WI: The Arabs lose the Battle of Nahavand

[Mirza Khan]

After the fall of Mesopotamia to the Arabs in the 630's, the Sassanid Emperor Yazdegird III raised a second army, which met the Arab army in Nahavand pass (near the modern day city of Hamadan, Iran) in 642. The Arabs were victorious, and while the Arabs had already taken Mesopotamia, the outcome of Nahavand opened the Iranian plateau itself to the Caliphate's armies. Yazdegird fled to Merv, at the far eastern end of the his empire, where he was assassinated, and the Persian empire effectively ceased to exist.

Like the other early battles of the Caliphate against the Byzantines and Sassanids, we don't have a proper order of battle for Nahavand or even a detailed description of troop movements-just a general account of the battle. Thus its hard to say where, specifically, the Persians lost and what POD would save them-but lets just do a bit of a handwave and say that the battle ends with the Persians victorious but badly mauled, and the Arab army withdrawing in good order back to Mesopotamia. Afterwards, the Caliphate and the rump Sassanids sign a treaty (regarded by both sides as more a temporary truce) establishing the Zagros mountains (ie, very roughly the modern day Iran-Iraq border) as the border between the Islamic world and Persia.

While they've escaped complete destruction, this is still a major loss for the Sassanids-their wealthiest province, with their former capital at Ctesiphon, is now in Arab hands, and the best part of their army has been destroyed as well. The late Sassanid empire experienced a great deal of political instability, which probably wouldn't be helped by the preceeding events. OTL, the various Turkic tribes were already establishing themselves in Central Asia in the 600's-the Arabs threw them back out of the region for the next 200 years. Might we see the rump Sassanids gradually break apart into a number of successor states, among which the Arabs and the Kara-Khanids (or whoever the main Turkic power is) compete for influence?

There's also the matter of religion-the Zoroastrian revival was largely accomplished through patronage from the Sassanids, and even with OTL's better outcome at Nahavand, the Sassanids are likely to have quite less resources and prestige going forward. Pre-Islamic Central Asia had large populations of Nestorian Christians, Manicheans, and Buddhists, and IIRC the first two had a significant presence in Persia proper as well. There's also the prospect of messianic, rebellious forms of Zoroastrianism like the OTL Khurramites, who might well find a large following in the collapsing Sassanid empire.

Further thoughts?

 

[Nivek]

ASB,navahad was the equivalent a bunch of wackos on a cave, Persia already was finished

 

[Vinization]

One thing is for sure, the Shah will almost certainly go back to being a first among equals with the nobles rather than a centralized ruler. If the empire does fall apart, it'd probably be divided among the Seven Great Houses, plus whatever nomads might set up shop.

Yazdegerd III made himself a subordinate of the Tang dynasty in a desperate attempt to get some kind of foreign aid, and since Persia will be in a very bad shape here, even with a victory at Nahavand, I could see that still happening here. A Persian empire with Chinese cultural influences would be very interesting to look at.

 

[Evil Crusader]

If they manage to win at Nahavand, that may forestall the disgregation of the Sassanid Empire, but not much else; some kind of Persian polity is likely to survive for a while, entrenched in the Iranian Plateau.

 

[Gloss]

Would the Sassanids ally with the Byzantines?

 

[Kerney]

ASB,navahad was the equivalent a bunch of wackos on a cave, Persia already was finished

Question about this. I am not as familiar with the Sassanids. But in 641 with the fall of Alexandria, it is probably the latest you could argue late antiquity was a thing, though the Roman State/a descendant culture continued for 800 years.

But if you were to look at the state of that state in 642, they don't look that different than a lot of wackos holding up in Asia Minor. They also had succession crisis and instability etc.

Assuming no assassination, time to catch their breath i.e. the Arabs are pressing on other fronts/dealing with alt internal b.s., and the common need not to get conquered, are they as finished as they seem at first glance?

 

[Silver01]

It delays the fall of the Persian empire if this a total victory a large number of the rashidun forces have gotten destroyed the Romans night make their assault on Alexandria earlier in the otl Constans II did after he got rid of Valentinus in 644 how ever o don't find it likely that an immediate attack would occur rather one in 643 at it's earliest attack on Egypt or not I don't find it likely an attack on north Africa would occur in 647 risking 20,000 men on a long expedition there would not viable especially if the shah decides he wants to counter attack there is also the possibility Umar gets killed earlier

Uthman let their governor's have more power and liberty how ever in this case I would think they would need support from medina due to the high loses in short imo this delays the Arab conquest and possibly accelerates or even makes the first fitna worst

 

[Mirza Khan]

One thing is for sure, the Shah will almost certainly go back to being a first among equals with the nobles rather than a centralized ruler. If the empire does fall apart, it'd probably be divided among the Seven Great Houses, plus whatever nomads might set up shop.

Yazdegerd III made himself a subordinate of the Tang dynasty in a desperate attempt to get some kind of foreign aid, and since Persia will be in a very bad shape here, even with a victory at Nahavand, I could see that still happening here. A Persian empire with Chinese cultural influences would be very interesting to look at.

I actually like this idea! The Sassanid empire, having lost Mesopotamia, surviving as a lose confederation of nobles, held together more by fear of the Arabs on one side and the Turks on the other than by any centralized authority.

Meanwhile, the Nestorian and Manichean religions spread, while a contingent of traditionalists support Zoroastrianism. And to the east, the thoroughly un-Islamized alt-Seljuks are rising...

 

[Acamapichtli]

I actually like this idea! The Sassanid empire, having lost Mesopotamia, surviving as a lose confederation of nobles, held together more by fear of the Arabs on one side and the Turks on the other than by any centralized authority.

Hmm... how could the Sassanians save their skins under these conditions? 🤔

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

I’m not very well read on this era or Persian history in general but I feel that unless it’s a crushing defeat for the Arabs I think it’s more likely that it’ll just delay their fall to the caliphate when they make their next attack or they collapse into infighting and the Arabs take Persia piece by piece. It could have some major butterflies though, even if the Persians collapse it could cause the Arabs to divert forces to the east and have an impact on various battles and events with the ERE. If it gives the ERE some breathing room and swings some events and battles in their favor the Arabs might be in for an even harder time in their wars with the Roman’s as well.

But I do think it’s still possible that a victory of any kind here could stabilize the empire empire and give it room to breath, recover, and reform. Similar to how the Eastern Romans had to change as well. I doubt it would be a centralized empire like before and would be more like a loose confederation of Persian nobles with a rather weak Shah. And would probably be held together by a shared fear of its expansionist Arab and Turkic neighbors. If this means it’s not just a delay but a full on survival then that changes everything. The Muslims World wont expand past the Zagros mountains and if things change with the Romans as well it could also be contained in the west as well.

I wonder if it’s possible that alongside the state’s reforms Zoroastrian faith could change as well to deal with the encroachment of the other faiths that were already doing so before the Arab wars.

 

[NotAMyth]

Battle of Nahavanad is definitely an interesting PoD, but the aftermath radically changes depending on the magnitude of Sassanid victory.

A close victory means that Arabs still retain considerable projection ability, given this is well after Yarmouk and the various nobles, specially those of the Pahlav faction, remain skeptical of joining forces with the mostly Parsig army. It still buys time for all of Iran and may lead to a nominal, decentralised empire surviving.

A clear victory means that both the factions rally around the Shah (for now atleast) and the various fence sitters are brought aboard.

The wise course of action now would be to entrench themselves for the inevitable muslim counter, but if they have to be aggressive the best play might be to collaborate with the Romans. Not sure if the Arabs had enough manpower to deal with multiple theaters concurrently.

 

[Andristan]

ASB,navahad was the equivalent a bunch of wackos on a cave, Persia already was finished

Pretty sure the Moorish Emirs would have said the same thing about Pelayo of Asturias in 723(ish), could be a cool thing, reconquista of the East.

 

[how]

Pretty sure the Moorish Emirs would have said the same thing about Pelayo of Asturias in 723(ish), could be a cool thing, reconquista of the East.

Not comparable, the strength of forces is very different at both battles and also what was at stake one was a small scale rebellion fighting for the survival of their people and way of life from occupation whilst the other was fighting to preserve a decaying empire that has not cared for them in years past. The Sassanids rallied a numerically strong host for Nahavand, wikipedia says the Sassanid army was between 100 - 150 thousand strong but this number seems absurd to me given how they were reliant on holding a fortified passage and in years following could not get an army anywhere close to this size, 50,000 or so would make more sense, still a substantially larger battle than Covadonga. Even with numerical superiority they were still beaten due to lack of discipline as they left their defensive positions to chase a 'retreating' enemy that was able to take advantage of the Sassanid force fighting in terrain that did not suit their army.

It would make more sense to change an earlier battle like Jalula or al-Qadisiyyah, the POD seems to me like saying what if the E.R.E won the Battle of Nikiou instead of altering the more obvious Battle of Yarmouk, I mean is the goal to defeat the Caliphate or is it to just slow down its expansion? Maybe picking the obvious examples is passé. The Sassanids and Eastern Romans couldn't 'turn around' the invasions after suffering these major defeats, it was all on the Caliphate reaching its limits and internal instability offering reprieve. As the defeats pile up, the resources to draw upon lessen, both empires become less popular for their incompetence and more support is offered to the Caliphate. Perhaps the question is what if resistance to the Caliphate in Persia was stronger / lasted longer as that is all that changing this battle will achieve.

 

[Hastings]

I think people are too hard on Persian odds here. Basically what this defeat did was let the Arabs rip through the heart of Persia. The areas near the Caspian Sea and Fars and the south held on a decent bit longer, Fars in particular put up quite the fight. The Arabs kept pushing, but the next big wave after this is in 650. They need to survive this also in a somewhat viable form, but breather will help here. I think by the end of the First Fitna, it is plausible for them to control all of Iran except Iranian Azerbaijan and Khuzestan. The Arab conquests slowed down a lot in the 652-70 period, if the Sassanids survive until then, good odds they hold on for the long run. The thing is Constantinople is more important to the Muslims, so that will remain the focus. The longer things drag out the more the Zargos line will get fortified, especially since the Arabs loved their raids, sort of what happened in Anatolia.