WI: The Hephthalites destroy the Sasanian Empire

[Mort the Reaper]

The Hunnic people known as the Hephthalites, also known as the White Huns, spent over a century intermittently warring with the Sasanian Empire. While the two powers were briefly allied following the rise of Peroz I to the Sasanian throne, even working together to defeat the Kidarites, they went to war again, and the Hephthalites established their ascendancy over the Sasanians. Nevertheless, the Sasanians managed to survive, and eventually allied with another fearsome group of steppe nomads, the Göktürks, to defeat the Hephthalites.

What if the Hephthalites had removed the Sasanian Empire from the map?

 

[phoenix101]

I guess much would depend on when exactly, perhaps after defeating Peroz the Hephtalites try to take the empire for themselves?

If you'e interested there is an excellent TL featuring this premise: Rise of the White Huns and it's sequel by @Practical Lobster.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The Hunnic people known as the Hephthalites, also known as the White Huns, spent over a century intermittently warring with the Sasanian Empire. While the two powers were briefly allied following the rise of Peroz I to the Sasanian throne, even working together to defeat the Kidarites, they went to war again, and the Hephthalites established their ascendancy over the Sasanians. Nevertheless, the Sasanians managed to survive, and eventually allied with another fearsome group of steppe nomads, the Göktürks, to defeat the Hephthalites.

What if the Hephthalites had removed the Sasanian Empire from the map?

In my view there are two main options:

1. What @Practical Lobster displays in his timeline on the destruction of the Sassanid realm by the Hepthalshahs.

2. The Hepthalshahs overturning the Sassanid order, replace them as overlords to the Great Houses and rules as a new Eranshahr confederacy stretching further east and with greater focuses upon India and likely eventually coming to some kind of conclusion with Rome on Armenia and upper Mesopotamia, ceding these lands in exchange for an alliance.

In otl, the Hepthalshahs claimed to be the King of Kings and were the overlords of the Sassanids with the support of some of the Great Houses for a period of time during their ascendancy. The critical breach, was that the Great Houses felt increasingly less control over the Hepthalshahs than over the Sassanids and as such even when prior suport had been given to the Hepthalshahs, the Great Houses generally returned to supporting the pliable. My feeling is that the Great Houses also despised that the Hepthalshahs ruled lands that they felt were primarily theirs. Thus, the Great Houses, in alliance with the Hepthalshahs would depose their Great King and or use them as a threat against their overlord, however once the Great Houses managed to subdue their suzerain, they would in essence remember that the Hepthalshahs ruled their core territories and would then re-empower the Sassanids and move together to counter the Hepthalshahs.

 

[Practical Lobster]

The Hepthalshahs overturning the Sassanid order, replace them as overlords to the Great Houses and rules as a new Eranshahr confederacy stretching further east and with greater focuses upon India and likely eventually coming to some kind of conclusion with Rome on Armenia and upper Mesopotamia, ceding these lands in exchange for an alliance.

I think you explain why this would be the far more difficult path quite well in your next paragraph. The Great Houses are unlikely to see the Hephthalites as long term partners - more probably they will see them as a threat to their influence and relative freedom. Short term alliances to weaken the Sassanians are one thing, but I doubt the Great Houses would view Hephthalite overlordship as acceptable or legitimate in the long run. This basically means either the Hephthalite rule over Iran will be short lived, or vice versa.

Also, it must be remembered that Hephthalite invasion (or invasion by their subordinate allies) was usually very damaging to the material prosperity of any region they touched. Even if the Hephthalites built up the regions they ruled more than some of their contemporary nomadic groups did, they still destroyed a lot first. This will make any long term partnership between the Iranian ruling elite and the Hephthalites very tenuous indeed, since I don't see the nomadic coalition they lead acting with much restraint.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Short term alliances to weaken the Sassanians are one thing, but I doubt the Great Houses would view Hephthalite overlordship as acceptable or legitimate in the long run. This basically means either the Hephthalite rule over Iran will be short lived, or vice versa.

While I agree, odd things often occur. If I was to predict history, I would not have imagined the Great Houses to have accepted the Sassanids as kings for over four hundred years. Otl, the notion that the Sassanids were holders of the Eranshahr was more of a joke at times among the Great Houses than any real assertion of devotion mutually between the powers at be in Eranshahr.

In otl, the Great Houses of high power considered the Persianite Sassanids to be of low caste and of poor nobility. In periods of strife, the Great House, the Ispahbudhan, the closest to the Sassanid in relation, remarked that the House of Sassan was begun by a lowly Persian goat herder and one with poor bloodline. Meanwhile, the Ispahabudhan, heirs of the Arsacid, children of the Dahae and having mixed with what was to them, matrilineal descendants of the Achaemenid kings of old, were the true lords of Iran. Teh Sassanid kings were put into position over and over not based upon any merit of the Sassan house itself, but as a sort of truce between the Great Houses, who unwilling to put any of their number on the throne, accepted the lowly Persian Sassan house on the throne as a way to negate the throne and for them to all dominate it jointly.

The Hepthalshahs comparatively, were powerful and their capitol territories lied far to the northeast or east away from the ability of the Great Houses to simply coup the government when they felt a distaste. Furthermore, the Hepthalshahs ruled lands that were traditionally the properties of Ispahbudhan and Suren, including the former Arsacid burial grounds in Parthia. Such a situation was untenable.

As such, I do not believe it is impossible, only that it is not extremely likely for the Great Houses to actively choose the Hepthalshahs over the Sassan House.

This will make any long term partnership between the Iranian ruling elite and the Hephthalites very tenuous indeed, since I don't see the nomadic coalition they lead acting with much restraint.

It may be possible that the Great Houses manage to let the Hepthalshahs loot and pillage Fars, Elam and Mesopotamia and yet avoid their holdings, which aside for the Suren, are overwhelmingly in the north and central parts of the Empire. Otherwise yes, the Great Houses would be more than willing to raise up into war should they be targeted in looting and will revive the Sassanids and reaffirm the confederacy and present a large threat to the Hepthalshahs. Otl, this nearly occurred in the Islamic Invasion at Nahavand, where despite lacking the morale and initiative and likely being outnumbered, were able to nearly defeat the full vanguard of the Arab army.

 

[Silver01]

Short term alliances to weaken the Sassanians are one thing, but I doubt the Great Houses would view Hephthalite overlordship as acceptable or legitimate in the long run.

Didn't this exactly occur but with the Muslims ?
I seem to remember one house even allying with them against another one in their conquest

 

[raharris1973]

Would hephthalite success overthrowing the Sassanians weaken the Persian challenge to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire so much that the Arabs would never get an opportunity to score a breakthrough into the Levant and Egypt?