Who would have won if the Arabs didn't invade and defeat both in 632?

Who would have won if the Arabs didn't invade and defeat both in 632?

the Tuareg Tribes

The Byzantines had won, but they were both exhausted.

I highly doubt the Sassanids had the Romans' staying power. They would have collapsed long before the empire gave out.

They won that war, but the conflict would have started again in a generation.

>started again in a generation
it was pretty much constant warring between the two for over 100 years

You can see on the maps that Rome has a more advantageous position, being able to invade the Persian agricultural and administrative heartland from multiple directions. Persia would have to divide its forces between Anatolia and Egypt to do equivalent damage to the Roman state at the cost of marching trough desserts and mountains making it highly unlikely they ever would deal a decisive blow against the Romans by themselves.

Weren't the Ghassanids a Roman ally?

i think so

Genghis Khan becomes born many years earlier by Panonnia, in the bossom of some turkic family. he then showcases himself as the one prophet of Tengri unifies all the tribes under his faith. His succesor take Constantinople nearly a hundred years later.
From that point on Tengrism becomes quite Byzantinized, and the nomadic tribes start taking cues from the now subjugated Romans.
They expand their religion all the way from the Iberian Peninsula to Iberia in the Caucasus, even reaching parts of India, Arabia and Scandinavia thanks to merchants.
Axumite and Eastern Christians still pilgrim all the way to the path of Santiago. Once there they are raided by Tengrist Goths, who procceed to take What now is Santiago de Compostela.
The Eastern Patriarchs organize a series
of crusades though they are mostly interested in taking Constantinople.
Eventually due to disagreements with their Zoroastrian leaders they end up sacking Bagdad and Ctesiphon, severely weakening the position of the Shah in the region. All of this leads to the Goths, who got hand of gunpowder thanks to the silk route, establishing an empire of their own in Iran, which then expands to become one of the greatest powers in the XVI Century before being reduced to its origins in WWI.
Cut to the present day where Basques roleplay as Gothic Shas in the internet, fighting against butthurt Zoroastrian Diaspora shouting "remove sausage".

Persia would have Christianized eventually, albeit slowly. They probably would still have altercations with Byzantium from time to time. Both empires might have just collapsed on their own, who knows.

Finally they'll have a chance to kick those damn Langobards in the teeth!

The Byzantines for several reasons:
>Ctesiphon wasn't that difficult to reach when compared to having to slog your way through the Taurus mountains, Anatolian highlands, and fight the Byzantine Navy when you had none in the Sea of Marmara just to reach the walls of Constantinople, It is much easier to capture and sack the administrative capital of the Sassanids and force demands for the Byzantines.
>The Sassanids were very dependent on Parthian noble support after they overthrew the Arsacid dynasty, the reason why Sassanid resistance collapsed at the end of the Byzantine Sasanian Wars of 602-628 is because the Parthians were sick and tired of the whole thing and just withdrew from the war, meanwhile the Byzantines, though frought with factional infighting was always able to mount a defense at some point, somehow (see: heraclius overthrowing phocas during a fucking war and still winning the war)
>The Sassanids have to assault in two directions, down south through africa and northwest through Anatolia into the Balkans in order to conquer the same territory that the byzantines would have just by walking east. They have to face the choice of splitting their forces, or leaving one front relatively open.

this is without going into detail about army structures, compositions, and tactics available to generals assuming equal skill.

...

>that last sentence

This.

Even though Sassanids were more centralized than the Parthians, they still had governmental problems and should have moved their capital deep inside Iran.

...

Even though i hate both (F)ersians and white subhumans i hate whites more so i stand with Sassanids besides we're more close to them than to cracKKKers

also maybe if it weren't for ara(P)s maybe F people would not be so obsessed with being white (subhuman)

>Cut to the present day where Basques roleplay as Gothic Shas in the internet, fighting against butthurt Zoroastrian Diaspora shouting "remove sausage".

Shut the fuck up already you retarded inbred fucking Muslim-Greek subhumans.

the only subhuman here is you, wh*Te boy.

>in 632
Retard

Then why did the Byzantines lose the last four to five wars before the 601-629 final war against the Sassanids repeatedly?

Too busy with the west

Wrong.

>Belisarius recalled to fight the Perians
>suffers as many losses as he does victories
>"busy with the West"
t. Justinian

They didn't. Most of the Roman-Persian wars ended in a stalemate. The second to last war was actually a Byzantine victory.

The Byzantines were generally on the back foot because they had more pressing shit to do in the west while the Sassanids were very anxious to restore the old Achemenid borders, but both empires gave as good as they got.

>They didn't.
They did.
>ended in a stalemate.
They didn't.
>The second to last war was actually a Byzantine victory.
No it wasn't.
>snip
Nonsense apologism for ERE. Quite pathetic to be so disingenuous and dishonest, in all seriousness. The Byzantines were frequently forced to pay ransoms, tributes, monetary gifts, and were manipulated by the Persians most of their time.

It was really a no-win situation for them. it's just be a bunch of wars of exhausting each other until one or both empires collapsed

>No it wasn't.
retard.

whoops, clearly meant for

What the fuck, can't I quote ?

The only retard is you.

Yep

Ok let's take a look at all the Byzantine Sassanid wars then
>Anastasian war 502-506 result: stalemate
>Iberian war 526-532 result: Persian victory
>Lazic war 541-562 result: Persian victory
>Byzantine-Sassanid war of 572-591 result: Byzantine victory
>Byzantine Sassanid war of 602-628 result: Byzantine victory

You're retarded

What is your source for this?

They were good with Christianity until romans converted, after that they saw Christianity as the enemy religion

Several of the rulers married Christian woman. One king was almost overthrown by his Christian son. Heraclius temporarily installed a Persian general on the throne and the dude's whole family was Christian. It's not out of the question that eventually a Christian would end up ruling Iran.

>591
>result Byzantine victory
Wrong retard.
>602
>Byzantine victory
Wrong retard.
>Heraclius so scared of Shahrabaraz he wouldn't dare face him with an even numerically superior army in Egypt and had to pay him off to leave it and Roman Syria.
Sad, faggot.

>trying to use the second to last Persian-Roman War as a victory when 90% of the endgame was determined by a Sassanid civil war as just cause to claim it was a legitimate "no variables involved or outside factors" win
You are indeed disingenuous. Also you completely neglected to even mention that Khosrau II gave Persian Armenia and part of Iberia to Maurice as a gift, rather than something the Byzantines were able to take in actual combat or feat of arms.

>Wrong retard.
No, you are actually wrong, you don't just get to dismiss historical facts because you don't like them. 10 seconds on google will show you that 591 and 628 were both Byzantine victories.

>Heraclius so scared of Shahrabaraz he wouldn't dare face him with an even numerically superior army in Egypt and had to pay him off to leave it
1. Why Heraclius be scared of Shahrbaraz? He deafeated him twice and was no longer a threat
2. Heraclius didn't pay him to leave, he used his superior diplomacy skills to convince him to go claim the Persian thrown for himself, which he did.

>historical facts
>chery picking factors to paint a ridiculous narrative
>1. Why would Heraclius be scared of Shahrabaraz?
Because he was beaten by him three times in the final war, twice when he vastly numerically outnumbered him and had multiple other generals with him.
>defeated him twice
He defeated him once, the only other match was a stalemate.
>2. Heraclius didn't pay him to leave
Yes he did, retard.
>superior diplomacy skills
I don't think you know what you are talking about at all you fucking retard. Shahrabaraz had already declared independence from House Sassan in the last years of the final Persian-Roman War and was already know by both the Pahlavi and Parsig factions for having ambitions on the throne, so stop making things up.

>You are indeed disingenuous.
I am not, I was replying to the post that said the Sassanids won four or five wars against the Byzantines before the Great War of 602-628. All I did was put up the list of Byzantine-Sassanid wars and their results to prove that wrong.

>Also you completely neglected to even mention that Khosrau II gave Persian Armenia and part of Iberia to Maurice as a gift, rather than something the Byzantines were able to take in actual combat or feat of arms.
I never claimed otherwise, I think it is you who is being disingenuous.

The Persian departure from Byzantine/Roman Egypt and the Levant occured more than a year after hostilities had ended and a truce was already signed between the Persians and Byzantines. Not only did Heraclius refuse to entertain even the slightest notions of fighting off Shahrabaraz's elite veterans out of Roman territories, which was a violation of the Persian-Roman treaty ending the war in July 628 AD, but openly flouted it to Heraclius envoys and delegates. On top of it, it was noted that Heraclius brought a large sum of gold and silver to pay off Shahrabaraz and then added he would ignore the neutrality pact which reaffirmed Byzantine-Persian defensive alliances against aggression instigated by inhabitants from either empire or barbarians. You are a liar. Heraclius had the men, manpower, veterans, and everything to face Shahrabaraz off and specifically chose to negotiate with him out of fear of losing the returns of Byzantine gains and even himself was admittingly fearful of Shahrabaraz's military savy.
No you didn't. The second to last war was not a real victory because it happened entirely while the Sassanids were embroiled in a civil war, you attempted to implicitly claim they lost in a normal conventional war when it was not Persians vs Romans it was Persians + Romans vs Persians. Stop being a wanker.

It was literally a stalemate between the Sassanids and Byzantines until the Persian Civil War in 589 broke out, which the article on wikipedia even pretty explicitly states. Byzantines start doing okay in the Levant and Mesoptamia while everything goes for shit for them in the Caucasus, then in 590, Bahram is dealing with rebellions inside of Persia after murdering the previous king, Khosrau II's father and the Persians were embroiled in constant civil conflicts internally. Then loyalists joined with Khosrau II and allied with Maurice and they ended the war with the only changes being the Persians continued to gain the original tribute and Khosrau II giving Persian Armenia to Maurice as thanks for his throne.

>cherry picking factors to paint a ridiculous narrative
I'm not cherry picking anything
>Because he was beaten by him three times in the final war
That's a plain lie, Shahrbaraz only defeated Heraclius once, and that was outside Antioch in 613. What are these other 2 victories you're talking about?
>He defeated him once, the only other match was a stalemate.
Incorrect, the first victory was in Armenia in 622, the second was in the caucuses in 625, then the stalemate battle you mentioned happened later that same year.
>Shahrabaraz had already declared independence from House Sassan in the last years of the final Persian-Roman War
That's all correct but you don't mention that for about 2 years Shahrbaraz did nothing but sit in Egypt. So when the war was finally over Heraclius convinced him to leave Egypt and go claim the Persian thrown which he then did. I think there was even a marriage arranged between one of Heraclius' sons and one Shahrbaraz's daughters

A victory is still a victory whether you like it or not.

>I'm not.
You definitely are.
>That's a plain lie.
No it isn't.
>Shahrabaraz only defeated Heraclius once.
Wrong retard. Shahrabaraz beat down Heraclius and his brother's as well as even Nicteas armies in tandem in Syria at Damascus. That's already two, dipshit. Then in 622, with a tiny army, Shahrbaraz is defeated by Heraclius in Antolia while massively outnumbered by the Roman forces. Then he lost near Lake Van against Shahrabaraz according to both Arab and Persian sources which is matched by Greek/Roman sources being silent on that part of the conflict near the Satidama river. Then the Battle of Saurus happens which the Byzantine army under Heraclius is forced to retreat when counter-attacked by Shahrabaraz after he had received reinforcements. That's four, dumbass.
>Incorrect
Nope. First victory was at Antioch, second was at Damascus, third was near Lake Van, fourth was Sarus, and the final was a stalemate. Heraclius typically got his shit kicked in by Shahrbaraz and even lost at least once to Shahin as well.
>2 years
Nope, only one year. After the conference with Heraclius messengers during the war, Shahrabaraz say it out. But after the war, he literally intentionally sat in Roman lands in the Levant and North Africa and didn't move until Heraclius had to pay him off to leave. You are lying when you claim "Heraclius convinced him to go after the throne" which has no basis in any reality.
591 isn't a victory because its a fucking stalemate and you completely ignored the miyard of factors and variables making it a grey issue, not a black and white one.

That would definetely have been Byzantium.
Belisarius and the Emperor were superior commanders,Persia was Long overstretcht and had not been establishing an "Empire in the backdor",so to say.
Getting through Mesopotamia,Albania and Northern Iran isn't too hard if a campaign was organized precisely.
Prepare for the Orthodox reincarnation of Alexander the Great.

>Shahrabaraz beat down Heraclius and his brother's as well as even Nicteas armies in tandem in Syria at Damascus. That's already two
Do you know how to count? That was one victory, the one outside of Antioch which I mentioned.
>Then he lost near Lake Van against Shahrabaraz
Interesting, I can't find any mention of this on the Wikipedia page on the war.
>Then the Battle of Saurus happens
That was a stalemate, you even mention it in an earlier post as a stalemate
>You are lying when you claim "Heraclius convinced him to go after the throne" which has no basis in any reality.
If that's not true, why did he suddenly leave Egypt to go claim the throne of Persia? What about the marriage alliance between the two?
>591 isn't a victory because its a fucking stalemate
No, it was a Byzantine victory. I understand that their were a lot of factors influencing the outcome including the civil war, but the bottom line is that the Byzantines won. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend about this.

Not my case of shitpost-alt-history,but most definetely entertaining.

I imagine how a new Roman Empire is established instead, a large Turco-Mongol Union occurs,the Finns betray their Brothers and side with the Slavs and the Germans are trying to get into France again,while Celts are trying to fight them off and the Nords discover America.

Cut to the present where we are all just Saxons trying to hold our ground in Carpathia against the Turco-Avars wanting to drink the blood of our children to become resistent of the Lactose-Bombers.

>empire in the backdoor
Dummy
>northern Iran
Romans never made it to northern Iran in any of their conflicts with the Persians.
>Do you know how to count?
I do, you apparently do not however.
>Interesting, I can't find any mention of this on the wikipedia page on the war.
Its under Shahrabaraz's page, dummy. So to recap:
>humiliated at Antioch by Shahrabaraz
>blown out at Damascus by Shahrabaraz
Actually I forgot about Shahrabaraz beating Heraclius again with his brother at Dara took shortly afterwards, so that's three wins.
>lost again at Satidama which again Byzantine sources don't talk about yet is matched by the Byzantine advance faltering and stopping 625, then the Battle of Saurus whichi is a "technical" stalemate but in actuality a tactical loss since the Byzantine advance under Heraclius is again checked by Shahrabaraz and forced to withdraw and retreat.
>Stalemate
That was Saurus yes, but Lake Van was a loss and technically it really is a loss considering the Byzantines were forced to retreat and withdraw and had their advanced stopped.
>If that's not true
Because Heraclius paid him off you dummy, not talked him out of it. He had to bribe him and did not want to fight him out of Egypt; if Heraclius was so militarily capable as you claim despite his very clear history of struggling with battling Shahrabaraz, he would've simply kicked Shahrabaraz out of Roman Egypt and the Levant. Also the marriage thing is based off conjecture and likely made up by Byzantine propaganda, there have yet to be any actual tangible evidence of Heraclius trying to marry his family into Shahrabaraz's outside of circumstantial claims made centuries afterwards of said incident supposedly occurring.
>it was a Byzantine victory
No it wasn't. It was a combined Persian-Byzantine victory because it was Maurice and Khosrau Parviz vs Bahram Chobin and his traitors in Persia. The bottom line is, you are simply a disingenuous poster.

>Its under Shahrabaraz's page, dummy.
But I'm going off the page dedicated to the actual war and there is nothing mentioning any such battle took place
>blown out at Damascus by Shahrabaraz
Again, no mention of this on the page
>Shahrabaraz beating Heraclius again with his brother at Dara
Now you're just making shit up, this is the first time I've ever heard of this battle and similarly to the other battles you mention, there's no source for this on the page about the war.
>lost again at Satidama which again Byzantine sources don't talk about yet is matched by the Byzantine advance faltering and stopping 625,
Once more, no mention of this on the page, and you're reasoning is wrong. You say the Byzantine advance stopped there but in the next sentence you mention how they advanced to Saursus. So which is it?
>Battle of Saurus whichi is a "technical" stalemate but in actuality a tactical loss since the Byzantine advance under Heraclius is again checked by Shahrabaraz and forced to withdraw and retreat.
No, it was a proper stalemate. Yes Heraclius was forced to withdraw, but so was Shahrbaraz
>if Heraclius was so militarily capable as you claim despite his very clear history of struggling with battling Shahrabaraz, he would've simply kicked Shahrabaraz out of Roman Egypt and the Levant.
The Byzantine Empire had just been through 26 years of war in which they were losing for the majority of it. The Empire was low on money and manpower. It would therefore make sense for Heraclius to use diplomacy instead of force to remove him from Egypt.
>you are simply a disingenuous poster.
I have not been disingenuous, you on the other hand have lied through your teeth this whole time. I'm not going to continue responding as it's clear you're making things up to construct your own narrative.

>But I'm going off of a blah blah
Don't care, the citations are all there.
>Again no mention
Again don't care, the citations are all there, you millennial dipshit.
>first time I've heard of it
Your problem, not mine, retard.
>it was a proper stalemate
No, it wasn't. Heraclius goal was to circumvent Mesopotamia and the Persian fortresses near Nsibis by going through Anatolia and up over the Caucasus to get to Persia. His advance is completely checked, he's *forced* to retreat and withdraw. His goal failed, and his forces were pushed back. That is a textbook loss. He had an objective, he failed to attain that objective and he failed to prevent the Persians from repulsing him and forcing him to withdraw.
>Shahrabaraz was too
No he wasn't. Shahrabaraz was stationed there to prevent him to advance, which he did. Try again, retard.
>The Byzantine Empire just been through 26 years of war
So was the Sassanian Empire, what is your point, retard?
>low on money
Not low on money despite their war ravaged economy, mass number of troops and mercenaries being paid, and gold being given to the Turks to still bribe off Shahrabaraz despite being abundant in manpower, veterans, and generals to force the issue if Heraclius wanted to force a fight.
>I have not been disingenuous.
Yes you have been.
>lied through your teeth
No I haven't retard. So sudoku yourself. Funny how you say this yet claim literal fabrications like "marriage arrangements" which aren't taken seriously by any historian and making up ad hoc theories on Shahrabarz needing Heraclius to tell him to go after the crown which is largely been credited as Byzantine propaganda and unsubstantiated rumor. Fuck off.

Egypt was a liability actually. It was an important grain producer but it was easy for the Sassanids to isolate or conquer - as they did at the start of their miniature ragnarok.

The Arabs proved this too by easily conquering Egypt shortly after

>it was pretty much constant warring between the two for over 100 years
Try +600 years buddy. The romano-persian conflict began with Crassus's invasion and the Sassanids inherited it when they tool over from the Parthians.