WI: Rashidun stop at Mesopotamia?

[SunKing105]

While looking from a broad macro-historical perspective the conquests were quick and inevitable after the devastation of the war of 602-628 and the various internal crises both the Byzantines and Sassanids had to deal with afterward, Umar(RA), after defeating the Byzantines and Sassanids at Yarmouk and Al-Qadissiyah respectively due to their failure to coordinate, wanted to stop at Mesopotamia and not press further into Iran, as it looked to be the dividing line between the Muslims and Sassanids and is reported saying:

I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war.

and:

"I wish there was a mountain of fire between us and the Iranians, so that neither they could get to us, nor we to them."

The Sassanids kept raiding Mesopotamia, resulting in political instability there, as a result the Rashidun invaded Ahvaz in 638, where the Sassanid commander Hormuzan agreed to accept Rashidun suzerainity over the area and to rule as their vassal. Hormuzan broke the agreement three times, each time being pardoned, until the third time when he was captured and sent to Medina, where he apparently accepted Islam. Yazdegerd III then raised a large army, which was defeated at the battle of Nahavand. Umar changed his strategy and decided to engage in an all-out conquest of the Sassanid empire, invading Iran proper, which would continue to provide resistance until Yazdegerd III was killed by a miller in Merv, at which point the Sassanid royal clan fled into lands controlled by the Tang. So what if the dividing line at the Zagros had held, and the Sassanids had officially made peace with the Muslims, reasoning that while losing Mesopotamia is a mortal blow, they can retake it at some point in the future, while the situation is highly unfavorable to them at this point, to avoid a complete conquest. Let's also say that the Great Houses don't overthrow the Sassanids and the agreement holds, the Sassanids can get their house in order while the Rashidun are free to concentrate against the Byzantines. In such a scenario, could we see an Arab Anatolia? What would be the effect on both the Byzantines and the Sassanids? The effects on Central Asia and Iran are absolutely enormous, and the early development of Islam is also hugely impacted, this could butterfly away Umar's death, and either butterfly away or heavily alter the details the First Fitna. Is such a scenario at all plausible? Would there be a rematch at some point? Could we see an earlier siege of Constantinople?

 

[SunKing105]

What is the effect on India?

 

[Abd ar-Rahman II]

While looking from a broad macro-historical perspective the conquests were quick and inevitable after the devastation of the war of 602-628 and the various internal crises both the Byzantines and Sassanids had to deal with afterward, Umar(RA), after defeating the Byzantines and Sassanids at Yarmouk and Al-Qadissiyah respectively due to their failure to coordinate, wanted to stop at Mesopotamia and not press further into Iran, as it looked to be the dividing line between the Muslims and Sassanids and is reported saying:

and:

"I wish there was a mountain of fire between us and the Iranians, so that neither they could get to us, nor we to them."

The Sassanids kept raiding Mesopotamia, resulting in political instability there, as a result the Rashidun invaded Ahvaz in 638, where the Sassanid commander Hormuzan agreed to accept Rashidun suzerainity over the area and to rule as their vassal. Hormuzan broke the agreement three times, each time being pardoned, until the third time when he was captured and sent to Medina, where he apparently accepted Islam. Yazdegerd III then raised a large army, which was defeated at the battle of Nahavand. Umar changed his strategy and decided to engage in an all-out conquest of the Sassanid empire, invading Iran proper, which would continue to provide resistance until Yazdegerd III was killed by a miller in Merv, at which point the Sassanid royal clan fled into lands controlled by the Tang. So what if the dividing line at the Zagros had held, and the Sassanids had officially made peace with the Muslims, reasoning that while losing Mesopotamia is a mortal blow, they can retake it at some point in the future, while the situation is highly unfavorable to them at this point, to avoid a complete conquest. Let's also say that the Great Houses don't overthrow the Sassanids and the agreement holds, the Sassanids can get their house in order while the Rashidun are free to concentrate against the Byzantines. In such a scenario, could we see an Arab Anatolia? What would be the effect on both the Byzantines and the Sassanids? The effects on Central Asia and Iran are absolutely enormous, and the early development of Islam is also hugely impacted, this could butterfly away Umar's death, and either butterfly away or heavily alter the details the First Fitna. Is such a scenario at all plausible? Would there be a rematch at some point? Could we see an earlier siege of Constantinople?

All of this is very possible but it depend on how quickly the Sasanids are too broke the peace . And it would seem dangerous to try take Constantinople when a Iranian backstab is quite possible .

What is the effect on India?

No Parsi ? And if Iran doesn’t become Muslim some time latter no Islamic state in India ? So a very changed India

 

[Lady Visenya]

All of this is very possible but it depend on how quickly the Sasanids are too broke the peace . And it would seem dangerous to try take Constantinople when a Iranian backstab is quite possible .

And if something like the 717 siege happened, and the Persians backstabbed while the Caliphs were bogged down in the "west"?

I don't see the Persians retaking Mesopotamia then, but they could probably gain substantial loot. Or a tribute deal while the Arabs are busy with the Romans.

 

[Osman Aga]

@John7755 يوحنا

 

[Osman Aga]

As long as the Sassanids are unwilling to accept the loss of Mesopotamia it is unlikely the Rashidun will refrain from invading Persia. Even a future invasion of the Persians can start a later conquest of Persia (success or failure depends on the state of the Arabs and Persians). Then there is the chance of Turkic Tribes invading Persia from the East. Assuming the Persians are fully subdued, how will the Turks in Persia react to the Arabs in the Fertile Crescent? The Khazars had often fought with the Arabs, but this time, they are near the heart of the Caliphate.
If Persia is not entirely subdued, the Arabs are even better off as the Persians will not start a new war while already facing Turkic raids.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The Sassanians once they recover are going to try and retake their old capital back with a vengeance. Mesopotamia and Ctesiphon has been the historic capital/heartland of the Iranian Empire for centuries by this point.

 

[Dfront21]

The Sassanids were in a civil war when the Arabs attacked. Who will the Arabs make peace with? There's no legitimate authority in Iran at the time.

 

[A Repentant Heretic]

Maybe have the Sassanids be destroyed in the civil war before the Arab conquest went full swing, and make the new dynasty of Iran too preoccupied to make a hostile move against the Mesopotamia?

 

[BIZANTINUL]

Mesopotamia is an open plain so militarily speaking it would be unwise to have hostile regimes in Iran or Syria-Palestine or Arabia. You need some degree of control in all thread regions to be secure in Mesopotamia (all ancient mesopotamian states have for this reason tried to reduce the surrounding region to vassalage or impose direct control). As per this logic for the populations in Iran or Arabia, Mesopotamia is a great prize, a rich agricultural and decently urbanism area.

 

[SunKing105]

All of this is very possible but it depend on how quickly the Sasanids are too broke the peace . And it would seem dangerous to try take Constantinople when a Iranian backstab is quite possible .

It depends when an attempt is made. If they are unable to sort out the many ailments their empire is suffering as a result of both the 602-628 war, the various civil wars and internal strife, and the loss of their most valuable province and a base of Sassanid royal control as a counterweight to the power of the Great Houses, or even collapse and balkanize, in time, then attacking the Arabs at their height would be suicide. On the other hand, if they do manage to sort out these issues and strike at an opportune time, perhaps during the First Fitna or some other analogue, then they might be able to disrupt it.

 

[SunKing105]

The Sassanids were in a civil war when the Arabs attacked. Who will the Arabs make peace with? There's no legitimate authority in Iran at the time.

Maybe have the Sassanids be destroyed in the civil war before the Arab conquest went full swing, and make the new dynasty of Iran too preoccupied to make a hostile move against the Mesopotamia?

I thought that by 636-637 Yazdegerd III was at least recognized in Pars and parts of Khuzestan, by the Parsig and Pahlav factions? Surely if he had enough authority to raise as much as he did at Nahavand, then he can at least get some of the factions in alignment with the peace deal?

 

[A Repentant Heretic]

I thought that by 636-637 the civil war was mostly over and Yazdegerd III was at least recognized in Pars and parts of Media?

I meant the civil war before that. Sometimes during the 628-early 630s. Have the entire House of Sassan be destroyed with no Yazdegerd III on the throne at all.

 

[SunKing105]

I meant the civil war before that. Sometimes during the 628-early 630s. Have the entire House of Sassan be destroyed with no Yazdegerd III on the throne at all.

Then that will only make conquest easier and discourage the Rashidun from entertaining the possibility of maintaining the frontier at the Zagros in favor of complete conquest.

 

[A Repentant Heretic]

Then that will only make conquest easier and discourage the Rashidun from entertaining the possibility of maintaining the frontier at the Zagros in favor of complete conquest.

On the other hand, it was the Sassanids' continued ability to raise troops that convinced the Rashiduns that the Persia has to be completely conquered. Without that, they may instead focus more on the Romans.

 

[Silver01]

The Sassanids were in a civil war when the Arabs attacked. Who will the Arabs make peace with? There's no legitimate authority in Iran at the time.

Supposedly yazdager III but he didn't have control in many regions but none of them bordered the caliphate

 

[Silver01]

On the other hand, it was the Sassanids' continued ability to raise troops that convinced the Rashiduns that the Persia has to be completely conquered. Without that, they may instead focus more on the Romans.

But then again the persians are dissolving already with a respite we can see another round of civil war

 

[Silver01]

I thought that by 636-637 Yazdegerd III was at least recognized in Pars and parts of Khuzestan, by the Parsig and Pahlav factions? Surely if he had enough authority to raise as much as he did at Nahavand, then he can at least get some of the factions in alignment with the peace deal?

Not all of his empire recognized him the Pahlav did only in the first 5 years of his rule so by the pod they don't
Only pars Sakastan and pars
The northern and eastern parthian clans didn't help them they were neutral or helped the arabs