Arab losses, 636

chornedsnorkack · Feb 9, 2016

OTL, Arabs won 2 major battles in 636. Yarmuk and Qadisiyya.

Was either of them inevitable?
Suppose Arabs lose?

What butterflies would be required to cause the following outcome:

Arabs lose at Yarmuk, still win at Qadisiyya
Arabs win at Yarmuk, lose at Qadisiyya
Arabs lose both

What would happen after each of the three?

Basileus Giorgios · Feb 9, 2016

Firstly I'd say that it's not impossible that Qadisiyya was earlier than Yarmouk: possibly as much as several years earlier, if one looks at some Iranian sources. The chronology of the decade is very confused.

From my sketchy knowledge, I think that even with an Arab defeat at Qadisiyya, the Sasanians are probably still doomed to be replaced by a Parthian dynastic family: the cracks were appearing as early as the 590s, and it was only the military successes of Khusrau II that kept things just about in check. Iran is still going to be a mess here, so I'd foresee probably a period of civil war and confusion before a new Iranian state of some sort, be it Persian or Parthian, emerges out of the ashes in the 640s. This state is unlikely to be truly Zoroastrian as we understand the term.

On the Roman side, a victory at Yarmouk and decisive repulsion of the Arabs from Syria and Egypt probably just switches the focus of the Emperors on maintaining their positions in Italy and Africa in the face of major theological dissent. All Emperors of the period were extremely concerned to find a formula that would be acceptable to all sides in the Chalcedonian debate to fulfill their role as God's regent on Earth, and contrary to popular belief it tended to be Western clerics who caused the most trouble in this. So I'd foresee more active, Constans II style activity, arresting Popes and such. Plus attempts to restore some measure of control over the Balkans in any respite that might emerge from an Iranian civil war.

John7755 يوحنا · Feb 9, 2016

Basileus Giorgios said:
Firstly I'd say that it's not impossible that Qadisiyya was earlier than Yarmouk: possibly as much as several years earlier, if one looks at some Iranian sources. The chronology of the decade is very confused.

From my sketchy knowledge, I think that even with an Arab defeat at Qadisiyya, the Sasanians are probably still doomed to be replaced by a Parthian dynastic family: the cracks were appearing as early as the 590s, and it was only the military successes of Khusrau II that kept things just about in check. Iran is still going to be a mess here, so I'd foresee probably a period of civil war and confusion before a new Iranian state of some sort, be it Persian or Parthian, emerges out of the ashes in the 640s. This state is unlikely to be truly Zoroastrian as we understand the term.

On the Roman side, a victory at Yarmouk and decisive repulsion of the Arabs from Syria and Egypt probably just switches the focus of the Emperors on maintaining their positions in Italy and Africa in the face of major theological dissent. All Emperors of the period were extremely concerned to find a formula that would be acceptable to all sides in the Chalcedonian debate to fulfill their role as God's regent on Earth, and contrary to popular belief it tended to be Western clerics who caused the most trouble in this. So I'd foresee more active, Constans II style activity, arresting Popes and such. Plus attempts to restore some measure of control over the Balkans in any respite that might emerge from an Iranian civil war.

The Sassanid where doomed from the point that they got beat back by Heraclius, despite having all the advantages. The Sassanids where no where near the match for the Rashidun at this time and their discipline abysmal and were proven to be weak by the morale driven Arab armies. Whether Qadisiyyah is lost or not, it is likely that the Arab armies defeat and conquer Iran.

Yarmouk is different, had the Byzantines not lost, then it is likely that Heraclius is able to rally and push them back from Syria. I am not well informed on the condition of Byzantium, but from my readings it is clear that the main opponent to the Rashidun was Byzantium politically and militarily. Thus Yarmouk was by far the more important.

Porsenna · Feb 9, 2016

As for Yarmouk: would winning the battle even be enough for the Romans? Roman manpower was limited and their territory still damaged by the Persian wars. As another poster observed, the emperors could have trouble keeping a lid on religious dissent - and that could become political dissent. The empire risks having to disperse their limited forces on many fronts. Maybe in the short term having to concentrate only on the Anatolian and Balkan fronts was an advantage, without having to protect Syria, Egypt and Africa.

Practical Lobster · Feb 9, 2016

Yeah, personally I've never bought into the idea that a Roman win at Yarmouk will save them. Syria and Egypt had been out of Roman hands for a generation. It seems very likely they were lost at that point - and indeed early Egyptian sources see the Arab armies as their salvation rather than a threat. That's a dangerous mindset if you want to preserve the Roman Empire.

Trying to control the whole vast territory might actually doom the Romans quicker.

If Yarmouk and Qadisiyya are both defeats for the Rashidun, it will damage the prestige of their military and perhaps their manpower as well but in the long run I don't see it averting a collapse of Persia and Roman Syria. If you want to get rid of the massive Rashidun conquests, I think you really need to do something about the war of 602-628.

Basileus Giorgios · Feb 9, 2016

John7755 يوحنا said:
The Sassanid where doomed from the point that they got beat back by Heraclius, despite having all the advantages. The Sassanids where no where near the match for the Rashidun at this time and their discipline abysmal and were proven to be weak by the morale driven Arab armies. Whether Qadisiyyag is lost or not, it is likely that the Arab armies defeat and conquer Iran.

This seems to me to be rather a strong statement, given how little we know about the details of the Arab conquest of Iran.

Porsenna said:
As for Yarmouk: would winning the battle even be enough for the Romans? Roman manpower was limited and their territory still damaged by the Persian wars. As another poster observed, the emperors could have trouble keeping a lid on religious dissent - and that could become political dissent. The empire risks having to disperse their limited forces on many fronts. Maybe in the short term having to concentrate only on the Anatolian and Balkan fronts was an advantage, without having to protect Syria, Egypt and Africa.

Yes and no, I think. Yes, the loss of the southern provinces undoubtedly spared the Emperors from having to worry about the anti-Chalcedonian local populations, plus the defence of long desert frontiers. The flipside of that, of course, is that Syria and Egypt, Egypt particularly, were extremely wealthy provinces that probably contributed about two thirds of the entire imperial budget and their loss forced later Byzantine Emperors to operate with far fewer resources than Justinian, for example, had had to play with.

John7755 يوحنا · Feb 9, 2016

Basileus Giorgios said:
This seems to me to be rather a strong statement, given how little we know about the details of the Arab conquest of Iran.

Yes and no, I think. Yes, the loss of the southern provinces undoubtedly spared the Emperors from having to worry about the anti-Chalcedonian local populations, plus the defence of long desert frontiers. The flipside of that, of course, is that Syria and Egypt, Egypt particularly, were extremely wealthy provinces that probably contributed about two thirds of the entire imperial budget and their loss forced later Byzantine Emperors to operate with far fewer resources than Justinian, for example, had had to play with.

It is known well that despite early victories and while fighting a war on both sides, the Sassanids were unable to project their power effectively to avoid a complete invasion, even with giving ground then countering. This is no mystery, unless there is evidence that shows there was some massive civil war in Iran at the time or mass Christian alliances with Islamic armies, then it is logical to come to the conclusion that the Sassanids were ill prepared and fragile at best. The Byzantines on the other hand would absorb the same constant warfare for another 100 years reflecting well on their credibility.

Practical Lobster · Feb 9, 2016

unless there is evidence that shows there was some massive civil war in Iran

There was internal chaos at the time. After Khosrau's death, there were some ten claimants to the throne in four years, and the latest ruler was an eight year old boy. Hardly an ideal position to defend against an invasion by a well-motivated adversary intent on expansion.

Now you can argue this reflects a structural problem with the Sasanian monarchy, and you wouldn't be wrong necessarily. But if Rome had lacked a figure such as Heraclius or had fallen into civil war at the same time (something which is no less plausible, if they came off worse in the overall war) I doubt you'd see them fight so effectively.

John7755 يوحنا · Feb 9, 2016

Practical Lobster said:
There was internal chaos at the time. After Khosrau's death, there were some ten claimants to the throne in four years, and the latest ruler was an eight year old boy. Hardly an ideal position to defend against an invasion by a well-motivated adversary intent on expansion.

Now you can argue this reflects a structural problem with the Sasanian monarchy, and you wouldn't be wrong necessarily. But if Rome had lacked a figure such as Heraclius or had fallen into civil war at the same time (something which is no less plausible, if they came off worse in the overall war) I doubt you'd see them fight so effectively.

Of course it is true that there was internal instability, but the Sassanids where in comparison where quite weak in their battle array despite outnumbering the opponent and having a tactical advantage. Further, it is telling that the Arab armies sent Khalid ibn Walid to Syria rather than to Iraq. The Sassanids were obviously the weak end of the three and was during Khosrau as well, who was defeated by Heraclius despite a massive tactical advantage. My argument is that the Sassanid at this point were the lightweights ok this war and was falling behind quickly regardless of Qadisiyyah, especially if Khalid still wins Yarmouk, who then moves back and defeats the Sassanid army decisively again. The Sassanids were incredibly unprepared for the type of warfare they faced.

Heraclius was perhaps the greatest commander in this series of wars, no doubt. But even after him, the Byzantines sustained this war for another 100 years, again a token to their strength, which the Sassanids lacked at this point.

Practical Lobster · Feb 9, 2016

John7755 يوحنا said:
Of course it is true that there was internal instability, but the Sassanids where in comparison where quite weak in their battle array despite outnumbering the opponent and having a tactical advantage. Further, it is telling that the Arab armies sent Khalid ibn Walid to Syria rather than to Iraq. The Sassanids were obviously the weak end of the three and was during Khosrau as well, who was defeated by Heraclius despite a massive tactical advantage. My argument is that the Sassanid at this point were the lightweights ok this war and was falling behind quickly regardless of Qadisiyyah, especially if Khalid still wins Yarmouk, who then moves back and defeats the Sassanid army decisively again. The Sassanids were incredibly unprepared for the type of warfare they faced.

Heraclius was perhaps the greatest commander in this series of wars, no doubt. But even after him, the Byzantines sustained this war for another 100 years, again a token to their strength, which the Sassanids lacked at this point.

Okay, yeah, I wouldn't dispute most of what you're saying.

But I will say that if the Sassanids were far weaker than the Romans, I'd argue that's because they lost the overall war and suffered massive internal strife. At Yarmouk the Romans outnumbered the Arabs and had a tactical advantage as well. Neither side was prepared for the Arab style of warfare and neither side was ready for a war such as the Rashidun waged, but I'd still assert the endurance of the Roman state has more to do with geographic barriers than anything.

The Arab conquest of Iran was not a quick thing, and there were loads of holdouts for centuries to come. However, none of these holdouts had the best defended city in the world and massive strait to help them defend themselves, so slowly but surely they fell. By contrast the Romans had extra territory far, far away from the center of Rashidun and Umayyad power.

John7755 يوحنا · Feb 9, 2016

Practical Lobster said:
Okay, yeah, I wouldn't dispute most of what you're saying.

But I will say that if the Sassanids were far weaker than the Romans, I'd argue that's because they lost the overall war and suffered massive internal strife. At Yarmouk the Romans outnumbered the Arabs and had a tactical advantage as well. Neither side was prepared for the Arab style of warfare and neither side was ready for a war such as the Rashidun waged, but I'd still assert the endurance of the Roman state has more to do with geographic barriers than anything.

The Arab conquest of Iran was not a quick thing, and there were loads of holdouts for centuries to come. However, none of these holdouts had the best defended city in the world and massive strait to help them defend themselves, so slowly but surely they fell. By contrast the Romans had extra territory far, far away from the center of Rashidun and Umayyad power.

I tend to agree.

It is true the Byzantines had massive advantages at times in Bosporos and with its heartland being in Greece or in mountainous Anatolia, however this does not excuse the Sassanids. The Sassanids were not defenseless, they had the Zagros range, vast land in Iran with more horses and better cavalry, river systems to entice the Arabs, heavy armour, and many other natural defenses. Further, one would assume by extension that the Sassanid landmass was far too large to completely conquer. From Makkah there is great distance to Afghanistan, yet the distance was covered, yet the distance from Dimshaq to Greece is not too far yet the Byzantines held out. I simply say, that the Sassanids were seriously underprepared for any invasion much less so than Byzantium.

Either way, it is very true that neither side was truly ready, but it is clear that Byzantium was the enemy of choice of the Arabs and in the end proved to be quite resilient, whereas the Sassanid foe folded quite easily in comparison.