What if Emperor Justinian focused on conquering the Sassanids instead of the western mediterranean?

Wr1t3r

the Germanic tribes almost completely wipe out christianity (including arianism) west of sardinia, the Persians have converted from Zoroastrianism to nestorian Christianity, but their empire has a large number of Eastern Orthodox christians, especially the Assyrians. Then, theodora dies before the visigothic queen does, and Justinian re-marries her, unifying the Byzantine empire with Italy. All this makes the Sassanid empire more subjugatable and the west, less, this all motivates him to go east, instead of west.
 

Elfwine

Not quite clear what the question is, since you seem to have set up a scenario so utterly unlike OTL it's anyone's guess how strong the Sassanids are or Justinian's empire are.
 

Wr1t3r

Elfwine said:
Not quite clear what the question is, since you seem to have set up a scenario so utterly unlike OTL it's anyone's guess how strong the Sassanids are or Justinian's empire are.
Click to expand...
just as powerful as in OTL, but if Justinian got Italy without the expensive conquest. The other things I changed only affected how subjugatable the Sassanid empire was, not how conquerable it was
 

Elfwine

Wr1t3r said:
just as powerful as in OTL, but if Justinian got Italy without the expensive conquest. The other things I changed only affected how subjugatable the Sassanid empire was, not how conquerable it was
Click to expand...

Yeah, the huge amount of dead butterflies it takes to get this means you can pretty much say whatever you want happens as far as one thing there makes as much sense to me as another, but my personal suspicion is "not very conquerable and not very subjugatable".
 
Last edited:

Evil Crusader

I strongly believe you'd have more success not trying to lay out complex scenarios that likely get picked apart and, as has been stated by @Elfwine, likely makes guesstimating arbitrary to impossible; for example, simply saying 'what if Justinian swiftly conquers Italy and then goes East?' would have been more likely than this roundabout scheme of heretics but then marriage alliance (???) and so easily united Italy (!!!). PODs need not necessarily be complex, when they concern stuff that is agreed to be quite possible anyways (such as Byzantine Italy).
That said, I also agree that it's not very conquerable and not very subjugatable, mainly because the 6th century was a great time for Persia overall; it endured its fair share of invasions, but they weakened their eternal rival of the ERE far more, and two very long reigns by very competent Emperors did wonders for the state (as common for pre-modern countries) allowing them to challenge, for a while, East Rome as true peers. So even with all the troops and the best generals, what you're likely to end with is 'just' Byzantine pre-eminence in Mesopotamia that reinforces the usual status quo, maybe with temporary advance that is bound to get rolled back whenever Byzantium is busy (and boy, will it be).
 
Last edited:

HyperMuscularDemon

First off, not to be rude, but how exactly are the Germanic tribes going to wipe out Christianity west of Sardiania? Many of them were Arian Christian themselves. As for the Byzantines conquering the Sassanians, I can see the Byzantines taking Mesopotamia, but it will be very hard trying to defend the rich province of Mesopotamia from the Sassanians.
 

funnyhat

Wr1t3r said:
the Germanic tribes almost completely wipe out christianity (including arianism) west of sardinia, the Persians have converted from Zoroastrianism to nestorian Christianity, but their empire has a large number of Eastern Orthodox christians, especially the Assyrians. Then, theodora dies before the visigothic queen does, and Justinian re-marries her, unifying the Byzantine empire with Italy. All this makes the Sassanid empire more subjugatable and the west, less, this all motivates him to go east, instead of west.
Click to expand...
By the time Justinian took the throne, the Franks had already converted to Christianity under Clovis.
 

Wr1t3r

Evil Crusader said:
The 6th century was a great time for Persia overall; it endured its fair share of invasions, but they weakened their eternal rival of the ERE far more, and two very long reigns by very competent Emperors did wonders for the state (as common for pre-modern countries) allowing them to challenge, for a while, East Rome as true peers. So even with all the troops and the best generals, what you're likely to end with is 'just' Byzantine pre-eminence in Mesopotamia that reinforces the usual status quo, maybe with temporary advance that is bound to get rolled back whenever Byzantium is busy (and boy, will it be).
Click to expand...
Are the muslim conquests of the 7th century just as successful as they were in OTL?
 

Evil Crusader

Wr1t3r said:
Why? And to what extent most likely?
Click to expand...
Well, the implications of the OP mean the ERE - already the one to weather the Arab storm - now has more strength to fight it. And that storm's emergence was already extraordinary.
It may well be that there is no Caliphate, or that it gets eventually beaten back.
 

Wr1t3r

Evil Crusader said:
Well, the implications of the OP mean the ERE - already the one to weather the Arab storm - now has more strength to fight it. And that storm's emergence was already extraordinary.
It may well be that there is no Caliphate, or that it gets eventually beaten back.
Click to expand...
but wouldn't it also mean the sassanids who also bore the storm will be weaker?
 

Evil Crusader

Wr1t3r said:
but wouldn't it also mean the sassanids who also bore the storm will be weaker?
Click to expand...
The Sassanids didn't really bore the storm, they bent fairly quickly - providing meaningful resistance only for a decade. They may not be weaker here, and likely profit from any major Byzantine setback, but still not be able to resist the Arabs well if push comes to shove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top