman Navy swept them away and the whole siege crumbled. If the Persians are to take The City, they are going to have to do better than that.

And a Sassanian fleet. And, of course. There is less documented information on the size and make-up of the Persian fleet that I'm aware of, though. But the Sassanians must of had some capability as they had previously taken part in several overseas expeditions against opponents such as Axum.

We don't disagree on the point that for the Persians to take the City, the ERE fleet has to be rendered hors de combat.
Or, if Heraclius had abandoned Constantinople for Carthage as he had planned at one point OTL.
 
And a Sassanian fleet. And, of course. There is less documented information on the size and make-up of the Persian fleet that I'm aware of, though. But the Sassanians must of had some capability as they had previously taken part in several overseas expeditions against opponents such as Axum.

Hmmm. Is there any said info that can be found easily?

We don't disagree on the point that for the Persians to take the City, the ERE fleet has to be rendered hors de combat.
Which is part of the "how do the Persians take The City."

Or, if Heraclius had abandoned Constantinople for Carthage as he had planned at one point OTL.
And the moment his ship clears the horizon, someone else is crowned, since Heraclius was still a parvenu, with no legitimacy. He might well end up like Gregory the patrician afterwards.
 
Hmmm. Is there any said info that can be found easily?
Not real easily at hand. Not something you'd find in Wiki. Something I've read in the past in specialist texts while doing some research on Axum. Part of the Sassinid's conquest of Yemen, hitherto in Axum's orbit.
edit: however there is this: http://books.google.com/books?id=p7...DcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sassanian ships&f=false
pp. 286-87 -- where it refers to 7-sailed Sassanian ships and nautical innovations including large ships that could carry "700 passengers and a 1000 metric tons of cargo". Granted this is referring to their ships in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. The point being, the Sassanians certainly had the capability to create a formidable naval presence in the Mediterranean if they had so desired as opposed to the more limited naval presence (possibly only troop transports -- glorified rafts) they deployed at the siege.

And the moment his ship clears the horizon, someone else is crowned, since Heraclius was still a parvenu, with no legitimacy. He might well end up like Gregory the patrician afterwards.

Depends on the amount of resources (ships, army) Heraclius can take with him.
Which could have fatally undermined the City's resistance. H. may have been a "parvenu" but his staying in Constantinople was considered by the Patriarch important enough to make the effort of convincing him to stay.
 
Last edited:
Not real easily at hand. Not something you'd find in Wiki. Something I've read in the past in specialist texts while doing some research on Axum. Part of the Sassinid's conquest of Yemen, hitherto in Axum's orbit.

Yemen is ridiculously close to the Sassanian powerbase; even a small "navy" in such case could be expected, but transporting it to the Mediterranean in order for it to play a meaningful role in the war, is another matter. I was asking out genuine curiosity. Said things could be useful for my own TL, that's all.

Depends on the amount of resources (ships, army) Heraclius can take with him.
Which could have fatally undermined the City's resistance. H. may have been a "parvenu" but his staying in Constantinople was considered by the Patriarch important enough to convince him to stay.

There's something to be said that he chose to stay in a seemingly hopeless City; perhaps no one would have left with him.
 
Yemen is ridiculously close to the Sassanian powerbase; even a small "navy" in such case could be expected, but transporting it to the Mediterranean in order for it to play a meaningful role in the war, is another matter. I was asking out genuine curiosity. Said things could be useful for my own TL, that's all.

S. Yemen was pretty far from the Persian powerbase. They had to transport troops, provide logistical support for garrisons, and contest waters with Axum. All of this at distances upwards of 1500km away.

They would of had to built a fleet on the Med if they had conceived that Naval supremacy was essential. That they didn't is possibly telling.


There's something to be said that he chose to stay in a seemingly hopeless City; perhaps no one would have left with him.

I'm not sure one can really know that. It was a city of factions. A civil war had just been fought. Possibly it was only Byzantine propaganda, but it seems to me that Heraclius' presence was possibly essential to the City's morale.
 
If the Sassanid forces had pursued a strategy of starving the fortresses in Anatolia rather than besieging them, then the resources would have existed to partially blockade the Bosphorus and hinder any inland trade, or so I've read. It will take a tremendous amount of good fortune, but it's certainly possible for the Sassanid army and navy to apply enough pressure to Constantinople to eventually take it in the early-mid 600s.

And the Arabs would certainly have an easier time of conquering far more territory than OTL.

But I'm still not clear: Carthage or Rome? I think Ravenna has been discussed before as being out of the question. Maybe somewhere in Greece, but that's much less interesting than, say, Rome.
 
S. Yemen was pretty far from the Persian powerbase. They had to transport troops, provide logistical support for garrisons, and contest waters with Axum. All of this at distances upwards of 1500km away.

They would of had to built a fleet on the Med if they had conceived that Naval supremacy was essential. That they didn't is possibly telling.

That was an epic fail on my part. I meant to say Oman instead of Yemen.

Nonetheless,the only part Axum subjugated was Yemen. The Shah onyl had to transport troops across the Persian gulf into Oman, and then march them up to Yemen. Something that the large ships you mentioned could have easily done.

But as you said it yourself, the fact they did not use their technology when they had control of the Eastern Mediterranean for a decade +, is telling.

I'm not sure one can really know that. It was a city of factions. A civil war had just been fought. Possibly it was only Byzantine propaganda, but it seems to me that Heraclius' presence was possibly essential to the City's morale.

Of course the Emperor's presence was essential to the morale. But his presence was also vital to his throne.
 
not likely regardless of what happened the sassanids could not take constantinople they simply lacked the navy to do it. Becuase it requires both a large navy and large armies with advanced siege weapons to have any chance to take the theodisian walls or break the sea chain/walls. So POD is not possible. Unless you have the sassanids support some rival claimant to the throne against phokas since otl they invaded because of Phokas revolt and usurpation and this usurper beats heraclius. Then perhaps the city may be taken but even then only if the usurper is someone with valid claim to throne who can also defeat Heraclius armies. Plus in all of this the sassanids would still need a navy. So really not likely in the first place unless some natural disaster destroys the land and sea walls and/or the byzantine navy is destroyed and the sea walls are hit by some disaster.
 
Top