AHC Eastern Roman "colonization" of Persia.

[Gukpard]

I wrote a overly long explanation, but I decided to erase it and put it here:

Starting in 602 AD, can the Byzantine empire crush Persia in such a way, that it manages to fully colonize it in the following centuries, resulting on Persia being recognized by it's habitants as core byzantine territory? There is no end date, the byzantines can control it for 1200 if necessary to anchieve such results.

Begin.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

If they ally with the Caliphate with the purpose of invading Persia, and that alliance holds, then you could have N.Mesopotamia and part of Persia go to the Romans and the rest to the Caliphate.

Assuming the Romans Empire is able to hold itself together, some settler's in N.Mesopotamia and Persia could form a toe hold that side of the Euphrates, especially if the Nestorians can form a role akin to the Melkites in Egypt.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

I wrote a overly long explanation, but I decided to erase it and put it here:

Starting in 602 AD, can the Byzantine empire crush Persia in such a way, that it manages to fully colonize it in the following centuries, resulting on Persia being recognized by it's habitants as core byzantine territory? There is no end date, the byzantines can control it for 1200 if necessary to anchieve such results.

Begin.

602... I'd say it would be better before that. Before the Justinian plague, hopefully avoid the plague. Then it is certainly possible. It would require a lot of recourses though.

 

[Skallagrim]

602 AD is too late unless you set up a "no Islam" scenario. Once Islam is in the mix, @RogueTraderEnthusiast's suggestion is the best you can get, and that doesn't meet the criteria of the OP ("Persia seen as Byzantine core territory".) Arguably, a scenario wherein Mohammed becomes a devout Christian and leads the Arabs to fight the Persians alongside the Byzantines in the name of Christ could be ideal... yet it provides little certainty. Are the Arabs going to actually accept Byzantine hegemony? Because if not, you're still not likely to get a "Byzantine Persia" out of it. Post-602, the ultimate scenario I can think of is one where a Christian alt-Mohammed arises, but is less successful. He can't unite all the Arabs, and he calls for Byzantine support-- accepting the Byzantine emperos as his overlords in return. They give the aid, Arabia is fully Christianised, and with a vast army of Christian Arabs to draw on, the Byzantines then conquer Persia.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

602 AD is too late unless you set up a "no Islam" scenario. Once Islam is in the mix, @RogueTraderEnthusiast's suggestion is the best you can get, and that doesn't meet the criteria of the OP ("Persia seen as Byzantine core territory".) Arguably, a scenario wherein Mohammed becomes a devout Christian and leads the Arabs to fight the Persians alongside the Byzantines in the name of Christ could be ideal... yet it provides little certainty. Are the Arabs going to actually accept Byzantine hegemony? Because if not, you're still not likely to get a "Byzantine Persia" out of it. Post-602, the ultimate scenario I can think of is one where a Christian alt-Mohammed arises, but is less successful. He can't unite all the Arabs, and he calls for Byzantine support-- accepting the Byzantine emperos as his overlords in return. They give the aid, Arabia is fully Christianised, and with a vast army of Christian Arabs to draw on, the Byzantines then conquer Persia.

Well, Muhammad's first revelations are described as taking place in 610 AD.

So a 602 AD point of divergence would most likely result in a "no-Islam" scenario.

I wrote a overly long explanation, but I decided to erase it and put it here:

Starting in 602 AD, can the Byzantine empire crush Persia in such a way, that it manages to fully colonize it in the following centuries, resulting on Persia being recognized by it's habitants as core byzantine territory? There is no end date, the byzantines can control it for 1200 if necessary to anchieve such results.

Begin.

Greeks did colonize Persia under the Seleucids. Even though Parthia ended up using Greek as a lingua franca for many years afterward, Persia was never lastingly Hellenized.

 

[Skallagrim]

Well, Muhammad's first revelations are described as taking place in 610 AD.

So a 602 AD point of divergence would most likely result in a "no-Islam" scenario.

It's very possible, but does depend heavily on the travelling speed of the butterflies.

 

[Dfront21]

I wrote a overly long explanation, but I decided to erase it and put it here:

Starting in 602 AD, can the Byzantine empire crush Persia in such a way, that it manages to fully colonize it in the following centuries, resulting on Persia being recognized by it's habitants as core byzantine territory? There is no end date, the byzantines can control it for 1200 if necessary to anchieve such results.

Begin.

impossible. Byzantines were pretty nasty to it's own Zoroastrians. Imagine how they would treat the Persians. The Arabs had a difficult time with Persian revolts and they weren't half as bad with non-Muslims as the Byzantines were with non-Christians.

 

[Gukpard]

impossible. Byzantines were pretty nasty to it's own Zoroastrians. Imagine how they would treat the Persians. The Arabs had a difficult time with Persian revolts and they weren't half as bad with non-Muslims as the Byzantines were with non-Christians.

Let's say that the byzzies take 300 years to fully occupy all of Persia, finishing it in the mid 900s. Can't the people living there be considered byzantines by the 1700s?

 

[Dfront21]

Let's say that the byzzies take 300 years to fully occupy all of Persia, finishing it in the mid 900s. Can't the people living there be considered byzantines by the 1700s?

Only if the definition of Byzantine can be expanded to include Persian speaking and Zoroastrian.

 

[Gukpard]

Only if the definition of Byzantine can be expanded to include Persian speaking and Zoroastrian.

The persians in OTL were converted to islam in the 1700s after centuries ruled by muslim dynasties, I believe that in such scenario Persia would have become a orthodox nation by 1700s

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

The persians in OTL were converted to islam in the 1700s after centuries ruled by muslim dynasties, I believe that in such scenario Persia would have become a orthodox nation by 1700s

Where do you get that Persia got converted by 1700s? I honestly want to know.

For the East Romans to convert the Persians it needs to destroy the existing religious insitutions to convert the lower class and cut deals with the local nobility. It won't be that hard as the institutions weren't already that strong. Islam overcame Zoroastrianism even though it allowed Zoroastrians to keep their religion. By the year 1000 Islam was a majority religion. Having local elite of your religion helps a lot.

 

[Dfront21]

Where do you get that Persia got converted by 1700s? I honestly want to know.

For the East Romans to convert the Persians it needs to destroy the existing religious insitutions to convert the lower class and cut deals with the local nobility. It won't be that hard as the institutions weren't already that strong. Islam overcame Zoroastrianism even though it allowed Zoroastrians to keep their religion. By the year 1000 Islam was a majority religion. Having local elite of your religion helps a lot.

But early Islam didn't demand conversion of conquered peoples, and still there was resentment by Persians. Imagine the Byzantines, who will demand conversion by the sword. You will surely get much more hardned and determined resistance. The Byzantines don't have the manpower to maintain an occupation and forced conversion.

 

[Gukpard]

Where do you get that Persia got converted by 1700s? I honestly want to know.

I didn't said that it was in the 1700s when Persia adopted islam, this confusionw as caused because english is not my first language. What I meant is that since Persia was a muslim nation by the 1700s, if the byzantine empire had conquered Persia and controlled it until the 1700s it would likely turn into a orthodox nation.

For the East Romans to convert the Persians it needs to destroy the existing religious insitutions to convert the lower class and cut deals with the local nobility. It won't be that hard as the institutions weren't already that strong. Islam overcame Zoroastrianism even though it allowed Zoroastrians to keep their religion. By the year 1000 Islam was a majority religion. Having local elite of your religion helps a lot.

My idea is taht the the byzantines had first to take over the levant, converting the local elite. Then in the following centuries they consolidate the best they can and declare war again, taking over the coast of the persian gulf, and last conquer the core land of persia.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

602 AD is too late unless you set up a "no Islam" scenario. Once Islam is in the mix, @RogueTraderEnthusiast's suggestion is the best you can get, and that doesn't meet the criteria of the OP ("Persia seen as Byzantine core territory".) Arguably, a scenario wherein Mohammed becomes a devout Christian and leads the Arabs to fight the Persians alongside the Byzantines in the name of Christ could be ideal... yet it provides little certainty. Are the Arabs going to actually accept Byzantine hegemony? Because if not, you're still not likely to get a "Byzantine Persia" out of it. Post-602, the ultimate scenario I can think of is one where a Christian alt-Mohammed arises, but is less successful. He can't unite all the Arabs, and he calls for Byzantine support-- accepting the Byzantine emperos as his overlords in return. They give the aid, Arabia is fully Christianised, and with a vast army of Christian Arabs to draw on, the Byzantines then conquer Persia.

Mine was merely a first step. The initial colonisation us essentially the Toehold on the Plateau. Time and effort, and overcoming the old emnities is key.

It could work in the manner of exiled Persian Nobles being given the deal of converting to some Christian faith, accept adoption by a Roman family (or take a Greek Surname) and have supper to replace the Persians. That'd allow them to dismantle the Zoroastrian nobility with a friendly and indebted nobility. Client states if you will, later centralised and integrated.

But it'll be a long process. If you started in 602, and nobles start 'Going Roman' in 720, you could have a Romano-Persian east by 900 ad, in a similar manner to the Byzantine centre and (hypothetically) Germanic or Latin west.

 

[Jürgen]

I would love for the East Romans to conquer Persia and making the Persian Romans, but only for the empire losing the Balkans and Anatolia later.

 

[Kevin Wanderlan]

I would love for the East Romans to conquer Persia and making the Persian Romans, but only for the empire losing the Balkans and Anatolia later.

Not so different from what happened when Rome conquered Greece.

Just imagine this cycle repeating itself until the nippo-romans finally set America as the last bastion of "true romaness".

 

[Jürgen]

Not so different from what happened when Rome conquered Greece.

Just imagine this cycle repeating itself until the nippo-romans finally set America as the last bastion of "true romaness".

I would much rather have the Roman Empire ending up in Indochina.