Alternate history exercise - Middle East without Islam

[Winner]

Ain't you a Czech?

So, what are you alluding to - the Hussites?

 

[Winner]

They were all Catholics. Don't you know anything about the history of Middle Eastern Christianity? Don't you know that the hatred between these people was older, and deeper, than any between Christians and Muslims in that region? Chalceconians had been killing Monophysites since before the Prophet was ever born.

You can't assume that just because they were all Christians you can be sure that they would relate to each other the way that European Christians all related to each other. The Middle East is not Europe and the histories of the churches there is not the same. Even the divisions between Catholic and Protestant are nothing compared to the ancient divisions between the Middle Eastern churches.

I'm not saying that they would have gone to war with each other. I'm just saying that you can't assume that they wouldn't just because of European history.

You're right.

Because that's what generally happens? Not just this example, but numerous other ones: the Romans for the Mediterranean, the various Persian Empires, the Tang for China, Japan when it finally got its act together, the Gupta and Maurya for India... I'm not going to say that political unity is a cure-all for economic and social problems, but it goes a long way towards a more prosperous region. The two are correlated too often to deny that, and its plainly evident to anyone who studies history that when an army goes around ravaging cities and farmland every ten to twenty years, which was the result of the Roman-Sassinid rivalry, then prosperity can never set in.

Certain degree of political unity is necessary, but all-spanning empires are not a prerequisite.

And in any case, the Arab/Muslim control soon disintegrated, so the Middle East under Islam wasn't really a more peaceful place.

Oh, please. Like any other civilization didn't do this, too. There are numerous examples of Arab conquests where their generals spared citizenry when most other civilizations would have massacred them wholesale. They generally left the dhimmi be, and in many cases when building a new mosque on the site of the old church, would pay the Christians for the land they took. They were a model of tolerance.

I am just sick of this "oh, the Arabs were so kind and good..." - no, they were just like most other conquerors - you said it. They were clever enough to preserve things in the conquered cultures for which they have uses, unlike some other nomadic invaders who just massacred/destroyed/looted everything.

As for the economic and social structures of the lands they took, the Arabs left them almost completely intact; Persian and Byzantine organization was only changed in who was at the top of the ladder.

Not really, there were profound changes.

Why? And even if it did, then why would it remain stable long enough to conquer the west, and then remain stable even longer to colonize that?

Gee, it would help if you responded to what I say, not to your extrapolations of what I say - Spain was weak, as the Arabs proved later. If the Byzantines hadn't had lost most of their North African/Asian provinces, they could have mustered enough troops to reassert their control in Spain and Italy. It's entirely in the realm of possibility.

Reduced =/= 0.

You implied that Islamic rule was necessary to maintain strong trade ties with the East. I say it's nonsense, since the Byzantines would probably establish the same ties through the Red Sea->Yemen->India trade route. The Persians would surely profit from land routes too.

Which, as I have stated above, would be reduced in a region that would still be torn by the violence between Rome and Persia -- not to mention the Arabs who, deprived of Empire, would still be raiding the frontiers.

You're talking as if there was no violence between Islamic Middle Eastern states...

 

[Masada]

Eh, trade took a while to recover, yes. When it did, it went splendidly.

And that significant period of dislocation didn't interrupt European economic development and help contribute to keeping it as an economic backwater? Methinks the continuing presence of the Romani would have been a significant assistance to Western Europe economic development.

Well duh. Islamic science had a greater impact than the rediscovery of classical sciences.

Screams determinism. Who is to say that significant positive economic trends would not have spurred similar scientific developments in Europe?

That completely ignores the leaps and bounds made by scientists of Muslim Spain, the Near East, and Central Asia, who reinvented medicine, astronomy and mathematics, and practically invented chemistry.

You neglect to mention the two of the three most important contributions of the Islamic, in the realms of shipbuilding and metallurgy.

Certain degree of political unity is necessary, but all-spanning empires are not a prerequisite.

Quite. Italy, United Provinces?

Gee, it would help if you responded to what I say, not to your extrapolations of what I say - Spain was weak, as the Arabs proved later. If the Byzantines hadn't had lost most of their North African/Asian provinces, they could have muster enough troops to reassert their control in Spain and Italy. It's entirely in the realm of possibility.

A lack of Muslims would have probably in the long run translated into a stronger Romani Empire (Dachs would be the resident expert).

You implied that Islamic rule was necessary to maintain strong trade ties with the East. I say it's nonsense, since the Byzantines would probably establish the same ties through the Red Sea->Yemen->India trade route. The Persians would surely profit from land routes too.

... Islamic Rule was not necessary to maintain strong trade ties with the East. The Romani and the Persians were already trading via intermediaries quite far abreast into India (Ref: Periplus Maris Erythraei) and had been doing so for quite some time - it was the Islamic conquests which interrupted those links in the first place. The Persians already had significant trade links with China and India and actively engaged in the transhipment of goods to the Romani. Most of the Persian merchants who traded with Southeast Asia and ma boys' Srivijaya were likely not Islamic or so it would appear - there is little or no reason to suspect that Islam gave them some sort of advantage in the region and it wouldn't for another six or so centuries.

 

[TheLastOne36]

This has been argued to death among Czech historians (for obvious reasons, it's a great national trauma to this day). The funny thing is that foreigners generally believe that Czechoslovakia had a chance, while Czech historians are much more sceptical and critical of the 1938 Czechoslovak military.

I must get it, somewhere, to see the arguments myself.



I've noticed that most AH writers fail to realize the impact of the ripple effect.

Jump across the border and buy it in a Polish bookstore. They have them here, i own both books, otherwise you can order online.

 

[Dachs]

I've noticed that most AH writers fail to realize the impact of the ripple effect.

I try to keep it in mind whenever I write.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Great read through this thread so far, bookmarked.

How do you think Ethiopia would end up?

 

[North King]

Certain degree of political unity is necessary, but all-spanning empires are not a prerequisite.

And in any case, the Arab/Muslim control soon disintegrated, so the Middle East under Islam wasn't really a more peaceful place.

Yes, and then things started going downhill. While it lasted, though, it was a golden age, and the continuity of cultures there helped.

I am just sick of this "oh, the Arabs were so kind and good..." - no, they were just like most other conquerors - you said it. They were clever enough to preserve things in the conquered cultures for which they have uses, unlike some other nomadic invaders who just massacred/destroyed/looted everything.

Um, no. Take more than a ten-second cursory glance at the Arab conquests and you'll realize they're not always hard-headed, practical conquerors. They took Byzantine and Persian culture with them.

Or do you think that bath houses are a military asset?

What exactly do you make of the fact that the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem famously let the Christians be (and let most of their property be, as well)? Or that "Jerusalem's benign treatment outpaced the Arab advance into Egypt and beyond, and as the ground rules under the Muslims became known, the willingness to die fighting against them declined steeply."? (David Levering Lewis) Would look up more quotes to that effect, but I'm too lazy at this point.

The point is that your "I am just sick of this 'oh, the Arabs were so kind and good...'" is so familiar because it's true.

Not really, there were profound changes.

Actually, yes, they did. Unfortunately a brief page-through of the books I had at hand didn't produce any good quotes, but the Persian Renaissance quickly became transformed into a Muslim Renaissance. Sure, you could say the Persians would do well with Islam, but because of the unification brought on by the latter, Persian ideas went further afield and had more opportunities for combination and catalyzation.

Gee, it would help if you responded to what I say, not to your extrapolations of what I say - Spain was weak, as the Arabs proved later. If the Byzantines hadn't had lost most of their North African/Asian provinces, they could have mustered enough troops to reassert their control in Spain and Italy. It's entirely in the realm of possibility.

It's in the realm of possibility. I don't think it's likely, though; communications from the Eastern to Western Med were too shaky (see the breakaway states that did form under Islam). And you're phrasing it as though it was bound to happen.

You implied that Islamic rule was necessary to maintain strong trade ties with the East. I say it's nonsense, since the Byzantines would probably establish the same ties through the Red Sea->Yemen->India trade route. The Persians would surely profit from land routes too.

For one who says you're being misquoted...

Sure it's not necessary. It helps.

You're talking as if there was no violence between Islamic Middle Eastern states...

Less violence than between the Romans and the Sassinids.

And that significant period of dislocation didn't interrupt European economic development and help contribute to keeping it as an economic backwater? Methinks the continuing presence of the Romani would have been a significant assistance to Western Europe economic development.

I doubt it. Trading was in full swing by the 11th Century at least (hence Venetian non-interests in the Crusades), and while I don't remember when off the top of my head, I imagine they began a bit sooner than that.

Screams determinism. Who is to say that significant positive economic trends would not have spurred similar scientific developments in Europe?

The fact that they had a backwards, intolerant religion, coupled with fratricidal wars and a penchant for killing anyone who was culturally innovative? Economics alone is not history, you know, and Europe of the real world was a cultural and technological backwater for the majority of the Middle Ages which borrowed the vast majority of its stuff.

I think it's just a teeny bit more deterministic to say the exact same things economically and culturally would have happened under a radically different political structure.

You neglect to mention the two of the three most important contributions of the Islamic, in the realms of shipbuilding and metallurgy.

I'm sorry I can't remember everything off the top of my head in an Internet debate. Why the hell is this phrased as an attack?

Quite. Italy, United Provinces?

Both much more peaceful de facto if not de jure. Condotierre deliberately never tried to win their wars; while the Netherlands was to a large degree a friendlier conflict than any clash between Roman and Persians.

A lack of Muslims would have probably in the long run translated into a stronger Romani Empire (Dachs would be the resident expert).

Or a stronger Persian Empire. "Stop being so deterministic."

... Islamic Rule was not necessary to maintain strong trade ties with the East. The Romani and the Persians were already trading via intermediaries quite far abreast into India (Ref: Periplus Maris Erythraei) and had been doing so for quite some time - it was the Islamic conquests which interrupted those links in the first place. The Persians already had significant trade links with China and India and actively engaged in the transhipment of goods to the Romani. Most of the Persian merchants who traded with Southeast Asia and ma boys' Srivijaya were likely not Islamic or so it would appear - there is little or no reason to suspect that Islam gave them some sort of advantage in the region and it wouldn't for another six or so centuries.

Uhh, I don't know. Elimination of a large number of dues, removal of the threat of piracy/banditry for land routes and sea through the Islamic Caliphate, and a single unified trading zone for however short a time? The mere fact that merchants over several thousands of miles of territory would be speaking the same language? The same kinds of things that led to massive growth in the Hellenistic era, or the Roman? Plus the fact that the Islamic religion tended to be tolerant in its early days? Maybe adding into all this the fact that the religion in fact actively encouraged trade and travel? Yeah, I'll go with that.

I realize it's all trendy to reverse previous historiographical judgments these days, but the massive growth that peace and unity ushered in so many times in other places in the world, plus the fact that the Romans and Sassinids were bleeding each other dry for centuries, plus the fact that suddenly after the Arabs came around populations and wealth soared (for some reason I deem it mildly unlikely that this was merely correlation and not causation), I'm going to go ahead and say I think the Islamic conquest did eventually make the region a better place to live.

 

[Winner]

Jump across the border and buy it in a Polish bookstore. They have them here, i own both books, otherwise you can order online.

Sorry, I really don't read Polish - all these "w", "sz", "cz" etc. make my eyes hurt

I think I'll petition our local library, they could at least get the english version.

How do you think Ethiopia would end up?

Better than in OTL, at least it wouldn't be surrounded by hostile Muslim states/tribes.

 

[Plotinus]

The Muslim states around Ethiopia were not always hostile; in fact for much of the Middle Ages they were at peace and important trading partners with the empire.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Ethiopia was very rich at the time iirc.

But Would they end up a christian or jewish state now that Islam is gone? Both Christanity and Judaism were very strong religions in Ethiopia, and at one point of time each (and Islam as well) had a majority of followers in Ethiopia.

During the middle ages what religion was prominent in Ethiopia?

 

[Masada]

I doubt it. Trading was in full swing by the 11th Century at least (hence Venetian non-interests in the Crusades), and while I don't remember when off the top of my head, I imagine they began a bit sooner than that.

So the interruption and loss of 250 years of trade between World Regions - Europe and the Middle East - would not in your opinion have had a significant effect upon European economic development? Because I honestly find that unlikely in the extreme. It sits in opposition to the historical nature of international trade at the time, which was such that any interruption was likely to have significant repercussions. (Which can be see in the collapse of Roman institutions in the former Western Empire - culminating with the travesty that was the Holy Roman Empire). It also ignores the change in the character of the trade between Europe and the Middle East - after the rise of Islam - which went from being what one could call "international trade" insofar as it was trade in the conventional sense of the word and not the transfer of the spectacular, as an afterthought.

It has been argued that the formation of an Islamic trading bloc - which contained most goods - did cut Europe out of trade in anything but a handful of goods and subsequently shut it off from access to gold and silver which forced a regression from a cash economy to a barter economy. I think it had a slightly more significant effect that you suggested, I simply find it unlikely that under any circumstance I could think of that 250 years of interaction would have a negative effect. It should by rights have had a wholly positive effect - something which even if had been minor would have had significant repercussions like any other factor that you care to manipulate in an alt-history. It's a finicky medium to play around with and is probably slower acting over the onset but will only increase with time (personally I think most butterflies are of insufficient magnitude over the long run).

The fact that they had a backwards, intolerant religion, coupled with fratricidal wars and a penchant for killing anyone who was culturally innovative? Economics alone is not history, you know, and Europe of the real world was a cultural and technological backwater for the majority of the Middle Ages which borrowed the vast majority of its stuff.

... whose to say that would have lasted in the face of a potentially long era of prosperity? Who for instance is to say that a growth in trade would not have set the Italian states off at an earlier date? It's a silent vector for change but bigotry is far harder to sustain when trading with foreigners and outsiders is a significant share of the annual kitty.

I think it's just a teeny bit more deterministic to say the exact same things economically and culturally would have happened under a radically different political structure.

Its simply an acknowledgment that there was always the possibility of others coming up with the technical innovations - it was not an exclusively Islamic thing to invent the occasional thing and heck it was often not even an Arab thing.

I'm sorry I can't remember everything off the top of my head in an Internet debate. Why the hell is this phrased as an attack?

Long day at work: budget estimates: make of that what you will. Screw zero, I want dhows.

Or a stronger Persian Empire. "Stop being so deterministic."

Dachs suggested it. In all likelihood that would be fairly likely. It was well placed to reap the windfall from the spice trade - far better placed than the Romani but any trade had to pass through them anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties settled down to rent-seek. War probably would not have been as profitable for a while like what apparently happened with the silk trade back in the day.

Uhh, I don't know. Elimination of a large number of dues, removal of the threat of piracy/banditry for land routes and sea through the Islamic Caliphate, and a single unified trading zone for however short a time? The mere fact that merchants over several thousands of miles of territory would be speaking the same language? The same kinds of things that led to massive growth in the Hellenistic era, or the Roman? Plus the fact that the Islamic religion tended to be tolerant in its early days? Maybe adding into all this the fact that the religion in fact actively encouraged trade and travel? Yeah, I'll go with that.

Those are all useful but I doubt they would have been as beneficial as a few centuries of growth which is ultimately what we are discussing. Islam for all its benefits, was an interesting creature, it was horrendously self limiting in the early days, and once the Umma reached its height, interestingly enough it didn't see fit to trade with anyone else, it could simply own source most things.

If you want to think of the pre-industrial world, conceptualize it as a cake, fixed in all but the longest terms (generations), with little or no progress in qualitative or quantitative terms. You can fight over that fixed cake, and those with the most will of course reap the largest tax revenues. Now add a slight variation into the mix, assume that not only is your cake fixed but that it is also separate from all the other cakes - so that any trade, represented by the occasional addition of topping, was simply not happening - now what does that do to the other cakes?

I realize it's all trendy to reverse previous historiographical judgments these days, but the massive growth that peace and unity ushered in so many times in other places in the world, plus the fact that the Romans and Sassinids were bleeding each other dry for centuries, plus the fact that suddenly after the Arabs came around populations and wealth soared (for some reason I deem it mildly unlikely that this was merely correlation and not causation), I'm going to go ahead and say I think the Islamic conquest did eventually make the region a better place to live.

... because historiographical judgments cover a significant historical deviation? On the other hand "wealth soar[ing]" goes in the face of economic history judgments about the pre-industrial world .

 

[Squonk]

At the point Muhammad appeared, christianity was dominant in modern Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, northern Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, northern Morocco, Iraq, Bahrain, partly Saudi Arabia (the Persian Gulf shores), partly Iran (the modern Khuzestan), all the Caucasus, etc, it was present somewhat all the way up to China. It was clearly on the rise.
If we assume that the Sassanians would hold, I'd expect nestorian christianity to triumph in modern Iran, all the Persian Gulf, Azerbaijan, all the central Asia, Mongolia, Siberia, and have an important presence in India and China (part of Mongolia was, until the mongol conquest of China, nestorian christian). It'd also replace islam in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei etc
the rest would be orthodox/catholic christians. I wouldn't count of Egypt, Nubia or Syria or even Armenia to be still monophysite - Byzantines would take care of that. Ethiopia might have survived.

It is possible that Byzantium would sooner or later liberate the rest of the Roman Empire from barbarians, and last for centuries. And then, it's impossible to say what'd happen next. Roman Empire might have existed until today.

Arabs did contribute to spreading and building upon greek thought, although byzantines weren't that bad either, and if they were, it was because of the external troubles. I somehow believe tht the science would slow down

 

[Plotinus]

Ethiopia was very rich at the time iirc.

But Would they end up a christian or jewish state now that Islam is gone? Both Christanity and Judaism were very strong religions in Ethiopia, and at one point of time each (and Islam as well) had a majority of followers in Ethiopia.

During the middle ages what religion was prominent in Ethiopia?

Christiaity, Judaism, Islam, and indigenous religions were all prominent in Ethiopia throughout the Middle Ages, but Christianity was the official religion and was aggressively promoted whenever Ethiopia conquered new areas. Obviously Christianity remains the dominant religion today although I don't think the country has an official established religion now, at least not since the death of Haile Selassie.

 

[TheLastOne36]

So it's fair to say that Christanity would end up being the prominent religion in Ethiopia?

 

[vogtmurr]

So it's fair to say that Christanity would end up being the prominent religion in Ethiopia?

I think so - it did after all, entwined with the dominant culture since almost the time of Christ, and after centuries near some pretty agressive Muslim Empires.

 

[aronnax]

At the point Muhammad appeared, christianity was dominant in modern Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, northern Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, northern Morocco, Iraq, Bahrain, partly Saudi Arabia (the Persian Gulf shores), partly Iran (the modern Khuzestan), all the Caucasus, etc, it was present somewhat all the way up to China. It was clearly on the rise.
If we assume that the Sassanians would hold, I'd expect nestorian christianity to triumph in modern Iran, all the Persian Gulf, Azerbaijan, all the central Asia, Mongolia, Siberia, and have an important presence in India and China (part of Mongolia was, until the mongol conquest of China, nestorian christian). It'd also replace islam in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei etc
the rest would be orthodox/catholic christians. I wouldn't count of Egypt, Nubia or Syria or even Armenia to be still monophysite - Byzantines would take care of that. Ethiopia might have survived.

It is possible that Byzantium would sooner or later liberate the rest of the Roman Empire from barbarians, and last for centuries. And then, it's impossible to say what'd happen next. Roman Empire might have existed until today.

Arabs did contribute to spreading and building upon greek thought, although byzantines weren't that bad either, and if they were, it was because of the external troubles. I somehow believe tht the science would slow down

Meh, I doubt so. Christian presence in China was minimal, very small and non-important. Even if the Byzantine Empire had not collaspe and became the all powerful crusading state you have set it out to be, it would not have reached China in numbers due to the chaos of the Silk Route and China after the Tang Dynasty collasped. Even if it did rise to some sort of prominence like it did in Japan in the Tokugawa Regime, expect it to be cut down. The Emperor Wuzong persecueted Nestorism (along with Buddhism) in China leaving the churches in rubble.

Next, Heraclius just barely saved the Empire's Levant provinces from Persia. He managed to only recover that after a series of blundering mistakes. The Empire was seriously weakened by war with Persia (They got as far as Constantinople in their raids). The Bulgarian Empire would had pounded the stupid into Byzantium. At least for a period of time. It took the Byzantine Empire 400 years to dislodge the Bulgars from the Southern Danube region. And that was with the aid of the Arabs pouring troops into the Empire.

And as history has shown us that it will constantly repeat itself, the Persian will regain their strenghts and attack the Byzantines again.

The Frankish Empire will rise, and push the Romans more and more out of Western Europe. And perhaps Egypt and the Levant would still be Roman. At least until the Turkish Tribes push into Persia and then crush the Romans like they did Arabs in real life. I doubt Egypt or Carthage will last long seperated that far from Constantinople. Either it will revolt or get captured.

When the Turks arrived in Persia, they adopted Islam. Since there is no Islam then Persia would still be mostly Zoroastrian. So the Turks would adopt Zoroastrian and bring it with them as they thrust through the Mideast. I don't think that Christianity will spread as you predicted like that. Its not very possible. I doubt the Iranian heartlands will convert. When the Arabs took over Iran, it was agreed that it was not logical to pressurise or persecute them to convert due to the sheer numbers of them.

 

[Dachs]

Next, Heraclius just barely saved the Empire's Levant provinces from Persia. He managed to only recover that after a series of blundering mistakes. The Empire was seriously weakened by war with Persia (They got as far as Constantinople in their raids). The Bulgarian Empire would had pounded the stupid into Byzantium. At least for a period of time. It took the Byzantine Empire 400 years to dislodge the Bulgars from the Southern Danube region. And that was with the aid of the Arabs pouring troops into the Empire.

And as history has shown us that it will constantly repeat itself, the Persian will regain their strenghts and attack the Byzantines again.

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was very badly weakened after the OTL Last Persian War, but the Sassanians were in a far crummier position. They were kind of fighting a series of bloody civil wars, and the Byzantines did take advantage of them to extend their territory in formerly Roman Mesopotamia, grabbing the stuff that Jovian had ceded to the Sassanians back in 363. For the foreseeable future, the Sassanians were weakened. The role that the Bulgars played in draining the Byzantines' strength was an important one yes (though frankly I don't understand why you think they only beat the Bulgars because of the Arabs...confused much) but the Gokturks have a similar role on the eastern flank of the Sassanian Empire, so all in all I think that it balances out (as it has for the past few centuries). Iran + Mesopotamia is still a crummier powerbase than Anatolia + Greece + Egypt + Africa, but internal dissent will even the scales more.

And if you think that the Sassanians' success in the initial phases of the OTL Last Persian War had to do with anything other than the Byzantines' Army of the East under Narses revolting against Phokas, then you're deluded. Look at the record that even the Sassanian army had after the vaunted reforms of Khosrau Anushirvan: Tiberios II and Maurikios basically trashed it, even with skilled Sassanian leaders such as Vahram Chobin at its helm. Doesn't indicate any sort of inherent Sassanian superiority to me.

Finally, at the assumption that Turkic migrations will happen as per OTL without the effects of the caliphates or Islam in Central Asia.

 

[aronnax]

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was very badly weakened after the OTL Last Persian War, but the Sassanians were in a far crummier position. They were kind of fighting a series of bloody civil wars, and the Byzantines did take advantage of them to extend their territory in formerly Roman Mesopotamia, grabbing the stuff that Jovian had ceded to the Sassanians back in 363. For the foreseeable future, the Sassanians were weakened.

I thought it ended in Status Quo.

Both the Sassanians (perhaps more) and the ERE were weakened. That was why the Arabs could pour in at such a rate. And they were weakened like that before and then they grew strong again and the whole damn thing happened again. The Arabs were "God's" way of making life interesting.

The role that the Bulgars played in draining the Byzantines' strength was an important one yes (though frankly I don't understand why you think they only beat the Bulgars because of the Arabs...confused much)

No, I meant that, Bulgaria took advantage of the fact that the Byzantines was severly weakened by the Arabs. And because of that weakness, if took the Byzantines 400 years to beat back Bulgaria. Without the Arabs, perhaps they would have annexed it earlier. But at that point, just some 50 years after the Persian War, Bulgaria could still triumph against the Byzantines. That would had drained the Empire's strenght until at least the Macedonian Dynasty.

but the Gokturks have a similar role on the eastern flank of the Sassanian Empire, so all in all I think that it balances out (as it has for the past few centuries). Iran + Mesopotamia is still a crummier powerbase than Anatolia + Greece + Egypt + Africa, but internal dissent will even the scales more.

Not crummy enough to totally crush it. Though I admit the string of coups in Persia created more weakness than in ERE who had a strong Emperor in a weak Empire. Though it was followed by a string of weak emperors (except Justinian) and then by the IMO the second weakest Dynasty of Byzantines the Isaurians.

And if you think that the Sassanians' success in the initial phases of the OTL Last Persian War had to do with anything other than the Byzantines' Army of the East under Narses revolting against Phokas, then you're deluded. Look at the record that even the Sassanian army had after the vaunted reforms of Khosrau Anushirvan: Tiberios II and Maurikios basically trashed it, even with skilled Sassanian leaders such as Vahram Chobin at its helm. Doesn't indicate any sort of inherent Sassanian superiority to me.

Actually all I saw was the border of the two switching back and forth between Damacus and Baghdad. Too me, neither power is strong enough to knock out the other, even if one decisely won all the battles. It's like France and England during the 18th century.

Finally, at the assumption that Turkic migrations will happen as per OTL without the effects of the caliphates or Islam in Central Asia.

Weren't the Turkic tribes all moving Westward in a general direction? With or without the Caliphate in Central Asia?

 

[Dachs]

I thought it ended in Status Quo.

Thus the Byzantines reoccupied Egypt and Syria, and Heraclius brought the True Cross gloriously back to Jerusalem in March 630. Shahrvarāz led his army to Ctesiphon the next month, killed Ardashīr III, and became king of Persia. But just two months later, conspirators assassinated the great general and replaced him with Khusrau's daughter Bōrān. Considering his agreement with Shahrvarāz moot, Heraclius took advantage of the confusion in Persia to reoccupy Byzantine Mesopotamia.

There's a map a few pages later that I unfortunately can't scan, but the border has been advanced eastward, such that Nisibis lies narrowly within the Byzantine control, albeit Sisaurana and Singara are still Sassanian.

No, I meant that, Bulgaria took advantage of the fact that the Byzantines was severly weakened by the Arabs. And because of that weakness, if took the Byzantines 400 years to beat back Bulgaria. Without the Arabs, perhaps they would have annexed it earlier. But at that point, just some 50 years after the Persian War, Bulgaria could still triumph against the Byzantines. That would had drained the Empire's strenght until at least the Macedonian Dynasty.

Bulgaria triumphed more because of the Arab drain, not because of the Persian conflict, which was a short-term victory, not a long-term effect. Whenever, in the next centuries, the Byzantines chose to expand in the Balkans and pursued it with the same attention they typically devoted to the eastern front, they had rousing success - see Eirene Sarantapechaina's campaigns in Thraikia, or Nikephoros I's early campaigns of the same flavor before his betrayal and capture. The Last Persian War of OTL was devastating to both sides, yes - but it wasn't so crippling that it would've taken more than five to ten years for the ERE to recover. And it certainly wasn't so crippling that it allowed Bulgaria to fester for another four centuries.

Not crummy enough to totally crush it. Though I admit the string of coups in Persia created more weakness than in ERE who had a strong Emperor in a weak Empire. Though it was followed by a string of weak emperors (except Justinian) and then by the IMO the second weakest Dynasty of Byzantines the Isaurians.

What? How the hell was Konstas II a weak emperor, or Konstantinos IV? These are some of the better, more competent rulers in Byzantine history, bro. Konstas II friggin' created the themata, and Konstantinos IV beat the living crap out of the Arabs so bad that they paid him tribute. And then of course the Isaurians weren't so bad - they held the line and restructured society, despite frigtarded iconoclasm, and Leon III, Konstantinos V, and Leon IV all won military victories and didn't actually lose anything.

Actually all I saw was the border of the two switching back and forth between Damacus and Baghdad. Too me, neither power is strong enough to knock out the other, even if one decisely won all the battles. It's like France and England during the 18th century.

And I agree with you.

Weren't the Turkic tribes all moving Westward in a general direction? With or without the Caliphate in Central Asia?

Not really. The Gokturks did split into Western and Eastern halves but their khanate didn't actually move south at all before Talas and they certainly weren't migrating towards Anatolia by then. Turkic migrations into Iran thence to Anatolia of the scale that would've mattered (as in, outside of the odd family unit and small group of mercenaries) for centuries after the suggested PoD.

 

[aronnax]

There's a map a few pages later that I unfortunately can't scan, but the border has been advanced eastward, such that Nisibis lies narrowly within the Byzantine control, albeit Sisaurana and Singara are still Sassanian.

Bulgaria triumphed more because of the Arab drain, not because of the Persian conflict, which was a short-term victory, not a long-term effect. Whenever, in the next centuries, the Byzantines chose to expand in the Balkans and pursued it with the same attention they typically devoted to the eastern front, they had rousing success - see Eirene Sarantapechaina's campaigns in Thraikia, or Nikephoros I's early campaigns of the same flavor before his betrayal and capture. The Last Persian War of OTL was devastating to both sides, yes - but it wasn't so crippling that it would've taken more than five to ten years for the ERE to recover. And it certainly wasn't so crippling that it allowed Bulgaria to fester for another four centuries.

Oh! You learn something new.

What? How the hell was Konstas II a weak emperor, or Konstantinos IV? These are some of the better, more competent rulers in Byzantine history, bro. Konstas II friggin' created the themata, and Konstantinos IV beat the living crap out of the Arabs so bad that they paid him tribute. And then of course the Isaurians weren't so bad - they held the line and restructured society, despite frigtarded iconoclasm, and Leon III, Konstantinos V, and Leon IV all won military victories and didn't actually lose anything.

Didnt Konstantinos IV have to pay protection money to the Bulgars? Konstantinos IMO really didn't do much to stop the falling pieces of the Empire. Though you can't blame him. The Slavs were on their gates, the Italians were revolting and the Pope was slowly making the EME lose all its Italian Provinces.Konstas II was a good ruler I admit though. Left him out. Ill give you Leo, but despite all their victories, the empire was growing smaller, poorer and weaker. Civil War in the Arab world only saved them.

And I agree with you.

That's good.

Not really. The Gokturks did split into Western and Eastern halves but their khanate didn't actually move south at all before Talas and they certainly weren't migrating towards Anatolia by then. Turkic migrations into Iran thence to Anatolia of the scale that would've mattered (as in, outside of the odd family unit and small group of mercenaries) for centuries after the suggested PoD.

Would it not be possible that Turks attacked the Persian empire again? They did it three times before already and the Persians are like the mortal enemies of the Turks. It would not be suprising if they headed south again. I dont see how the establishment of Islam leads to the Turks invading from the North.