WI Byzantine-Sassanid Alliance

what if the Byzantines Emperor Heraclius and Sassanid Emperor Yazegred III made a military alliance against the Arabs early on. Would the combined numbers be overwhelming? Would the Arabs still win? What major changes to history will there be?
 
If they were savvy enough to deal with a common foe before each other, then it's possible. But very implausible.

Indeed, I think it verges on ASB. It's not entirely ridiculous, mind you, given there's a precedent for this kind of co-operation against the Huns in the early fourth century. But I think in the 630s, there's still too much bad blood between the two Empires, and Sassanid Persia is disintegrating into anarchy in any case.
 
Well you could have a less exhausted ERE. Say Justinian didn't reconquer Italy, which was a 10-year long campaign and drained the manpower and wealth of the empire, Africa was actually helpful to have. And/or didn't persecute the Coptics that much. This leaves a weakened, by plagues and the occasional war with Persia, but still strong enough to pull together to defeat the Arabs when they invade the Levant. A stronger Emperor not being threatened with murder but the royal guard would help, perhaps they could be reformed along with the rest of Justinian's reforms and would help with any problems that would arise with more tolerance or at least a deal with the Coptics, Arians, Monophyists, ect. This would leave Rome vastly more able to withstand the Arabs. And would allow them to perhaps conquer Persia and Arabia in the future as a crusade.
 
Well you could have a less exhausted ERE. Say Justinian didn't reconquer Italy, which was a 10-year long campaign and drained the manpower and wealth of the empire, Africa was actually helpful to have. And/or didn't persecute the Coptics that much. This leaves a weakened, by plagues and the occasional war with Persia, but still strong enough to pull together to defeat the Arabs when they invade the Levant. A stronger Emperor not being threatened with murder but the royal guard would help, perhaps they could be reformed along with the rest of Justinian's reforms and would help with any problems that would arise with more tolerance or at least a deal with the Coptics, Arians, Monophyists, ect. This would leave Rome vastly more able to withstand the Arabs. And would allow them to perhaps conquer Persia and Arabia in the future as a crusade.
Oh man, never say "Crusade" and "Byzantine Empire" in the same post unless you're talking about how the twain shall never meet.

And this is from the guy that likes to use the name "Greek Empire" whenever possible!
 
you dont think to assure thier survival they would work together?

Also they weren't always rivals. Before 92 B.C the republic was on good terms with them:rolleyes:
 
you dont think to assure thier survival they would work together?

Also they weren't always rivals. Before 92 B.C the republic was on good terms with them:rolleyes:

I think the problem is that both of the empires vastly underestimated the Arabs until it was far too late. By the time they could have cooperated, it would have done nothing.
 
you dont think to assure thier survival they would work together?

Also they weren't always rivals. Before 92 B.C the republic was on good terms with them:rolleyes:

Before 92 b.c you had the pArthians...Sassanids just took Parthias place as rival of Rome, plus alliance for defense, really now the two were out to kill each other, their was a reason why Heraclius let the Arabs beat up the Sassanids he felt Sassanids were enemes. Honestly both had claims on territories so IMO ASB for alliance.
 
Ok what about if Maurice died in 597 A.D so Persia never declared war when Maurice was overthrown by Phocas.... Oh wait theres a TL about that :D
 
Ok what about if Maurice died in 597 A.D so Persia never declared war when Maurice was overthrown by Phocas.... Oh wait theres a TL about that :D

I suspect that as soon as Maurice dies, his ally Khosrau will immediately claim foul play, and declare war on Maurice's successor. The peace between the two Empires is, I think, unlikely to outlive Maurice.
 
My thread has no meaning anymore :( what if its a slow death and Maurice wills his son to be emperor?

Or still is there gonna be war?

There's going to be war at some stage or another, given power politics of the early seventh century. If Maurice dies peacefully in bed say sometime around 615, perhaps you can put it off for a while, but I'm not sure. The Persian longing for Anatolia and Syria is just too strong to hold back indefinitely.
 
Still think you should focus on saving one empire. Best bet would be the ERE if you make it strong enough in the previous century. A ERE vs. Muslim Persia/Arabia would be interesting. It could be done with tweaking the foreign and domestic policies from the 570s onward. Or a stronger Persia which beats the ERE early enough to do something... lol
 
The sassanids and the ERE have a culture which has always been influenced by the hate of one another. Peaces have only been for short periods of time when one has managed to get a small upper hand on the other, only to get crushed again because of a Dynastic struggle or a enemy resurgence. The two have never had any real sort of peace that would last longer than an average ruler's lifetime, and neither can get the upper hand on the other for a very long time.

Believing they would attack the arabs, a people they would have laughed a few years before and continued to underestimate, is impossible.
 
They were by far the most powerful players on the block. Their societies were adapted to constant war between each other.

IMHO, the shock that it would require to get them to ally together is a shock that makes them unable to help each other.
 
Top