AHC: Failed Arab conquest of Persia, but equally succesful Arab conquest of the ERE?

[Muwatalli']

Have the Arab conquest of Persia fail and have them being equally (or more) succesful against the Byzantine Empire, as in OTL?

Is this possible? Or is Persia too weak to survive, especially with the Byzantines being defeated as in OTL?

 

[Anaxagoras]

One of the reasons that both Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire fell so quickly IOTL was that both were weakened from constant fighting against one another and had no time to recover. Perhaps, ITTL, if the Arab conquest of the ERE is more difficult and takes longer, Persia will get some breathing space to recover and ready itself for the coming Arab onslaught.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't know. Maybe the Persians establish relations with the Arabs? There was no love lost between the Arabs and the Byzantines as a result of the Battle of Mu'tah. It might be possible for the Persians to decide "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and forge an alliance.

 

[Dfront21]

Persia would have to be in a more stable place, as it was in the middle of a civil war. The Arabs wanted Rome, not Persia (aside from Mesopotamia). The problem is there were various Persian warrior states that were not in a position to negotiate a peace with the Arabs. Each Persian state wanted to reconquer lost territories to gain more prestige, which caused the Arabs to continue to push forward. At the end of the cycle, all of the Iranian plateau was conquered.

 

[Muwatalli']

Would an early peace between Persia and the Arabs be possible? Or is this out of the question?

 

[Beedok]

Battle of Qadisiyyah probably could have ended differently, both sides bled pretty bad OTL. An arab defeat would save the Persians, though I'm not sure if the Arabs could recover to conquer Constantinople.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Have the Arab conquest of Persia fail and have them being equally (or more) succesful against the Byzantine Empire, as in OTL?

Is this possible? Or is Persia too weak to survive, especially with the Byzantines being defeated as in OTL?

Well realistically I can't see that happening. At the very least the Arabs would conquer Mesopotamia, while at the same time Constantinople would still be unconquerable.

Would it be possible for the Byzantines and the Persians to work together against the invading Arabs? Maybe an enemy of my enemy is my friend type scenario?

 

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

At most arabs can take anatolia, roman africa, levant and egypt... they cant penetrate the balkans or take constantinople due to lack of an effective navy and logistical overstretch.
As for byzantium and persia working together,

They did, allaince beetween heraclius and the persian king of kings. Didnt work out really well.

 

['Ezana]

Historically, I know that the Arabs supposedly wanted peace after conquering Mesopotamia, but decided to conquer all of Persia after continuous attacks from the Persians (which is why there was a gap between the conquest of Mesopotamia and the conquest of the rest of Persia). I don't know of a similar desire for peace with the Romans, so you could potentially get the Arabs to focus on the Byzantines if they get their desired peace with the Sassanids.

 

[Muwatalli']

I don't want the Arabs to conquer Constantinople, I want them to be equally succesful against the Byzantines whilst failing to conquer Persia.

 

[PhoenicianLegacy]

Islam would spread westward instead of east.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I don't want the Arabs to conquer Constantinople, I want them to be equally succesful against the Byzantines whilst failing to conquer Persia.

Oh. I thought you meant equally successful against the Byzantines (as they were against the Persians), while failing to conquer Persia. Ie switch fates. You meant ... (as in otl), apparently.

Well, we've that cleared up I guess.

 

[Muwatalli']

Does anyone still have any thoughts on this?

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think that if the Byzantine Empire fell, the Pope would create a new successor state to the Roman Empire.

 

[HonestAbe]

^ *CoughHolyRomanEmpireCough*

Excuse me.

Anyway, if Persia does survive the Arab onslaught could we see surviving Zoroastrianism? And would this prevent the Mongols from adopting Islam? I think we could see a much more powerful Persia after the end of the Arab Golden Age.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

^ *CoughHolyRomanEmpireCough*

Excuse me.

Anyway, if Persia does survive the Arab onslaught could we see surviving Zoroastrianism? And would this prevent the Mongols from adopting Islam? I think we could see a much more powerful Persia after the end of the Arab Golden Age.

Eh. . .Why would the Mongol conquest still occur if the point of divergence is in the 7th century?

Zoroastrianism would survive if no Islamic conquest occurred. As far as I can tell from my studies of that religion, it was prosperous before the conquest, and it took a great amount of effort from the Muslims to convert the population, including bribing people to come to Friday prayers.

EDIT: This assumes the Arabs don't just try again later, of course.

 

[HonestAbe]

I'm not sure if the Mongols, or a similar steppe invasion would entirely fail to happen though. Although Temujin may never be born or rise to power, this PoD is to late to stop the emergence of Turks and other Mongolic peoples. Even at their greatest extent the Sassanids never reached the Tarim basin so they would have had relatively little to do with the Mongols, though the Turks would and Khitan would at least reach their borders (would be interesting to see if they still took on Turkish generals like the Arabs did). I think that absent big changes in central Asia there will still be Mongol/Turkic invasions, especially given how the steppe tribes seem to have operated.

All in all though I think this TL is very good for Iran, they could be quite strong.

 

[HonestAbe]

Let's say that on day 4 of battle Rostam does not die, the Persian right not only regains it's ground, as it did historically, but begins to drive back Saad's left flank. Rostam tries to take Saad again and succeeds this time, perhaps because the Arabs have already committed their own cavalry elsewhere. By the end of the day Saad is killed or captured and much of the Islamic army destroyed, however the Persian force has sustained heavy casualties itself, including the loss of the elephant corps.

Yarmouk has already happened and Damascus has fallen IIRC, I don't think the Byzantines have the strength for a counter attack and I don't think the Persians have the strength to push into the Levant or Arabia proper. Perhaps the Persians and Arabs stop, locked in a stalemate, or signing a treaty at the Iraq border, with Mesopotamia still in Sassanid hands.

The big question is wether Yazdegerd stands by the Byzantines and keeps the pressure off of Egypt by attacking Iraq, or if he is content to lick his wounds and perhaps even make peace with the Arabs. If the Sassanids don't put the pressure on Egypt may still fall to the Caliphate, paving the way for the fall of North Africa and perhaps Spain.

And what about the Chinese? Will they stop at the Persian border? It seems like the Western army is to small and to far from home to defeat the Persians. Assuming they go much farther west sans Talas of course.

 

[Muwatalli']

Let's say that on day 4 of battle Rostam does not die, the Persian right not only regains it's ground, as it did historically, but begins to drive back Saad's left flank. Rostam tries to take Saad again and succeeds this time, perhaps because the Arabs have already committed their own cavalry elsewhere. By the end of the day Saad is killed or captured and much of the Islamic army destroyed, however the Persian force has sustained heavy casualties itself, including the loss of the elephant corps.

Yarmouk has already happened and Damascus has fallen IIRC, I don't think the Byzantines have the strength for a counter attack and I don't think the Persians have the strength to push into the Levant or Arabia proper. Perhaps the Persians and Arabs stop, locked in a stalemate, or signing a treaty at the Iraq border, with Mesopotamia still in Sassanid hands.

The big question is wether Yazdegerd stands by the Byzantines and keeps the pressure off of Egypt by attacking Iraq, or if he is content to lick his wounds and perhaps even make peace with the Arabs. If the Sassanids don't put the pressure on Egypt may still fall to the Caliphate, paving the way for the fall of North Africa and perhaps Spain.

And what about the Chinese? Will they stop at the Persian border? It seems like the Western army is to small and to far from home to defeat the Persians. Assuming they go much farther west sans Talas of course.

The Sassanids were severely weakend though, I do not think they would be in the position to pressure the Arabs, even if they win decisively at Qadisiyyah.
In this scenario, would the Sassanids be able to hold Mesopotamia or would the eventually loose it to the Arabs anyway? I do not think they are powerful enough at this moment to pressure the Arabs that much, so I think Egypt would still fall.

How important would Iraq be to the Arabs, would they focus more on conquering Iraq or more on conquering the Byzantine empire?

 

[Muwatalli']

No thoughts on this?