WI: Earlier fall of Sassanids, Bahram Chobin becomes Shahanshah?

Bahram Chobin was a renown general of the Sassanid Persia, and his popularity rose to the highest levels after his defeat of Gökturk-Hephtalite invasion in 588. Feeling and jealous Hormizd IV, dismissed him from the Sassanian office and humiliated him. Bahram responded by rebelling and marched towards Ctesiphon. After he crowned himself a Shahanshah. Meantime, after he dissmised his two brothers in law, Vistahm and Vinduyih from the Ispadbudhan clan, one of the Seven Parthian Clans. In turn they killed Hormizd and put his young son Khosrau II on the throne. However they were forced to flee the capital, because of approaching forces of Bahram. Vistahm went to rally forces, and Vinduih.After seizing Ctesiphon, Bahram almost caught the prince, but Vinduyih pretended to be his nephew and helped Khosrau II escape and eventually to be able to travel to Eastern Roman Empire and get reinforcements, with which they have defeated Chobin.
What if Bahram had caught Khosrau, and executed him or debilitated him in other ways that he wouldn't be able to compete for the throne. Considering that , Vistahm is still alive would it start a Civil War in Sassanid Empire, where there may be different competitors from 7 Parthian Clans arise to claim the throne? Bahram's actions were unseen before, as for four centuries the Sassanian dynasty and 7 Clans were sharing power, with Sassanian tying them altogether. Him proclaiming himself a Shahanshah broke a almost four centuries old tradition of Sassnian kingship. Would the civil war be protracted and in the end, leaving most of the 7 Clans broken, and leading to centralisation of power in Persia? What would be the consequences of the earlier fall of Sassanids in broader scale? The prolonged war with Romans profoundly effected the empire. Would the removal of Khosrau II avert that? Would the Romans intervene in the Civil War, maybe siding with one side, like they did with Khosrau? What other broader consequences there would be of earlier Sassanian fall?
 
Last edited:
Bahram Chobin was a renown general of the Sassanid Persia, and his popularity rose to the highest levels after his defeat of Gökturk-Hephtalite invasion in 588. Feeling and jealous Hormizd IV, dismissed him from the Sassanian office and humiliated him. Bahram responded by rebelling and marched towards Ctesiphon. After he crowned himself a Shahanshah. Meantime, after he dissmised his two brothers in law, Vistahm and Vinduyih from the Ispadbudhan clan, one of the Seven Parthian Clans. In turn they killed Hormizd and put his young son Khosrau II on the throne. However they were forced to flee the capital, because of approaching forces of Bahram. Vistahm went to rally forces, and Vinduih.After seizing Ctesiphon, Bahram almost caught the prince, but Vinduyih pretended to be his nephew and helped Khosrau II escape and eventually to be able to travel to Eastern Roman Empire and get reinforcements, with which they have defeated Chobin.
What if Bahram had caught Khosrau, and executed him or debilitated him in other ways that he wouldn't be able to compete for the throne. Considering that , Vistahm is still alive would it start a Civil War in Sassanid Empire, where there may be different competitors from 7 Parthian Clans arise to claim the throne? Bahram's actions were unseen before, as for four centuries the Sassanian dynasty and 7 Clans were sharing power, with Sassanian tying them altogether. Him proclaiming himself a Shahanshah broke a almost four centuries old tradition of Sassnian kingship. Would the civil war be protracted and in the end, leaving most of the 7 Clans broken, and leading to centralisation of power in Persia? What would be the consequences of the earlier fall of Sassanids in broader scale? According to historians Sassanid state was in decline, and prolonged war with Romans exacerbated it. Would Mihranid Persia be able to rejuvenate the empire? Would the Romans intervene in the Civil War, maybe siding with one side, like they did with Khosrau? What other broader consequences there would be of earlier Sassanian fall?

Who says this?
 
Who says this?
Sorry I based my assumption on previously held notion, that I did not bother to double check. But I had an impression that the Sassanid state was already at the state of the decline during Hormizd IV rule. So the main source of the Sassanid decline was the 602-628 Sassanid-East Roman War? Would the removal of Khosrau prevent it?
 
Top