WI: Khosrau II does not invade the ERE

[Pachac]

While Khosrau II did bring the Sassanids to their greatest extent in the Byzantine-Sassanid war of 602-628, he managed to also overtax his citizens, make them angry, overextend the state, and test the limits of Persia. In addition, he crippled Greek urban life in the Levant by destroying most of Antioch and turning Syria into a ghost of its former self. After that both ERE and the Persian state were sufficiently weakened so as to succumb to the Caliphate. In the end they managed to destroy each other.

Originally Khosrau invaded the ERE after Narses, former governor of Mesopotamia seized Edessa and rebelled against Phocas. When he was besieged by Germanus, He called Khosrau for help and that opened the gates of hell.

However, what if the rebellion was nipped in the bud, and Khosrau was distracted by central Asian nomads moving in on Kushan and Merv?

Is this enough to make Khosrau stay away? If not, how else is it possible?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Best way to avoid the invasion is to keep Phocas off the Roman throne- Khosrau always seemed to respect his agreement with Maurice, so I think for as long as Maurice lives, the agreement of peace will be kept.

 

[Pachac]

Best way to avoid the invasion is to keep Phocas off the Roman throne- Khosrau always seemed to respect his agreement with Maurice, so I think for as long as Maurice lives, the agreement of peace will be kept.

Interesting. With Maurice still alive what can we expect when the Arabs come along?

 

[St. Just]

With Antioch and Syria in stronger shape, and without Persia and Rome weakened so severely, I imagine that the Arabs would have an incredibly hard time winning. I think they would conquer the Lakhmids and Ghassanids, but I don't think they could take down the ERE and Persia like they did in OTL.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Interesting. With Maurice still alive what can we expect when the Arabs come along?

Well, Maurice will be dead by time the Arabs are on the scene, so the Emperor will probably be his son Theodosius, who was born in 583. We don't know a lot about Theodosius, so how his reign would pan out is unclear. Here, though, are a few thoughts about how a Roman Empire in which Maurice lives until about 605, will look at the time of Mohammed's death.

- The Empire may very well be split into Eastern and Western portions, given Maurice seems to have intended to make his second son Tiberius Emperor of the West, as well as giving his other sons some small parts of land. I suspect, however, due to the relative youth of the sons at the time, that only Theodosius and Tiberius will be able to take effective control. A civil war at some stage wouldn't surprise me, in which Theodosius will almost certainly come out on top of.

- There'll probably be another Persian war at some stage, though the Empire is unlikely to collapse as easily as it did IOTL, due to there being a strong and legitimate dynasty on the throne. The parsimony of Maurice's years may have eased a bit by, say, the mid 610s if this is when the war breaks out, assuming Maurice spends the last few years of his reign thoroughly beating back the Slavs and Avars. In addition to this, a mini-economic boom will probably happen in the first decade of the 600s, as the economy recovers from the plague of 591. The Persians certainly shouldn't be underestimated, but they're unlikely to find an invasion such a walkover as OTL.

- Psychologically, the Empire will be a different place without the devastation of the Persian war, and the trauma of having Persian armies encamped outside Constantinople. Byzantine Christianity will probably take a slightly different path from OTL, and the Emperors won't be quite so fatalistic- I think there's a lot to be said for the notion that it was the huge shock of such a complete collapse that prompted the shift from Justinian-style classical Roman glory to the rather arcane squabblings and more limited world view of the later Emperors.

- At some stage or another, religious problems will have to be dealt with. Maurice's general policy was, IIRC, to be generally tolerant, whilst coming down like a tonne of bricks on troublemakers. Whether this will really be tenable for Theodosius is debatable, given the dependence of the Roman economy on Monophysite Egypt. I would guess that a compromise doctrine will have to be worked out at some stage or another, and to do so, the Papacy will have to be antagonised. Which could mean a Papal rebellion against the Emperor...


All in all, Theodosius III will have a hell of a lot in his in tray to deal with, but his prospects are not completely bleak- he's probably inheriting a better situation for the ERE for anyone since Justinian. The future could well be very bright for him, if he sticks to the course of relatively decent rule.

 

[Pachac]

- The Empire may very well be split into Eastern and Western portions, given Maurice seems to have intended to make his second son Tiberius Emperor of the West, as well as giving his other sons some small parts of land. I suspect, however, due to the relative youth of the sons at the time, that only Theodosius and Tiberius will be able to take effective control. A civil war at some stage wouldn't surprise me, in which Theodosius will almost certainly come out on top of.

So divided roughly by the strait of Otranto? would the Persians perhaps capitalize on the Civil war, maybe claiming that the Western emperor is the right claimant in order to seize land in the East?

- There'll probably be another Persian war at some stage, though the Empire is unlikely to collapse as easily as it did IOTL, due to there being a strong and legitimate dynasty on the throne. The parsimony of Maurice's years may have eased a bit by, say, the mid 610s if this is when the war breaks out, assuming Maurice spends the last few years of his reign thoroughly beating back the Slavs and Avars. In addition to this, a mini-economic boom will probably happen in the first decade of the 600s, as the economy recovers from the plague of 591. The Persians certainly shouldn't be underestimated, but they're unlikely to find an invasion such a walkover as OTL.

Indeed. It should also be noted that the Byzantine-Sassanid war ate up so many of the Empire's resources that Slavs broke through and settled in Greece, and Heraclius couldn't stop them AFAIK.

- Psychologically, the Empire will be a different place without the devastation of the Persian war, and the trauma of having Persian armies encamped outside Constantinople. Byzantine Christianity will probably take a slightly different path from OTL, and the Emperors won't be quite so fatalistic- I think there's a lot to be said for the notion that it was the huge shock of such a complete collapse that prompted the shift from Justinian-style classical Roman glory to the rather arcane squabblings and more limited world view of the later Emperors.

Very interesting. I would assume that Syria would retain its prominence as a very rich area of the Empire and be a more coveted prize by the Arabs?

- At some stage or another, religious problems will have to be dealt with. Maurice's general policy was, IIRC, to be generally tolerant, whilst coming down like a tonne of bricks on troublemakers. Whether this will really be tenable for Theodosius is debatable, given the dependence of the Roman economy on Monophysite Egypt. I would guess that a compromise doctrine will have to be worked out at some stage or another, and to do so, the Papacy will have to be antagonised. Which could mean a Papal rebellion against the Emperor...

Well, during the Arab invasions the governor of Egypt, one Cyrus, persecuted the Copts heavily and in the end made it a lot easier for the Arabs to take Egypt.

In addition, what of Persia during Maurice? Would Khosrau try to look for someone else to conquer or consolidate his kingdom?

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Actually Maurice had it coming... He was so penywise that he ordered the troops to stay in Danube during winter in order not to pay them when they got back and that pissed them off really bad... If it wasnt Phokas it would be some other disgruntled/pissed off general/officer...
If Maurice enjoyed enough support from the army (enough to keep them from rebelling) then Roman-Persian borders would be safe and Khosrau might even helped Maurice if he had troubles with an usurper nearby...

 

[Horgus]

Well it's one thing for the troops to revolt against a pennypinching Emperor, and it's another thing entirely to march on Constantinople and murder the entire Imperial family.

Phocas was a brutal monster. He gave Khosrau exactly the kind of Casus Belli he needed.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

So divided roughly by the strait of Otranto? would the Persians perhaps capitalize on the Civil war, maybe claiming that the Western emperor is the right claimant in order to seize land in the East?

Yes, I think it's quite likely they'd try, and so would the Avars. Then again, Tiberius will quite likely have enough problems of his own to deal with in the West, at least for a few years. Even then, the odds are hugely stacked in Theodosius' favour.

Indeed. It should also be noted that the Byzantine-Sassanid war ate up so many of the Empire's resources that Slavs broke through and settled in Greece, and Heraclius couldn't stop them AFAIK.

Yeah- not just the Sassanid invasion: The civil war that was led by Heraclius and his brother was pretty darn damaging too. The whole period from Maurice's death to the battle of Nineveh is just one long clusterfuck, really.

Very interesting. I would assume that Syria would retain its prominence as a very rich area of the Empire and be a more coveted prize by the Arabs?

Yes indeed, Syria and Palestine will both remain very important. For that matter, so will the city of Ctesiphon, since ITTL it won't suffer the huge damage that Heraclius inflicted on Mesopotamia by destroying its millenia old irrigation networks.

Well, during the Arab invasions the governor of Egypt, one Cyrus, persecuted the Copts heavily and in the end made it a lot easier for the Arabs to take Egypt.

It doesn't surprise me. Then again, the degree of persecution suffered by Copts can quite easily be talked up- the fact that Monophysite governors and bishops existed at all shows quite plainly that the Roman Empire was not a huge, evil totalitarian regime. Persecution was sporadic and on/off, not a constant grind.

In addition, what of Persia during Maurice? Would Khosrau try to look for someone else to conquer or consolidate his kingdom?

I think that its likely Khosrau would try to stir up some trouble during the reign of Theodosius, but, then again, if Theodosius manages to buy him off, he could always keep himself amused by intervening in Arabia and in India. And, as you say, he has to deal with Turkic peoples on his northern frontiers.

 

[Pachac]

Yes, I think it's quite likely they'd try, and so would the Avars. Then again, Tiberius will quite likely have enough problems of his own to deal with in the West, at least for a few years. Even then, the odds are hugely stacked in Theodosius' favour.

Hmm. Heraclius the elder was the Exarch of Carthage, and he would probably appoint his son as the next Exarch. Would he ally with Theo or Tiberius?

Yes indeed, Syria and Palestine will both remain very important. For that matter, so will the city of Ctesiphon, since ITTL it won't suffer the huge damage that Heraclius inflicted on Mesopotamia by destroying its millenia old irrigation networks.

Well that seems to be a staple of Mesopotamia. It was famous for having its irrigation systems destroyed every time a particularly angry conquerer walked in.

It doesn't surprise me. Then again, the degree of persecution suffered by Copts can quite easily be talked up- the fact that Monophysite governors and bishops existed at all shows quite plainly that the Roman Empire was not a huge, evil totalitarian regime. Persecution was sporadic and on/off, not a constant grind.

I certainly wasn't implying that, oh no. A quick look at the Wiki tells us that Eulogius, a lover of arguing with Coptic heretics, was the Patriach of Alexandria at the time. He seemed to have an apathy of the Copts, however.

I think that its likely Khosrau would try to stir up some trouble during the reign of Theodosius, but, then again, if Theodosius manages to buy him off, he could always keep himself amused by intervening in Arabia and in India. And, as you say, he has to deal with Turkic peoples on his northern frontiers.

Interesting. Could perhaps Mecca ask him for help against the forces of Medina thereby pulling Khosrau into it? Also, in regards to India, I do believe that the Gupta had dissapeared by this time. What could push Khosrau into attacking India?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Hmm. Heraclius the elder was the Exarch of Carthage, and he would probably appoint his son as the next Exarch. Would he ally with Theo or Tiberius?

Well, I believe the Maurician plan envisaged his third son Paul taking over the Exarchate of Africa, so, theoretically at least, Heraclius the Elder would probably be Paul's guardian. I suspect that, if he is ambitious, he might kill young Paul (dates are uncertain, but he'll probably be in his mid-teens in 605) and perhaps declare himself Emperor to challenge Tiberius. This could mean Theodosius and Tiberius join up to squash Heraclius...

Alternatively, if only Tiberius takes power in the West, the Heraclians will be under him at first, but I think that it's quite possible that they'll try and revolt the moment anything goes wrong for him in Italy. This could, I suppose, actually be something that unites Theodosius and Tiberius, joining together to squash a usurper. Alternatively, Theodosius could sit it out, then move in to defeat the exhausted victor of the civil war. None of this is going to do much good for poor old Italy, it goes without saying.

Interesting. Could perhaps Mecca ask him for help against the forces of Medina thereby pulling Khosrau into it? Also, in regards to India, I do believe that the Gupta had dissapeared by this time. What could push Khosrau into attacking India?

It's possible, though I'd guess Axumite or Ghassanid intervention is perhaps more likely. Regarding India, I'm not sure- perhaps just opportunism on Khosrau's part and a desire to permanently settle his border on the Indus?

 

[Pachac]

It's possible, though I'd guess Axumite or Ghassanid intervention is perhaps more likely. Regarding India, I'm not sure- perhaps just opportunism on Khosrau's part and a desire to permanently settle his border on the Indus?

Interesting. The Hephtalites were already gone by Khosrau so they're out of the picture.


Just a question that is slightly relevant. Say that Khosrau took Constantinople and Heraclius' ship that was taking him to Constantinople sank. How would the Avars be rewarded and what would Khosrau do about the Slavs in Greece? And could the loot from Constantinople refill his coffers?

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

I think that Khorashu would respect Maurice and possibly his sons as leaders (after all he owes his throne to Maurice)

In my TL i have Khorashu invade about 12 years into Theodosius III's reign

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Just a question that is slightly relevant. Say that Khosrau took Constantinople and Heraclius' ship that was taking him to Constantinople sank. How would the Avars be rewarded and what would Khosrau do about the Slavs in Greece? And could the loot from Constantinople refill his coffers?

I'm not sure. By the time Constantinople falls, Khosrau's Empire will be suffering from severe overstretch, not to mention restive populations throughout the areas it had conquered. I can see the Christian peoples of the Levant and Anatolia actively working with the Arabs to drive out the Persians, not just being passively pro-Arab. This could lead to some interesting consequences down the line, especially given the early Muslims didn't want to integrate with Christian majorities, and more or less let them govern themselves in exchange for military protection. Perhaps Christian dukedoms and mini-states would spring up under Islamic military protection from Persia?

Given Khosrau's overstretch, I suspect the Slavs and Avars will have more or less free reign in the Balkans- the Persians will probably attempt to secure Thrace and Macedonia, but much more than this is beyond them, I think. The remaining Roman state in the Exarchates of Ravenna and Africa may proclaim an Emperor in one or both of them, and go on to try to assert some measure of authority over Epirus and Illyria.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

It doesn't surprise me. Then again, the degree of persecution suffered by Copts can quite easily be talked up- the fact that Monophysite governors and bishops existed at all shows quite plainly that the Roman Empire was not a huge, evil totalitarian regime. Persecution was sporadic and on/off, not a constant grind.

To expand on this, though I don't know if it's really pertinant to the topic, but Mark Whittow uses the example of the Tur Abdin region. Staunchly Monophysite, it remained loyal during the Persian invasion.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

To expand on this, though I don't know if it's really pertinant to the topic, but Mark Whittow uses the example of the Tur Abdin region. Staunchly Monophysite, it remained loyal during the Persian invasion.

Can I see what it is you're talking about here, please? Sounds very interesting!

 

[Wendell]

I've wondered about a Sassanid successor state surviving in Anatolia folowing Islamic conquest of Persia and possible Slavic conquest of Constantinople.

 

[Pachac]

I've wondered about a Sassanid successor state surviving in Anatolia folowing Islamic conquest of Persia and possible Slavic conquest of Constantinople.

I doubt it. As compared to the Central Asian Sassanid remnant Anatolia was simply not an area where the Sassanids would have survived.

The Arabs actually didn't want to conquer Persia. It was the Sassanids who had their pride hurt by losing Mesopotamia and wanted it back.

 

[Wendell]

I doubt it. As compared to the Central Asian Sassanid remnant Anatolia was simply not an area where the Sassanids would have survived.

The Arabs actually didn't want to conquer Persia. It was the Sassanids who had their pride hurt by losing Mesopotamia and wanted it back.

That too could have interesting repercussions.

 

[Pachac]

That too could have interesting repercussions.

Indeed. I think that in the Persian remnant persecution of Christians will increase as the old Christian Persian heartland in Mesopotamia is gone. Muslims may also be persecuted.