WI: Byzantine-Sassanid war 602-628 never happens?
- Thread starter Blorg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- byzantine sassanid zoroastian
Albert.Nik
Banned
Arab invasions would be contained for the time being. But for both these empires to be immune would require far more changes from within. Even if not Arabs are the reason for collapse,Franks/Slavs or someone would do that.
The Byzantine Empire had incredibly strong institutions and were caught flat footed during the Arab invasion. We have to remember They conquered southern Spain a century earlier despite coming off 4-5+ expeditions and the plague of Justinian. It ultimately weakened them yes, but we really cannot discount the resilience of the Easter Roman State.
I think if the war was avoided the gains by the arabs would be much reduced, primarily Mesopotamia and Syria/Palestine due to the much stronger combatants of the Sassanids and Byzantium. Though if Rome looses Syria/Egypt you can bet your bottom dollar Egypt will go independent as a monophysite state. I suspect that this much more reduced Arab state would still be a major state, but Islam may end up as one of the kookier heresies as opposed to an out right new religion in the eyes of the world. The Arabs might still pull off conquering Iran, and Egypt but I have a hard time seeing it. If Islam can't get into Persia, then it wouldn't have a food hold into India so Jainism might survive as a major religion So that's a fun thought
I think if the war was avoided the gains by the arabs would be much reduced, primarily Mesopotamia and Syria/Palestine due to the much stronger combatants of the Sassanids and Byzantium. Though if Rome looses Syria/Egypt you can bet your bottom dollar Egypt will go independent as a monophysite state. I suspect that this much more reduced Arab state would still be a major state, but Islam may end up as one of the kookier heresies as opposed to an out right new religion in the eyes of the world. The Arabs might still pull off conquering Iran, and Egypt but I have a hard time seeing it. If Islam can't get into Persia, then it wouldn't have a food hold into India so Jainism might survive as a major religion So that's a fun thought
Why is that? Miaphysitism was actually declining in Egypt at that time, it only experienced a resurgence during the Sassanian occupation due to divide and conquer tactics.
I'll defer to you then. I don't know the 7th century as well I just know in the 6th the monophysites were constantly struggling against the orthodox. Though I can believe that it might be orthodox, I'd be highly surprised if Egypt didn't break away at some point if they aren't connected to the rest of the empire by land.
Philip
Donor
By the end of the VI Century, the Dyophysites were successfully casting their opponents as Eutychian Monophysites. Good Miaphysites knew that Eutychianism was heretical having condemned it at Ephesus in 431. Many of their bishops agreed to not oppose Chalcedon without being forced to formally accept it.
The Sassanians reversed this trend by appointing/supporting dissenting bishops. In part this was to build native support. It may also have been influenced by the Shahanshah's Miaphysite wife or mother (I don't recall which).
That may well be. There were political issues to be dealt with as well.
The issues leading to that war ran deep.
I don't that you can really avoid a Persian-Roman clash of some level for the entire period (over a generation) though of course it does not have to be the generation-long, devastating conflict of OTL. Both Empires emerge likely a lot stronger if the conflict is avoided (or even greatly reduced), though both would stil need to address pretty serious internal issues, particularly the Sasanians.
The sweeping success of Islam is seriously curtailed at the very least, if not entirely blocked. Some degree of Arab expansion would still take place, but in very different forms, probably more piecemeal. Islam itself would be changed - the context of its birth and broad appeal is not the same, a more peaceful Middle East would see less religious polemic and less of an apocalyptic fervor, perhaps also less socio-political stress onto Arabian groups caught in the middle of the elephants' fight. So both major empires probably limp on. Rome would be more conservative without the enormous stress of this period, though there would still be challenges enough to prompt reform, perhaps with more breathing room. In Iran, further attempts at "centralizing" the state may stress still the system to a breaking point (it nearly happened at the beginning of Khosrow II's reign, with Bahram-i Chubin and the Ispahbudhan brothers both rebelling in succession) though how long would it take without major external pressure (either Roman, Arab or Turkic) is an open question not easy to answer. Iran may fragment for a while but probably will not be conquered (or not in full anyway).
I don't that you can really avoid a Persian-Roman clash of some level for the entire period (over a generation) though of course it does not have to be the generation-long, devastating conflict of OTL. Both Empires emerge likely a lot stronger if the conflict is avoided (or even greatly reduced), though both would stil need to address pretty serious internal issues, particularly the Sasanians.
The sweeping success of Islam is seriously curtailed at the very least, if not entirely blocked. Some degree of Arab expansion would still take place, but in very different forms, probably more piecemeal. Islam itself would be changed - the context of its birth and broad appeal is not the same, a more peaceful Middle East would see less religious polemic and less of an apocalyptic fervor, perhaps also less socio-political stress onto Arabian groups caught in the middle of the elephants' fight. So both major empires probably limp on. Rome would be more conservative without the enormous stress of this period, though there would still be challenges enough to prompt reform, perhaps with more breathing room. In Iran, further attempts at "centralizing" the state may stress still the system to a breaking point (it nearly happened at the beginning of Khosrow II's reign, with Bahram-i Chubin and the Ispahbudhan brothers both rebelling in succession) though how long would it take without major external pressure (either Roman, Arab or Turkic) is an open question not easy to answer. Iran may fragment for a while but probably will not be conquered (or not in full anyway).
The easiest way is to stop Phocas' usurpation. Then you likely see a confrontation down the line, say in the 610s, perhaps with an Arabian trigger, but maybe initial Iranian success is not sweeping enough and Khosrow choses a slightly advantageous peace after a relativey brief war against whomever is charge of the ERE. This temporarily boxes in the *muhajirun, and leaves Khosrow strong enough domestically to try a new run of centralization. How much this poisons his already strained relationship with the Great Houses, and how much it's left as a ticking bomb for Shiruyih or whoever else succeeds him, is to be seen, but the crisis may prove survivable for the Sasanians here (with some luck).
Last edited:
Perhaps not as a unified and organized force, but some encroachment is likely.
Hard. Abyssinia should be able to repel them, and the logicistics are not as favorable. IOTL, the Nubian kingdoms were able to stop them cold for the best part of six centuries (albeit paying tribute), and they were smaller and more divided than Aksum.
Last edited:
Lord_Vespasian
Banned
Zoroastrianism would also be saved from virtual extinction if Persia resists the Arab conquests