WI: Khosrau II Defeats the Byzantines

What if Khosrau II defeated the Byzantines. Say that the POD is Heraclius (the younger) being killed in Africa just as he was about to set sail for Constantinople. Since it was unlikely anybody else could have saved Byzantium, how would the rest of the war play out? When would Constantinople fall and what would Heraclius the Elder and his nephew do? When peace is made, what would be the fate of the empire's remnants? Finally, how would the Sassanids develop now that they have seized the entirety of Byzantine Asia? Will they enter a golden age or will they collapse in on themselves?
 

krieger

Banned
What if Khosrau II defeated the Byzantines. Say that the POD is Heraclius (the younger) being killed in Africa just as he was about to set sail for Constantinople. Since it was unlikely anybody else could have saved Byzantium, how would the rest of the war play out? When would Constantinople fall and what would Heraclius the Elder and his nephew do? When peace is made, what would be the fate of the empire's remnants? Finally, how would the Sassanids develop now that they have seized the entirety of Byzantine Asia? Will they enter a golden age or will they collapse in on themselves?
I think Sassanids would become a dominant power in the Middle East. Arabs would be destroyed by victorious Persian Empire pretty easily. Avar khaganate would also last longer, but I doubt if they could retain their hegemony over Eastern and Central Europe. The best bet for them would be taking place of OTL Hungary.
 
I think Sassanids would become a dominant power in the Middle East. Arabs would be destroyed by victorious Persian Empire pretty easily. Avar khaganate would also last longer, but I doubt if they could retain their hegemony over Eastern and Central Europe. The best bet for them would be taking place of OTL Hungary.
How long would you say the Sassanids could survive?
 
We know little about this period. Its an interesting POD.

First, what is left of the East Romans/ Byzantium. The Persians ITTL can't get to Italy. They could get to North Africa but are probably exhausted by the effort of taking Constantinople plus there is still Greece to deal with. Probably the Western Exarchates produce a new Emperor, who manages to create a hodgepodge Western Empire that includes parts of Italy, North Africa, and Greece. This has some chance of surviving for quite a while if they can find a way to deal with the Lombards and/ or the Franks, a big if. It wouldn't be called the "Byzantine" empire and would need to have a symbiotic relationship with the bishops of Rome.

Second, the effect on the Arab conquests and Islam. Islam still exists iTTL. Persia is still exhausted by the war and the Arabs could still conquer it anyway. The significant difference is that without the East Romans/ Byzantines in Anatolia, they expand into Anatolia and probably not into North Africa (completely different allocation of lines of effort by the Arabs and the Byzantines/ Romans in this scenario). There is also a chance of peaceful conversion of the Persian Empire to Islam under a later Shah. Or Zoroastrianism could mutate into a more popular religion, OTL it was really a religion for the Iranian elite.

Also keep in mind that the Sassanians were even more prone to fighting civil wars among themselves than even the Romans were. I think there is a good chance of getting something like the OTL Caliphate anyway, they always had more difficulty in expanding against the East Romans/ Byzantines.
 

krieger

Banned
We know little about this period. Its an interesting POD.

First, what is left of the East Romans/ Byzantium. The Persians ITTL can't get to Italy. They could get to North Africa but are probably exhausted by the effort of taking Constantinople plus there is still Greece to deal with. Probably the Western Exarchates produce a new Emperor, who manages to create a hodgepodge Western Empire that includes parts of Italy, North Africa, and Greece. This has some chance of surviving for quite a while if they can find a way to deal with the Lombards and/ or the Franks, a big if. It wouldn't be called the "Byzantine" empire and would need to have a symbiotic relationship with the bishops of Rome.

Second, the effect on the Arab conquests and Islam. Islam still exists iTTL. Persia is still exhausted by the war and the Arabs could still conquer it anyway. The significant difference is that without the East Romans/ Byzantines in Anatolia, they expand into Anatolia and probably not into North Africa (completely different allocation of lines of effort by the Arabs and the Byzantines/ Romans in this scenario). There is also a chance of peaceful conversion of the Persian Empire to Islam under a later Shah. Or Zoroastrianism could mutate into a more popular religion, OTL it was really a religion for the Iranian elite.

Also keep in mind that the Sassanians were even more prone to fighting civil wars among themselves than even the Romans were. I think there is a good chance of getting something like the OTL Caliphate anyway, they always had more difficulty in expanding against the East Romans/ Byzantines.

I don't think that Persians would get North Africa. It's outside of their reach and Heraclids have too strong position here. I think we would end up with something similar to OTL "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" with North Africa added still calling itself "Roman Empire" in exile. Lombards aren't a threat. They are constantly fighting among themselves and the new Emperor could take advantage from their internal struggles.

I don't think that Islam would have a place to spread itself ITTL. The war would be shorter and Persia would gain a lot of new territories, whose inhabitants wouldn't be pro-Arab (as they were IOTL) but they would be rather thankful to Shah for liberating them from Byzantine yoke. So Arabs wouldn't enjoy any meaningful support from natives, as they did OTL. I think that peaceful conversion of Persian Empire to Nestorian Christianity is far more plausible. Khosrau's prime minister and wife were already Nestorian. In addition Persians despised Arabs in this period of time, so their conversion to Islam is impossible for me in scenario with victorious Persian Empire.

Sassanids were prone to fight civil wars among themselves, but it wouldn't mean much if there is no one to fight civil war. In addition, Khosrau after his victory would not be murdered, so there is no regency in Persian Empire. Arabs would be destroyed with brute force.
 
We know little about this period. Its an interesting POD.

First, what is left of the East Romans/ Byzantium. The Persians ITTL can't get to Italy. They could get to North Africa but are probably exhausted by the effort of taking Constantinople plus there is still Greece to deal with. Probably the Western Exarchates produce a new Emperor, who manages to create a hodgepodge Western Empire that includes parts of Italy, North Africa, and Greece. This has some chance of surviving for quite a while if they can find a way to deal with the Lombards and/ or the Franks, a big if. It wouldn't be called the "Byzantine" empire and would need to have a symbiotic relationship with the bishops of Rome.

Second, the effect on the Arab conquests and Islam. Islam still exists iTTL. Persia is still exhausted by the war and the Arabs could still conquer it anyway. The significant difference is that without the East Romans/ Byzantines in Anatolia, they expand into Anatolia and probably not into North Africa (completely different allocation of lines of effort by the Arabs and the Byzantines/ Romans in this scenario). There is also a chance of peaceful conversion of the Persian Empire to Islam under a later Shah. Or Zoroastrianism could mutate into a more popular religion, OTL it was really a religion for the Iranian elite.

Also keep in mind that the Sassanians were even more prone to fighting civil wars among themselves than even the Romans were. I think there is a good chance of getting something like the OTL Caliphate anyway, they always had more difficulty in expanding against the East Romans/ Byzantines.

In regards to the rump state of Byzantium, do you think that they would be able to hold on to Constantinople or would the city be lost to Slavs, Avars or the Persians themselves? Since both of the Heraclii are dead, which figure from the remaining territory could muster enough support to be crowned emperor?

The success of Khosrau II would likely butterfly away a rise of the muslims. OTL, the Persian governor of Yemen converted to Islam and essentially defected. Muslims believe this was because Muhammad predicted that Khosrau II would be killed by his own son once he learnt of Khosrau II's orders to kill him. When Khosrau II was killed, the Persian governor converted to Islam. I am of the opinion that the governor saw the Sassanids on the decline and decided to side with the Muslims instead. With both scenarios ITTL, however, you'd have Khosrau II taking military action against Muhammad. He would probably be defeated and taken prisoner to be executed in Ctesiphon. With a lack of leadership, the Muslims fight amongst themselves with many reverting from Islam due to the prophet being killed. I find it possible that this violence could escalate into a massive peninsula-wide war that exhausts the expansive potential of the Arabs.

I too see Zoroastrianism being replaced by something else, however, when would this occur? The 700s, maybe even the 900s?

With Khosrau II having obliterated the Byzantines, its possible that the prestige of the dynasty would be able to keep it together up into the 700s but of course it won't last this way.
 
I don't think that Persians would get North Africa. It's outside of their reach and Heraclids have too strong position here. I think we would end up with something similar to OTL "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" with North Africa added still calling itself "Roman Empire" in exile. Lombards aren't a threat. They are constantly fighting among themselves and the new Emperor could take advantage from their internal struggles.

I don't think that Islam would have a place to spread itself ITTL. The war would be shorter and Persia would gain a lot of new territories, whose inhabitants wouldn't be pro-Arab (as they were IOTL) but they would be rather thankful to Shah for liberating them from Byzantine yoke. So Arabs wouldn't enjoy any meaningful support from natives, as they did OTL. I think that peaceful conversion of Persian Empire to Nestorian Christianity is far more plausible. Khosrau's prime minister and wife were already Nestorian. In addition Persians despised Arabs in this period of time, so their conversion to Islam is impossible for me in scenario with victorious Persian Empire.

Sassanids were prone to fight civil wars among themselves, but it wouldn't mean much if there is no one to fight civil war. In addition, Khosrau after his victory would not be murdered, so there is no regency in Persian Empire. Arabs would be destroyed with brute force.

Total Persian dominance in the Middle East for the near future. How would Persia, however, react to events in the Steppes, Central Asia and India?
 

krieger

Banned
Total Persian dominance in the Middle East for the near future. How would Persia, however, react to events in the Steppes, Central Asia and India?
I think, that they would try to conquer Central Asia, because it was condsidered a part of Persia for a while. They wouldn't mess much in Steppes, that land is essentialy worthless from them and it's better to maintain good relationship with whatever tribe, which is dominant on Steppe. The could try to grab a piece of land in India too, but I don't expect Persian success in doing this.
 
I think, that they would try to conquer Central Asia, because it was condsidered a part of Persia for a while. They wouldn't mess much in Steppes, that land is essentialy worthless from them and it's better to maintain good relationship with whatever tribe, which is dominant on Steppe. The could try to grab a piece of land in India too, but I don't expect Persian success in doing this.
OTL, the Khazars converted to Judaism to avoid Christian and Islamic influence. With the Middle East being under Zoroastrians, what do you propose to be the religion of the Khazars?
 
What if Khosrau II defeated the Byzantines. Say that the POD is Heraclius (the younger) being killed in Africa just as he was about to set sail for Constantinople. Since it was unlikely anybody else could have saved Byzantium, how would the rest of the war play out? When would Constantinople fall and what would Heraclius the Elder and his nephew do? When peace is made, what would be the fate of the empire's remnants? Finally, how would the Sassanids develop now that they have seized the entirety of Byzantine Asia? Will they enter a golden age or will they collapse in on themselves?

Much as per OTL 'offer', the Sassanids restore the old Achaemenid borders minus Thrace. Constantinople probably manages to hold on.
The Avars obtain most non-coastal Balkans, Byzantium becomes centered on Africa; they will soon attempt to recover Anatolia from the overextended Persians though unless the Empire succumbs to centripetal forces.
Islam doesn't emerge, or gets wiped and is stuck as footnote in history; if the Sassanids manage to consolidate even half of Anatolia, they will be the new superpower and this will be their Golden Era.
 
IOTL, a seventh century Byzantine Emperor did set up shop in Sicily for a few years, and there were plans in the late sixth century to establish a separate imperial administration in the western territories. While there were good reasons nothing came of these schemes, they were seriously considered which indicates that a rump western Byz state was do-able with some difficulty if they were in a situation where they really had to make this work.
 
Much as per OTL 'offer', the Sassanids restore the old Achaemenid borders minus Thrace. Constantinople probably manages to hold on.
The Avars obtain most non-coastal Balkans, Byzantium becomes centered on Africa; they will soon attempt to recover Anatolia from the overextended Persians though unless the Empire succumbs to centripetal forces.
Islam doesn't emerge, or gets wiped and is stuck as footnote in history; if the Sassanids manage to consolidate even half of Anatolia, they will be the new superpower and this will be their Golden Era.
Might Persia be able to seize the rest of Greece during this Golden Age due to the build up of a Mediterranean fleet and connections in their western territories?
 

krieger

Banned
OTL, the Khazars converted to Judaism to avoid Christian and Islamic influence. With the Middle East being under Zoroastrians, what do you propose to be the religion of the Khazars?
But I doubt if Zoroastrianism would last since Khazars came. The most likely option is conversion of Shah to Nestorianism, who was a religion of majority of Levantines and was spreading in Iran itself. And when we're talking about the Steppe don't forget one thing - battle of Talash would never happen in ATL and the Steppes would be exposed to Buddhist influence from Tang China. So in my opinion, it'd be still Judaism or some other fringe religion (perhaps Coptic/Catholic Christianity) protecting them from Nestorian/Zoroastrian and Buddhist influence.
 
Might Persia be able to seize the rest of Greece during this Golden Age due to the build up of a Mediterranean fleet and connections in their western territories?

No, if they really built such a fleet, the real target would be rich Carthage and not mountainous, closer to Byzantine capital, Greece. If they really go Achaemenid, then they must remove Constantinople first.
 
Last edited:

krieger

Banned
No, if they really built such a fleet, the real target would be rich Carthage and not mountainous, closer to Byzantine capital, Greece. If they really go Achaemenid, then they must remove Constantinople first.
No, Greece would be under Avar yoke, but populated mostly by Slavs. Persians wouldn't want to bother their useful Avar ally.
 
We know little about this period. Its an interesting POD.

First, what is left of the East Romans/ Byzantium. The Persians ITTL can't get to Italy. They could get to North Africa but are probably exhausted by the effort of taking Constantinople plus there is still Greece to deal with. Probably the Western Exarchates produce a new Emperor, who manages to create a hodgepodge Western Empire that includes parts of Italy, North Africa, and Greece. This has some chance of surviving for quite a while if they can find a way to deal with the Lombards and/ or the Franks, a big if. It wouldn't be called the "Byzantine" empire and would need to have a symbiotic relationship with the bishops of Rome.

Second, the effect on the Arab conquests and Islam. Islam still exists iTTL. Persia is still exhausted by the war and the Arabs could still conquer it anyway. The significant difference is that without the East Romans/ Byzantines in Anatolia, they expand into Anatolia and probably not into North Africa (completely different allocation of lines of effort by the Arabs and the Byzantines/ Romans in this scenario). There is also a chance of peaceful conversion of the Persian Empire to Islam under a later Shah. Or Zoroastrianism could mutate into a more popular religion, OTL it was really a religion for the Iranian elite.

Also keep in mind that the Sassanians were even more prone to fighting civil wars among themselves than even the Romans were. I think there is a good chance of getting something like the OTL Caliphate anyway, they always had more difficulty in expanding against the East Romans/ Byzantines.

When I see Threads base around this idea, the Sassanians almost always has it good one way, or another. This actually goes against it and shows the weakness of Persia and underlining problems it has even in a victory.

"Win the War, Lose the Peace" in my book.
 
Top