The Crisis of the 7th Century

[AStanley]

The Crisis of the 7th Century
"Although Yarmouk is little known today, it is one of the most decisive battles in human history ..... Had Heraclius' forces prevailed, the modern world would be so changed as to be unrecognizable"
-George F. Nafziger


Prologue:

In 610, an Arabic trader named Muhammad claimed to have been visited by Angel Gabriel a messenger of God. Commanded by God, Muhammad began to preach Islam to the people of Arabia. Under Muhammad’s leadership, Islam gained many followers and began to obtain political authority in Arabia. 22 Years later when Muhammad died, the faith of Islam had united the entire Arabian Peninsula under the authority of the Caliphate. Muhammad’s successor Abu Bakr began a rapid series of conquests into the Roman and Persian empires, who had been weakened by centuries of war. The General who spearheaded these attacks was Khalid Ibn al-Walid. Persian Mesopotamia fell with relative ease in 633 to Muslim conquerors. The next Year, Muslim armies invaded the southern half of the Roman Levant, capturing its entirety except for Jerusalem and Caesarea, and defeating a Roman Army at Ajnadayn. Abu Bakr would not live to see his planned conquests elsewhere realized, and left this burden on his successor Umar. In 635, the Romans and Persians, former enemies, signed an alliance to drive out the Muslims from their lands. As a Result of this combined threat against them, the Muslims began a withdrawal and concentration into more easily held border regions. In May of 636, the Romans under General Vahan began their offensive into lost lands, and were stopped by the Muslim Armies on the plain of the River Yarmouk[1] . Emperor Heraclius had ordered Vahan to wait to engage the Muslims until October, when the Persian offensive had begun. However, when Muslim reinforcement’s began to arrive, Vahan feared his advisory would grow too strong, and decided to attack Khalid Ibn Al-Wadid’s forces. Both sides organized their soldiers in a broad line, with cavalry in reserve[2] . On August 15, 636, the Battle of Yarmouk would begin, with the fate of the Near East at stake.



http://www.alternatehistory.com//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Mohammad-adil-rais-battlefield_of_yamouk.PNG/250px-Mohammad-adil-rais-battlefield_of_yamouk.PNG (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/File:Mohammad-adil-rais-battlefield_of_yamouk.PNG)
[1] Location of the Battle of Yarmouk
http://www.alternatehistory.com//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Mohammad_adeel-day-0.PNG/220px-Mohammad_adeel-day-0.PNG (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/File:Mohammad_adeel-day-0.PNG)

[2] Deployment of Soldiers before the battle had begun

[MNP]

Could be interesting, but please shrink the pictures.

[AStanley]

Chapter 1: The Battle of Yarmouk
The Battle of Yarmouk began on August 15, 636. Both sides sent champion’s out in front of their lines to duel, to increase morale and kill enemy commanders. After suffering heavier losses than their Muslim counterpart’s, General Vahan called back the duelers and made the first move of the battle. 1/3rd of the Roman Infantry was sent forward to test Muslim strength and resolve, and to probe for potential weak points in the Muslim lines. The Muslim veterans managed to hold back their Roman counterparts, and after moderate fighting through the day, both sides disengaged and returned to camp.
In the early hours of August 16, 636, Vahan conducted a council of War with his subordinate generals. They devised a plan to catch the Muslim army by surprise in the morning when they would be praying. However, Muslim sentinels noticed the Roman Army breaking camp, and managed to warn the rest of the Muslim Army before they faced complete destruction. The Muslim’s hastily drew up in battle formation before the Roman’s attacked. In the Center of the Battle, the Roman’s did not advance much, intending to surround and destroy the Arab contingent’s there without allowing them to retreat. However, on the Roman right flank, Slavic troops commanded by Qanateer managed to inflict devastating losses on the Muslims and soon forced them to begin a retreat towards camp. Troops on the Roman left flank led by Gregory accomplished the same success by adopting the Testudo formation. When Khalid realized the deteriorating situation of his flank, he took command of the reserve calvary, and managed to push back the Roman Left Flank. However, the Muslim Left Flank did not have enough support and because of Roman numerical superiority were pushed back to their camp. There they were encountered by their furious wives who chanted a song from the Battle of Uhud, an earlier Muslim Battle.

O you who run from a constant woman

Who has both beauty and virtue;

And leave her to the infidel,

The hated and evil infidel,

To possess, disgrace and ruin.





This song motivated the Muslims to keep fighting, and prevented a total collapse of the Muslim Left wing. Soon afterwords, Khalid, having stabilized the Muslim right, led his reserve cavalry in support of his Left flank, and soon pushed the Romans back away from the Muslim Camp. The demoralized Roman army being pushed back on its flanks, and suffering heavier casualties withdrew from combat and returned to camp, giving up all gains they had made that day.
On the Third Day of Battle, Vahan held another council of war to understand why the previous day’s attacks had been a remarkable failure. This council decided that targeting specific points on the enemy line, instead of an all-out attack would work best. It was decided that Qanteer would lead the Roman Left and Center-Left against the Muslim Right and Center Right Flank. Qanteer’s plan was to split the two Muslim units apart and destroy them each in detail, while the remainder of the Roman Army stayed in place to prevent other Muslim forces from assisting. This plan was executed perfectly, and pushed the Muslim right and center right back towards their camp, until Khalid was forced to intervene, for fear of losing half his army. Khalid led the reserve cavalry against Qanteer’s armies, and managed to prevent the Roman’s from advancing any further. Even though the Roman’s suffered less casualties, and had not been pushed back, with nightfall soon at hand the emboldened Romans withdrew back to camp, the victors of the Day.
The Fourth Day of Battle would prove decisive. Vahan decided to repeat the strategy he used on the Third Day and concentrate on the Muslim right flank, and then once it broke, send the rest of his army against the Muslim right, and roll back the entire Muslim army and destroy it. Qanteer led the Roman Left and Center Left against the Muslim Center Right and Right, pushing them back as he had done the previous day.
Khalid leading most of the Muslim cavalry rushed to support his Right and Center Right units to prevent a general Roman advance. However, when Vahan saw the Muslims commit most of their cavalry to a single area, he ordered the Roman right and center right to advance[1]. Khalid was immediately forced to disengage from his Right flank and moved in1the middle of his forces to prevent the Romans from forcing his army apart and destroying them in detail. Khalid ferociously attacked the Romans with his cavalry in many skirmishes, and inflicted heavy casualties upon them. However, Khalid was soon struck by a Roman arrow in the chest, and died soon after. With the loss of their commander, the disheartened Muslims began a retreat, and were chased down by the Romans. With no secure friendly territory to fall back to, most of the Arab forces were unable to escape from Vahan’s Army and over the next few weeks were chased down and subsequently killed or held captive if they were in a position of command, when they were captured.
Casualties on Both sides were very heavy, but no accurate body count was conducted due the urgency of pursuing the Arabs. Later estimations stated that during the Battle of Yarmouk and aftermath, the Muslim force of 25,000 to 30,000 men suffered nearly 75% casualties. By the same estimations, the Roman force of 55,000 to 60,000 men suffered nearly 25% casualties. Many Muslim survivors of the battle had retreated back to cities still under their control, but were far from safety. The Roman Army after a triumphant victory was poised to reconquer the Levant, and drive the Muslims back into the desert.

[1] This is the point of divergence, Vahan was too cautious to destroy the Muslim Army when the opportunity presented itself.

[Elfwine]

How exactly are the Arabs without any friendly territory to retreat back to?

I like the idea of the POD, but the casualty figures are staggeringly high there.

[RamscoopRaider]

Yeah I think 25% is considered very high and you have the winners taking 40%

More reasonable would be the Arabs 25% and the Romans 10%

[MerryPrankster]

Uh oh. Considering how the Caliphate nearly toppled Byzantium OTL, now is a REALLY bad time to have an internal power struggle.

However, didn't the later Romans (and thus by extension, the Byzantines) take steps to avoid this kind of thing after the Crisis of the Third Century?

[AStanley]

I have adjusted the Casuality Figures to 25% on the Romans and 75% for the Arabs due to Elfwine and RamscoopRaider's recommendations.

Could be interesting, but please shrink the pictures.

Fixed.

How exactly are the Arabs without any friendly territory to retreat back to?

I like the idea of the POD, but the casualty figures are staggeringly high there.

There is some friendly territory, but it is fairly far away, and the Arabs do not know the layout of the land.

However, I have adjusted the Casuality Figures

Yeah I think 25% is considered very high and you have the winners taking 40%

More reasonable would be the Arabs 25% and the Romans 10%

The Romans IOTL suffered 50-70% Casualties with them being a much larger force, When they are the winners, they can inflict alot more casualties as a percentage because the Arab's are smaller.

The Arab's however were fighting to the death, inflicting alot of Casutalties on the Romans.

However, I have adjusted the Casuality Figures

Uh oh. Considering how the Caliphate nearly toppled Byzantium OTL, now is a REALLY bad time to have an internal power struggle.

However, didn't the later Romans (and thus by extension, the Byzantines) take steps to avoid this kind of thing after the Crisis of the Third Century?

The Crisis of the 7th Century is more simmilar to the Crisis of the 3rd Century in certain aspects than others.

[AStanley]

Here is the map for August 19, 636
171247

[Elfwine]

There is some friendly territory, but it is fairly far away, and the Arabs do not know the layout of the land.

However, I have adjusted the Casuality Figures

They know it well enough to get here. They know it well enough to fight here. I don't think they're going to need to know more than that to escape.

Not all of them - but even half their forces would be a pretty effective wipe out blow, given how demoralizing this would be.

[Basileus Giorgios]

This seems like an interesting POD, and I look forward to seeing where you go from here. However, I do have a few issues with it, that I'll raise early on.

- Firstly, you need to work on your grammar a little. You have apostrophes flying about everywhere when they're not needed, as well as a number of nouns that are capitalised incorrectly. These little things can make an otherwise well written piece rather jarring.

- Secondly, I think your assumptions about the Roman army are a bit off. I'm not sure a testudo formation was in use in the seventh century, given the majority of the soldiery would've been armed with round or, more commonly, oval shields, that wouldn't have worked for the testudo in the way "traditional" Roman shields of the Late Republic and Principate did. My other issue is your figures- the Strategikon of Maurice tends to assume that the largest Roman army in the field will be somewhere around 25,000 men, certainly nowhere near 100,000- which is one of the more conservative Arab estimates. I recommend taking a look at the discussion that begins with post 120 on this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=179401&page=6) thread over at TWC.

[Grouchio]

Could you perhaps tell us who's who on that map?

[MNP]

East of Rome is still a thing? Wow.

[Muwatalli']

Great start of a timeline!

[PhilippeO]

Subscribed !!!

[AStanley]

They know it well enough to get here. They know it well enough to fight here. I don't think they're going to need to know more than that to escape.

Not all of them - but even half their forces would be a pretty effective wipe out blow, given how demoralizing this would be.

A lot of Casualties would be experienced after the Battle, because the Romans still have an organized Cavalry force that knows the land, and would be hunting down the retreating Arabs, some of whom may have a general knowledge of the land, but would be on the run for a very long distance.

This seems like an interesting POD, and I look forward to seeing where you go from here. However, I do have a few issues with it, that I'll raise early on.

- Firstly, you need to work on your grammar a little. You have apostrophes flying about everywhere when they're not needed, as well as a number of nouns that are capitalised incorrectly. These little things can make an otherwise well written piece rather jarring.

- Secondly, I think your assumptions about the Roman army are a bit off. I'm not sure a testudo formation was in use in the seventh century, given the majority of the soldiery would've been armed with round or, more commonly, oval shields, that wouldn't have worked for the testudo in the way "traditional" Roman shields of the Late Republic and Principate did. My other issue is your figures- the Strategikon of Maurice tends to assume that the largest Roman army in the field will be somewhere around 25,000 men, certainly nowhere near 100,000- which is one of the more conservative Arab estimates. I recommend taking a look at the discussion that begins with post 120 on this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=179401&page=6) thread over at TWC.

I will try my best to improve Grammar, however It's not my area of strength.

According to Akram, A.I (2004), The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed – His Life and Campaigns, third edition, Gregory's Units, not the entire army used this formation. I dont think this formation worked perfectly on the Battlefield, but I do believe, even with Oval shields, that Casualties could be reduced, and defense enhanced by adopting a Testudo formation. I will try to clarify in my post that it was only Gregory's units, and not the entire army.

I have changed the Roman Armies size to 57,500 and the Arab Army to 27,500, after averaging modern estimates from various sources.

While I now agree that 100,000 men is a rather implausible estimate, I believe the Roman Army was larger than 25,000 for a number of reasons.
First, the Army at Yarmouk was multiple armies that had been called back together. Second, even If all of the Roman Armies in the Levant were 25,000 men strong, the Arab Ghassanids contributed many men as well, increasing the total number of men by a good amount.

Could you perhaps tell us who's who on that map?

I use the TACOS Color Scheme

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5821752&postcount=368

East of Rome is still a thing? Wow.

Yes it is.

Great start of a timeline!

Thank you!

Subscribed !!!

Thank you!

[Elfwine]

A lot of Casualties would be experienced after the Battle, because the Romans still have an organized Cavalry force that knows the land, and would be hunting down the retreating Arabs, some of whom may have a general knowledge of the land, but would be on the run for a very long distance.


And the Byzantines can only keep up an active pursuit for so long - remember the limits of the endurance of horse flesh.

This applies to the Arabs as well, but the Arabs are going to be more lightly armored and encumbered than their pursuers, for the most part.

I think it would be good to state that "casualties were later estimated as up to" with no one really knowing exact figures - the point is that the Arabs got mauled by the battle and the pursuit and scattering to the four winds.

[AStanley]

And the Byzantines can only keep up an active pursuit for so long - remember the limits of the endurance of horse flesh.

This applies to the Arabs as well, but the Arabs are going to be more lightly armored and encumbered than their pursuers, for the most part.

I think it would be good to state that "casualties were later estimated as up to" with no one really knowing exact figures - the point is that the Arabs got mauled by the battle and the pursuit and scattering to the four winds.

I agree that the Romans will be far from able to catch all or more than half of retreating Arabs, but I suspect that many Arabs will flee to cities still under their control (Similar to how Roman Survivors of Yarmouk fled to Damascus and Jerusalem), and when the Romans assault the cities to reconquer them, the Arabs are trapped.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will add it.

[Elfwine]

I agree that the Romans will be far from able to catch all or more than half of retreating Arabs, but I suspect that many Arabs will flee to cities still under their control (Similar to how Roman Survivors of Yarmouk fled to Damascus and Jerusalem), and when the Romans assault the cities to reconquer them, the Arabs are trapped.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will add it.

That works nicely.

Maybe put it like this:

"Casualties had been heavy on both sides.

Vahan's army (estimated at between 55,000 and 60,000 men) had lost nearly one man in every four, but the Arabs had suffered far more heavily - their losses estimated by writers of the time as nearly three quarters of their entire army between the battle and the subsequent pursuit.

Although the survivors had fled to (cities still under their control), but the Muslim position had been fatally undermined by their defeat, and it would not be long before the Roman armies drove them back into the deserts from which they came."

Adjust to suit your writing style as needed.

[AStanley]

That works nicely.

Maybe put it like this:

"Casualties had been heavy on both sides.

Vahan's army (estimated at between 55,000 and 60,000 men) had lost nearly one man in every four, but the Arabs had suffered far more heavily - their losses estimated by writers of the time as nearly three quarters of their entire army between the battle and the subsequent pursuit.

Although the survivors had fled to (cities still under their control), but the Muslim position had been fatally undermined by their defeat, and it would not be long before the Roman armies drove them back into the deserts from which they came."

Adjust to suit your writing style as needed.

I have updated the post.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Awesome timeline.

[Basileus Giorgios]

I have changed the Roman Armies size to 57,500 and the Arab Army to 27,500, after averaging modern estimates from various sources.

While I now agree that 100,000 men is a rather implausible estimate, I believe the Roman Army was larger than 25,000 for a number of reasons.
First, the Army at Yarmouk was multiple armies that had been called back together. Second, even If all of the Roman Armies in the Levant were 25,000 men strong, the Arab Ghassanids contributed many men as well, increasing the total number of men by a good amount.



I still think that's a good way too high, I'm afraid. Maurice makes things very clear that 25,000 is a maximum for an early seventh century army, not an average. An average sized force would probably be somewhere between five and ten thousand men, from what I've read. So, if several armies were brought together, and add to that a few thousand Ghassanid reinforcements and you get what probably was, at the very outside, a Roman army made up of 30,000 men.

[Elfwine]

I still think that's a good way too high, I'm afraid. Maurice makes things very clear that 25,000 is a maximum for an early seventh century army, not an average. An average sized force would probably be somewhere between five and ten thousand men, from what I've read. So, if several armies were brought together, and add to that a few thousand Ghassanid reinforcements and you get what probably was, at the very outside, a Roman army made up of 30,000 men.

Do you recall the basis for that? As in, how that 25,000 is determined to be the maximum sized-army?

The Roman Empire of Maurice's day seems to be at a low population ebb relatively speaking (thanks to the plague in Justinian's time) and has military commitments the length and breadth of almost all its frontiers, so my suspicion is that it has more to do with a lack of manpower than a lack of an ability to support a larger force (meaning, concentrating more than 25,000 troops is more than the Roman Empire can afford to do, not a logistical concern).

Add in the devastation of the war/s after his murder/assassination, and it'd be even worse (@ Stanley).

[MNP]

Just assume it's just exaggerated historiography if you like. If they win and go on to limit the Arab conquests, then every minor power is going to say "We were there to kick those Arab bandits in the teeth too!" to inflate the numbers.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Do you recall the basis for that? As in, how that 25,000 is determined to be the maximum sized-army?

The Roman Empire of Maurice's day seems to be at a low population ebb relatively speaking (thanks to the plague in Justinian's time) and has military commitments the length and breadth of almost all its frontiers, so my suspicion is that it has more to do with a lack of manpower than a lack of an ability to support a larger force (meaning, concentrating more than 25,000 troops is more than the Roman Empire can afford to do, not a logistical concern).

Add in the devastation of the war/s after his murder/assassination, and it'd be even worse (@ Stanley).

I'm quoting here from page 100 of Haldon's "Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World: 565-1204".

On the Strategikon, Haldon states:

"An average force of between 5000 and 15000, and a large force of from 15000 to 20,000 is discussed, figures which coincide with those which can be deduced from an earlier 'official' document, the Notitia Dignitatum of the early fifth century."

Haldon goes on to suggest that the total number of Comitatenses available to the Empire at the end of Justinian's reign was probably somewhere around 150,000. Appeals from Italy under Tiberius II for more men would suggest that Italy's field armies were denuded- and he suggests also that under Phokas and Heraclius, the armies of the Magister Militum per Illyricum were destroyed altogether, a loss of around 18,000 men. Adding in casualties of the Persian wars, plus the worsening situation in Italy and the Balkans, and I'd say of all the field armies of the Empire in the 630s, we have a figure of about 100,000.

Of course, to that we should add the Limitanei, but we can assume they'd have been even more badly shredded by the Persian and Slavic invasions than the field armies were. There's evidence from Egypt that Heraclius made some effort to re-establish them, but this would have been a process that would only just be starting off in the 630s, so I'd guess no more than a maximum of maybe 25,000 Limitanei were present in the whole of the East at the time of Yarmouk.

That's why I think an army of 55,000 at Yarmouk ITTL is too large. Even under Justinian, we should note, the maximum sized army Procopius and Agathias discuss is 30,000 men.

[Elfwine]

That sounds like a state that would be mustering every soldier in the Levant to form this army - which neatly explains why its defeat OTL was so crushing, as well. What's left to stand in the way of the Arabs? Nothing of consequence. The Limitanei haven't reformed in full, the other frontiers still need men.

[Basileus Giorgios]

That sounds like a state that would be mustering every soldier in the Levant to form this army - which neatly explains why its defeat OTL was so crushing, as well. What's left to stand in the way of the Arabs? Nothing of consequence. The Limitanei haven't reformed in full, the other frontiers still need men.

Actually, the consensus is that after Yarmouk, the remaining Comitatenses (or should we being calling them Thematikoi by this point?) retreated into Anatolia in reasonably good order- perhaps 60,000 or so men, in all. The existence of surviving field armies in Anatolia explains why the Empire was able to launch an initially successful reconquest of Egypt in 645, and raid into Cilicia and Syria in the 650s and 660s. Yarmouk didn't destroy the field armies outright- it was just a bad defeat which prompted a tactical retreat that eventually became permanent.

[Grouchio]

So howabout another update? :D

[Elfwine]

Actually, the consensus is that after Yarmouk, the remaining Comitatenses (or should we being calling them Thematikoi by this point?) retreated into Anatolia in reasonably good order- perhaps 60,000 or so men, in all. The existence of surviving field armies in Anatolia explains why the Empire was able to launch an initially successful reconquest of Egypt in 645, and raid into Cilicia and Syria in the 650s and 660s. Yarmouk didn't destroy the field armies outright- it was just a bad defeat which prompted a tactical retreat that eventually became permanent.

Oh aye. What I mean is, the Empire doesn't have the forces in the area at the time to do something about it - the Levantine army (by whatever name) is destroyed, or at least crippled.

The field armies in general, not so much. But certainly a good chunk of it, and the relevant chunk, is gone.

I'd say, incidentally, Comitatenses for the immediate aftermath, Thematikoi for the ones raiding Cilicia and Syria, if I had to make some sort of standard (and hopefully I don't, as this era is as weak a point for me as post-1204 is for you, I believe).

[Mac Gregor]

Very interesting. Keep it coming.

[MerryPrankster]

With the Arab invasion army of the Levant being destroyed, I imagine the Romans will then conquer the lost territory back.

Will whoever is in charge of that army then declare himself Emperor? That was one of the problems with the Crisis of the Third Century--every victorious general tried to make himself emperor.

(Well, a bunch of them.)

Given that Heraclius should be on the throne right now and he has all the street cred from overthrowing Phocas and saving Constantinople and then inflicting truly epic defeats on the Persians, I think whoever commanded at TTL's Yarmuk would be very hesitant to challenge him.

Now, if Heraclius has a weak successor, that's something else. IIRC Heraclius married his niece or something icky like that and their kids were sickly.