A few threads here have postulated what could happen in Persia and Central Asia if the Arabs fail to break through the Zagros into the core of Persia. But what happens to the Caliphates in that scenario, in particular the Umayyads? Persia and Khorasan were the power bases of the Abbasids. Are there any other areas from which the Abbasids could potentially stage a successful revolt, in particular if Mesopotamia is retaken by whichever dynasty replaces the Sassanids (let's be honest, without Mesopotamia to fall back on the Sassanids aren't ruling Persia for much longer)? Or do the Umayyads just limp along until the resentment of the Umayyad realm's non-Arabs, especially of the mawali, boils over?
Persians hold the Arabs back at the Zagros: what happens to the Umayyads?
- Thread starter Beefhammer
- Start date
It really depends on the pod if it's nahavand then the caliphate is serious trouble and things can go wrong very quickly , epically if uthman gets to power and like the otl his nepotism causes resentment you might even see an earlier fitna in which the Umayyads might not win out
It would be interesting to read a TL in which the rise of Islam is somewhat curbed and the Caliphate has to deal with both a battered (but surviving) Roman and Persian Empire.
Probably the caliphate ends up with borders similar to the Assyrian empire
Let's say it's a Persian victory at Navahand. What happens?
Plus the Arabian Peninsula and Transjordan.
Last edited:
well depends if the persians are dumb enough to attempt a reconquest of mesopotamia or not from there it can really depend , in the otl in 643 general Valentinus led a campaign against the Arabs, reportedly in a concerted pincer movement with an Armenian general named David. Valentinus's army, however, was routed while thedore the next year also won a battle against the invading arabs, seeing a mulsim army destroyed and if the muslims fear a persian move they migth move troops so i can see Valentinus trying to attack
Caliph Umar actually wanted peace following the conquest of Mesopotamia and Khuzestan but the Sassanids declined.
This topic of Arab invasions is something difficult to predict, seeing how they just left Arabia (and they weren't even like the Ghassanids or Lakhmids who were in constant contact with the Romans And persians Respectively) And they defeated two of the most powerful and ancient empires of the old world (Roman Empire and the Persian Empire) In a short time (Unlike the Germanic migrations that took decades Not to mention that the Germans had integrated themselves into the Roman army, etc.) , the Arabs reached Constantinople and only did not conquer it because it was materially almost impossible for them, If someone told any Persian or Roman a year after the war between Heraclius and Khosraw that the Arabs would unite and defeat (humiliate) them, any Persian or Roman would laugh.
The Persians need a miracle, like Win
Battle of al-Qādisiyyah In a way that stalls the Arab invasions of Persia long enough for the Sasanians to reorganize, It would also be essential for the Sasanians to move the capital to a location that would be very difficult for the Arabs to capture.
The Persians need a miracle, like Win
Battle of al-Qādisiyyah In a way that stalls the Arab invasions of Persia long enough for the Sasanians to reorganize, It would also be essential for the Sasanians to move the capital to a location that would be very difficult for the Arabs to capture.
They would try to attack later and got defeated, Sassanid legitimacy comes from mesopotamia
What if the Sassanids are overthrown and replaced by a new dynasty before that can happen?
I don't think so. Caliph Umar considered Mesopotamia and Khuzestan enough land for the Arabs. He did not want to conquer the Iranian Plateau.
Basically speaking, they would regroup and try again some years later but in the mean time, they would focus more on the Byzantines and Europe, so expect parts of Anatolia to be further lost and maybe a victory in the Battle of Tours. Like you said, Sassanids aren't likely to last longer and civil war would come, so expect the Arabs to take advantage of that
This an unlikely view even by a few years striking very deep into Anatolia wasn't done much before the navy was created ( because of supply ) and the caliphate didn't want to create one hence why its not until 647 we see any sort of naval attack and not until 650s that we see the Muslim gain that and by this point Iran as whole fell those troops imo would first be used to secure the Caucasus earlier given how Armenia was a back and forth for a while
They would have used the Iranians troops against the ere so north Africa is conquered faster,even more of AnatoliaWould be some interesting borders if the Caliphate ends up like this:
So why did the Arabs reach Tours? With all due respect, but even if Umar was speaking sincerely, the next caliph would certainly attack.
More If like otl the Persian going to attack again, giving the caliphate a pipeline against them
I don't think that Persians would accept the loss of Mesopotamia, so Arabs should focus more on the defence in Zagros, like in Taurus IOTL, especially if Romans and Persians will have alliance against the Caliphate