Self-explanatory title. Basically, reverse the fates of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires during the islamic expansion wars, and possibly have islamic culture be influenced more by the greeks than the persians.
Go!
Go!
AHC: Byzantine Empire falls to the muslims, Sassanid Persia survives
- Thread starter GauchoBadger
- Start date
Well, the Muslims were more interested in the Roman Empire than the Persian. The conquest of Persia was piecemeal because the Empire was in a state of civil war at the time the Muslims attacked Mesopotamia. Every pretender to the Sassanid throne had to prove themselves by regaining Mesopotamia even if Persians were always a minority in that region.
So... preventing the sassanian civil wars would do good for keeping Persian stable and zoroastrian?
If the muslims don't beat Persia, will they choose to march towards Constantinople instead, then?
I think the big things that could help this are:
i) Keep Shahrbaraz alive and on the throne.
ii) Make the Persians realize early on that they can not hold anything west of the Zagros mountains and evacuate their capital and royal treasury to their Persian heartland. That means that the empire doesn't not fragment and can still keep the provinces loyal to the center.
The inverse is harder. I suppose you could have Heraclius trying to hold onto Egypt and the Levant, draining the empire's resources so that it cannot hold Anatolia, but that seems to go against the emperor's OTL personality. Alternatively, having Heraclius die in the early 630s, thus earning him the title of greatest Eastern Roman Emperor in all likelihood, and have the still fragile Roman state crumble even before the Arabs. That said, I think total conquest is unlikely at least in the short time of the defenses of Constantinople but a stronger Arab presence in western Anatolia in the late 7th century would probably eventually cross into Europe and begin strangling whatever was left of the Roman state as the Turks did after the 1350s.
teg
i) Keep Shahrbaraz alive and on the throne.
ii) Make the Persians realize early on that they can not hold anything west of the Zagros mountains and evacuate their capital and royal treasury to their Persian heartland. That means that the empire doesn't not fragment and can still keep the provinces loyal to the center.
The inverse is harder. I suppose you could have Heraclius trying to hold onto Egypt and the Levant, draining the empire's resources so that it cannot hold Anatolia, but that seems to go against the emperor's OTL personality. Alternatively, having Heraclius die in the early 630s, thus earning him the title of greatest Eastern Roman Emperor in all likelihood, and have the still fragile Roman state crumble even before the Arabs. That said, I think total conquest is unlikely at least in the short time of the defenses of Constantinople but a stronger Arab presence in western Anatolia in the late 7th century would probably eventually cross into Europe and begin strangling whatever was left of the Roman state as the Turks did after the 1350s.
teg
To begin with, the hardest part is perhaps making Byzantium weak enough to fall to the Arabs. Constantinople was extremely difficult to capture, further, even with conquest, I doubt with utmost certainty, Muslims will not succeed in holding it. In Iran, the Umayyad continued wars deep into Central Asia engaging the falling Gokturks and then pushing the frontier in India. Whereas, in Europe, they will have to face the invasions of Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars and the already strong Avars and Khazars. There is very little chance they hold anything west of Anatolia.
Also, it should be noted, that I find it unlikely that even if the Sassanids survive, that they won't fall to the Muslim caliphates. Eventually they will succumb, and likely, far sooner than Byzantium. Their geography simply does not lend itself to defense as much as Byzantium did and unlike Byzantium, they will not have Constantinople or vast land of Armenians, Georgians etc holding their frontiers. Infact, the best lands of Iran are near Iraq and the heartlands of Islam, making it a matter of life or death to win pitched battles on the Zagros mountains or in Khuzestan. Further, the entire Persian Gulf will be infested with Arab piracy, and to add to this, the Muslim caliphate will have venues for invasion from sea and from Qeshm into Hormuz from Oman, making it even more difficult to hold out.
As well, there is the Turks and other tribes of the steppe that will make the status of Iran very, very dangerous. Byzantium had a seperation of its two heartlands by sea limiting the effect of predatory peoples such as the Rus, Bulgars and Pechenegs keeping a lid on the amount of damage done to each region. Not to mention, Constantinople saved the empire from total ruin more times than any other capital has saved a nation. There is no way, Susa or Ectbatana will be able to hold out as Constantinople did and it is more dangerous in its location, right on the border with Islamic heartlands. Imagine though, a Turkish tribe arrives and breaks through Ferghana as the Hepthalites did, and proceed to push deep into unpopulated lands inflicting chaos; this goes on just as the Caliphate leads an invasion into Iran. It would require a ruler or general of elite calibre to win this engagement or just to keep the empire alive. Not to mention, this devastation is felt all over, unlike Byzantium which, can suffer devastation in Greece to an extent that it has little effect on Anatolia or vice versa.
Basically, in my opinion, a non Muslim Iran has no chance against the Caliphates in a long term geopolitical conflict, at least without a very lucky several decades.
Also, it should be noted, that I find it unlikely that even if the Sassanids survive, that they won't fall to the Muslim caliphates. Eventually they will succumb, and likely, far sooner than Byzantium. Their geography simply does not lend itself to defense as much as Byzantium did and unlike Byzantium, they will not have Constantinople or vast land of Armenians, Georgians etc holding their frontiers. Infact, the best lands of Iran are near Iraq and the heartlands of Islam, making it a matter of life or death to win pitched battles on the Zagros mountains or in Khuzestan. Further, the entire Persian Gulf will be infested with Arab piracy, and to add to this, the Muslim caliphate will have venues for invasion from sea and from Qeshm into Hormuz from Oman, making it even more difficult to hold out.
As well, there is the Turks and other tribes of the steppe that will make the status of Iran very, very dangerous. Byzantium had a seperation of its two heartlands by sea limiting the effect of predatory peoples such as the Rus, Bulgars and Pechenegs keeping a lid on the amount of damage done to each region. Not to mention, Constantinople saved the empire from total ruin more times than any other capital has saved a nation. There is no way, Susa or Ectbatana will be able to hold out as Constantinople did and it is more dangerous in its location, right on the border with Islamic heartlands. Imagine though, a Turkish tribe arrives and breaks through Ferghana as the Hepthalites did, and proceed to push deep into unpopulated lands inflicting chaos; this goes on just as the Caliphate leads an invasion into Iran. It would require a ruler or general of elite calibre to win this engagement or just to keep the empire alive. Not to mention, this devastation is felt all over, unlike Byzantium which, can suffer devastation in Greece to an extent that it has little effect on Anatolia or vice versa.
Basically, in my opinion, a non Muslim Iran has no chance against the Caliphates in a long term geopolitical conflict, at least without a very lucky several decades.
Bump, because I would like to see more opinions on simply a sustained ability of the Sassanid war effort long term against the Caliphate(s).