WI: Massive Byzantine Defeat in Sassanian-Byzantine Wars

Around the beginning of the reign of Heraclius, Byzantium was in a massive war with the Persians, who had taken Palestine and Egypt by 616. He managed to rally the Byzantines into a counter-attack that took until, IIRC, 630 to end.
Now, what would it take to collapse the Byzantine Empire at this point? I don't mean to end it overall, however, basically, what would it take for the Byzantine Empire to fall apart, and manage only to hold on to Anatolia and Greece, and the territories that the Persians likely couldn't get to (Carthage).
Now, without the Byzantine counter-attack that devastated Mesopotamia and Persia so, are the Sassanids in a better position by 632 to hold off an Islamic conquest of it's larger territories?
 
Imajin said:
Around the beginning of the reign of Heraclius, Byzantium was in a massive war with the Persians, who had taken Palestine and Egypt by 616. He managed to rally the Byzantines into a counter-attack that took until, IIRC, 630 to end.
Now, what would it take to collapse the Byzantine Empire at this point? I don't mean to end it overall, however, basically, what would it take for the Byzantine Empire to fall apart, and manage only to hold on to Anatolia and Greece, and the territories that the Persians likely couldn't get to (Carthage).
Heraclius doesn't mount his counter-attack into the Persian heartland? Or else it goes badly wrong. Upshot is the Persians keep Syria and Egypt.
Imajin said:
Now, without the Byzantine counter-attack that devastated Mesopotamia and Persia so, are the Sassanids in a better position by 632 to hold off an Islamic conquest of it's larger territories?
I wonder whether they would abandon Syria to concentrate on Mesopotamia?
 
A dynastic conflict at the worst possible time is usually a very effective way to shatter empires. If the Emperor dies, in any of a dozen freakish accidents which can easily happen despite all normal precautions, that could throw the armies into turmoil long enough to prevent effective counterattack.
 
JHPier said:
I wonder whether they would abandon Syria to concentrate on Mesopotamia?
I wonder if the Arabs would even have a chance against a strengthened Persia? If Heraclius's devastating campaign against Mesopotamia and the Persian heartland is stopped somehow, and the war ends early enough to give the Persians a good ten years to strengthen the nation more, perhaps the Arabs are dealt several large defeats, and confined to Arabia?
Of course, there is Byzantium to deal with. I don't want to kill off Byzantium- However, it does lose Syria and Egypt, and (especially Syria having Jerusalem and all) will want those territories back- Imagine, perhaps at some later point the Byzantines and the Caliphate could make an alliance to defeat the Persians?
 
Hmmmm......

I don't see Heraclius making peace. He had sold this war as a holy war. Many believed this to be the Last Battle between the forces of God and Satan. As long as Heraclius is in charge, the war against Persia isn't going to end. However, killing off Heraclius isn't good either, as that will lead to massive civil war.

For the Greeks to hold Greece, they need to win at Constantinople in 628. The Avars already basically had all of Greece, and the Persians had de fact control over much of Anatolia. It was only the defeat at Constantinople and then again at Nineveh that force the Persians in Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia to return.

I think the best bet is to leave Heraclius in Africa. Let Phocas be deposed by some other general, perhaps the extraordinarily capable one known only as John. If he can rally some kind of defense, and doesn't sell the war on this Last Battle scenario, then maybe they can work out some kind of peace deal.
 
In my "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" scenario, Heraclius stays in Africa and Constantinople falls to the Avars and Persians.

The end result is that uber-Persia (the Avars and Persians divide the Byzantine domains at Constantinople) gets overextended and falls into civil war. The Arabs seize the Persians' western dominions and seize Greece from the Avars.

That's a bit worse than most situations y'all are describing.

I wonder how the Persians would rule Egypt and Palestine. They weren't overly fond of Christianity, so controlling Egypt might pose some problems for them.
 
Bulgaroktonos said:
Hmmmm......

I don't see Heraclius making peace. He had sold this war as a holy war. Many believed this to be the Last Battle between the forces of God and Satan. As long as Heraclius is in charge, the war against Persia isn't going to end. However, killing off Heraclius isn't good either, as that will lead to massive civil war.
Basically, you've hit the nail on the head with the problems here... Heraclius isn't going to make peace.
For the Greeks to hold Greece, they need to win at Constantinople in 628. The Avars already basically had all of Greece, and the Persians had de fact control over much of Anatolia. It was only the defeat at Constantinople and then again at Nineveh that force the Persians in Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia to return.
I think the best bet is to leave Heraclius in Africa. Let Phocas be deposed by some other general, perhaps the extraordinarily capable one known only as John. If he can rally some kind of defense, and doesn't sell the war on this Last Battle scenario, then maybe they can work out some kind of peace deal.
Hm. What's known about this "John"... Can you give me some sort of good source? Or at least, some clue as to what to use to search- Obviously 'John' or even 'John "Byzantine Empire"' is a bit too vague.
 
For the Greeks to hold Greece, they need to win at Constantinople in 628. The Avars already basically had all of Greece, and the Persians had de fact control over much of Anatolia. It was only the defeat at Constantinople and then again at Nineveh that force the Persians in Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia to return.

Hm. What's known about this "John"... Can you give me some sort of good source? Or at least, some clue as to what to use to search- Obviously 'John' or even 'John "Byzantine Empire"' is a bit too vague.

Very little is actually known about John. IIRC, he, along with Heraclius' brother, Theodore, are the three guys who are designed to defeat Persia. In the Arabic invasion, John is sent to Egypt to apparently save the situation, but is killed in an ambush.

Upon his death, Heraclius becomes despondant, and Theodore orders a massive search for the body, which is then buried with full ceremonial honors. Other than that, I don't really know anything more. The few books I have that mention him all say that he seemed to bring some stability back to Egypt and that his death resulted in the absolute loss of Egypt. I'll see what primary sources I can dig up.
 
Hm... how does this sound for plausibility?
- Heraclius ends up staying in North Africa, John institutes a rebellion instead and deposes Phocas, becomes John I.
- John manages to regain control over all of Anatolia and Greece from the Avars and Persians.
- Several attempts to enter Syria and Egypt end up overall unsuccessful, though Heraclius does manage to lead a largescale incursion into northern Syria, he is killed during the battle and it falls apart.
- After a major Byzantine victory in Libya, Khosrau hastily agrees to a peace- Egypt (not Byzantine Libya) and Palestine, still in Persian hands, are formally ceded to Persia.
 
Seems plausible to me. Phocas was so bad, somebody had to get rid of him, and anybody with any charisma was going to do just fine in getting him out.
 
hmm, I have never heard of John,
I will check my copy of Kaegi
Bulgaroktonos: I am not sure about the Persians being in control of Anatolia, I read it was only a fairly small party. Also unsure about degree of Avar control in Greece, although Slavic presence and Byzantine decline there is a different matter.
I am not sure we have enough sources to even try to guess what a leader other than Hercalius would have done
However I am deeply suspicious of the idea that the Persians can hold the fertile crescent, the area is practically indefensible from the desert, in many ways Syria and Egypt become more vulnerable - once the Arabs take Cteisphon.
 
I think that, with some luck, Persia will mostly hold off the Arab tide. They may lose Palestine or Egypt (Actually, I suppose a loss of Palestine will basically mean a loss of Egypt) however, I think that Mesopotamia, which was one of the more important parts of the Persian state (Ctesphon was the capital, IIRC) will hold off the Arab tide, though it may lose some land.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Imajin said:
I think that, with some luck, Persia will mostly hold off the Arab tide. They may lose Palestine or Egypt (Actually, I suppose a loss of Palestine will basically mean a loss of Egypt) however, I think that Mesopotamia, which was one of the more important parts of the Persian state (Ctesphon was the capital, IIRC) will hold off the Arab tide, though it may lose some land.
The Sassanids divided the world into two regions: Ērān (Iran) ud Anērān (Un-Iran, i.e. everything else). Mesopotamia was part of Ērān. Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia were Anērān, as were, apparently, Armenia, Georgia, Albania, and Balāsagān (although Armenia is tricky as it was apparently included at times). But Mesopotamia was definitely integral to Ērān.

Mind you, there were already longstanding Arab kingdoms in the north (Hatra) and the south (Mesene) of Mesopotamia, so things could still get dicey for the Sassanids.

The capital was generally at Ctesiphon / Mada'in, but could be moved to Persepolis or Ecbatana / Hamadân if need be. The Sassanids themselves came from Istakhr in Pars.
 
Wozza said:
hmm, I have never heard of John,
I will check my copy of Kaegi
Bulgaroktonos: I am not sure about the Persians being in control of Anatolia, I read it was only a fairly small party. Also unsure about degree of Avar control in Greece, although Slavic presence and Byzantine decline there is a different matter.
I am not sure we have enough sources to even try to guess what a leader other than Hercalius would have done
However I am deeply suspicious of the idea that the Persians can hold the fertile crescent, the area is practically indefensible from the desert, in many ways Syria and Egypt become more vulnerable - once the Arabs take Cteisphon.

Shar Baraz wasn't just a small party. Or at least as the premier Persian general, I would hypothesize that it is very unlikely that he got a small party. Furthermore, if it was such a small army, then how come Heraclius was over joyed at the word that Theodore (IIRC) had defeated Shar Baraz in Anatolia? Seems to me that there must have been at least some significant force in Anatolia, with nothing Byzantine to stop it, giving de facto control ot Persia.

In Greece, you are right, I wouldn't say the Avars control all of it, as with most nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes, what they control is sketchy, as it is based on what they can reach and others can't defend. The Byzantines certainly didn't control much outside of Attica and the Peloponnese, but it might be premature to suggest the Avars had control over the rest.
 
Bulgaroktonos said:
Shar Baraz wasn't just a small party. Or at least as the premier Persian general, I would hypothesize that it is very unlikely that he got a small party. Furthermore, if it was such a small army, then how come Heraclius was over joyed at the word that Theodore (IIRC) had defeated Shar Baraz in Anatolia? Seems to me that there must have been at least some significant force in Anatolia, with nothing Byzantine to stop it, giving de facto control ot Persia.

In Greece, you are right, I wouldn't say the Avars control all of it, as with most nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes, what they control is sketchy, as it is based on what they can reach and others can't defend. The Byzantines certainly didn't control much outside of Attica and the Peloponnese, but it might be premature to suggest the Avars had control over the rest.

How long would it take for the Avars to consolidate control over Greece and the other Byzantine Balkan domains at this time? I have the Avars ruling the region for a decade or so in my "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" TL, but some folks have expressed doubts on whether or not the Avars could last that long as rulers of a settled empire.
 
From everything that I've read, the Persian force that was sent across Anatolia to try and take Constantinople in alliance with the Avars was fairly large. Then again, chronicles of the time always tended to greatly exagerrate the numbers of the enemy, so I doubt there is any way to be really sure.

What if Heraclius is killed in his very first battle, and John succeeds him and makes peace with the Persians. The Byzantines keep most of Anatolia and Greece, the Persians get Syria, Egypt, and Palestine. A lot of the population of these provinces is fairly hostile towards the Persians - they weren't necessarily crazy about the Orthodox Byzantines, but the Persians aren't even Christians and let's say they try to promote Zoroastrianism in a rather heavy-handed way. Meanwhile, the Byzantines focus on holding what they still have in Anatolia and trying to push the Avars and Slavs back a little in Greece and the Balkans.

The Islamic expansion begins as in OTL, except that virtually all of the land bordering Arabia is controlled by Persia. The Persians are overstretched and taken by surprise, and the population largely welcomes the Arab Muslims as liberators, some of them even being under the (mistaken) impression that the Arabs are followers of a new variety of Christianity. The Arabs get Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. They capture southern Mesopotamia, but the Persians hang on further north. The Byzantines, having had time to consolidate, are able to stop Arab expansion in North Africa and Anatolia. Later, after a period of internal unrest within the Arab Caliphate, the Persians are able to retake most of southern Mesopotamia. There are now 3 major powers facing each other - the Byzantines, a smaller Islamic caliphate, and the Persians.
 
Interesting... what I was thinking for the Arab conquest was more of "Fringes"- The Persians manage to hold on to a coastal region in Palestine, and enough Mesopotamia to hold on to their major cities, perhaps losing Egypt...
Of course, the comment about Persian religion is interesting... If I remember what I've read in old threads, one person mentioned "Persian misrule (freedom of religion)"... However, this comment may have been wrong. How free were Christians to worship in Sassanid Persia? (Obviously they're not going to care about Monophysitism)
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Imajin said:
Of course, the comment about Persian religion is interesting... If I remember what I've read in old threads, one person mentioned "Persian misrule (freedom of religion)"... However, this comment may have been wrong. How free were Christians to worship in Sassanid Persia? (Obviously they're not going to care about Monophysitism)
Initially, not at all. This was particularly the case under Kerdir, the Chief Mobed under the first few Sassanid rulers. He persecuted Christians, among others, with glee.

Subsequently the Sassanids saw the value of tolerating Christians within their borders, so long as the Christians behaved themselves (one of them, St. Aphrahat, called "the Persian Sage", was martyred after deliberately defiling a fire temple. The Persians wanted to lynch him, but the judge made every effort to grant him clemency, going so far as to offer him an unconditional pardon if he would only admit that he was wrong. Ultimately Aphrahat refused to apologize for his actions, and so the judge was forced to condemn him to death. This is all in his Syriac martyrology, written in Edessa - outside of the Persian empire - and not in any Persian accounts. Apparently the Syrian author found Aphrahat's behavior praiseworthy). They became a place of refuge for monophysites and Nestorians, and that is why the largest number of Christians within the former borders of the Sassanid empire are members of these sects, even if some of them have sought and achieved union with Rome over the past few centuries.
 
That's very interesting- Probably makes a large restless Christian population, chafing from persecution by the fire-worshipers, and finally giving up to the Arabs unlikely. Indeed, the Syrians, grateful for the lack of persecutions they recieved under Orthodox rule, could possibly end up good Persian citizens, though they wouldn't be Zoroastrian, and I suppose that there would be a bit of anger at being ruled over by them... However, the Syriacs weren't exactly overall the most patriotic Byzantines, as they proved during the Arab conquest.
Hm, I still think theres a very good chance that, with some luck, Persia can get away from the waves of Islamic conquest with minimal losses. I'm wondering where the Arabs can go after that, perhaps spreading southward, towards Somalia and sub-saharan Africa?
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
The Christians within the Persian empire had a much better deal than many Persians. I'm thinking of the the Manichaeans, the Zurvanites, and the Mazdakites in particular.

Here's what Ehsan Yarshater (Columbia U) had to say about them:
We may then chart the course of the Mazdakite movement as follows. Sometime in the course of the 5th century, presumably during or soon after the reign of Bahram V, Zardusht Khurragaan, a mobad or possibly a chief mobad of Fasaa, began reform movement in Zoroastrian religion; he claimed to offer a correct interpretation of the Avesta. It is also possible that, claiming, to be an incarnation of an earlier leader, he only renewed and elaborated a movement begun previously by one Bundos, who had resided in Rome for a while and who had come under the influence of some gnostic religions there. The assigning of inner meaning to Zoroastrian scriptures early branded the followers of the movement as Zandiks.

Zardusht's interpretation of the Avesta disguised a set of beliefs, widely spread in late antiquity, which postulated a remote supreme deity and attributed the creation and management of the world to two demiurges. [The rest of this paragraph is about the religious belief of the said interpretation].

[Page 1019] We do not know how the movement fared between its inception and the time of Kavaad. We may assume that it continued to attract followers through quiet missionary work, which prefigured the Baatini da'wa. During Peerooz's reign Iran was afflicted with a number of disasters, and when he was killed in 484, during a catastrophic war with the Hephthalites, Iran was facing formidable social, economic and political problems. The coutry had been weakened by successive wars and heavy taxation, and now was subjected to the humiliation of having to pay tribute to the Hepthalites, while territory was lost to the victors and much of the army destroyed.

About this time the leadership of the sect passed to Mazdak son of Baamdaad, a man of chrisma and revolutionary temper, deeply committed to the notion of social justice and the welfare of the poor. Under his leadership te movement assumed a pronounced social colouring. Capitalizing on popular discontent, Mazdak questioned the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy. He not only envisaged an egalitarian society, but as a man of action also planned to carry out his communistic ideas. The peasants, the artisans and the "have-nots", in general, welcomed his teachings and flocked to his side. His movement was called that of "justice". (However, he did not include the slaves in his scheme, else our sources would not have missed the point as grounds for further invectives against him; cf. below, p. 1024).

Whether any outside influence affected the formulation or the spread of the Mazdakite revolutionary attitude is hard to say; our sources are silent on that. [The rest of this paragraph discusses this outside influence possibility].

[Page 1020] Kavaad, a capable and ambitious king, but also a man of liberal tendencies and with a passion for justice, who resented the restricting power of the nobles and the Church, sided with Mazdak and accepted the movement's interpretation of the good religion. He promulgated a number of laws curtailing the privileges of the nobles and introducing unprecedented social reforms. The king's support gave heart to the sectarians, and disturbances resulted from the Mazdakite mob attacking granaries, storehouses, and the mansions of the affluent and their harems. The nobles reacted sharply and Kavaad was deposed.

When Kavaad returned to the throne with the help of the Hephthalites and the assistance of some of the nobles inclined to Mazdakism, he had been somewhat sobered and acted more cautiously; but there is no reason to believe that he had undergone a drastic change of heart. His acceptance of Mazdakism must have been based on religious grounds, as much as anything else, and he presumably continued his faith, even though the Mazdakites' excesses drove him gradually to agree to their restriction and finally to their suppression.

Mazdak's end and the downfall and massacre of the Mazdakites have been recounted with some element of fiction and fantasy. The Mazdakites were trying to ensure the succession of Kaavus, the elder son of Kavaad and a sympathizer, against Khusrau, Kavaad's younger and favorite son. Khusrau, who was supported by the Zoroastrian priesthood and anti-Mazdakite nobles, eventually persuaded the king to give in to his plans for putting down the sect. By this time the Mazdakite disruptions and possibly also Mazdakite mismanagement of common properties must have alienated many of their earlier supporters, and the desire for a return to law and order was probably spreading. Khusrau arranged for a typical religious debate in which the Mazdakite leader was foredoomed. Most sources mention a massacre of the Mazdakites in Ctesiphon, which apparently took place under Kavaad in about 528 but was directed by Khusrau, who was now assuming de facto royal powers. The massacre must have been followed by a wave of persecutions in the provinces, repeated again at the beginning of Khusrau's reign. The sect lost much of its following and strength, particularly since Khusrau combined his suppression of the Mazdakites with far-reaching social, administrative, and fiscal reforms, carried out with an iron hand. The sect went underground, but survived, particularly outside urban centers.

Pages 1022-1024 discusses the Mazdakite movement, and its influence on uprising against moslem invaders after the fall of the Sassanids upon the arab conquest. The most interesting statement is on page 1022, first paragraph:

With the Muslim conquest and the fall of the Sasanian state the Mazdakites resumed their activities. In the period of sever persecution under the late Sasanians the Mazdakites seem to have developed or refined a system of beliefs which we find later adopted also by the extremist Shi'is.​
 
Top