With the beginning of the Arab conquest of the Sasanian Empire from 632 AD onward, shah Yazdegerd III spent the rest of his reign constantly fleeing further and further east: first to Hulwan, then Isfahan, Istakhr and finally Merv, in Khorasan, where he was eventually murdered.

Suppose the Arabs face a serious setback in the west (maybe a Byzantine reconquest of Egypt, which came close to happening at the beginning of the reign of Constans II), and so their eastward march is halted for a few years. Assuming Yazdegerd isn't murdered ITTL, could he set up a rump state in eastern Iran/Khorasan? What could this state look like?
 
Sassanids would get some years, with good luck some decades more time. But Muslim armies would eventually crush that and either enforce Sassanid shah to convert to Islam or then just ousting and expelling them.
 
Heh, would be pretty funny if Yazdegerd won by recruiting Turkic horse archers who end up becoming the power behind the throne for the Shahanshah
 
Heh, would be pretty funny if Yazdegerd won by recruiting Turkic horse archers who end up becoming the power behind the throne for the Shahanshah
The Sassanid remnant will definitely have a lot of Turkic influence, and probably Chinese too. Yazdegerd sent tribute to the Tang dynasty during his last years as ruler, in a desperate bid to get their support. They also let his descendants settle in their court in Chang'an.
 
With the beginning of the Arab conquest of the Sasanian Empire from 632 AD onward, shah Yazdegerd III spent the rest of his reign constantly fleeing further and further east: first to Hulwan, then Isfahan, Istakhr and finally Merv, in Khorasan, where he was eventually murdered.

Suppose the Arabs face a serious setback in the west (maybe a Byzantine reconquest of Egypt, which came close to happening at the beginning of the reign of Constans II), and so their eastward march is halted for a few years. Assuming Yazdegerd isn't murdered ITTL, could he set up a rump state in eastern Iran/Khorasan? What could this state look like?
Khorosan was already doomed
 
This would be an interesting scenario, especially if they managed to survive a few centuries and replicate what the Romans did (a partial reconquest of lost territory, with Armenia perhaps as the point of contact between the two), but wouldn't the Sassanian be effectively hostage of whatever noble house was ruling the region before they got there?
 
This would be an interesting scenario, especially if they managed to survive a few centuries and replicate what the Romans did (a partial reconquest of lost territory, with Armenia perhaps as the point of contact between the two), but wouldn't the Sassanian be effectively hostage of whatever noble house was ruling the region before they got there?
I suppose it's a possibility, but not inevitable. It'd take some intrigue and a lot of skill (and luck!), but I don't see why they wouldn't be able to rule their new kingdom directly.
 
I personally find it far mor likely Peroz III could rule over sistan in 658 the locals overthew the arabs and the area was not reconquered till 663 if the romans did more damage and or the first fitna is worse the sassanid remanant in sistan could survive for longer
 
I suppose it's a possibility, but not inevitable. It'd take some intrigue and a lot of skill (and luck!), but I don't see why they wouldn't be able to rule their new kingdom directly.
Which city do you think would be more likely to act as the new seat of power? And how long would the Sassanians have to play defensively before going on the offense? Assuming the rest of Islamic history plays out more or less the same, and using Rhomania as comparison, I assume the Persian would have to survive until the second half of the VIII century (or possibly even the IX century), before the worse can be said to be gone and they can make minor comebacks. Not easy, especially since the geography is nothing like that of the empire. Probably Constantinople really needs to perform better than OTL for that to be a thing, definitely no 20 years anarchy and loss of Africa and perhaps a completely different battle of Sebastopolis maybe?
 
Which city do you think would be more likely to act as the new seat of power?
Merv
And how long would the Sassanians have to play defensively before going on the offense?
assuming the khorosan one if they can delay the caliphate that means the tang would likely take over transoxiana so if they become tang vassals and the tang sent karluk and other turkic mercenaries they could attack early
Assuming the rest of Islamic history plays out more or less the same, and using Rhomania as comparison, I assume the Persian would have to survive until the second half of the VIII century (or possibly even the IX century), before the worse can be said to be gone and they can make minor comebacks. Not easy, especially since the geography is nothing like that of the empire. Probably Constantinople really needs to perform better than OTL for that to be a thing, definitely no 20 years anarchy and loss of Africa and perhaps a completely different battle of Sebastopolis maybe?
Constantinople would have to better and they would need strong tang support
 
Khorasan is more remote, but the problem is that it lacks natural defenses and is far poorer in resources than mainland Persia and Mesopotamia.

It would indeed interesting to see the Sassanids to convert to Islam, though I find that unlikely, because the very political existence of the Sassanian House was linked to their role as chiefs of the Zoroastrian religion. To forfeit the religion would be political suicide.
 
With the beginning of the Arab conquest of the Sasanian Empire from 632 AD onward, shah Yazdegerd III spent the rest of his reign constantly fleeing further and further east: first to Hulwan, then Isfahan, Istakhr and finally Merv, in Khorasan, where he was eventually murdered.

Suppose the Arabs face a serious setback in the west (maybe a Byzantine reconquest of Egypt, which came close to happening at the beginning of the reign of Constans II), and so their eastward march is halted for a few years. Assuming Yazdegerd isn't murdered ITTL, could he set up a rump state in eastern Iran/Khorasan? What could this state look like?



a topic that is really little discussed, I think it is a shame, then I think that to have a Sassanid state that does not collapse immediately after the first Arab incursions, it would be necessary for the years after the defeat against Byzantium to see a rapid solution to the civil war, compared to the four years and five consecutive monarchs of Otl, where taking advantage of this the generals usurped the power of the central authority for themselves, if Yazdegerd III had managed to gain the throne earlier, perhaps Persia could have given the Muslims a better opposition than Otl, guaranteeing perhaps a possibility of survival of the state, albeit small in size (similar to Rome), also taking into account the numerous dynasties and noble families descended from the Sassanid rulers ( 1 ), who over the centuries have governed a slice of territory on the Iranian plateau following the Arab conquest, i do not see why a remnant of the same empire cannot survive, in particular if by managing to resist, they obtain the result of cohesion of the people behind the imperial family and religion ( giving it new life ), also in a manner not dissimilar to what happened in Constantinople


1 ) worthy of note were the

Dabuyidi (642–760) and the Paduspanids ( 665–1598 ) of Mazandaran, both descendants of Jamasp

then we have the Shahs of Shirwan ( 1100–1382 ), The Banu Munajjim ( 9th-10th century ) by Mihr Gushnasp and The Mykalids ( 9th-11th century )

to conclude with the Kamkarian family ( 9th-10th century ) ruling in Dehqan and direct descendants of Yazdegerd III
 
Last edited:
Top