Pax Islamica: The Rise of Hellenic Islam

602 AD - The Great Roman War begins.

608 AD - The Exarch of Africa alongside his son, both named Heraclius, begin a revolt against Phocas.

610 AD - Nicetas is defeated by Phocas' forces in his overland invasion of Egypt. Heraclius is defeated and executed by Phocas in the same year.

615 AD - By this point, Egypt has fallen to Persia. The majority of Anatolia has fallen to the Persians

618 AD - Persians get to Constantinople and put it under siege. Phocas decides to flee to Rome in an act of cowardice and fear and Constantinople falls under Persian control. As future residents of Constantinople would say, the city was just abandoned. Phocas is killed in Rome and a long period of instability of this third Rome begins.

Persia has annexed Thrace and Egypt, and all land east of these places. Khosrau II has earned the moniker Khosrau the Great. The Great Roman War has come to an end, but with much infrastructure and land destroyed. Constantinople remains a centre of art and architecture.

Phocas has fled to Rome and a long period of instability begins, only aggravated by the Arab invasions.
 
Last edited:
So the plan this is heraclius son becoming a caliph with the butterflies or the early caliphate won all after defeating the persian(like otl?), tell me more the premise would be interesting.
 
So the plan this is heraclius son becoming a caliph with the butterflies or the early caliphate won all after defeating the persian(like otl?), tell me more the premise would be interesting.

Heraclius and all of his relatives are dead. They were killed by Phocas. The Arabs will eventually conquer almost all of Persian territory (including Constantinople) save for a rump state near India. This will result in a more Hellenic-centred Islam due to hatred of Persia. Rather than Persian influence, Arab culture will be Greek influenced.

How does this happen?

Ah. You think this is far-fetched. Well, in OTL, even with the effective leadership of Heraclius, Constantinople almost fell to the Persians. Without such an effective leader, hello Persian Constantinople.

It's Byzantium. Probably fracticidal palace coups.
Answered above.
 
Ah, yes, and before I forget...

613 AD.png
 
Ah. You think this is far-fetched. Well, in OTL, even with the effective leadership of Heraclius, Constantinople almost fell to the Persians. Without such an effective leader, hello Persian Constantinople.

I'm afraid just stating this does not make it so. Looking at it logically, Constantinople didn't come all that close to falling: right through the siege the defenders maintained naval superiority, as well as bloody big walls. The Iranians were operating at the very end of an overstretched supply chain, deep in hostile territory. The fall of the City in 626 isn't necessarily ASB, but it's extremely unlikely, and I think needs to be properly explained rather than just handwaved.
 
I'm afraid just stating this does not make it so. Looking at it logically, Constantinople didn't come all that close to falling: right through the siege the defenders maintained naval superiority, as well as bloody big walls. The Iranians were operating at the very end of an overstretched supply chain, deep in hostile territory. The fall of the City in 626 isn't necessarily ASB, but it's extremely unlikely, and I think needs to be properly explained rather than just handwaved.

Well, apparently, even with these factors, Heraclius almost decided to evacuate Constantinople to Carthage, until he was convinced otherwise. I consider a taking of Constantinople by Persia highly plausible and without such an effective ruler, the city could have been taken. Speaking of which, you are right, I should add more about the siege.
 
Well, apparently, even with these factors, Heraclius almost decided to evacuate Constantinople to Carthage, until he was convinced otherwise. I consider a taking of Constantinople by Persia highly plausible and without such an effective ruler, the city could have been taken. Speaking of which, you are right, I should add more about the siege.

We're told Heraclius considered this, sure: I'm not sure if I altogether believe it actually happened, but then there is the OTL precedent of Constans II going to Syracuse, so it's not ridiculous.

You still need to explain the mechanics of how Constantinople would fall, though. That I think is somewhat ridiculous.
 
One big issue for the rising Arabs: they will be confronting a Persia at the height of their power -- not the weakened wreck that OTL Persia was.
In this TL scenario, the Persians are apt to strangle the would-be Arab imperialists in their crib...even with the ERE out of the running.

Just saying...
 
One big issue for the rising Arabs: they will be confronting a Persia at the height of their power -- not the weakened wreck that OTL Persia was.
In this TL scenario, the Persians are apt to strangle the would-be Arab imperialists in their crib...

Just saying...

The war would still have been decades long and costly. I imagine the Arabs will smash and grab asia minor somehow, then head west? Given the title anyway.

To the OP;

Constantinople falling so...easily, seems strange. But you've said that you will go into more detail so I'll be interested to see how sans a navy the Persians crack that nut.

That said, how you hellenise islam as the title says I'll be interested to see.
 
Library of Alexandria
The Free Library of Knowledge

The Persian conquest of Constantinople was a major event in history. Against all odds, Persian manpower was able to prevail against the great Roman navy.

The conquest had its roots in the Great Roman War. Following an usurper, Phocas, coming to the throne, Persia declared war on Rome. Under the emperor Khosrau II, much of Anatolia and Egypt was taken by this point. Rome had never seen darker days since the Germanic conquests. In 618, the darkest fears of Phocas had come true. Constantinople was under siege.

Avar tribes supported the Persians. They were a great ally that yearned for a great empire. When Khosrau II was approaching the city, along came the Avars. But ultimately, it came to overrunning the defences of the city. They had to outmaneuver the Roman military, which was one of the world's best. The city's walls were impenetrable. They needed to accomplish the impossible.

Precisely how the Persians were victorious is shrouded in mystery. It is thought that there was an uprising by soldiers against the cruel Phocas which led to a weakening of the city's defences and ultimately its downfall. These men were inside the walls of the city and, when they realized that they were cornered, they broke a hole in the wall so as to escape. They were trampled by Persians soon afterward.

The ultimate Roman fleet was unable to stop the enormous manpower of the Persians. This is why they were still strong. Entering through a hole, Emperor Phocas fled to Rome, where he would be executed by the Exarch of Ravenna. The city of Constantinople soon surrendered.


Now, I just want to make it clear that this Byzantine Empire is not that of OTL in this time. Much of its population dislikes Phocas and wants him replaced. Unfortunately, this never occurred with the death of Heraclius.
 
Last edited:
We're told Heraclius considered this, sure: I'm not sure if I altogether believe it actually happened, but then there is the OTL precedent of Constans II going to Syracuse, so it's not ridiculous.

You still need to explain the mechanics of how Constantinople would fall, though. That I think is somewhat ridiculous.
Done.
Herzen's love-child said:
One big issue for the rising Arabs: they will be confronting a Persia at the height of their power -- not the weakened wreck that OTL Persia was.
In this TL scenario, the Persians are apt to strangle the would-be Arab imperialists in their crib...even with the ERE out of the running.

Just saying...
This empire is stretched and weak. It will be harder but not impossible for the Arabs.
The war would still have been decades long and costly. I imagine the Arabs will smash and grab asia minor somehow, then head west? Given the title anyway.

To the OP;

Constantinople falling so...easily, seems strange. But you've said that you will go into more detail so I'll be interested to see how sans a navy the Persians crack that nut.

That said, how you hellenise islam as the title says I'll be interested to see.
One again, the fall of Constantinople has been referred to above.
 
How exactly will Persia be weak at this point?

Decades of war, even one you eventually win take quite a toll.

Also trying to hold territory populated by people who consider you their great enemy usually involves a large commitment of troops and can sap your strength rather quickly.

Annexing so much Roman territory will have overextended the Persians to a fairly dangerous amount.
 
Decades of war, even one you eventually win take quite a toll.

Also trying to hold territory populated by people who consider you their great enemy usually involves a large commitment of troops and can sap your strength rather quickly.

Annexing so much Roman territory will have overextended the Persians to a fairly dangerous amount.

If we subscribe to events following somewhat the timeline of the OTL ERE-Persian War, (but with the quick fall of Constantinople in 618, as per the POD, substituted for the abortive siege of 626 and the far longer OTL war) all of the damage would be on ERE soil, most of the bloody fighting which happened during Heraclius' invasion of Persia would be butterflied, and as per OTL, the alienated people of the Levant (especially the Jews) and Egypt will in large numbers gladly flock to Persian banners and make Persian control of those areas much less draining to the Persians.

Really, this alt history version of the war is a relative cakewalk for the Persians, and unless the Author of this TL explains, one can only conclude that the Persians would be far less damaged and stretched than the ERE was after the OTL war. The war of this TL is, in fact, a full decade shorter than the OTL war.

And Persia looks far better positioned to ward off Arab invasions than either the OTL Persia and ERE were.
 
Most of the catastrophic damage to Persia was the four year long civil war from 628-632 and the fact that Heraclius had raped and pillaged his way from Azerbaijian to Fars.
 
Top