What would a maximum plausible Byzantine victory over Persia in 500s-600s look like?

Status
Not open for further replies.

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What it says on the tin.

Could the Byzantines obtain the old eastern frontiers of Trajan (Mesopotamia to the Gulf and Armenia to the Caspian)?

Could the Byzantines crush Persia utterly?

Or is the best they could do to swiftly and inexpensively counter and parry any Persian incursions?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
My guess is that the Byzantines could not get any further east than Trajan's old Roman imperial border.
 
It was Byzantine policy to not crush enemies. Defeated and weakened enemies on the border were a buffer against potentially stronger more distant threats.
 
Eastern Romania was not in the logistical position to end the conflict once and for all at this point : the Caucasian War points that if Constantinople didn't have a Persian supporter, advancing as much as they did would have had been at least particularily costly. What they obtained in this war was essentially to recover the ground lost since the IVth century, and to share Armenia in some sort of compromise.

You have to remember that Trajan's imperial provinces of Mesopotamia and Armenia were essentially propaganda's creation without much ground control even at the most successful moments of his campaigns, empty shells by the time he died. I doubt that the late VIth century Roman Empire, could have made better there, let alone putting an end to Persia.

What would would like a Byzantine victory? If we go at the best victory possible, i'd say something comparable to what happened in 628 : a more complete Roman grasp on Armenia and that's it.
 
The maximum Byzantine victory over the Persians should be accomplished in the same way that the best Byzantine victories all are -- sneakily.

Thus ...

Emperor Maurice is a bit less hard on his soldiers, so Phocas never overthrows him. This butterflies away the Byzantine-Persian war of 602-628, as Maurice's overthrow was the pretext for the war, Khusrau of Persia having a personal relationship with Maurice. Persians happily fight Hephthalites and Gujaras in the East instead. This allows Maurice and his son-and-heir Theodosius to slowly improve their hold on African and Med. island lands (probably not worth it to keep fighting for Italy).

So then 638 rolls around, and Theodosius' son (call him Davos) is co-Emperor with his father, when the new Rashidun Caliphate comes knocking. Instead of fighting, Davos -- one smart Byzantine cookie -- confuses the issue, mentions that Islam and Christianity are "closer" than Islam and Zoroastrianism, and nudges/convinces/outright-bribes the Caliphate into throwing their full weight against Persia instead of attacking both. Persia is in better shape than OTL because of the "vanished" war, but they still succumb. In an excess of eagerness, the Caliphate then takes over Persia's job of fighting Hephthalites and Gujaras, and plows into India (with many important side-effects not detailed here).

The Caliphate gets so embroiled in fighting to the East, that going to the West becomes thought of as one of those "Oh, eventually, you know" sort of things.

This is the maximal Byzantine victory over Persia. Their ancient enemy is overthrown, without a single Roman life lost. Well, okay, there was a young officer-candidate named Phillipos who died of heat-stroke during the negotiations, but hey.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top