Fate of Persia if Julian the Apostate sacks Ctesiphon and kills Shapur?

[CastilloVerde]

This thread is not to determine if Julian the Apostate's Persian campaign would be a success.

Rather, assuming that Julian was able to to have a successful invasion of Sassanid Mesopotamia in AD 363, the Sassanid capital Ctesiphon is sacked and the Shah Shapur the Great was killed, what would happen to Persia?

Shapur would probably be succeeded by his younger brother Ardashir (who would succeed Shapur in OTL in 379). Shapur's son (OTL Shapur III) may also have been an infant at this time so the Sassanid succession is probably safe.

Beyond this, what would happen to Persia? Would the Persians attempt an invasion of Rome at a later date to take revenge? How would this occur? What would the Great Houses of Iran do?

Can Julian make Ardashir a puppet? Would the Persians cede land to Rome?

Interested in any thoughts.

 

[Buba]

I imagine that Rome could hold on to Mesopotamia. For some time, at least. The Ottomans, with the centre of their Empire at the same place as 4th century Rome, managed such a feat for 400 years. The situation - and the border - quickly reverting to the usual state of affairs as seen over the past 400 years is IMO quite likely (the game changer being the Roman cpitgal moved from Rome to Constantinople, a few weeks closer in travel time).

Rome holding on to Mesopotamia - and thus weakening Persia grealty - IMO depends in part on how events evolve in Rome, i.e. does it try to impose Nicene Christianity or are the "Christian Emperors" a blip. In other words - does Rome piss off (and how much) the local Nestorians/Zoroastrians/Traditional Faiths. The other part is how quickly does Persia bounce back.

I'd expect the Iranian Plateau to be beyond Rome's reach. Ardashir would not be a puppet. At most he'd pay a tribute for some time before telling Rome to go and pound sand, with Roman reaction limited to angry noises/border skirmishes in the Zagros.

So, either status quo ante and no POD inside a relatively short time or - "permamently" Roman Mesopotamia -> weaker Persia.
So, here be butterflies - Maybe Sassanids push into Punjab? Huns invade Persian lands and settle in Choresm and thus no/weaker Migration Period? Or maybe such a Persia is more Central Asia oriented and stomps out the Huns? Huns go on their merry way to Europe and Persia regains Mesopotamia in first half of Vth century, exploiting Roman preoccupation with western territories?
Lots of butterflies

 

[stevep]

I've actually toyed with a TL based on this but it was more centered on the Roman empire and a 'pagan' revival, which wouldn't go without a lot of further internal conflict. According to some reports Julian's forces, after crossing the Tigris and taking the Persians by surprise had a chance to seize the gates of Ctesiphon but he was fearful that the light forces that could reach it quickly before they were closed would be annihilated before the rest of the Roman army arrived.

However if Julian took the chance and the light units managed to contest the gates until the rest of the army arrives they can probably take and sack the city. This is likely to lead to the death of a lot of the Persian nobles loyal to Shapur and if he can't escape the Shah himself. The Sassanid HC are probably going to be a lot easier to defeat and kill in a crowded urban battle than on an open field. However what happens then on two issues:
A) What does Julian do? Does he try and march down to the gulf, echoing Trajan? Or march inland as he did OTL as his initial aim was to emulate Alexander and conquer Persia to demonstrate the continued viability of the old gods against the Christian 'usurper'? Or possibly, since his own losses have probably been heavy decide that some sort of limited victory is worthwhile but that pushing on could lose too much of his own valuable veterans and loyalists. You might also get some sort of attempt by some Christian elements in the army to assassinate him as he's looking too great a threat to their faith.

I would say if he marches inland he's likely to eventually be unsuccessful and might see his army humiliated as OTL after his death. With Persian losses so heavy it might mean a more balanced peace and you could have someone more adequate that Jovian as a replacement if Julian is still killed, whether their Christian or pagan.

If he seeks to secure the rest of Mesopotamia and is willing to accept the submission of local lords then that should be possible with the Sassanids seriously weakened and decapitated and there is some very wealthy territory there that would be a big boost to the economy as well as another route to Indian and eastern goods. On the other hand as Trajan found holding it is likely to be difficult with threats from both the Iranian highlands and raiding Arab tribes and the empire doesn't have the economic and military strength and vitality it used to. As such not sure how things goes.

If he decides that securing his own empire, getting the reforms and changes he wants in terms of reducing bureaucracy, reviving the older faiths and the like as well as the important issue of supply an heir then the empire could have a decent future although there are likely to be further religious conflicts.

B) What happens in the Sassanid empire? You could see a peaceful succession by Ardashir - assuming he's not also in Ctesiphon with the army? Or with a lot of loyalist defeated and a big blow to the prestige of the dynasty you might see some other noble family making a bid for the throne, possibly seeking to legitimise it by acting as protector to the young Shapur - who would likely have an unfortunately accident shortly. Or simply some fringe rulers trying to break away.

Again the degree of disorder or stability inside the Sassanid empire will interact with the decisions of Julian as to whether there's further fighting, and where or a period of peace - before conflict inevitably resumes at some stage.

Steve

 

[Navarro]

It's doubtful that Julian could have really revived Roman paganism - even discounting supernatural claims, Greco-Roman paganism was moribund and coasting on inertia. He'll do a lot of damage to the Persian Empire if he campaigns eastward, but ultimately he'll lose and either die in the field or return in disgrace. Even a conquest of Mesopotamia wouldn't really reverse the decline of Roman paganism.

 

[CastilloVerde]

I imagine that Rome could hold on to Mesopotamia. For some time, at least. The Ottomans, with the centre of their Empire at the same place as 4th century Rome, managed such a feat for 400 years. The situation - and the border - quickly reverting to the usual state of affairs as seen over the past 400 years is IMO quite likely (the game changer being the Roman cpitgal moved from Rome to Constantinople, a few weeks closer in travel time).

While it is indeed possible for the Romans to hold Mesopotamia, I imagine it would be difficult, particularly in Late Antiquity with Julian as emperor. Julian's reign, if he lived, would no doubt be full of events that would require his full attention. Whether it's dealing with northern barbarians, reforming Roman paganism, or dealing with perhaps a growing number of internal enemies, Julian may simply disregard Mesopotamia.

Though, I wonder what other scenarios could plausibly lead to a Roman Mesopotamia?

I'd expect the Iranian Plateau to be beyond Rome's reach. Ardashir would not be a puppet. At most he'd pay a tribute for some time before telling Rome to go and pound sand, with Roman reaction limited to angry noises/border skirmishes in the Zagros.

Yes this seems likely, I don't think that the Romans would have any interest in conquering the Iranian plateau. Well, maybe Julian might - if he has delusions of grandeur of being Alexander the Great reborn - but I would expect his advisers try to... persuade him otherwise.

So, either status quo ante and no POD inside a relatively short time or - "permamently" Roman Mesopotamia -> weaker Persia.
So, here be butterflies - Maybe Sassanids push into Punjab? Huns invade Persian lands and settle in Choresm and thus no/weaker Migration Period? Or maybe such a Persia is more Central Asia oriented and stomps out the Huns? Huns go on their merry way to Europe and Persia regains Mesopotamia in first half of Vth century, exploiting Roman preoccupation with western territories?

I wonder if the Hephthalites would conquer Iran in the next century provided the Persians are left in infighting. Assuming Rome holds Mesopotamia, that would deprive the Persians of their most productive and valuable regions. Perhaps in this case, the Sassanid dynasty would lose legitimacy and the Great Houses would choose a new dynasty to be crowned as King of Kings of Iran. Though such a dynasty may seek to go to war with Rome to prove itself to the Iranian Great Houses.

Lots of butterflies

 

[CastilloVerde]

I've actually toyed with a TL based on this but it was more centered on the Roman empire and a 'pagan' revival, which wouldn't go without a lot of further internal conflict. According to some reports Julian's forces, after crossing the Tigris and taking the Persians by surprise had a chance to seize the gates of Ctesiphon but he was fearful that the light forces that could reach it quickly before they were closed would be annihilated before the rest of the Roman army arrived.

Thanks Steve, interesting. I have ideas to write a 'Julian survives' TL also. I don't have any love for Julian, but I'm interested in reading about a reformed pagan Roman Empire and Julian's own ideas are rather intriguing. Though researching enough material for a TL can get quite intimidating. I'm also worried that there might not even be enough people interested in this topic to be worth the research.

However if Julian took the chance and the light units managed to contest the gates until the rest of the army arrives they can probably take and sack the city. This is likely to lead to the death of a lot of the Persian nobles loyal to Shapur and if he can't escape the Shah himself. The Sassanid HC are probably going to be a lot easier to defeat and kill in a crowded urban battle than on an open field. However what happens then on two issues:
A) What does Julian do? Does he try and march down to the gulf, echoing Trajan? Or march inland as he did OTL as his initial aim was to emulate Alexander and conquer Persia to demonstrate the continued viability of the old gods against the Christian 'usurper'? Or possibly, since his own losses have probably been heavy decide that some sort of limited victory is worthwhile but that pushing on could lose too much of his own valuable veterans and loyalists. You might also get some sort of attempt by some Christian elements in the army to assassinate him as he's looking too great a threat to their faith.

I would say if he marches inland he's likely to eventually be unsuccessful and might see his army humiliated as OTL after his death. With Persian losses so heavy it might mean a more balanced peace and you could have someone more adequate that Jovian as a replacement if Julian is still killed, whether their Christian or pagan.

If he seeks to secure the rest of Mesopotamia and is willing to accept the submission of local lords then that should be possible with the Sassanids seriously weakened and decapitated and there is some very wealthy territory there that would be a big boost to the economy as well as another route to Indian and eastern goods. On the other hand as Trajan found holding it is likely to be difficult with threats from both the Iranian highlands and raiding Arab tribes and the empire doesn't have the economic and military strength and vitality it used to. As such not sure how things goes.

If he decides that securing his own empire, getting the reforms and changes he wants in terms of reducing bureaucracy, reviving the older faiths and the like as well as the important issue of supply an heir then the empire could have a decent future although there are likely to be further religious conflicts.

Emulating Alexander seems to be Julian's likely course of action. I think he may have saw himself as Alexander's reincarnation. Though hopefully his generals and advisors talk him out of doing anything rash. The Sassanids were not at all the late era Achaemenids.

Julian deciding to annex Mesopotamia is something I'm wondering if it's plusible or not. Was it even his goal to do so? It would certainly be difficult for the Persians if the Romans take all Mesopotamia as it was the most productive region of the Persian Empire.

Assuming Julian decides sacking Ctesiphon is enough and returns to Rome a hero, he would no doubt continue his religious reforms, though if this would succeed is best suited to another discussion.

B) What happens in the Sassanid empire? You could see a peaceful succession by Ardashir - assuming he's not also in Ctesiphon with the army? Or with a lot of loyalist defeated and a big blow to the prestige of the dynasty you might see some other noble family making a bid for the throne, possibly seeking to legitimise it by acting as protector to the young Shapur - who would likely have an unfortunately accident shortly. Or simply some fringe rulers trying to break away.

If Ardashir survives, he would likely be the next Shah. If not then young Shapur. Though it would be interesting if both die during the chaos of Julian's invasion. In that case, the Great Houses of Iran would have to choose a new dynasty and new king to serve as the King of Kings of Iran, which could lead to civil war if there is no agreement among the houses. The Great Houses were quite protective of their own privileges and domains. Though once a dynasty is safely enthroned after a period of conflict, the new Shah would likely go on a campaign of (re)conquest to prove his standing to the Great Houses and bring glory to his own dynasty. If the Romans conquered Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia would be the main target of a Persian reqoncest campaign.

Of course, the new Shah(s) would have to do this before the Huns arrive!

 

[Buba]

If the loss of Mesopotamia with its Aramaic speaking, Christian/pagan population was permanent (or at least a century or two), thus making the Sassanid state ethically and religiously much more homogenous - close to pure Indo-Iranian and Zoroastrian (and Buddhist?) - would that cause any changes?

Julian's reign, if he lived, would no doubt be full of events that would require his full attention.

Yup.
E.g. with no Imperial patron enforcing the party line, Christianity breaks up into followers of the Holy Gourd or Holy Sandal etc. causing unrest and instability.
This significantly lowers probability of "Roman Mesopotamia".

 

[stevep]

It's doubtful that Julian could have really revived Roman paganism - even discounting supernatural claims, Greco-Roman paganism was moribund and coasting on inertia. He'll do a lot of damage to the Persian Empire if he campaigns eastward, but ultimately he'll lose and either die in the field or return in disgrace. Even a conquest of Mesopotamia wouldn't really reverse the decline of Roman paganism.

I doubt he would do much damage if he tried invading the Iranian heartland as it would be likely to end as OTL, even if he wasn't deceived by someone he thought was a Persian traitor. Apart from anything else as the ruler of a vast existing but frequently challenged empire he can't afford to spend several years marking deep into Iran.

Reviving a non-Christian empire would be difficult simply because for all its fractious nature the religion has some clear advantages for a strong autocratic state. It would probably have traditional religions and some of the newer ones, but avoiding the totalitarian nature of something like the Abrahamic faiths. However I'm reluctant to assume anything is impossible.

Steve

 

[stevep]

If the loss of Mesopotamia with its Aramaic speaking, Christian/pagan population was permanent (or at least a century or two), thus making the Sassanid state ethically and religiously much more homogenous - close to pure Indo-Iranian and Zoroastrian (and Buddhist?) - would that cause any changes?

It would definitely weaken the Presians resource wise. Also if it gave the Romans better access to eastern trade that could be a factor. However I'm doubtful that Rome could hold it indefinately without huge changes and a lot of luck.

Yup.
E.g. with no Imperial patron enforcing the party line, Christianity breaks up into followers of the Holy Gourd or Holy Sandal etc. causing unrest and instability.
This significantly lowers probability of "Roman Mesopotamia".

That's possibly easier for a pagan empire to handle than a Christianity that is partly unified in opposition to it. For one thing without imperial patronage it could lose a lot of supporters who are more into looking for the best career opportunity. Also a squabbling fractious collection of cults make themselves look more worthless and also allows divide and rule options.

I do agree however that the domination that Christianity has established in much of the eastern empire, coupled with the continued Persian threat, makes it unlikely for the empire, especially if not Christian itself, to maintain control of the area. Its too likely there would be repeated rebellions in the east and even if they are suppressed that the most distant eastern outposts are not regained, for all their wealth.

 

[Navarro]

E.g. with no Imperial patron enforcing the party line, Christianity breaks up into followers of the Holy Gourd or Holy Sandal etc. causing unrest and instability.
This significantly lowers probability of "Roman Mesopotamia".

That didn't happen in the three centuries previous to Constantine, it's not going to happen now.

 

[stevep]

Thanks Steve, interesting. I have ideas to write a 'Julian survives' TL also. I don't have any love for Julian, but I'm interested in reading about a reformed pagan Roman Empire and Julian's own ideas are rather intriguing. Though researching enough material for a TL can get quite intimidating. I'm also worried that there might not even be enough people interested in this topic to be worth the research.

Emulating Alexander seems to be Julian's likely course of action. I think he may have saw himself as Alexander's reincarnation. Though hopefully his generals and advisors talk him out of doing anything rash. The Sassanids were not at all the late era Achaemenids.

I must admit nowadays I'm too lazy to do too much in the way of research or even write down the TLs I've toyed with in previous years/decades. As you say its difficult getting accurate information but Julian doesn't seem the sort of character that would be ideal for a reformed pagan empire. It either needs a good sub-ordinate or two to present a few ideas or a major change in character. Which is why in my old plot he wins a big victory at Ctesiphon but is horrified by his own losses and this persuades him to end the campaign fairly quickly. As I said elsewhere with a huge existing empire to protect he can't afford to disappear off into the east for several years to emulate Alexander.

Julian deciding to annex Mesopotamia is something I'm wondering if it's plusible or not. Was it even his goal to do so? It would certainly be difficult for the Persians if the Romans take all Mesopotamia as it was the most productive region of the Persian Empire.

Agree on both points.

Assuming Julian decides sacking Ctesiphon is enough and returns to Rome a hero, he would no doubt continue his religious reforms, though if this would succeed is best suited to another discussion.

I can think of a few ideas, especially if he can carry out other reforms to reduce bureaucracy and the general burden on the ordinary population that gives him better opportunities for success.

If Ardashir survives, he would likely be the next Shah. If not then young Shapur. Though it would be interesting if both die during the chaos of Julian's invasion. In that case, the Great Houses of Iran would have to choose a new dynasty and new king to serve as the King of Kings of Iran, which could lead to civil war if there is no agreement among the houses. The Great Houses were quite protective of their own privileges and domains. Though once a dynasty is safely enthroned after a period of conflict, the new Shah would likely go on a campaign of (re)conquest to prove his standing to the Great Houses and bring glory to his own dynasty. If the Romans conquered Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia would be the main target of a Persian reqoncest campaign.

Of course, the new Shah(s) would have to do this before the Huns arrive!

A lot could happen. I would expect the Sassanids to survive but they could have a period of instability and succession wars which would be a considerable help for Rome. Provided that this period was used wisely by the empire and it has a prolonged period of stable government. [Which hasn't really happened for a couple of centuries now so would be quite an achievement.]

Steve

 

[stevep]

That didn't happen in the three centuries previous to Constantine, it's not going to happen now.

There was a lot of squabbles and infighting, along with various groups being declared heretical and sometimes suppression. This continued throughout the period after Constantine gained the throne and started supporting it and was probably a factor in why the Goths for instance when they sought refuge in the empire were treated so poorly. Have a look at the Donatist and the Arianist for a couple of examples. Also there were conflicts between Rome and the eastern patriarchs over primary and while Rome and Constantinople were in large agreement at this stage on doctrine they were already in conflict with the Miaphysitist dominant in Egypt and Syria, and also Armenia. [Their more commonly known as Monophysitic I think but that's a term they reject.]

Steve

 

[CastilloVerde]

If the loss of Mesopotamia with its Aramaic speaking, Christian/pagan population was permanent (or at least a century or two), thus making the Sassanid state ethically and religiously much more homogenous - close to pure Indo-Iranian and Zoroastrian (and Buddhist?) - would that cause any changes?

I'm sure there would be many changes. For one, without Sassanid/Iranian control over Mesopotamia, the Arabian peninsula would develop differently over time. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids, who were historically aligned with Iran and Rome respectively, would be one example to consider.

Also, the Sassanids involved themselves in Himyar/Yemen against the Aksumites in the VI century, so without Mesopotamia, Yemen might be under the Aksumite sphere of influence for a longer time. Because the Sassanid-Aksumite conflict indirectly influenced the events of 'The Year of the Elephant' perhaps Islam's founding would be fundamentally changed regardless of any butterflies preventing Islam's existence.

Some other changes would be in Iran's internal structure. Without Mesopotamia, I wonder what the relationship between the Iranian Great Houses and the ruling Iranian dynasty would be, particularly ehen the Hephthalites appear. Perhaps the Hephthalites themselves become the ruling Iranian dynasty which would result in further changes.

 

[CastilloVerde]

I must admit nowadays I'm too lazy to do too much in the way of research or even write down the TLs I've toyed with in previous years/decades. As you say its difficult getting accurate information but Julian doesn't seem the sort of character that would be ideal for a reformed pagan empire. It either needs a good sub-ordinate or two to present a few ideas or a major change in character. Which is why in my old plot he wins a big victory at Ctesiphon but is horrified by his own losses and this persuades him to end the campaign fairly quickly. As I said elsewhere with a huge existing empire to protect he can't afford to disappear off into the east for several years to emulate Alexander.

Yes I understand. I feel that before writing a TL, the author must do research on at least the events, people, and ideas surrounding the POD in order to ensure the TL makes sense and is plausible. Of course this may not be the case with an ASB TL, but with a TL staying as true to history as possible, such a course of action seems appropriate to make it plausible.

I certainly agree that a reformed pagan empire needs either a good heir or two or a change in Julian's character to make the reforms last. I believe it's possible, though, for the pagan reforms to last. It may not seem likely, but I give Julian more credit than most others when it comes to making the reforms succeed. I still don't like Julian, but I acknowledge his talents and his ideas.

I can think of a few ideas, especially if he can carry out other reforms to reduce bureaucracy and the general burden on the ordinary population that gives him better opportunities for success.

What would those ideas be, if you don't mind?

A lot could happen. I would expect the Sassanids to survive but they could have a period of instability and succession wars which would be a considerable help for Rome. Provided that this period was used wisely by the empire and it has a prolonged period of stable government. [Which hasn't really happened for a couple of centuries now so would be quite an achievement.]

If all members of the Sassanid dynasty are dead, well then the Sassanid dynasty is finished. In this case, a new dynasty must be chosen by the Iranian Great Houses to serve as King of Kings. Rome could indeed use this scenario to focus on her own problems while the Iranians are divided.

However, a surviving Sassanid dynast could still provide unity among the Iranian Great Houses and lead Iran as this century still predates the tyranny of Hormizd IV and Khosrow II, both of whom alienated the Great Houses and ensured the downfall of the Sassanid dynasty in the coming decades. By the IV century, however, the Sassanid dynasty still has legitimacy and the relationship with the Great Houses was still strong. Best case scenario for Iran would be that a Sassanid dynast could survive and lead Iran to victory over the Romans while the Romans were faced with problems surrounding Julian's reforms.

 

[Buba]

Re loss of revenue from trade if Rome holds on to Mesopotamia - IMO Persia will retain it (to large degree). The "India trade" seems to have been by sea to Egypt anyway, so no change (?) in this regard.
The "China trade" will continue over the Silk Road.

 

[stevep]

Re loss of revenue from trade if Rome holds on to Mesopotamia - IMO Persia will retain it (to large degree). The "India trade" seems to have been by sea to Egypt anyway, so no change (?) in this regard.
The "China trade" will continue over the Silk Road.

True but a 2nd route via Mesopotamia might give additional options, as well as possibly additional facilities, such as trade with eastern Arabia, although not sure what that might involve as I think the frankincense and other spices came largely from the Yemen area.

I know that the main eastern trade came via Egypt and the Red Sea route in the early imperial period but was that the case in the latter empire? Have a feeling there was some trade by the more northern route, which apart from anything else would now no longer be under Sassanid control. That is assuming that the empire managed to keep control of the area.

 

[stevep]

Yes I understand. I feel that before writing a TL, the author must do research on at least the events, people, and ideas surrounding the POD in order to ensure the TL makes sense and is plausible. Of course this may not be the case with an ASB TL, but with a TL staying as true to history as possible, such a course of action seems appropriate to make it plausible.

I certainly agree that a reformed pagan empire needs either a good heir or two or a change in Julian's character to make the reforms last. I believe it's possible, though, for the pagan reforms to last. It may not seem likely, but I give Julian more credit than most others when it comes to making the reforms succeed. I still don't like Julian, but I acknowledge his talents and his ideas.

What would those ideas be, if you don't mind?

I think it would need a change in Julian's character and a good successor or two to both restore the empire to something like its earlier vigor and to successfully fight off the challenge of Christianity.

In terms of possible ideas:
a) As mention in another post play off some of the multiple Christian factions against each other. Possibly especially insisting that all sects have equal validity under the imperial law, i.e. prevent the dominant Catholic/Orthodox bloc imposing their views on other groups.
b) Removing or at least reducing the tax exemptions that Constantine had given to the churches. This would bring a lot of land and other resources under taxation again, which would help with the general budget. This might causes some unrest in which case there is the opportunity to seize estates where this occurs and give the land and other resources to local people, weakening the churches power and influence and gaining popularity.
c) Since Christianity was supposed to be a pacifistic creed possibly seek to prevent new Christians joining the military - probably too big a risk to seek to remove Christians already in the legions. This might at a later stage evolve into something like the system later used by the Muslims. That other faiths they recognise as 'of the book' are forbidden military or other high positions but pay an extra tax.

If all members of the Sassanid dynasty are dead, well then the Sassanid dynasty is finished. In this case, a new dynasty must be chosen by the Iranian Great Houses to serve as King of Kings. Rome could indeed use this scenario to focus on her own problems while the Iranians are divided.

However, a surviving Sassanid dynast could still provide unity among the Iranian Great Houses and lead Iran as this century still predates the tyranny of Hormizd IV and Khosrow II, both of whom alienated the Great Houses and ensured the downfall of the Sassanid dynasty in the coming decades. By the IV century, however, the Sassanid dynasty still has legitimacy and the relationship with the Great Houses was still strong. Best case scenario for Iran would be that a Sassanid dynast could survive and lead Iran to victory over the Romans while the Romans were faced with problems surrounding Julian's reforms.

I think the dynasty is likely to survive but there could be a few years while its distracted by internal discontent and possibly some pressure on its eastern borders.

If it does it will no doubt be a big enemy, as would a different dynasty at a later stage. Its possibly however this might frequently be to a break away Christian eastern empire [say in the Syria/Egypt/eastern Anatolia region] which might actually help the empire in the medium term.

Steve

 

[stevep]

I'm sure there would be many changes. For one, without Sassanid/Iranian control over Mesopotamia, the Arabian peninsula would develop differently over time. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids, who were historically aligned with Iran and Rome respectively, would be one example to consider.

Also, the Sassanids involved themselves in Himyar/Yemen against the Aksumites in the VI century, so without Mesopotamia, Yemen might be under the Aksumite sphere of influence for a longer time. Because the Sassanid-Aksumite conflict indirectly influenced the events of 'The Year of the Elephant' perhaps Islam's founding would be fundamentally changed regardless of any butterflies preventing Islam's existence.

Some other changes would be in Iran's internal structure. Without Mesopotamia, I wonder what the relationship between the Iranian Great Houses and the ruling Iranian dynasty would be, particularly ehen the Hephthalites appear. Perhaps the Hephthalites themselves become the ruling Iranian dynasty which would result in further changes.

Some interesting points here. I doubt the empire at this stage can hold Mesopotamia for any length of time, unless the Sassanids are seriously weakened. However even contesting the region could have a lot of impact and if generally the Romans look more powerful than the Sassanids their likely to gain more of a following with the local tribes and groups.

Not sure what the situation would be with Aksum as if the empire becomes pagan again Askum became Christian in 320-360 period so there could be conflict there. [Hadn't realised it was so early]. This could be minor or a serious problem if it affects Red Sea trade routes. Which might mean holding Mesopotamia more important, although that could be tough.

If the empire revives paganism then the incense trade remains important. Which would give them an influence in southern Arabia as most of it came from there, which is another point to consider.

You might see a Mohammad type figure arrise in Arabia, which would be seen as some sort of Christian off-shot I would expect, as it was by many OTL. How it would survive would depend on the circumstances. OTL Islam was lucky that Byzantium and Sassanid Persia had just finished a brutal war that shattered both powers and excited religious discontent in the former at least. Here things might be different.

Steve

 

[CastilloVerde]

I think it would need a change in Julian's character and a good successor or two to both restore the empire to something like its earlier vigor and to successfully fight off the challenge of Christianity.

I agree.

In terms of possible ideas:
a) As mention in another post play off some of the multiple Christian factions against each other. Possibly especially insisting that all sects have equal validity under the imperial law, i.e. prevent the dominant Catholic/Orthodox bloc imposing their views on other groups.

Julian may have already did this. He brought back exiled Arian leaders and ensured that the empire considers each sect equally. No doubt Julian if he survives or his successors would continue this policy.

b) Removing or at least reducing the tax exemptions that Constantine had given to the churches. This would bring a lot of land and other resources under taxation again, which would help with the general budget. This might causes some unrest in which case there is the opportunity to seize estates where this occurs and give the land and other resources to local people, weakening the churches power and influence and gaining popularity.

This seems possible. This would probably result in some unrest of course which could take time to resolve. The money would definitely help with financial issues though.

c) Since Christianity was supposed to be a pacifistic creed possibly seek to prevent new Christians joining the military - probably too big a risk to seek to remove Christians already in the legions. This might at a later stage evolve into something like the system later used by the Muslims. That other faiths they recognise as 'of the book' are forbidden military or other high positions but pay an extra tax.

Removing Christians from the military this early would probably be disastrous. The Christian Jovian was Commander of the Household troops and there were probably other Christians in high ranking military positions. At this stage with many potential enemies like the Visigoths and Iranians, removing Christians from the military seems... unwise. Perhaps at a future century once Rome's problems are dealt with and Julian's reforms somehow succeed then such a plan could be implemented.

The tax suggestion seems interesting though.

I think the dynasty is likely to survive but there could be a few years while its distracted by internal discontent and possibly some pressure on its eastern borders.

If it does it will no doubt be a big enemy, as would a different dynasty at a later stage. Its possibly however this might frequently be to a break away Christian eastern empire [say in the Syria/Egypt/eastern Anatolia region] which might actually help the empire in the medium term.

I agree. The Iranians were formidable so I would not underestimate them.

 

[CastilloVerde]

Some interesting points here. I doubt the empire at this stage can hold Mesopotamia for any length of time, unless the Sassanids are seriously weakened. However even contesting the region could have a lot of impact and if generally the Romans look more powerful than the Sassanids their likely to gain more of a following with the local tribes and groups.

Yes it seems rather unlikely for Rome to hold Mesopotamia for long. As I said earlier the Iranians at this time were formidable. IMO, the Iranians needed to be under a relatively weaker dynasty like the Arsacids to give the Romans a fair chance to hold Mesopotamia. Under Hadrian, the Romans could have succeeded, under Julian it seems unlikely at best it seems.

Regarding the local groups, I read that the Arab tribes in the area were friendly with the Romans and hostile to the Sassanids. This hostility goes back to Shapur's harsh campaigns in Arabia in the 320s and is why there were Arab auxiliaries in Julian's campaign in Persia. If Julian could be victorious perhaps the Arabs in the area would remain loyal to Rome.

Not sure what the situation would be with Aksum as if the empire becomes pagan again Askum became Christian in 320-360 period so there could be conflict there. [Hadn't realised it was so early]. This could be minor or a serious problem if it affects Red Sea trade routes. Which might mean holding Mesopotamia more important, although that could be tough.

If the empire revives paganism then the incense trade remains important. Which would give them an influence in southern Arabia as most of it came from there, which is another point to consider.

Interesting. If Rome remains pagan (albeit reformed) I wonder if Aksum would be regarded as the 'Christian Empire' rather than Rome. This would certainly have important divergences going forward.

If Aksum becomes hostile to Rome, maybe holding Mesopotamia would be harder without a reliable sea route to reinforce the area.

You might see a Mohammad type figure arrise in Arabia, which would be seen as some sort of Christian off-shot I would expect, as it was by many OTL. How it would survive would depend on the circumstances. OTL Islam was lucky that Byzantium and Sassanid Persia had just finished a brutal war that shattered both powers and excited religious discontent in the former at least. Here things might be different.

It's possible that an alt-Islam could arise sometime later, though I have some doubts. OTL Islam came about due to specific circumstances and in a religious and social environment shaped by the Roman-Persian wars over the preceding century. That final war between the two empires really shattered the political worldview of the people at the time also.