WI: Khosrow II triumphant in the Roman-Sassanian War

I think we are focusing too much on the siege. There are plenty of other ways for a Sassanid victory and I am primarily interested in the following:
Can the Persians fight back and defeat the Islamic forces?
Can they consolidate and digest their gains to establish permanent Persian hegemony over Egypt, Levant and almost all of Anatolia (leaving the Byzantines with little more than the environs of Constantinople in Asia) ?
What would be the religious, cultural and political legacy of this be?
 
Fair points, but it's not like the area north of the Black Sea was completely empty. The population density of Sarmatia at this point was similar to that of Persia, and Sarmatia was greener and less arid.

If Khosrau's northern army is cavalry heavy and he raids the countryside for supplies, I think he could make it across to join the Avars. It would be much riskier than the Anatolian route, though.
I imagine a cavalry heavy army is going to experience signficant problems crossing the Caucuses. Looking beyond that though, you still have the problem of what happens when you're marching around the Black Sea and Heraclius just takes his army and smashes through Anatolia and Asia. This isn't that far fetched, since he was able to turn the tide fairly rapidly IOTL. But even assuming he doesn't, well, then what? What happens when they reach Constantinople? The Avars were already besieging the landward side and making exactly 0 progress. A cavalry heavy Sassanian army that doesn't have any siege equipment isn't going to be able to take on the Theodosian Walls. And they aren't going to be able to starve the city into submission, since the Byzantines still rule the waves and can supply their capital with impunity.

The Sassanians can easily win the war, but they can't take Constantinople. However, winning the war requires Khosrau knowing when to quit. And it's kind of hard to accept a desperate peace offer from the Byzantines when it appears you are only a hairs breadth away from the entire empire collapsing and falling into your lap. If Khosrau quits while he's ahead, he can get some serious concessions. Of course, how long the Byzantines are willing to abide by those official concessions and how able the Sassanians are going to be able to defend them is another matter. Certainly an emperor who just ceded the most valuable half of his empire to the hated Persians isn't going to last long, so either Heraclius is going to be under immense pressure to renege on any treaty the moment Sassanian armies march home, or he'll be deposed in short order for another emperor who will renege on the agreement. And then your back in the same position, with a back and forth war that likely ends in only minor territorial changes, exhausting both empires.

It wasn't really a war that could be won by either side.
 
I imagine a cavalry heavy army is going to experience signficant problems crossing the Caucuses. Looking beyond that though, you still have the problem of what happens when you're marching around the Black Sea and Heraclius just takes his army and smashes through Anatolia and Asia. This isn't that far fetched, since he was able to turn the tide fairly rapidly IOTL. But even assuming he doesn't, well, then what? What happens when they reach Constantinople? The Avars were already besieging the landward side and making exactly 0 progress. A cavalry heavy Sassanian army that doesn't have any siege equipment isn't going to be able to take on the Theodosian Walls. And they aren't going to be able to starve the city into submission, since the Byzantines still rule the waves and can supply their capital with impunity.

The Sassanians can easily win the war, but they can't take Constantinople. However, winning the war requires Khosrau knowing when to quit. And it's kind of hard to accept a desperate peace offer from the Byzantines when it appears you are only a hairs breadth away from the entire empire collapsing and falling into your lap. If Khosrau quits while he's ahead, he can get some serious concessions. Of course, how long the Byzantines are willing to abide by those official concessions and how able the Sassanians are going to be able to defend them is another matter. Certainly an emperor who just ceded the most valuable half of his empire to the hated Persians isn't going to last long, so either Heraclius is going to be under immense pressure to renege on any treaty the moment Sassanian armies march home, or he'll be deposed in short order for another emperor who will renege on the agreement. And then your back in the same position, with a back and forth war that likely ends in only minor territorial changes, exhausting both empires.

It wasn't really a war that could be won by either side.
A ERE with only Greece,Africa and some parts of Italy is effectively broken.
 
Yet Heraclius reconquered everything he lost pretty quickly.
It was through an incredible stroke of skill and luck that he managed to do so,especially since he had to use skillful diplomacy like the alliance with the Turks and convincing Shahrbaraz to stay out of the fight to do it.
 
A ERE with only Greece,Africa and some parts of Italy is effectively broken.
They still have money and allies. The Khazars and Turks are still going to be very willing to send their armies to ravage Persian territory. And in any case, as mentioned above, the ERE was effectively in this situation while Constantinople was being besieged.
 
It was through an incredible stroke of skill and luck that he managed to do so,especially since he had to use skillful diplomacy like the alliance with the Turks and convincing Shahrbaraz to stay out of the fight to do it.
Convincing the Khazars to raid the conveniently depleted Persian defenses wasn't all that difficult. Nor is convincing a general who just discovered he was next in line to be executed to consider switching allegiances. The point is, Heraclius was able to embark on sudden major counter-attacks almost immediately after losing large chunks of territory on two separate occasions.
 
They still have money and allies. The Khazars and Turks are still going to be very willing to send their armies to ravage Persian territory. And in any case, as mentioned above, the ERE was effectively in this situation while Constantinople was being besieged.
But barely.Like I've mentioned,it was through an incredible stroke of skill and luck that they managed to turn the tables.If Heraclius throws the towel and gets overthrow,you might get a civil war in what's left of the ERE.The situation might easily turn into what happened in 1071.If Heraclius managed to transfer the capital to Carthage like he originally planned,there's sure to be a civil war.

Convincing the Khazars to raid the conveniently depleted Persian defenses wasn't all that difficult. Nor is convincing a general who just discovered he was next in line to be executed to consider switching allegiances. The point is, Heraclius was able to embark on sudden major counter-attacks almost immediately after losing large chunks of territory on two separate occasions.
It was with incredible luck that they managed to get the letter ordering Shahrbaraz's execution.It's not everyday you get something like that.As for convincing the Turks and the Khazars,it takes skill to convince them that the you are perfectly able to continue to fight and not throw them under the bus when they joined.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting discussion and idea. A few questions/ points: 1. could we see a situation emerge similar to what happened after the initial Arab conquests? By that I mean Persia controls the Levant, Egypt and Armenia while Byzantium retains the rest? After all, as the Arabs were to prove, such a situation could last for a long time if the conquerors are able to stabilize their conquests. 2. the Arabs. Would they be cowed enough by a reborn Achaemenid Empire to not invade or would they see an even greater opportunity? If the later could this give the Romans enough time to sufficiently recover and retake their territories from the Arabs?
 
So,does anyone know much about the Persian navy in the Persian Gulf?All I know is that the Persians did maintain a navy there to fight pirates as well as to maintain control of territories on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf.
 
Top