What are the limits of Sassanid Persia?

[President Ledyard]

Could it match or even eclipse the old Achaemanid Empire or is the Christian/Zoroastrian split just too much of an obstacle to further territorial growth to overcome?

 

[carlton_bach]

I don't think Egypt or Syria would have been realistic acquisitions in the long run. As to Anatolia - highly unlikely. A more enlightened policy towards the Christian population would have helped some, but in the end the Romans had the better claim on local loyalties, and the shorter supply lines.

On the other hand, I don't see why the Sassanid state couldn't have continued to exist and even expand into India or Central Asia in its 'up' phases. Not territory that is easy to hold or settle, but it's relatively easy to claim large swathes of it.

 

[B_Munro]

I don't think Egypt or Syria would have been realistic acquisitions in the long run. As to Anatolia - highly unlikely. A more enlightened policy towards the Christian population would have helped some, but in the end the Romans had the better claim on local loyalties, and the shorter supply lines.

Agree on Anatolia, but why would the Sassanids have found Egypt and Syria so much harder to hold onto than the Arab Caliphate did? (Unless by "long run" you mean "over two centuries", of course).

best,
Bruce

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I don't think they could have realistically captured any of the territory for any significant amount of time.

For the same reason Rome never conquered Mesopotamia. the Romans need only win a few battles by the mouth of the Euphrates, and it's all over for Persian control in Egypt and Syria. See Heraclius.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Agree on Anatolia, but why would the Sassanids have found Egypt and Syria so much harder to hold onto than the Arab Caliphate did? (Unless by "long run" you mean "over two centuries", of course).

Egypt and Syria were focused upon the Mediterranean and to the West at this point; all of the significant settlements were on the Mediterranean, and the inhabitants of every shore lapped by it formed part of a cultural complex; those in the east (the Levant) became Hellenized. The Umayyads were Mediterranean and even Hellenized in much the same way. The conquest of Iran tipped the focus of Islam to the East, and opened the doors to further expansion in that direction, but note that the caliphate was not able to hold onto both the Levant and Iran for very long. For the most part, it was a Mediterranean (and even more specifically Levantine) phenomenon up until it was abolished.

The Sassanians were from the high plains of Iran. Their culture was profoundly influenced by that of Mesopotamia, and was not Hellenized to the same degree as the Umayyads or even the Parthians. According to their national ideology, the Levant and most of Anatolia weren't part of Iran; in fact, they refered to them as Anērān (Non-Aryan). In the Sassanian world view, the integral parts of the empire were Iran and Mesopotamia; Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia, Georgia, and Albania (Former SSR of Azerbaijan) were Anērān and thus dispensible.

There are also logistical problems with holding both Iran/Mesopotamia and the Levant. The problem is transport. The Mediterranean allowed for the quickest transport from point A to point B in the pre-modern world, and every Iron Age Mediterranean civilization took great advantage of this. All of the major population centers were clustered around the rim of the Mediterranean (and to a lesser degree on rivers). The comparative ease with which these population centers communicated with one another tended to set them apart from the cultures inland, which were (for the most part) small and isolated (again, with the exception of those located on rivers). Thus, the distance between the Levant and Mesopotamia was much larger than it seems today, and it was much harder to hold the Levant from the East than it was to hold it from the Mediterranean. This prevented any effective central control of large inland empires, and indeed the Sassanians, like the Parthians, ruled over a feudal empire.

 

[B_Munro]

The Umayyads were Mediterranean and even Hellenized in much the same way. The conquest of Iran tipped the focus of Islam to the East, and opened the doors to further expansion in that direction, but note that the caliphate was not able to hold onto both the Levant and Iran for very long. For the most part, it was a Mediterranean (and even more specifically Levantine) phenomenon up until it was abolished.

Was the Caliphate still culturally more "Levantine" that "Iranian" even in it's Abbasid/Baghdad based period? According to my Penguin Atlas, they were still holding onto Egypt and (western) Iran in 830.

According to their national ideology, the Levant and most of Anatolia weren't part of Iran; in fact, they refered to them as Anērān (Non-Aryan). In the Sassanian world view, the integral parts of the empire were Iran and Mesopotamia; Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia, Georgia, and Albania (Former SSR of Azerbaijan) were Anērān and thus dispensible.

One wonders to what extent this was a matter of sour grapes...

Thus, the distance between the Levant and Mesopotamia was much larger than it seems today, and it was much harder to hold the Levant from the East than it was to hold it from the Mediterranean.

So, to hold the Levant, you need to hold Egypt...did the Byzantines ever make any efforts to retake Egypt by sea?

best,
Bruce

 

[Leo Caesius]

Was the Caliphate still culturally more "Levantine" that "Iranian" even in it's Abbasid/Baghdad based period? According to my Penguin Atlas, they were still holding onto Egypt and (western) Iran in 830.

No, that's why I specifically mentioned the Umayyads. The Abbassids were fairly Iranized. In fact, if it weren't for Abu Muslim and the Persians, the Abbassids would never have taken the Caliphate.

So, to hold the Levant, you need to hold Egypt...did the Byzantines ever make any efforts to retake Egypt by sea?

I hadn't thought about it that way, but obviously if you don't have Egypt, which is probably the most wealthy, populous part of the region, then the entire Levant is at risk of being lost. A perennial theme in the history of Syria and Palestine is that of switching hands between the power that controls Egypt and the power that controls Mesopotamia.