Albert.Nik
Banned
Persian rule,dominance and population remains in Persia,Eastern Middle East,Iran,Central Asia. Zoroastrianism could continue being the religion or could breakdown to be replaced by a version of Christianity or something like that. Muslims in this timeline wouldn't have much hold on Ex Byzantine territories as well with now Sassanids being Byzantine allies and hence Egypt,Levant and North Africa remains Byzantine ruled.
I would say that there is plenty of effective ability to maintain the western conquests, even if Persia is cut off to them. Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa are all a pretty firm basis for an empire.
This will have a major development on Islam as a religion and arab culture though. Persian influences are going to be far less ITTL than in OTL, and so expect a much larger impact on these things from Roman and the peoples of the western Middle East.
Albert.Nik
Banned
Yes. But if Persia allies with Byzantium as Armenians allied with Romans/Byzantines,these territories would be gone soon and Byzantines would take them back with the help of Persians.
Why would the Persians help the byzantines to take back their old territories.
If Persia is strong enough to defeat the Muslims that seems to imply a weaker Caliphate. Perhaps Khalid ibn al-Walid is killed before he gets to convert to Islam, maybe in the process he cripples it's ability to expand.
If we're assuming a PoD that's within Mohammed's lifetime instead of merely restricting it to the time of his revelation then you could just have the Persians kill Heraclius during his campaign and win the war. This also pretty much precludes Islam's success, or at the very least weakens it enough that Syria and Egypt to the Caliphate. Then the Persians survive but maybe lose Mesopotamia and move their capital back to Fars?
I still find it hard to see the Byzantines fall to Islam but Persia survives. Constantinople is far more easily defended than any Sassanid capital would be, and if you can preserve a political center like Constantinople your state is much more survivable.
If we're assuming a PoD that's within Mohammed's lifetime instead of merely restricting it to the time of his revelation then you could just have the Persians kill Heraclius during his campaign and win the war. This also pretty much precludes Islam's success, or at the very least weakens it enough that Syria and Egypt to the Caliphate. Then the Persians survive but maybe lose Mesopotamia and move their capital back to Fars?
I still find it hard to see the Byzantines fall to Islam but Persia survives. Constantinople is far more easily defended than any Sassanid capital would be, and if you can preserve a political center like Constantinople your state is much more survivable.
They’re not, they’re still ancient rivals. The arabs just add a piece of that in there.
Albert.Nik
Banned
Except in this ATL,they would ally. There would be two hypothetical explanations that would be fabricated. That Greeks and Persians have a common descent(we know that today) or that both have a same God in their beliefs. Such an alliance would help both survive for long.
Sasanian survival + Arab conquest of Egypt and the Levant seems very unlikely unless the Sasanians have moved their capital east of the Zagros before the 602—628 war.
Completely irrelevant. There was no need for deep etnological or theological explanations other than: "Those guys from south attacked us. Lets gang-up on them!"
Also, OTL they cooperated occasionally against Arabs, but it was purely initiative of individual commanders.
Useless. Having different ethnicity and religions was not obstacle for alliance, and having shared ethnicity and religion was not obstacle for war. Slightly different Christian denominations hated each other guts. They're not suddenly gonna become ecumenical with Zoroastrians, so point is moot anyway.
Besides, were not talking long term alliance, just alliance of opportunity against common enemy.
Maurice averting or defeating coup and being succeeded naturally by his son would keep peace between Romans and Sassanids long enough, that Sassanids get invaded while at their top form, means they'll probably beat Arabs one-on-one. If they stay in their fortresses, forcing enemy to siege them, rather than fight Arabs in open fields playing to the strength of invaders, they're gonna win.
They do not even need to ally: in order to have Persia survive, they must defeat soundly the arabs, that means they are weaker and when they try on roman territory, they are thrased.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
If the Persians halt Muslim advance in Iraq... they are in a way more stronger position. From Iraq they can hit the Arab Peninsula and Levant and put more pressure on the Arabs. This is, assuming the Muslims still givs the Romans a beating.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Yes. There is a theory that Caliph Umar ibn Khattab wanted a Natural border with Persia. The Persians remaining on the East of the Zagros. The Persian King refused and attacked and was eventually overpowered. Not sure if this is true, @John7755 يوحنا may know...
But if it is true, there is a good chance Persia survives, and the Caucasus remain Persian zone of influence, possible conflict with the Khazars. The East Romans are in bigger trouble than OTL.
If this is a scenario where the Persians somehow retain Mesopotamia and the Romans lose Syria, Palestine, and Egypt (perhaps the Arabs go after the Romans first), Persia has everything to gain from either having both sides fight each other. Their long time rivals are now weak and occupied with this new upstart empire and the Arabs are too busy dealing with their Persian loss and holding their spoils of war to have any thought of trying for Persia in long time.
Given that the Persians have no real religious or ethnic incentives to help either side (common ancestry really doesn't make you friends with an empire that's been your rival for a good few centuries especially when it considers itself more Roman than Greek at the current time) the Persians can choose whichever side benefits them and aid them until they wear themselves out.
Given that the Persians have no real religious or ethnic incentives to help either side (common ancestry really doesn't make you friends with an empire that's been your rival for a good few centuries especially when it considers itself more Roman than Greek at the current time) the Persians can choose whichever side benefits them and aid them until they wear themselves out.
Last edited:
If Heraclius kills Wahid in battle, which is not impossible, then Persia probably can hang in there. Without quick expansion, the Caliphate is contained.