Sassanids/Avars finish off Byzantium

[Kitsunegari]

Let's say that Heraclius's ship gets caught in a storm before he can reach Constantinople and depose Phocas and eventually save Byzantium from the Persian/Avar alliance. My opinion of what would have happened had the great city falls to the allies: Persia takes all of the former empire's Asian territories and Egypt, while the Slavs, Greeks, Avars, and Bulgars are in a free for all in the Balkans. In Italy the only different result might have been the Franks taking the whole of the peninsula after being called in to oust the Lombards. Roman Africa and Libya would be an interesting situation, they might have continued as a rump state or fallen to the Berbers. The biggest change IMO would have been that a greatly enriched and confident Persia, controlling most of the former Achaemenid Empire, would probably have fended off the Muslim invasions (had they come at all). Thoughts?

[Jlop985]

I wonder if the Persians would have tolerated the Christians in the Roman lands, or if they would have tried to impose Zoroastrianism.

[Nihirizumu no tsumetai ame]

i believe that a Neo-persian golden age would have risen since in ancient times, conquests usually resulting in an exchange of culture, religion, and technology. Given to evidence, is that Before the Islamic conquests the Byzantine Empire was at its Golden Age, hence if somehow the Sassanids took over from the Byzantines, this might have carried over to Sassanid rule, but of course, there again lies the question of whether it would survive Islamic conquest.

To the post by jlop985, i doubt that the Sassanids would have imposed Zoroastrianism, traditionally the Persians have been tolerant of other religions unless they had a logical reason not to, such as a rebellion....

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I wonder if the Persians would have tolerated the Christians in the Roman lands, or if they would have tried to impose Zoroastrianism.

Khosrau II's (primary?) wife was openly christian, conclude what you will from that.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Your problem is that Heraclius voyage took place in April and I dont believe there were any storms in April. The winter cyclones dont come until Winter.

Better point would be when Heraclius fights his numerous battles. Pick one and declare him a loser there, on the battlefield.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

He lost too, you know.

What he must do is make Heraclius die at, say, Antioch.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Heraclius lost to the Arabs but that was because he was too old and he wasnt in command to begin with. Against the Persians in ARMENIA and Iran he was undefeated all the way to the Persian Capital. Thats what I meant. After disembarking in Armenia.

[Kitsunegari]

If he had died in Media it would probably have been too late for the Persians to win, just a stalemate and the war would have dragged on. In this scenario he doesn't get Constantinople to organize their defenses, the Persians and Avars link up and finally starve the Romans into submission. This might have been followed by a dispute over dividing the spoils between the allies.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Heraclius lost to the Arabs but that was because he was too old and he wasnt in command to begin with. Against the Persians in ARMENIA and Iran he was undefeated all the way to the Persian Capital. Thats what I meant. After disembarking in Armenia.

He was defeated at least once - in 613, at Antioch!

His subordinates were defeated many times.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I am aware of that as well. But I was referring specifically to his campaigns in Armenia and Mesopotamia at the end of the war.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

But Antioch is the most likely time and place for him to die in.

[MathiasOfAthens]

He could of easily lost a battle in Armenia.

[Tangaxuan]

What happens to the Exarchate of Africa though?

[Kitsunegari]

That's an interesting question, it may have survived as a rump state like the Empire of Nicaea did. The Moors were more interested in raiding than conquest so i'm not sure they would have overrun it totally.

[Cyclops]

If this:

... Roman Africa and Libya ...might have continued as a rump state...

Then maybe not this...

... In Italy the only different result might have been the Franks taking the whole of the peninsula after being called in to oust the Lombards...

I think a Roman state centred on Sicily or Carthage would dominate the med. They had a number of cities with the political and educational infrastructure to run an empire, so wherever it was centred it had a chance to outlast the waves of barbaroi. IIRC Heraclius considered fleeing West too (although that might've just been a dramatic bit of storytelling).

New New Rome with its centre shifted back West might retain closer ties with the Papacy, repressing or conquering the Lombards as they had the Ostrogoths, and dealing more closely with the Franks. Culture might ebcome Greek dominated again and Latin might slip to a por third behind Greek and German. Being closer to the action the East Romans might scotch any attempts to cobble a copycat Imperial throne: European unity might rely soley on church, and legitimacy descend from Greek speaking Sicilians rather than rough German princes. No Western empreror might mean no coherent response to the Magyars and Avars-nomads on the Seine?

When the tide of Islam arose it might reach a high water mark in Libya and never reach Iberia if New new Rome was strong enough. Victorious Persia might resist as well as victorious New Rome did in RL: Islam might flood Egypt and the Levant but stop at the Zagros and Taurus. Maybe Islam would make a smaller footprint, and have a more Greek flavour?

To survive anywhere the New new Romans would have to build a solid manpower base as Heraclius and the Iconoclasts did among the farmer soldiers of the themata (in Spain? In Africa? Surely not in slave powered Sicily?): otherwise its just a tortuous spiraling decline as wealth and prestige bleeds away throught he fingers of conspiring warlords empresses and eunuchs (as happened after the turn of the millenium).

Likely if the East was lost it would be hard to regain: without the solid blocking position in Anatolia and the Balkans maybe Islam could sweep North west past Antioch: emirates on the Danube and the Steppes perhaps, positions more exposed to asian nomad depredations than the RL Mahgreb and Iberian positions.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Islam wouldn't flood a victorious Persia, IMO, since if they won, there would be no civil war and stuff.

[Kitsunegari]

Yeah that's the major change in this scenario. Although Byzantium did win and Persia was left in chaos, it was almost a pyrrhic victory, because the devastation to the Roman provinces and their great losses weren't offset by substantial financial or territorial gains. Persia in this timeline would have won fairly quickly and presumably without inordinate losses, while they would have made huge territorial gains with greater financial value than their prewar empire.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

It was not "almost" a pyrrhic victory. It was the most pyrrhic of victories. Much worse than the Soviet victory of WWII, since it left Rome extremely weak. And the heaviest Persian casualties came in the 620's, especially from 624 onwards, yet in the end it was still all about manpower reserves; Persia ran dry first.

It was the worst war of the late antiquity, IMO.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Plus it was followed by the arab wars and that just made things worse. Had Persia won they prob would have demanded territories. Would they have gotten Syria and Egypt back would they have been able to rebound from that and successfully defend the new gains from the Arabs?

[The Fishman]

Plus it was followed by the arab wars and that just made things worse. Had Persia won they prob would have demanded territories. Would they have gotten Syria and Egypt back would they have been able to rebound from that and successfully defend the new gains from the Arabs?

The Arabs might not even have attacked Byzantium at all, had Persians overran the middle east. In Surat 'Ar-Rum' in the Qur'an it is made clear that Muhammad favoured the Romans over the Persians, and perhaps those attitudes might have continued into the days of his successors, leading to some kind of Arab-Byzantine alliance against Persia.