more successful Constans II = Surviving Sassanid remnant?

I have discussed this with some people who like the byzantine history they pointed to me that had things gone differently during Constans II rule the caliphate would have halted its expansion or severely delayed it allowing for remnants of the Persians to survive.

the first scenario is that the Byzantines win at nikiou in 646 the caliphate in danger of losing Egypt since a 15 000 strong Arab force would have been destroyed the side effects would be that Gregory most likely doesn't not rebel, does a big defeat like this give the persians respite we do know that the province of Sistan revolted in 649 and bishapur by some sources revolted in 646 Armenia, Azerbaijan and Fars also revolted in 649 , Constans willl likely loose Egpyt but the arabs have lost steam early on and Constans been a ok general and especially been a competent administrator alongside denying Mu'awiya a naval base might mean he goes more on the offensive or does more raids giving persia more breathing room.

the other pod would be Constans II wins the battle of the mast and forces Mu'awiya armies out of Anatolia since their navy is destroyed, Constans takes back armenia does some raids during the first fitna could a Persian revolt occurred or the Arabs contesting Armenia and Cilicia from the Byzantines gives the dabuyids and others less pressure?
 
Last edited:
Top