WI: Sassanids conquer Roman Levant in 260s

Didn't the kingdom of Saba' collapse because a flood destroyed the al-Marib dam in 575, leading to a huge diaspora?
I think it's the opposite, the flood was caused by the destruction of the dam for reasons we are not sure of.

The invasion was indeed due climactic reasons.
No it really was not, you really have to be reaching to point climate as the primary reason, it's not something that really transpires from primary sources.

The collapse of the damn made the region unsuitable for the population density at the time.
So wait a second, the collapse of the dam in 575 somehow caused a overpopulation that caused an invasion 2 whole generations later?

The invasion was inevitable, Islam simply unified the tribes which allowed them to take advantage of the exhausted Sassanids and Romans.
Muslims armies were anything but a bunch of migrating groups moving for survivalist reasons., they were pretty professional.
 
I think it's the opposite, the flood was caused by the destruction of the dam for reasons we are not sure of.


No it really was not, you really have to be reaching to point climate as the primary reason, it's not something that really transpires from primary sources.


So wait a second, the collapse of the dam in 575 somehow caused a overpopulation that caused an invasion 2 whole generations later?


Muslims armies were anything but a bunch of migrating groups moving for survivalist reasons., they were pretty professional.

This is quite true, the Arab armies were not fleeing into Iraq with their women and children or even fleeing the collapse of empire elsewhere (like the Ashina Khazar) but were invading with the intent to conquer and defeat its enemies. In other words, a powerful entity arose in Arabia among the Arabs which for long had been too focused on internal wars and so forth to mount its awaited conquest. It may be more akin to how the conquest of the Achaemenid empire is displayed.
 
Could a purely western empire survive after the fall of the east? In otl the west fell first and the east ewas able to survive without it but if it is the other way round will the west survive. Or will it fracture into parts?
 
If Shapur conquers Egypt, not only does he gain Rome's breadbasket, but he would now also control the spice trade from India through the Red Sea. Does Persia at this time have a civil service capable of handling these riches effectively? Perhaps Shapur inherits a Roman-style civil service by default with the conquest of major cities like Antioch and Jerusalem. If he engages in mass deportations to other parts of his empire, where would these new subjects be settled? Where would Roman engineers be most likely employed and in what capacity (building walls, aqueducts)?

This is a major point to be discussed... From what we know, the Sassanid civil service and bureaucracy was minuscule compared to Roman and Han counterparts. Ultimately, what we refer to as the Sassanid Empire, was a confederacy of sorts of eight or so ruling families in the same vein as its predecessor, the Arsacids. The Sassanids were the first among equals, yet only by the agreement of the noble houses, who crowned and made the house of Sassan the emperors. Thus, the Sassanid monarchy relied heavily upon this Arsacid inherited nobility, especially in the empire east of the Tigris and north of Ninevah. So we arrive at how the Sassanid rule these new conquests and what sort of scheme they create to do so. Expanding the noble household lands, creating a bureaucracy in the west yet not in the east or simply making these lands personal fiefs of the Sassanid house. One issue in history, is that the great houses provided the largest section of the military for the Sassanids and also provided for them mostly all building arrangements in the eastern side of the empire. The increase in numbers of free cities in the west, may allow the Sassanid royal house more resources, such that they will not need to infringe upon the noble lands too much, as they eventually would do under Khosrow I, Hormizd IV and Khosrow II, which led to the fall of the Sassanid empire.
 
So we arrive at how the Sassanid rule these new conquests and what sort of scheme they create to do so. Expanding the noble household lands, creating a bureaucracy in the west yet not in the east or simply making these lands personal fiefs of the Sassanid house.

Were the Lakhmids loyal vassals of the Sassanids at this point in time? Perhaps Shapur might grant fiefs to their noble houses in order to dilute the influence of the old Arsacid nobles, at least as far as providing wartime levies. If not, then at least with his new wealth Shapur could afford to hire them as a standing force of light cavalry to protect trade caravans and help put down rebellions.

How does the conquest of the Levant and Egypt affect the political situation in southern Arabia? Apparently in 260 AD only Hadhramaut and Himyar were left to contest control of the region. IOTL Himyar conquered Hadhramaut in 300 AD, but with the Sassanids now ascendant from the Red Sea to the Persian gulf, does either nation have an advantage in getting them to intervene in the conflict? How does a Persian monopoly on the inflow of frankincense and myrrh to the Mediterranean affect the profitability of that trade for southern Arabia?
 
Alot of weird comments on this thread, but I will highlight two arguments:

1. The Roman Empire collapses because it loses Egypt and Syria. IOTL the Roman Empire lost both Egypt and Syria to Odenathus in the 260s, then to the Persians in the 600s, then again to the Arabs in the 630s and 640s, this time more or less permanently (they reconquered part of Syria centuries later). The Roman and East Roman empires survived this each time, and the seventh century East Roman Empire was in much worse shape than the third century Roman Empire. The historical record indicates in fact that the Romans have a good chance of getting them back later.

2. Constantine is butterflied away. Constantine the Great and his family came from the Balkans and his base during the civil war was in the Western half of the empire, where his father spent most of his career. Unless you believe that everything butterflies everything, nothing that happens in Syria and Egypt affects Constantine.

3. Christianity does not spread west. By the 260s Christianity was firmly established in Greece and Anatolia, where it had been spread by St. Paul centuries earlier, and had footholds throughout the western half of the empire even though Christians may have been a majority. There was already missionary activity among the German peoples. Arguably, removing Egyptian Christian Church helps western Christianity in removing the source of most of the doctrinal disputes.

Egypt and Syria were nice to haves but not really essential to Roman power. The Roman Republic was already the greatest power in the Mediterranean before Pompey annexed Syria, and in fact the Republic never annexed Egypt, even turning down an opportunity to at one point. They had other sources of cheap grain and were of too minds about whether they really wanted all those luxuries anyway.

The Sassanians get a boost provided they can both hold on to the conquests and don't fall apart.
 
Egypt and Syria were nice to haves but not really essential to Roman power. The Roman Republic was already the greatest power in the Mediterranean before Pompey annexed Syria, and in fact the Republic never annexed Egypt, even turning down an opportunity to at one point. They had other sources of cheap grain and were of too minds about whether they really wanted all those luxuries anyway.
I'm assuming for the purposes of this thread that Rome holds on to Anatolia west of the Taurus mountains and to the rest of North Africa outside of Egypt. How much would the public grain dole have to be reduced (if any) and in which areas with the loss of Egypt? I could see the curtailment of the silk and spice trade actually having a positive effect on the finances of the Roman Empire. Less gold and silver flowing to China and India means more to spend within the borders of the empire on internal trade and public works, and especially on military defenses of the Rhine border. In the same year as the POD however, Postumus in Gaul declared the Gallic Empire. Do you see the Gallic Empire lasting any longer than OTL with the losses in the east?
By the 260s Christianity was firmly established in Greece and Anatolia, where it had been spread by St. Paul centuries earlier, and had footholds throughout the western half of the empire even though Christians may have been a majority. There was already missionary activity among the German peoples. Arguably, removing Egyptian Christian Church helps western Christianity in removing the source of most of the doctrinal disputes.
Very interesting about the doctrinal disputes. So with a more consistent doctrine do you see Christianity spreading even faster in the empire, even with the likely scapegoating of Christians in the wake of the disaster? Christianity isn't going away in Persia, if anything it will spread more rapidly with the forced resettlement typically seen in Persian conquests. Would the establishment of an Oriental Orthodox "papacy" be likely in the lost Asian territories, or were the churches there too equal in status and too independent-minded?
 
I'm really leaning towards the opinion that the Romans would have taken both Egypt and Syria back in the later 3rd century or early 4th century even if for some reason Aurelian doesn't.

Diocletian and Galerius put a good deal of effort in recovering Egypt, which had revolted/ gone independent, and pushing the boundary of Roman Mesopotamia the furthest east it had been. An empire consisting of Italy, the Balkans, Anatolia, and North Africa has more than sufficient resources to recover Egypt and Syria, in fact this was the extent of the Roman holdings when the took Egypt and Syria in the first place, they would have gone for it, and more Emperors than not were at least competent generals. As for the Gallic sub-Empire, Aurelian recovered it only two years after dealing with Palmyra, so he didn't need the resources of the Levant to deal with it.
 
Diocletian and Galerius put a good deal of effort in recovering Egypt, which had revolted/ gone independent, and pushing the boundary of Roman Mesopotamia the furthest east it had been. An empire consisting of Italy, the Balkans, Anatolia, and North Africa has more than sufficient resources to recover Egypt and Syria, in fact this was the extent of the Roman holdings when the took Egypt and Syria in the first place, they would have gone for it, and more Emperors than not were at least competent generals. As for the Gallic sub-Empire, Aurelian recovered it only two years after dealing with Palmyra, so he didn't need the resources of the Levant to deal with it.
It is true that what remains of the Roman Empire is still powerful, and Aurelian is certainly an excellent military commander, but even he waited until after the death of Shapur I and Hormizd I to mount a campaign against the Sassanids, cut short by his assassination in 275. Although he did quickly put an end to the Palmyrene Empire, here he would be facing basically that empire added on to Persia. The Egypt and Syria that the Roman Republic conquered were no match for the Sassanids of TTL. I don't think it would be a walkover for Rome, but who knows. I think the more interesting question is what happens to the policy on religion should Aurelian become emperor, yet not attempt reconquest of the East. It seems Aurelian wanted to strengthen the cult of Sol Invictus so it would be a unifying faith for the Empire. If Aurelian reigns longer could he make it widespread and prestigious enough to resist competition with Christianity and Manichaeism?
 
Last edited:
1. The Roman Empire collapses because it loses Egypt and Syria. IOTL the Roman Empire lost both Egypt and Syria to Odenathus in the 260s, then to the Persians in the 600s, then again to the Arabs in the 630s and 640s, this time more or less permanently (they reconquered part of Syria centuries later). The Roman and East Roman empires survived this each time, and the seventh century East Roman Empire was in much worse shape than the third century Roman Empire. The historical record indicates in fact that the Romans have a good chance of getting them back later.
It depends on what peopel mean by collapse, but the resources needed to deal with the East and the instability caused by such a loss could cause further losses in the European frontier.
The historical record is virtually irrelevant, you can't compare situations from centuries apart.

2. Constantine is butterflied away. Constantine the Great and his family came from the Balkans and his base during the civil war was in the Western half of the empire, where his father spent most of his career. Unless you believe that everything butterflies everything, nothing that happens in Syria and Egypt affects Constantine.
This makes no sense, you don't have to believe that "everything butterflies anything" to believe that a man whose rise happened more than a generation after this very important POD is not going to appear in this timeline.

3. Christianity does not spread west. By the 260s Christianity was firmly established in Greece and Anatolia, where it had been spread by St. Paul centuries earlier, and had footholds throughout the western half of the empire even though Christians may have been a majority. There was already missionary activity among the German peoples. Arguably, removing Egyptian Christian Church helps western Christianity in removing the source of most of the doctrinal disputes.
Christianity would definitely be hampered by removing the Levant and Egypt, it would be seen as more foreign than otherwise. Also what was this supposed missionary activity in the 3rd century? If there was any it was relatively irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Egypt and Syria were nice to haves but not really essential to Roman power. The Roman Republic was already the greatest power in the Mediterranean before Pompey annexed Syria, and in fact the Republic never annexed Egypt, even turning down an opportunity to at one point. They had other sources of cheap grain and were of too minds about whether they really wanted all those luxuries anyway.
The logic is faulty, you could argue that Rome could easily conquer all of the Sassanids and point as the argument the fact that Alexander did the same with less territories, but really you can't compare such things.
 
So suppose that Odaenathus failed to achieve surprise, resulting in his death and the massacre of the Palmyrene forces. There would be nothing left to prevent the Levant from falling under Persian control.

Actually Odenathus, although a good ally of Rome, did not represent Shapur's only challenge. The sassanid decision to retreat (even before Odenanthus struck) resulted from the counterattack of Callistus ('Ballista").

Was Shapur the kind of monarch who could peacefully integrate this region into his empire?

As Grant once noted he plundered the Roman East with little regard for public opinion, suggesting he was just interested in loot and did not contemplate permanent annexation. The key difference between the Roman and Sassanid armies was that the former was a standing one, the latter raised temporarily. I presume that's why Shapur twice invaded the eastern provinces without trying to hold them. They were lucrative sources of plunder but evidently couldn't be held for long.
 
Were the Lakhmids loyal vassals of the Sassanids at this point in time? Perhaps Shapur might grant fiefs to their noble houses in order to dilute the influence of the old Arsacid nobles, at least as far as providing wartime levies. If not, then at least with his new wealth Shapur could afford to hire them as a standing force of light cavalry to protect trade caravans and help put down rebellions.

How does the conquest of the Levant and Egypt affect the political situation in southern Arabia? Apparently in 260 AD only Hadhramaut and Himyar were left to contest control of the region. IOTL Himyar conquered Hadhramaut in 300 AD, but with the Sassanids now ascendant from the Red Sea to the Persian gulf, does either nation have an advantage in getting them to intervene in the conflict? How does a Persian monopoly on the inflow of frankincense and myrrh to the Mediterranean affect the profitability of that trade for southern Arabia?

It would be approximately 65 years before the Lakhmids would be subjugated by the Sassanids. At the time of 260-270, the Lakhmids are currently moving between the lower Nejd and Ahsa regions of Arabia and thus not in their historical range of al-Hira (near modern Kufa), the lower Euphrates and the coast of Bahrayn-Kuwayt. By around the late 290s, we might say that the Lakhmids arrived near the Euphrates and by at least 310, had constructed al-Hira and began their much wider disputes with the Sassanids. In the 270s, it is known that the Lakhmids did attack Sassanid lands in Iran, but this was through piracy along the coastal regions of the Ahsa and Oman and were small-scale. It is only whence the Lakhmids encroached upon Sassanid Babylonia, that the Sassanids turn their attention southward. It would be until Shapur II (309-379) that the Lakhmids would be dealt with by the Sassanids and made a vassal around 334-335.

The Lakhmids have no noble houses with which to bestow these lands to, or at least none who would be recognized as such by the Sassanid imperial complex. In the 4th and 3rd century, the Sassanid policy have not suffered any defeat by the Arabs and will not see any benefit to giving what they may have seen as an inferior people any land. Their duty was to submit and pay tribute, not to be given land grants. Further, assuming the Sassanids did gift land to Arab tribes across Syria, what sort of troops would they receive from this? The Partho-Dahae were particularly valuable as they were the only group outside of the steppe region providing a large assortment of heavy cavalry, horse archers and additionally a large assortment of other troops derived either from their subjects or from mercenary and slaves that they owned. The houses were also not simply feudal land owning classes likened to Medieval Europe, these were in essence independent kingdoms who accepted Sassanian imperial titles for the sake of maintaining a certain decentralized status quo. Sassanian legitimacy thus, oddly revolved around their acceptance of total noble control east of the Tigris and upon the houses agreement to their rule. Sassanian personal lands in Iraq and the various free cities (which were either Babylonian-Assyrian-Aramaic-etc or were old Hellenic free cities used by the Seleucids) did not provide the necessary military resources that made the Sassanian armies famous to Rome, that being horsemanship, especially horse archers and heavily armored Saravan-Cataphractoi. It should also be noted, that only a minority of the free cities constructed during the 424 years of the empire, were constructed by the Sassanian clan, the majority were constructed by the great houses and thus these cities would have been subservient to the noble patrons; this situation is partly the scenario for later Sassanian royal jealousy against the noble houses of Karen, Ispahbudhan and so forth (particularly during the reign of Khosrow I and Hormozd IV).

Regardless, I find it more likely for the Sassanian royalty to gift some lands to its nobles, especially the Ispahbudhan and possibly the Surens, both of whom held the most power at this time in the imperial court. The Ispahbudhan having the privilege of marrying their daughters to Sassanian monarchs and or arranging the marriage and the Surens who were the Parthian house Sistan by proxy the entirety of what was formerly the southern reaches of the Kushan empire. In fact, it is these two families that likely solidified the Sassanian royalty after the battle of Hormozdgan and the death of emperor Artobanus IV (the last Arsacied emperor) and gained from the other noble houses, acceptance of the Sassanian rule and formulated the confederation of the later Persian empire. Then after distributing some lands near the noble houses, it would be the best course and most likely course for the Sassanian royalty to utilize the local populace as free cities and areas ruled directly by the Sassanian kings as personal fiefs. For this, the Sassanians will need to create governor positions and military generalships, create naval sectors and so forth. In otl, the Sassanid royalty did not require as large an apparatus for governors and so forth, as the only areas under direct Sassanid control, were some areas within the Ahvaz, Fars and then their capital region of Babylonia. The rest of the empire was ruled directly by noble houses who collected taxes in their own name and then sent the portion necessary to Cteshipon as a due. Until Khosrow I, there was no Sassanian tax collection in Iran and areas east of the Zagros or north of Ninevah, this is likely a long set precedence by 260, which had been set for about 500 years, since the fall of the Seleucid empire, that the rebellious and freedom seeking Dahae-Pahlavi clans never paid taxes, rather they collected taxes and paid a due.

Thus, the addition of these lands in the west, used to a bureaucracy and knowledge of this sort of system, will be likened to a treasure trove for the Sassanians. Sassanid monarchs may seek alliances with the local peoples, especially courting the Jewish populace and use their know-how to create a bureaucracy of some sorts, to collect rudiment taxes and collect tolls and so forth. Additional income through this, will allow the Sassanids to funnel more resources and gifts upon the noble houses. During the majority of Sassanian history, while the monarchy received dues form the noble houses, the nobles also received supplements. These supplements acted as almost refunds on portions of the dues that the nobles gave to the monarch. Thus, at any time, the nobles would present a report of some kind to the Sassanian monarch, this report would include mainly requests. As far as substance, requests usually amounted to a request for a certain amount of armor or a certain amount of resources to be able to maintain a particular unit and the Sassanid monarch was essentially bound to accept these requests and refusals often led to a deposed monarch. All of the so-called good emperors prior to Khosrow I, were the ones that essentially followed the customs regarding the nobles and their requests, which likely, as we say, derive from 500-700 years of blissful decentralized rule under the Arsacids, Kushans, Bactians and Seleucids. Part of the issue in later eras, is that Sassanian treasuries began to become less abundant as time moved on and thus the noble requests became more and more and more of an hindrance. Especially considering a reality wherein the nobility became known for cutting corners and requesting items they already had or listing infantry as cavalry so as to increase their budgets. It also was an issue when certain noble houses, such as the Surens cut corners and used their budgets for hiring mercenary to send to fight wars, instead of training cavalry (it was far cheaper to higher steppe horsemen from the Huns, Kushan, Turks, etc than it was to train a hardened noble cavalry man). However, this was an issue approximately 300 years after the POD, thus the Sassanids even without the western lands have enough to pay the nobles a refund; thus this additional income; is used for the sake of building larger warchests fro hiring mercenary, creating a standing army for the west (leave the east to be protected by those who know the region, the nobles), building more free cities, expanding and creating a navy, lavish gifts to the nobles, a new campaign into Anatolia, etc etc etc...

Regarding trade policy, the Sassanian system was even more decentralized than their tax system. Namely, the Sassanids permitted the nobles to control all trade in their lands, which constituted some 80% of the empire.This means that the nobility had their own tolls, their own regulations and their own systems. The nobles thus controlled the wealth of the Sassanian capitol region of Babylonia, at least by land. This included noble control over the important trade of silk, gold (from the lands of the Saka), spices, and all goods peddled across the silk road; not to mention one of the most important, the resource of horses, which the Sassanian fiefs had very little possession of, as Iraq is not wealthy in the equine breeds (one of the main interests that the nobles had, was the acquisition of horses from the steppe, to be used in their units and to maintain a semblance of their steppe origins). Another issue Sassanian royals had, as early as 270, was that unlike the Seleucids and Bactrians, which gathered much strength through the slave trade between free cities (the Seleucids created the concept of the free city in the Eranshahr, one of the greatest legacies of the Seleucid empire, is their creation of a tradition of city creation for monarchs and designating certain cities as free from typical restrictions), the Sassanians could not gain from this, as for reasons not clear, the slave trade in the east had declined enormously compared to prior centuries during Hellenism or the Saka-Scythian ruled periods. This lack of slave economies centred upon free cities benefited the noble houses, by lowering the number of merchants with slave labor, making the nobles and their subjects far more valuable and powerful. With that in mind, the Sassanid acquisition of the western regions will be massive boon toward trade income, and will allow more resources to flow throughout the empire than previously. As long as Sassanian interests do not move toward controlling the noble's lands, I cannot see them protesting or becoming agitated. The main issue here, is that the Sassanids are not well versed in the task of controlling these sea trade routes. The best idea is for the Sassanids to utilize the existing populace and allow them freedom to manage this system, perhaps simply implementing a due system like with the nobles, but without any sort of refund system like with the nobles military requests.

In terms of raising troops, my advice would be to not recruit form these populaces much more, and especially not rely on them for campaigns. The Sassanid prowess exists in the noble houses and their armies, not in raising a polyglot foreign army. At least, do not rely on these. It would be better to have a standing Persian army, than an army made up of these newly acquired subjects.
 
Last edited:
Actually Odenathus, although a good ally of Rome, did not represent Shapur's only challenge. The sassanid decision to retreat (even before Odenanthus struck) resulted from the counterattack of Callistus ('Ballista").



As Grant once noted he plundered the Roman East with little regard for public opinion, suggesting he was just interested in loot and did not contemplate permanent annexation. The key difference between the Roman and Sassanid armies was that the former was a standing one, the latter raised temporarily. I presume that's why Shapur twice invaded the eastern provinces without trying to hold them. They were lucrative sources of plunder but evidently couldn't be held for long.

It depends on what you mean by standing armies. In the case of Sassanid armies, they are not necessarily like levies, in that the Sassanids and the noble hhouses provided for the infrastructure for an army, just not one that existed year round exactly patrolling the frontiers. Thus, it was not like a steppe horde, which waged war only for plunder sake and if plunder was not acquired fast enough, the army melted. Rather, there was existing material for pay, just not centralized and not raised in the sense of Roman armies.
 
One of the interesting possibilities of TTL is the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, should Shapur I decide to resettle Jewish refugees there. It was still a Roman pagan city at this point, so I don't see the locals protesting nearly as much as the Christians did when Khosrau II attempted the same thing in the 600s. If the Temple is rebuilt, do we see a recreation of the Sadducee class that disappeared when the Second Temple was destroyed? Would Babylonian Jews likely move in large numbers to Jerusalem, and how would their contact with ex-Roman Jews possibly influence the compilation of the Talmud that was occuring in the 3rd century?
I find it more likely for the Sassanian royalty to gift some lands to its nobles, especially the Ispahbudhan and possibly the Surens, both of whom held the most power at this time in the imperial court.
If lands in the Levant and Egypt are gifted to these houses, would I be correct in assuming that they would be governed by the sons of the house ruler? This raises the interesting possibility of these sons "going native", adopting the religion, dress, and ideas of governance from the locals. Those that return to the original fiefs east of the Tigris might find it difficult to rule their lesser nobles, who would see them as being corrupted by the enemy's ways.
 
One of the interesting possibilities of TTL is the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, should Shapur I decide to resettle Jewish refugees there. It was still a Roman pagan city at this point, so I don't see the locals protesting nearly as much as the Christians did when Khosrau II attempted the same thing in the 600s. If the Temple is rebuilt, do we see a recreation of the Sadducee class that disappeared when the Second Temple was destroyed? Would Babylonian Jews likely move in large numbers to Jerusalem, and how would their contact with ex-Roman Jews possibly influence the compilation of the Talmud that was occuring in the 3rd century?
If lands in the Levant and Egypt are gifted to these houses, would I be correct in assuming that they would be governed by the sons of the house ruler? This raises the interesting possibility of these sons "going native", adopting the religion, dress, and ideas of governance from the locals. Those that return to the original fiefs east of the Tigris might find it difficult to rule their lesser nobles, who would see them as being corrupted by the enemy's ways.

No no, I was referring to gifting lands such disputed along the border to the clans that that rule north of Ninevah. Thus, expanding noble held lands across Armenia, Capadocia, Pontus, etc... There is also a possibility this early for a pardon to the Arsacid noble house in Armenia....

I am not sure on the reconstruction of the Sadducees. There is a possibility for the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, however, this will be quite a cost. It may be better used in warfare.
 
Hello everybody, from the looks of things I can see Christians and Jews getting along much better than they did IRL as they may be united in their hatred of Roman persecution and thus may not have as many disputes over Jesus's crucifixation ie: The Romans were mostly responsible and may have coerced the jews inti going along with it. I can also possibly seeing the various Sassanid Shanashas encouraging dialogue between christians and jews to prevent unrest and to unite them in a war effort against the Romans. Also regarding the holding of land in the Sassanid Levant, could Shapur grant such lands to either local Christian and Jewish leaders or soldiers of noble descent that distinguished themselves while on campaign? Additionally would there be an eventual war to try to take all of Anatolia or perhaps live up to the Achamenid legacy by trying to invade Roman Greece?
 
Top