What if the battle of yarmouk somehow became one of the great byzantine victorys and one of the worst Arab defeats. How does that change history?
What if the battle of yarmouk was a byzantine victory
- Thread starter calvin1417
- Start date
GdwnsnHo
Banned
If it wasn't for the obnoxious overabundance of images, I'd sig this.
Just wow. So fantastic
The obvious result is that the Byzantines prove to the Arabs that they can must forces vastly larger than the entire army of the Caliphate - and can crush them.
I'd expect an attempt to reclaim the lost territory, and then reinstate the Ghassanids, and maybe create a client state in Mesopotamia, before suing for peace. It'd be interesting to see
Is that entirely possible - with reasonable luck, yes. Certainty, noooooo.
If Heraclius tries to go any further, it could end badly.
Now an interesting opportunity does arise with a victory at Yarmouk - we could see Constantine III (the junior Emperor) begin to ingratiate himself with the Army, potentially helping stabilize the succession, and avoid the Twenty Years of Anarchy.
For the Caliphate - it could still exist IMO, Islam has earned the prestige of defeating the Zoroastrians, but not the Christians. If it retains Mesopotamia it can stand to conquer Persia, but without - it has to lick its wounds, and try again - unless there is a leadership crisis as a result of the war, in which case, the Caliphate is doomed as the Romans and Persians will make every effort to bring as much of Arabia to their side(s). Considering the state Persia is in - I don't expect much resistance in the near future. Given a bit of time, Rome can deal with its European problems, and then sponsor clients in Persia before the Turks come along and cause some serious pain.
After that, I'm not sure what will happen, Islam has essentially risen, burnt brightly, and then failed to maintain its holdings, which may drastically change the faith itself, or restrict it to the southern half/coasts of Arabia. It could still convert peoples over the Indian ocean, but only if Christian traders aren't more predominant.
TL;DR
- Romans gain a Nestorian Client State in Mesopotamia
- Romans may create Client States in Persia
- Romans try to create more Arab Christian Client States.
- Potential for surviving Islam and converts through trade, may require reform of the faith.
- Turks still come along and raise hell - but may convert to Christianity.
- Persia has a crappy time till a new ruler comes along and Persia recovers (probably under the Turks).
As I said in the post about Nahavand, it's difficult to say exactly what might have happened, given we don't really know much at all about what really went on: all of the Arab sources are keen to portray vast hordes of unbelievers seeking to crush the heroic Muslims, and are from generations after the event. The Christian sources come from the same tradition.
Remember that the Romans did win some scrappy victories prior to Yarmouk, and drove the Arabs out of Damascus, so there's no guarantee that a victory at Yarmouk is going to immediately bring the conquest to a stop.
Assuming it does, I'd be fairly confident in saying that Islam as we know it will never arise. The early Arab conquerors were no more Muslims than St Paul and the first Apostles were Christians: monotheists who followed the teachings of a charismatic religious leader, but not what we would understand as members of the modern day doctrinal religions. Without the conquest of early and sudden victory, "Muhammad-Monotheism" is going to develop in different directions to OTL, if it manages to avoid simply fading away.
More broadly, I'd imagine this means for the ERE a continuation of the policies of attempting to square the circle of appeasing the anti-Chalcedonian Churches of Syria and Egypt while avoiding condemnation from the Latin churches of Italy and Africa, who have little understanding of theological niceties that only really make sense in the Greek language and philosophical tradition. So I can see the Emperors in Constantinople behaving in an increasingly heavy handed manner towards one side or another: IOTL it tended to be the Westerners who were more harshly treated, contrary to established opinion. This might conceivably lead to the Papacy seeking Frankish intervention earlier than IOTL.
A post-Heraclius imperial regime will look to shore itself up with cheap and quick victories to show divine approval, so I'd imagine we'll see attempts to bring the Balkans back under control in the 640s. If the Sclavenes can largely be defeated, then I imagine large-scale population transfers of them to the areas of military pressure. IOTL this was Anatolia, ITTL I'd imagine Syria or maybe even Italy. This of course assumes that they can be defeated: if there are repeated military setbacks against them, expect coups to find an Emperor who enjoys divine support on the matter. This will feed back into aforementioned religious policies.
Remember that the Romans did win some scrappy victories prior to Yarmouk, and drove the Arabs out of Damascus, so there's no guarantee that a victory at Yarmouk is going to immediately bring the conquest to a stop.
Assuming it does, I'd be fairly confident in saying that Islam as we know it will never arise. The early Arab conquerors were no more Muslims than St Paul and the first Apostles were Christians: monotheists who followed the teachings of a charismatic religious leader, but not what we would understand as members of the modern day doctrinal religions. Without the conquest of early and sudden victory, "Muhammad-Monotheism" is going to develop in different directions to OTL, if it manages to avoid simply fading away.
More broadly, I'd imagine this means for the ERE a continuation of the policies of attempting to square the circle of appeasing the anti-Chalcedonian Churches of Syria and Egypt while avoiding condemnation from the Latin churches of Italy and Africa, who have little understanding of theological niceties that only really make sense in the Greek language and philosophical tradition. So I can see the Emperors in Constantinople behaving in an increasingly heavy handed manner towards one side or another: IOTL it tended to be the Westerners who were more harshly treated, contrary to established opinion. This might conceivably lead to the Papacy seeking Frankish intervention earlier than IOTL.
A post-Heraclius imperial regime will look to shore itself up with cheap and quick victories to show divine approval, so I'd imagine we'll see attempts to bring the Balkans back under control in the 640s. If the Sclavenes can largely be defeated, then I imagine large-scale population transfers of them to the areas of military pressure. IOTL this was Anatolia, ITTL I'd imagine Syria or maybe even Italy. This of course assumes that they can be defeated: if there are repeated military setbacks against them, expect coups to find an Emperor who enjoys divine support on the matter. This will feed back into aforementioned religious policies.
Intresting ideaIf it wasn't for the obnoxious overabundance of images, I'd sig this.
Just wow. So fantastic
The obvious result is that the Byzantines prove to the Arabs that they can must forces vastly larger than the entire army of the Caliphate - and can crush them.
I'd expect an attempt to reclaim the lost territory, and then reinstate the Ghassanids, and maybe create a client state in Mesopotamia, before suing for peace. It'd be interesting to see
Is that entirely possible - with reasonable luck, yes. Certainty, noooooo.
If Heraclius tries to go any further, it could end badly.
Now an interesting opportunity does arise with a victory at Yarmouk - we could see Constantine III (the junior Emperor) begin to ingratiate himself with the Army, potentially helping stabilize the succession, and avoid the Twenty Years of Anarchy.
For the Caliphate - it could still exist IMO, Islam has earned the prestige of defeating the Zoroastrians, but not the Christians. If it retains Mesopotamia it can stand to conquer Persia, but without - it has to lick its wounds, and try again - unless there is a leadership crisis as a result of the war, in which case, the Caliphate is doomed as the Romans and Persians will make every effort to bring as much of Arabia to their side(s). Considering the state Persia is in - I don't expect much resistance in the near future. Given a bit of time, Rome can deal with its European problems, and then sponsor clients in Persia before the Turks come along and cause some serious pain.
After that, I'm not sure what will happen, Islam has essentially risen, burnt brightly, and then failed to maintain its holdings, which may drastically change the faith itself, or restrict it to the southern half/coasts of Arabia. It could still convert peoples over the Indian ocean, but only if Christian traders aren't more predominant.
TL;DR
- Romans gain a Nestorian Client State in Mesopotamia
- Romans may create Client States in Persia
- Romans try to create more Arab Christian Client States.
- Potential for surviving Islam and converts through trade, may require reform of the faith.
- Turks still come along and raise hell - but may convert to Christianity.
- Persia has a crappy time till a new ruler comes along and Persia recovers (probably under the Turks).
trajen777
Banned
Basically their are two major ramifications :
1. The Arabs had removed many of their best troops from Persia to fight at Yarmuck --- after the defeat of the Byz there -- a strong force moved to Battle of al-Qādisiyyah (SEE BELOW ) where the Persians were defeated mostly due to the reinforcements on Day 2 of the battle - -so if the Byz had won at Yarmuck -- then no reinforcements and the Persians win -- so not only is the Arab army defeated at Yarmuck but also at Al Q --- this double defeat would have massively reduced a low population density country to field forces in the future
On 17 November, like the previous day, Saad decided to start the day with Mubarizuns to inflict maximum moral damages to the Persian army. At noon, while these duelings were still going on, reinforcements from Syria arrived for the Muslim army. First, an advance guard under Al-Qa'qa'a ibn Amr at-Tamimi arrived, followed by the main army under its commander Hashim ibn Utbah, cousin of Saad.[21] Qa’qa divided his advance guard into several small groups and instructed them to reach the battlefield one after the other giving the impression that a very large reinforcement had arrived. Hashim did the same and for the whole day these regiments kept on arriving, which demoralized Persians
2. Byz and Persia now working together you would have seen stabilization of worn out empires only growing stronger for the next 5 years -- then arab axilleries along the border and the Arabs would have splintered into what it was pre Muhammad times.
1. The Arabs had removed many of their best troops from Persia to fight at Yarmuck --- after the defeat of the Byz there -- a strong force moved to Battle of al-Qādisiyyah (SEE BELOW ) where the Persians were defeated mostly due to the reinforcements on Day 2 of the battle - -so if the Byz had won at Yarmuck -- then no reinforcements and the Persians win -- so not only is the Arab army defeated at Yarmuck but also at Al Q --- this double defeat would have massively reduced a low population density country to field forces in the future
On 17 November, like the previous day, Saad decided to start the day with Mubarizuns to inflict maximum moral damages to the Persian army. At noon, while these duelings were still going on, reinforcements from Syria arrived for the Muslim army. First, an advance guard under Al-Qa'qa'a ibn Amr at-Tamimi arrived, followed by the main army under its commander Hashim ibn Utbah, cousin of Saad.[21] Qa’qa divided his advance guard into several small groups and instructed them to reach the battlefield one after the other giving the impression that a very large reinforcement had arrived. Hashim did the same and for the whole day these regiments kept on arriving, which demoralized Persians
2. Byz and Persia now working together you would have seen stabilization of worn out empires only growing stronger for the next 5 years -- then arab axilleries along the border and the Arabs would have splintered into what it was pre Muhammad times.
Caesar Biden
Banned
Prior to Yarmouk, Rome and the Sassanids were working on a tentative alliance, but it never came to fore due to their united front collapsing. Here, with a total victory at Yarmouk, Persians and Romans are going to stay aligned as they drive the invaders back into Arabia.
At this point, the Muslims didn't really have the manpower necessary to adequately replace the army they gathered at Yarmouk, so in the course of 5-10 years we could see all their conquests being lost. The Persians are going to be fighting armies in Mesopotamia that don't get any reinforcement from Yarmouk, and with morale at an all time low and Rome helping the Sassanid armies out, they would almost certainly lose there as well. After that, the Caliphate may just implode.
I don't even know how to begin to speculate about what would happen after that. All I can say for certain is we'll see a Sassanid-Roman detente for a generation at least. This has happened before, though, so after two or three decades they might be back at each other's throats.
Culturally, religiously, ethnically, the whole world is different. Zlorfik has the right of things.
At this point, the Muslims didn't really have the manpower necessary to adequately replace the army they gathered at Yarmouk, so in the course of 5-10 years we could see all their conquests being lost. The Persians are going to be fighting armies in Mesopotamia that don't get any reinforcement from Yarmouk, and with morale at an all time low and Rome helping the Sassanid armies out, they would almost certainly lose there as well. After that, the Caliphate may just implode.
I don't even know how to begin to speculate about what would happen after that. All I can say for certain is we'll see a Sassanid-Roman detente for a generation at least. This has happened before, though, so after two or three decades they might be back at each other's throats.
Culturally, religiously, ethnically, the whole world is different. Zlorfik has the right of things.
Why did the united front collapse on the part of the Sasanians? Did they fall apart sometime between 633 and Yarmouk three years later?
I assume that if a Christian Turkish army were able to conquer Constantinople, they might be accepted by other Christian states as a continuation of the Byzantine Empire. Maybe the ruling dynasty would even switch to talking Greek (a scenario which would be likely if the new ruler for instance married a Byzantine princess in order to get more legitimation and to make alliances with the old elite.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
They may not even conquer Constantinople, they may just stay in Persia, and instead raid eastwards into India. A powerful christian state on their western border that is friendly is of much greater value than an angry Roman Empire. It means the Turks can expand into India and elsewhere with minimal concern to security in the west, flanked by a Roman Empire that is suddenly free to invest substantial forces to reconquering the Western Empire. Win-Win.
Regardless, I doubt that they'd be able to create a recognized claim, not unless they'd married into the Imperial Family. In which case all bets are off - if they succeeded (or the reverse), the resulting Romano-Turkish state would be larger than the Achemenids, and besides China, the most powerful state in the world, or at least the region(s).
I don't why people overestimate the strength of the Arabs on atl. The Romans and the Persians still had numerical superiority over the Arabs. The Arabs don't have the population base to keep replacing that amount of troops if defeated at Yarmouk they didn't control Syria, Egypt, North Africa nor Persia.
If the Romans and Persians losses were devastating with manpower exhaustion in otl wherein their population is tens of millions how much more with the Arabs who barely has the same population as Rome or Persia.
The Arabs got lucky in otl wherein they keep rolling 6 which didn't give them manpower issues wherein rome and Persians lost 100k man armies. You put that reverse, where do Arabs draw tens of thousands of troops and generals for that matter.
If the Romans and Persians losses were devastating with manpower exhaustion in otl wherein their population is tens of millions how much more with the Arabs who barely has the same population as Rome or Persia.
The Arabs got lucky in otl wherein they keep rolling 6 which didn't give them manpower issues wherein rome and Persians lost 100k man armies. You put that reverse, where do Arabs draw tens of thousands of troops and generals for that matter.
trajen777
Banned
The Turks were consistently defeated by the Persians / Byzantines / Armenians. Dont get me wrong they were great warriors but their numbers were small (as were the arab armies (the Arab army was only 6,000 that invaded Egypt). At the battle of Manzikert they lost through traitors.
If the Arabs had lost -- again Byz recovers - as do the Persians -- resources are regained after 10 years of war between Byz & the Persians -- it would have been very difficult for the Turks to penetrate either empire over any extended length of time before the massive resources of either empire drove them out.
The Arab invasions caught both empires at their lowest point in centuries and this accounted for the Arab success.
The Turkish invasion was a matter of treachery on Andronicus Ducas part, and the treachery of xxxx general that never brought up the the other 1/2 of the Byz army the week before. In addition to this the losses were not that great from the Battle - it was instead the civil war for 10 years that left devastation from 1067 - 1081. (also the dismissal of 50,000 of their best border troops in 1054)
If the Arabs had lost -- again Byz recovers - as do the Persians -- resources are regained after 10 years of war between Byz & the Persians -- it would have been very difficult for the Turks to penetrate either empire over any extended length of time before the massive resources of either empire drove them out.
The Arab invasions caught both empires at their lowest point in centuries and this accounted for the Arab success.
The Turkish invasion was a matter of treachery on Andronicus Ducas part, and the treachery of xxxx general that never brought up the the other 1/2 of the Byz army the week before. In addition to this the losses were not that great from the Battle - it was instead the civil war for 10 years that left devastation from 1067 - 1081. (also the dismissal of 50,000 of their best border troops in 1054)
Believe it or not, Wikipedia has a great entry on the population of the Byzantine Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_Byzantine_Empire
According to Wikipedia, their population was 17 million in the year 600, and 10.5 million in 641. So in a span of 41 years, the Byzantine Empire lost 6.5 million people (whether by war, loss of land, etc.), equivalent to almost a third of their population in 600. It's even worse if you look at how large their population was at their height, in 565-it was 26 million then. The loss of control over 16 million people in 70 years is a massive shock to absorb.
Yes that is painful.
However, Compare that population base to what the Arabs have in ATL if the Arabs lost yarmouk.
Saudis population in 1950s was around 3m. Assuming that Arabs has the same tech and sophistication in 600 ad as in 1950s to feed 3m population, they will still be in a population disadvantage vs Rome.
This is an ATL fic that must be written.
Anyway I know very few details about the battle of Yarmouk however IMO if the Arab forces had been crushed the nascent caliphate would've been squashed and in the long term islam might have been at best confined to the Arabian peninsula and at worst crushed.
Anyway I know very few details about the battle of Yarmouk however IMO if the Arab forces had been crushed the nascent caliphate would've been squashed and in the long term islam might have been at best confined to the Arabian peninsula and at worst crushed.