WI: Khosrau II captures/executes/assassinates Mohammed

[John7755 يوحنا]

I'd agree with this: the same goes for the supposed letters to Heraclius.

As for Byzantium in this scenario, I'll make the point that I always make, and is always ignored: namely that a "Coptic revolt" is extremely unlikely to happen. There wasn't a distinct Egyptian identity to forge such a revolt in the seventh century. All of the educated classes who could have led a rebellion were thoroughly culturally Greek (which of course in the East is synonymous with Roman) and part of a world that clearly looked towards Constantinople and the Mediterranean, rather than inwards to Egypt. Furthermore, the total absence of religious revolt against Constantinople by anti-Chalcedonian provincials in either period of Roman/Byzantine rule over them (fifth to seventh centuries and tenth to eleventh centuries) is I think suggestive.

About the only chance I can see for a breakaway Egyptian state is one happening almost "accidentally", with a rebellious general somehow taking Egypt but being unable to advance further from there, and Constantinople being unable to deal with the pretender. The Egyptian army itself was pretty marginal compared to the major forces stationed on the Danube and Euphrates, so I think such a rebellion would have to initially begin outside Egypt, but end up being contained to there.

In a scenario where the Arab (I deliberately don't say "Islamic", because I think it's dubious as to whether the first generation conquerors were actually Muslims as we understand the term) conquests are aborted early, the slow reconstruction of Constantinopolitan rule over the Eastern provinces continues. An early priority will be to put together some sort of doctrinal fudge that accommodates non-Chalcedonian opinion, and, assuming no further military disasters, there's no reason this shouldn't stick. Monothelitism IOTL after all was abandoned after continued Arab successes in the 670s made it abundantly clear in Constantinople that God's favour had not returned to the Empire: the same goes for Iconoclasm in the 830s. Unlike Iconoclasm, a Chalcedonian fudge doctrine is unlikely to incur significant popular disapproval, simply because most people won't understand it: so I think it has a significantly greater chance of sticking.

In military terms, it all depends on how quickly Iran is put back together. Assuming a relative respite in the East that lasts for, say, a generation or so, I'd imagine military efforts will be directed towards the Balkans, where there are plenty of easy victories to buoy an imperial government that depends on an image of the God-blessed, victorious Roman Emperor. All being well, I think the priority would perhaps be to first secure the Danube, before dealing with the Sclavenes within imperial territory. As with OTL, population transfers of defeated Sclavenes to Anatolia are quite likely. I can also see some Sclavenic warlords being allowed to remain within the Empire in exchange for conversion to Christianity, and a fairly "fuzzy" provincial system developing in the area, similar to that which existed in Syria in the sixth century with nomadic Arabs and Roman provincials.

If, on the other hand, Iran bounces back quickly, then there can be no reasonable doubt that all efforts will go to defending Roman interests in the Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia. The Balkans and Italy will continue to be largely ignored and starved of resources: perhaps not by quite so much as OTL, but both theatres will certainly be very much a side show. Constantinople's priorities can be summarised as:

1. Eastern enemies
2. Balkan enemies
3. Italian enemies
4. All other enemies

And this is pretty consistent throughout the Empire's history, certainly until the Komnenids, with only occasional aberrations: under Justinian, for example, you can arguably swap 2 and 3 around, although even Justinian spent a lot of money trying to fortify centres in the Balkans and not a great deal of money trying to reconquer the West.

Hope that this is helpful!

Thanks for the info on Byzantium. As you said the only way you could think of for Egypt to break away is with a rogue general. Let's say that happened would Byzantium be able to hold onto the Levant (with other external threats Arab raiders, Sassanids and steppe hordes)if it was to lose Egypt? As well, could Egypt while perhaps being culturally Greek, wouldn't the difference in language (Coptic) at least be a starting point for a possible rebellion.

In regards to Persia, after studying for a little bit and reading other posts the religion in the Persian plateau was still primarily Zoroastrian and would remain so until Islamization of the area by the Abbasids. Also without a millitary conquest it is doubtful this would change.

Addressing my earlier post about the Turks and their invasion of India, I wonder if we could see a stronger non Islamic invasion of India, akin to a earlier Mughal empire (without Islam). This could cause a larger Turkish presence in India, possibly with some territories of modern day Pakistan speaking Turkish (or some form of it). Turkish mercenaries will also seldomly be used aside from maybe in Persia(which could be interesting if they create a Mamluk type system; however unlikely with Zoroastrianism's aversion to slavery). Also, if any one has any idea on what religion would be dominant among the Turks, that would be very helpful. My bet though would be that they would be similar to the Mongols changing their religion to the area they conquer.

Also if anyone has info on the extent of Manichaeism in the middle east for the era, would be appreciated.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

As well, could Egypt while perhaps being culturally Greek, wouldn't the difference in language (Coptic) at least be a starting point for a possible rebellion.

Egypt wasn't "perhaps" culturally Greek: there's no doubt that Greek was the only language of high culture and education. There certainly were educated individuals who spoke and wrote, and even did business, in Coptic, but by gaining that education you were brought into the world of Greek speaking classical Mediterranean culture. It's worth remembering, also, that the nuances of the Chalcedonian debate can only be properly expressed in Greek: the debate began as one between Greek-speaking Romans in Constantinople, and Greek-speaking Romans in Alexandria.

Also, Egypt spoke Egyptian throughout the seven centuries of Roman rule. I'd venture that if linguistic differences were ever going to provide a fertile ground for rebellion, they would have done so sooner.

 

[SvoHljott]

Also if anyone has info on the extent of Manichaeism in the middle east for the era, would be appreciated.

Manichaeism was fairly well spread throughout Transoxiana up to the Jaxartes/Syr Darya amongst Sogdians and Turks (Karluks and Oghuz). At the time of the year 600, Manichaeism could be found in Khotan, Yarkand and the other Tarim Kingdoms (Saka speaking peoples), Tokharistan (Khojand) and Bukhara.

It was gradually being displaced by Nestorian Christianity in Bukhara interestingly enough, though the city had a really mixed population, even after Arab conquest.

Still, Manichaeism never got a thorough grip anywhere, it was always a minority faith, though several influential figures converted to it.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Apologies if this comes across as a re-hash, but I thought I'd re-respond when I learnt about Khosrau II and his heirs.

Something I'd like to add that I may have overlooked previously due to ignorance is that the chaos after Khosrau II may be inevitable.

Which if we have no Mohammed to unify the nomadic arabs we have two vast, fragmented/unstable regions near a weakened Byzantines, who are the preeminent power of the region, with potentially little idea of their weakness, and their greatest (perceived) enemy is falling apart. In addition, we have a declining Axum, and Turk states that don't seem willing or capable of conquering Persia, or attacking the Byzantines. (I think I have covered enough scope...)

Persia

The fate of Persia proper seems obvious, Civil War, followed by new Persian state - neither Rome nor any Indian state could feasibly conquer and rule Persia - and any nomads would likely just be rendered Persian over time.

Mesopotamia? If the civil war lasts for a long time, I could see Heraclius wanting to annex it given the opportunity (be it as a client or otherwise), but also a smaller independent Arab-Conquered state emerging.

I wouldn't rule out an Arab conquest of Persia, but they'd need a talented leader and significant followers to do so. I think that would be the most likely outlet for an Arab leader.

Arabia

This is where it gets really volatile - we have limited information on other leaders that could unite Arabia, and I'd posit that without unifying them they'd see nothing like the successes of Mohammed. We could see smaller groups invading Mesopotamia or Axum. How early on did the great generals of the Muslim conquests achieve prominence?

Otherwise we have to see how quickly Persia rebuilds itself. If quickly, and led by an expansionist, we could see them rapidly attempt to control the Arabian Peninsula, as they had done so already round to Yemen. Probably not the interior, but certainly the coastal regions.

Without a resurgent Persia, or an internal leader, if the Byzantines have the inclination, they may take territory/form clients from Egypt down to the Yemen. (Depends on how damaging the Sassanid control of Yemen was).

Axum could be an interesting player however, if it manages to build the strength up to conquer Yemen, it could benefit them - or more interestingly, if they invite Arabians to populate the lowlands, or as mercenaries.

Byzantium

Respite, oh blessed respite!

I'm going to use BGs order of focus here, for sanities sake.

1) Eastern Enemies - Well, Persia isn't a thing when Khorsau dies, which gives them time to recover, and if they see the opportunities, significant buffer regions to enhance Roman power in the East, and protect against a resurgent Persia - Mesopotamia, Arabian Client states (if they think they're worth it) - and if we have Arab migrations, lots of additional manpower when they really need it. I think it is plausible to see Mesopotamia, the Hedjaz, and Yemen as new client states. Axum could seek client status, but I'm doubtful, but I could see a Roman city in the area.

2) Balkan Enemies - not my strong suit, but reconquest here is easily possible now. Arab mercenaries, veterans from the Persian front. Could perhaps prevent the Bulgarian empire(s).

3) Italian Enemies - I can't see a reconquest of Italia. Benevento is probably the limit in the short term. Anything more would lead the Byzantines more hard pressed to protect Spania.

4) Others - Spania/Africa/N.Italia - This is where I think the limits are, expanding Spania to protect against the Visigoths is the upper limit of what I think we could say the Byzantines would be able to do with good luck. Could they do it - no idea, but they could certainly reinforce it. Expanding Spania rules out expanding in Africa or N.Italy, and vice versa, IMO. Even these is optimisitic and means Heraclius would be (or need to be) as talented (if not more so) than some thought.

Non-violent Arab Migrations

Something else that could happen, is if there are demographic reasons for leaving - peaceful arab migrations into the Ghassanids, Byzantines or Axum - all of the more stable areas around Arabia.

Again, apologies if this comes across as a re-hash, but I thought I'd re-respond when I learnt about Khosrau II and his heirs.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Apologies if this comes across as a re-hash, but I thought I'd re-respond when I learnt about Khosrau II and his heirs.

Something I'd like to add that I may have overlooked previously due to ignorance is that the chaos after Khosrau II may be inevitable.

Which if we have no Mohammed to unify the nomadic arabs we have two vast, fragmented/unstable regions near a weakened Byzantines, who are the preeminent power of the region, with potentially little idea of their weakness, and their greatest (perceived) enemy is falling apart. In addition, we have a declining Axum, and Turk states that don't seem willing or capable of conquering Persia, or attacking the Byzantines. (I think I have covered enough scope...)

Persia

The fate of Persia proper seems obvious, Civil War, followed by new Persian state - neither Rome nor any Indian state could feasibly conquer and rule Persia - and any nomads would likely just be rendered Persian over time.

Mesopotamia? If the civil war lasts for a long time, I could see Heraclius wanting to annex it given the opportunity (be it as a client or otherwise), but also a smaller independent Arab-Conquered state emerging.

I wouldn't rule out an Arab conquest of Persia, but they'd need a talented leader and significant followers to do so. I think that would be the most likely outlet for an Arab leader.

Arabia

This is where it gets really volatile - we have limited information on other leaders that could unite Arabia, and I'd posit that without unifying them they'd see nothing like the successes of Mohammed. We could see smaller groups invading Mesopotamia or Axum. How early on did the great generals of the Muslim conquests achieve prominence?

Otherwise we have to see how quickly Persia rebuilds itself. If quickly, and led by an expansionist, we could see them rapidly attempt to control the Arabian Peninsula, as they had done so already round to Yemen. Probably not the interior, but certainly the coastal regions.

Without a resurgent Persia, or an internal leader, if the Byzantines have the inclination, they may take territory/form clients from Egypt down to the Yemen. (Depends on how damaging the Sassanid control of Yemen was).

Axum could be an interesting player however, if it manages to build the strength up to conquer Yemen, it could benefit them - or more interestingly, if they invite Arabians to populate the lowlands, or as mercenaries.

Byzantium

Respite, oh blessed respite!

I'm going to use BGs order of focus here, for sanities sake.

1) Eastern Enemies - Well, Persia isn't a thing when Khorsau dies, which gives them time to recover, and if they see the opportunities, significant buffer regions to enhance Roman power in the East, and protect against a resurgent Persia - Mesopotamia, Arabian Client states (if they think they're worth it) - and if we have Arab migrations, lots of additional manpower when they really need it. I think it is plausible to see Mesopotamia, the Hedjaz, and Yemen as new client states. Axum could seek client status, but I'm doubtful, but I could see a Roman city in the area.

2) Balkan Enemies - not my strong suit, but reconquest here is easily possible now. Arab mercenaries, veterans from the Persian front. Could perhaps prevent the Bulgarian empire(s).

3) Italian Enemies - I can't see a reconquest of Italia. Benevento is probably the limit in the short term. Anything more would lead the Byzantines more hard pressed to protect Spania.

4) Others - Spania/Africa/N.Italia - This is where I think the limits are, expanding Spania to protect against the Visigoths is the upper limit of what I think we could say the Byzantines would be able to do with good luck. Could they do it - no idea, but they could certainly reinforce it. Expanding Spania rules out expanding in Africa or N.Italy, and vice versa, IMO. Even these is optimisitic and means Heraclius would be (or need to be) as talented (if not more so) than some thought.

Non-violent Arab Migrations

Something else that could happen, is if there are demographic reasons for leaving - peaceful arab migrations into the Ghassanids, Byzantines or Axum - all of the more stable areas around Arabia.

Again, apologies if this comes across as a re-hash, but I thought I'd re-respond when I learnt about Khosrau II and his heirs.

Khalid ibn Walid was already somewhat of a prominent general before the Arab conqqeusts. If the state of Medina keeps him and the rest of the future caliphs , most likely history doesn't change too much. However in my earlier post I addressed this by assuming Khalid stays pagan and with the Quraysh.

Btw, if Muhammad is killed in 628 that would mean that there is still a Islamic state in Medina which is likely to conquer the rest of the Hejaz especially as more people in the interior convert to Islam. This would lead to Byzantium having an opponent in the Red Sea at a time when they cannot afford a invasion and will have difficulty defending its trade in the Red Sea.

I agree with your assertions on Persia. However I wonder what a new Persian dynasty would look like, I wonder if it would simply be a reborn Sassanids or have a slightly different flavor.

 

[SvoHljott]

I agree with your assertions on Persia. However I wonder what a new Persian dynasty would look like, I wonder if it would simply be a reborn Sassanids or have a slightly different flavor.

The Sassanids were religious zealots, descending from a Zoroastrian priest and all - it's not impossible that a new dynasty would be more liberal towards Christians.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The Sassanids were religious zealots, descending from a Zoroastrian priest and all - it's not impossible that a new dynasty would be more liberal towards Christians.

That was kind of along the lines I was thinking. Also, I have read in some places a while back that the Sassanids was the peak of pre-Islamic Persian culture, if this is true would a new dynasty be able to jump even higher?

Earlier in one of my main posts on this thread I said that while the Mediterranean would be safer and that in many ways Europe would be better of especially the Greek speaking world, while the Middle East would be more dangerous without the Arab conquests and that the ideas and such during the Islsmic golden ages would be butterflies away. Is there any way to get a continuity of ideas (from India) to Europe or Byzantium without a dominant Arab conquests?

 

[SvoHljott]

That was kind of along the lines I was thinking. Also, I have read in some places a while back that the Sassanids was the peak of pre-Islamic Persian culture, if this is true would a new dynasty be able to jump even higher?

Earlier in one of my main posts on this thread I said that while the Mediterranean would be safer and that in many ways Europe would be better of especially the Greek speaking world, while the Middle East would be more dangerous without the Arab conquests and that the ideas and such during the Islsmic golden ages would be butterflies away. Is there any way to get a continuity of ideas (from India) to Europe or Byzantium without a dominant Arab conquests?

It's impossible to say, anything could happen. The Sassanids were being attacked from all sides, it's possible an earlier Turkic conquest of Iran or at least Khorasan could happen. These Turks would probably convert to Buddhism, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism, depending on where their capital was (Herat = Zoroastrian, Balkh = Zoroastrian, Bamiyan = Buddhist, Kabul = Buddhist, Qandahar = Buddhist or Hindu)

If the Turks don't conquer, then a new Iranian dynasty that takes the place of the Sassanids will surely target them first (they're an easier target than the Byzantines, especially since the Turks weren't united). I think you'd probably see a peace with Byzantium for some time in the Byzantine's favour.

 

[Sian]

actually wouldn't be sure that a new persian dynasty would be all that happy about Christians, form where outsiders sit, they follow the exact same religion as their nemesis (ERE) does, hence they're suspect and rather easy to use as a hate object to use as a focus, and easily typecasted as spies or fifth column.

 

[SvoHljott]

actually wouldn't be sure that a new persian dynasty would be all that happy about Christians, form where outsiders sit, they follow the exact same religion as their nemesis (ERE) does, hence they're suspect and rather easy to use as a hate object to use as a focus, and easily typecasted as spies or fifth column.

Nestorian Christianity is heresy to the ERE so I am not sure how true this is. The early Sassanid Era showed remarkable tolerance to Christians, but it got progressively worse.

 

[Sian]

Nestorian Christianity is heresy to the ERE

obivously, but would the differences between Christian sects be acknowledged by say Zoroastrians? ... It seems more likely that they would say Christians = Christians, just as most Europeans even in this time and day have absulutely no clue what the differences between Shia and Sunni Islam is.

 

[Pere F.]

Maybe the Sasanian Empire could break in a few kingdoms, the caos in the end of reign of Khosrau II, is a reaction of the old partiam nobility against the administrative reforms Khosrau I the byzantines could foment a few vassal kingdoms and use money and men to prolong the caos.

 

[firesoul]

The Sassanids were religious zealots, descending from a Zoroastrian priest and all - it's not impossible that a new dynasty would be more liberal towards Christians.

This is not actually true under Adeshir I and during the time of his Mobed e Mobed whos name escapes me this was nearest the case, but after that it was much more laid back and tolerant. I cite the Christian Nestorians who fled into the empire to escape persecution by Orthodox Romans. and the Christian Assyrians and the survival of rather ancient faiths in what is now northern Iraq - Yesdis(SP) being there modern day descendants. The there are the Jews arguably Persia's oldest ally.

The only faiths the Sassanians had any issue with where those that stirred the political pot and over all they where far more tolerant than the Romans

 

[Malta]

The Sassanids were religious zealots, descending from a Zoroastrian priest and all - it's not impossible that a new dynasty would be more liberal towards Christians.

*cough Tapirianis Cough*

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

This is not actually true under Adeshir I and during the time of his Mobed e Mobed whos name escapes me this was nearest the case, but after that it was much more laid back and tolerant. I cite the Christian Nestorians who fled into the empire to escape persecution by Orthodox Romans. and the Christian Assyrians and the survival of rather ancient faiths in what is now northern Iraq - Yesdis(SP) being there modern day descendants. The there are the Jews arguably Persia's oldest ally.

The only faiths the Sassanians had any issue with where those that stirred the political pot and over all they where far more tolerant than the Romans

While I am not the expert on Persian history, I would assume that actually the religious tolerance was inheritated from the Parthians rather than a Sassanid invention thus the longer the Sassanids reign went the less tolerant they became. Also, the persecution of Manichaens was initiated by the Sassanids and they were most likely the most zealous persecutors of them until Islam. Primarily I would say the Sassanids were tolerant of religions that did not question they're authority.

We can also look at the rise of the priest Kartir for a movement from the earlier Zurvanism prevalent in Parthia back to Mazaidism (a presumed earlier, purer form of Zoroastrianism). On the Assyrians, part of the reasons they received minimal persecution was that they were not really Persians. As in they were not ethnic inhabitants of the Iranian plateau. So in a sense the Sassanids did not care what some Semitic speaking foreigners worshiped, but when you try to convert in the Iranian Plateau; is when you make the Sassanids angry.

 

[SvoHljott]

This is not actually true under Adeshir I and during the time of his Mobed e Mobed whos name escapes me this was nearest the case, but after that it was much more laid back and tolerant. I cite the Christian Nestorians who fled into the empire to escape persecution by Orthodox Romans. and the Christian Assyrians and the survival of rather ancient faiths in what is now northern Iraq - Yesdis(SP) being there modern day descendants. The there are the Jews arguably Persia's oldest ally.

The only faiths the Sassanians had any issue with where those that stirred the political pot and over all they where far more tolerant than the Romans

It is true that they were religious zealots, and the Sassanid attitude never really calmed down in their persecution of Christians. They were lighter on Nestorians than Orthodoxy. I think you misunderstood what I meant - they were religious zealots regardless of persecution of other faiths, but they only really persecuted Christians and Manichaeists (and later the Mazdak movement). I never meant that they persecuted any non-Zoroastrians since obviously the Jews, Buddhists etc who lived in the Empire didn't receive a lot of attention. They did try to proselytize as best as they could.

There were several battles and a war (421-422 under Bahram V) fought over the persecution of Christians by the Sassanids.

*cough Tapirianis Cough*

Do you mean Tabaristan? I'm not sure what you mean otherwise. In any case, the Tabaristanis weren't so much a successor state but more of a breakaway province.

 

[Malta]

e Sassanids.

Do you mean Tabaristan? I'm not sure what you mean otherwise. In any case, the Tabaristanis weren't so much a successor state but more of a breakaway province.

They are the Tabaristan based Dynasty that I have sweep aside the Sassanids in my own No Islam TL (well technically there are Muslims but Muhammad dies on the trip to Medina and they eventually flee to Ethiopia).

 

[SvoHljott]

obivously, but would the differences between Christian sects be acknowledged by say Zoroastrians? ... It seems more likely that they would say Christians = Christians, just as most Europeans even in this time and day have absulutely no clue what the differences between Shia and Sunni Islam is.

The Sassanids were devious when it came to politics, they'd turn anyone against anyone. The majority of Europeans might not know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni but the politicians involved in foreign affairs do and, without being to cynical, they do play them against each other when it is to their advantage. Of course religion was more important in politics then too.

 

[SvoHljott]

They are the Tabaristan based Dynasty that I have sweep aside the Sassanids in my own No Islam TL (well technically there are Muslims but Muhammad dies on the trip to Medina and they eventually flee to Ethiopia).

Oh alright, I haven't read your timeline I'm afraid but I will do so, sounds interesting

 

[Malta]

Oh alright, I haven't read your timeline I'm afraid but I will do so, sounds interesting

It petered out about a century and a half later when the Berber, Latin Speaking Ptolemaic dynasty made a go at the Tapurianis.

At least I got Zoroastrian Zanzibar in there.