Originally posted by calgacus
However, Heraclius's policy of defence in depth saved the Empire, in contrast to the Persians, who were destroyed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't something bad happen to the Persian shah? Perhaps if he hadn't been murdered/died and had his sons fight over his territory he would've put up a better front than Heraclius.

Originally posted by aaminion00


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't something bad happen to the Persian shah? Perhaps if he hadn't been murdered/died and had his sons fight over his territory he would've put up a better front than Heraclius.

no, the persians and byzantines had just finished a 20 + years war in which both sides were devestated--easy pickings and good timing. if the arabs had poured out 20 years earlier or 20 years later history mite of been a lot differant

Originally posted by pawpaw


no, the persians and byzantines had just finished a 20 year war in which both sides were devestated--easy pickings and good timing. if the arabs had poured out 20 years earlier or 20 years later history mite of been a lot differant

That much is obvious, and I don't see why you're pointing it out. However, the Byzantines had won that war (if you take into account that the army reached the gates of Ctesiphon in 628). Shah Khorsau II fled from the palace at this time. Because his cruel rule had raised much dissent, the people immediatly crowned his eldest son Kavadh II to the throne (who he had imprisioned earlier). When he returned to his palace 4 days later, he was murdered by his own son. All was not well afterwards, as his other sons also wanted power and the once great empire sank into anarchy and warring factions of his sons and others desiring power. Several years earlier, the prophet had sent Khorsau II a letter inviting him to join Islam. But when Abdullah ben Hazafe handed him the letter, he tore the letter into pieces. When Mohammed learned of the news he said "That which Khorsau did to our letter, god shall do to his empire".

The point I'm making is not that the Arabs were desteined to win or anything. Merely that if Khorsau II had stayed alive (and in power at least to some extent), who's to say he wouldn't have put up as good of a defense as Heraclius?

who says hercalius put up that great of a fight-he lost africa, egypt, judea, and syria:( and as why did i point it out, during one battle against the arabs, 1/3 of the persian infantry was convects and slaves chained up to the start of the battle and armed with a spear--the empire was total shot no matter who was in charge, yazdegard III took over in 632ad and the arab invasion started in 637ad-after the interfighting was over

Splited out of the 'Top 3 Fave Whatever' thread...

I then to agree with pawpaw. Both sides were simply exhausted, fighting each other. Easy walkover, for the Arabs.

And Persia was nearer to Arabia, than Constantinople. I think Ctesiphon was located in Iraq...

Ah I see. Anyways, I was just responding to Calgacus.

Originally posted by aaminion00
Ah I see. Anyways, I was just responding to Calgacus.

no problem-nothing like talking about history:)

One of the main factor for the success of the Arabs in Persia was the elimination of the Lakhmids by Khosrau II. These vassals of Persia resided south of Mesopotamia, centred around Hira, but dominating much of the Arab penninsula. For centuries, they were the Persian stronghold against hostile Arab tribes.