What if Shapur I actually conquers the Roman East during the Crisis of the 3rd Century?

[Conan]

My own view of a West Rome disjointed from its more eastern halves takes it that Christianity primarily becomes a faith of the Greek-speaking Romans - at which point in the Third Crisis the majority of the religion was confined to.

Sol Invictus though was a project mainly embarked on by Aurelian, if someone else say Postumus, came out on top he would focus on his personal god - Hercules specifically the Gallic Hercules-Ogimos being championed alongside a trinity with “Jupiter of the Gauls” and Juno - expanding to the local regional popular god - Mercury-Lugus.

good point about Sol Invictus. There's also the fact that the Sassanids would have conquered Syria, which was (according to some people) where Sol Invictus had originated from, which would also cause problems, probably.
Which brings be to another question, how would religions other than judaism and christianity fare? So ,like, religions like hermeticism, graeco-roman and other polytheisms, mystery cults like that of mithras and Isis etc?

 

[Malta]

good point about Sol Invictus. There's also the fact that the Sassanids would have conquered Syria, which was (according to some people) where Sol Invictus had originated from, which would also cause problems, probably.
Which brings be to another question, how would religions other than judaism and christianity fare? So ,like, religions like hermeticism, graeco-roman and other polytheisms, mystery cults like that of mithras and Isis etc?

I would say they would be on equal footing more or less with Christianity and Judaism. Though it’s the one that gets State Backing that would rise above the others. There is of course precedent with the state worship of the Empire but we do also see a moving trend of the Emperors to establish a new and potentially more vibrant religious hierarchy - as seen with what happened when the Emperor’s adopted Christianity or again with Aurelian and Sol Invictus. His changes were I believe more sweeping than his successors though they certainly included Sol Invictus in their iconography past the time of Constantine so even taking Syria might not extinguish it as Sol was more associated with the Greco-Roman Helios than his Syrian counterpart.

 

[Collondi]

Im personally skeptical of the romans recovering it if they do not get an Aurelian as their out of jail card
Outright keeping them annexed may be too much long term if the sassanids are having internal troubles but as client states the status quo could last for a good while

OTL the Persians couldn’t really hold a candle to the full might of Rome until half the empire collapsed. Once the crisis is over every single emperor is going to make it their top priority to reconquer the lost territory.

 

[Conan]

I would say they would be on equal footing more or less with Christianity and Judaism. Though it’s the one that gets State Backing that would rise above the others. There is of course precedent with the state worship of the Empire but we do also see a moving trend of the Emperors to establish a new and potentially more vibrant religious hierarchy - as seen with what happened when the Emperor’s adopted Christianity or again with Aurelian and Sol Invictus. His changes were I believe more sweeping than his successors though they certainly included Sol Invictus in their iconography past the time of Constantine so even taking Syria might not extinguish it as Sol was more associated with the Greco-Roman Helios than his Syrian counterpart.

I was talking about under Sassanid's rule. I'm asking since, for example, graeco-roman polytheism is going to obviously be associated with the romans to the same extent christianity was in otl, if not even more so.

 

[Putnam]

he doesn't get something like Anatolia but the Levant, Egypt and Caucasus falls to him.

People seem to be forgetting this bit.

Losing the Eastern Provinces (the Levant and Egypt) to the Persians would be devastating yes, however, remember that later on in Roman history that Heraclius was also faced with the same problem and was able to restore the Eastern Provinces despite being in a far less favorable position than the Empire in the late 3rd Century.

Unlike in the early 7th Century, the Balkans and Italy would be more or less secure, perhaps not entirely secure, but a heck of a lot better than in the early 7th Century where half of Italy was occupied by the Lombards and most of the Balkans were occupied by the Avars and Slavs. And while the Western Empire (Gaul and Britannia) is no longer taking orders from the Central Empire, neither are they actively attempting to invade it, so they're nominally a non-factor.

Now let's look at the Persians. They have been able to occupy the Levant and Egypt. Great! Except now they need to militarily occupy those provinces, provinces that aren't necessarily going to be loyal to them. It's essentially the same situation as in the early 7th Century except now they don't have the Miaphysite issue to stir up division between the Eastern Provinces and the Central Imperial Government.

They now have to garrison the various cities in the East, so now a significant portion of their military is tied down in the Roman East. The Persians are now overstretched and have now lost the strategic initiative. Anyone who thinks the Persians will be marching on the African Provinces are kidding themselves. Even if they could, all that would do is tie down even more military resources and make the Persians even more vulnerable to the inevitable Roman counterattack.

So while the Empire isn't in the best of states, it really isn't that much different from the historical situation. Instead of Palmyra occupying the East it's the Persians and while the Persians are stronger, they also have their own vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

I imagine that Shapur, once Aurelian (or his ALT counterpart) marches east, recognizing that the party is over, comes to negotiate from a position of strength. ALT-Aurelian probably wouldn't accept any deal and the Persians are forced to fight, ALT-Aurelian wins and Shapur gives up the Roman East.

Or Shapur pulls a Khosrow II and refuses to surrender until he's eventually overthrown.

Either way the Romans get their Eastern Provinces back. It's just a matter of how long it takes.

 

[Conan]

People seem to be forgetting this bit.

Losing the Eastern Provinces (the Levant and Egypt) to the Persians would be devastating yes, however, remember that later on in Roman history that Heraclius was also faced with the same problem and was able to restore the Eastern Provinces despite being in a far less favorable position than the Empire in the late 3rd Century.

Unlike in the early 7th Century, the Balkans and Italy would be more or less secure, perhaps not entirely secure, but a heck of a lot better than in the early 7th Century where half of Italy was occupied by the Lombards and most of the Balkans were occupied by the Avars and Slavs. And while the Western Empire (Gaul and Britannia) is no longer taking orders from the Central Empire, neither are they actively attempting to invade it, so they're nominally a non-factor.

Now let's look at the Persians. They have been able to occupy the Levant and Egypt. Great! Except now they need to militarily occupy those provinces, provinces that aren't necessarily going to be loyal to them. It's essentially the same situation as in the early 7th Century except now they don't have the Miaphysite issue to stir up division between the Eastern Provinces and the Central Imperial Government.

They now have to garrison the various cities in the East, so now a significant portion of their military is tied down in the Roman East. The Persians are now overstretched and have now lost the strategic initiative. Anyone who thinks the Persians will be marching on the African Provinces are kidding themselves. Even if they could, all that would do is tie down even more military resources and make the Persians even more vulnerable to the inevitable Roman counterattack.

So while the Empire isn't in the best of states, it really isn't that much different from the historical situation. Instead of Palmyra occupying the East it's the Persians and while the Persians are stronger, they also have their own vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

I imagine that Shapur, once Aurelian (or his ALT counterpart) marches east, recognizing that the party is over, comes to negotiate from a position of strength. ALT-Aurelian probably wouldn't accept any deal and the Persians are forced to fight, ALT-Aurelian wins and Shapur gives up the Roman East.

Or Shapur pulls a Khosrow II and refuses to surrender until he's eventually overthrown.

Either way the Romans get their Eastern Provinces back. It's just a matter of how long it takes.

I guess the big question here is; before rome reconquers the east, what can they do with it in the meantime.
edit; by "they", I mean the sassanids

 

[Putnam]

I guess the big question here is; before rome reconquers the east, what can they do with it in the meantime.
edit; by "they", I mean the sassanids

I mean, just look at what Khosrow II did with the Roman East and use that as a guide.

I could see them re-empowering the Jews just to spite the Romans. Likely leads to another Jewish Revolt.

 

[Aluma]

OTL the Persians couldn’t really hold a candle to the full might of Rome until half the empire collapsed

Crassus, Antonius, Julian and Valerian would beg to disagree

however, remember that later on in Roman history that Heraclius

I imagine that Shapur, once Aurelian (or his ALT counterpart) marches east

I think y'all taking both Heraclitus and Aurelian for granted, while there are many great roman figures they are exceptional for a reason - they arent the rule

The loss of the East at this point might as well have led to Rome falling for good, Shapur does not need to conquer anything from Africa or the Levant when Palmyra is around so long he's able to keep a somewhat stable relationship with them

Rome itself has both Gallia and the germanics to worry about, to say nothing of when the huns show up, and if they devote themselves to re-conquer anything it will be to try retaking Egypt as getting the egyptian grains is a matter of national survival while Greece and Armenia arent, and if they do Palmyra will naturally side with the persians

Plus while its true that they would be overstretched, Rome also was when it took Mesopotamia following Trajan's campaigns and they were able to hold on to that for quite a while, therefore I see no reason why the persians would do any worse specially considering their goal wouldnt be to manage these territories directly as provinces like Rome does but estabilish vassal-client kingdoms to fuck with them

All in all, call me skeptical but I dont see the romans gloriously marching East to reconquer their lands and slaughter Shapur, if anything the Third Century Crisis wouldnt be a crisis but the new normal with such a devastating blow to Rome

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Crassus, Antonius, Julian and Valerian would beg to disagree


I think y'all taking both Heraclitus and Aurelian for granted, while there are many great roman figures they are exceptional for a reason - they arent the rule

The loss of the East at this point might as well have led to Rome falling for good, Shapur does not need to conquer anything from Africa or the Levant when Palmyra is around so long he's able to keep a somewhat stable relationship with them

Rome itself has both Gallia and the germanics to worry about, to say nothing of when the huns show up, and if they devote themselves to re-conquer anything it will be to try retaking Egypt as getting the egyptian grains is a matter of national survival while Greece and Armenia arent, and if they do Palmyra will naturally side with the persians

Plus while its true that they would be overstretched, Rome also was when it took Mesopotamia following Trajan's campaigns and they were able to hold on to that for quite a while, therefore I see no reason why the persians would do any worse specially considering their goal wouldnt be to manage these territories directly as provinces like Rome does but estabilish vassal-client kingdoms to fuck with them

All in all, call me skeptical but I dont see the romans gloriously marching East to reconquer their lands and slaughter Shapur, if anything the Third Century Crisis wouldnt be a crisis but the new normal with such a devastating blow to Rome

This, the 3rd century crisis was called a crisis for a reason as it really seemed that the empire was coming apart at the seams and the loss of the main producer of grain in Egypt as well as the very commercial and rich East wouldn't be so much a crippling blow as much as it will be a chopping off Roman legs as they're more likely to point fingers at each other and blame the other for failing to keep the Empire safe and thus, more civil wars raging on to throw the Empire into the downward spiral further than it already was.

Shapur I meanwhile, is enjoying his victory and using Valerian as his footstool.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

I want to revisit this, because it absolutely deserves more discussion.

If the Sassanids do manage to conquer not just the Levant, but both Egypt and Anatolia as well, then that means they’ve incorporated the majority of the Roman Empire’s Christian population into their own; if the rest of North Africa can be broken away from Italian control and “vassalized” in some fashion by the Persians, then more or less the entire Christian world would be under their domination. (Christians outside of this sphere -- like those in the city of Rome itself -- likely aren’t having a good time.)

How does Christianity evolve in such circumstances? Is it absorbed into the makeup of “Persian” religion? Would Manicheanism both grow more than then and exert more influence (perhaps with a stronger Gnostic tradition)? What do you guys think?

Honestly given how many characteristics Zoroastrianism and Christianity share together(down to having things like a messiah like figure that will save the faithful) I could see the Empire actually converting after a few tweaks here and there to make it acceptable towards the average Persian, that and because it would evaporate the Magi class which would help in centralizing the realm and remove an power behind the throne which was something the Sassanid Emperors always sought to do it, plus it would strengthen the loyalty and position of the Shah if the Patriarch of The Persian Church declares him as chosen by God or something.

One of the many good things that will come out of that is that without having to appeal to the Gentiles of Rome, the religion is free to call Rome the killers of Christ instead of the Jews which would mean both religions would have a much better relationship than OTL.

 

[Collondi]

Crassus, Antonius, Julian and Valerian would beg to disagree

The key here is “full might of rome” which Crassus and Valerian did not have. The wars of Probus and Harian were both major victories for Rome (Julian is an exception. His campaign was poorly planned and even then it was a fair fight until Jovian surrendered). Rome’s army during this time outnumbered the Sassanid armies more than 3 to 1, so if Rome ever fully recovered it’d be only a matter of time before the area is reconquered.

The loss of the East at this point might as well have led to Rome falling for good, Shapur does not need to conquer anything from Africa or the Levant when Palmyra is around so long he's able to keep a somewhat stable relationship with them

Rome itself has both Gallia and the germanics to worry about, to say nothing of when the huns show up, and if they devote themselves to re-conquer anything it will be to try retaking Egypt as getting the egyptian grains is a matter of national survival while Greece and Armenia arent, and if they do Palmyra will naturally side with the persians

Plus while its true that they would be overstretched, Rome also was when it took Mesopotamia following Trajan's campaigns and they were able to hold on to that for quite a while, therefore I see no reason why the persians would do any worse specially considering their goal wouldnt be to manage these territories directly as provinces like Rome does but estabilish vassal-client kingdoms to fuck with them

All in all, call me skeptical but I dont see the romans gloriously marching East to reconquer their lands and slaughter Shapur, if anything the Third Century Crisis wouldnt be a crisis but the new normal with such a devastating blow to Rome

This, the 3rd century crisis was called a crisis for a reason as it really seemed that the empire was coming apart at the seams and the loss of the main producer of grain in Egypt as well as the very commercial and rich East wouldn't be so much a crippling blow as much as it will be a chopping off Roman legs as they're more likely to point fingers at each other and blame the other for failing to keep the Empire safe and thus, more civil wars raging on to throw the Empire into the downward spiral further than it already was.

Shapur I meanwhile, is enjoying his victory and using Valerian as his footstool.

I agree that the loss of the east would devastate Rome, but to the point of causing its collapse? Egypt has far from a monopoly on grain, and whatever goods Syria has would have already been rendered obsolete by the breakdown of Thracian trade routes. We have to remember that even before Aurelian Rome was recovering in the late 260’s. The plague was coming to an end and the Germanic tribes were running out of steam. If we assume campaigns to reconquer the east fail (which isn’t unreasonable, it was difficult for Aurelian to retake Palmyra and this is worse in every way) I could see it being extended by upwards of 10 to 15 years before Rome begins to get their shit together.

After that point, the best way I can see the Sassanids holding the territory is if they purposefully try to destabilize the empire. There’s a lot of ways to do this, like funding Germanic wars against Rome or propping up emperors. If they start attacking Rome navally, they could potentially cut off north african grain, which could genuinely cause Rome to collapse.

 

[Board 3659]

Honestly given how many characteristics Zoroastrianism and Christianity share together(down to having things like a messiah like figure that will save the faithful) I could see the Empire actually converting after a few tweaks here and there to make it acceptable towards the average Persian, that and because it would evaporate the Magi class which would help in centralizing the realm and remove an power behind the throne which was something the Sassanid Emperors always sought to do it, plus it would strengthen the loyalty and position of the Shah if the Patriarch of The Persian Church declares him as chosen by God or something.

One of the many good things that will come out of that is that without having to appeal to the Gentiles of Rome, the religion is free to call Rome the killers of Christ instead of the Jews which would mean both religions would have a much better relationship than OTL.

Maybe a weird blend of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Judaism forms due to their similarities to each other

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Maybe a weird blend of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Judaism forms due to their similarities to each other

Persian Christians will be celebrating Norwuz with torches while crying out to Jesus.

 

[Monter]

Maybe a weird blend of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Judaism forms due to their similarities to each other

Add Buddhism and you have manicheanism.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Add Buddhism and you have manicheanism.

Funny enough Manichaeism could end up having more success in the West/Roman lands due it not being seen as a Persian religion as well as people going there given the Sassanids persecuted them and a Christian Iran would have even more reason to do it