StephenColbert27
Banned
Unless they change and accept the divinity of Christ, his resurrection, etc, hard to see them not being persecuted. Pretty hard to be perceived as a Christian sect for long if you do that.
The same way the empire persecuted the Monophysites.Small niptips and questions:
Where is the Caliphate going to get three and a half tons of Gold?
Khasab was founded by the Portuguese on the 17th century so I doubt the Calipha can give what doesn't exists.
During the first century of Islam most Christians thought that they were just another Christian sect so why would the Byzantine Empire persecute them? Also in TTL Islam is still limited to Arabia so neither the Byzantines nor the Persians have Islamic populations so why the clause of freedom of religion?
Until the 17th century borders were organic things so I would advise you to take out the "The Caliphate will not send troops within ten miles of the Byzantine border", specially in the 7th century it would be hard to know where the Empire ended;
Also I just noticed the edited Battle casualties and numbers and by the way you write the battle the Romans keep a very steady battle line with good formation so where did all those casualties came from?
Unless they change and accept the divinity of Christ, his resurrection, etc, hard to see them not being persecuted. Pretty hard to be perceived as a Christian sect for long if you do that.
Yeah, forgot to change those numbers.I suggest you re-edit the figures again.Of a force out of 50,000,it's impossible that this is a decisive win if 17,500 are killed and twenty- thousand are wounded.There's no way any army,especially pre-modern ones would have suffered a seventy-five percent casualty rate without disintegrating.
In the order presented.Small niptips and questions:
Where is the Caliphate going to get three and a half tons of Gold?
Khasab was founded by the Portuguese on the 17th century so I doubt the Calipha can give what doesn't exists.
During the first century of Islam most Christians thought that they were just another Christian sect so why would the Byzantine Empire persecute them? Also in TTL Islam is still limited to Arabia so neither the Byzantines nor the Persians have Islamic populations so why the clause of freedom of religion?
Until the 17th century borders were organic things so I would advise you to take out the "The Caliphate will not send troops within ten miles of the Byzantine border", specially in the 7th century it would be hard to know where the Empire ended;
Also I just noticed the edited Battle casualties and numbers and by the way you write the battle the Romans keep a very steady battle line with good formation so where did all those casualties came from?
Let's just say that the Byzantines have a different way of thinking about toleration than we do.But the great question is why ITTL they just accepted that a sect, of which they know nothing other than it has something in common with their faith, should had freedom of religion. As I say first they will do a Council of Bishops before accepting any freedom of Religion clauses.
Fair point, I'll lower the amount. What sounds good to you?
Tbh just looked at a map of the Straits of Hormuz and picked a city. Do you know of any city that existed in the region that would be suitable for Persian annexation?
Thanks for the input. The reason I have the sandstorm is from this:I'm sorry to do this, as I am always glad to see new timelines, particularly about late antiquity/the early middle ages, but I just want to mention your depiction of Yarmouk. Even today, it is a lush and pleasant climate. 1400 years ago, it was even more lush and fertile. The battle took place near the Yarmouk river. A small scale dust storm - i.e. clouds of local sand whipped up by exceptionally strong wind - feel unlikely.
Sandstorms, when they do occur, tend to also be immense - blanketing whole regions. I fail to see why either side would risk battle in such conditions of poor visibility. Also it seems like your Yarmouk is a one day affair - when OTL both sides were exceptionally cautious and it lasted for (supposedly) six days.
Ignoring the impact on the fledgling religion of Islam for the moment, assuming they do lose some alt-Yarmouk, why should any Arab group suggest a peace treaty, let alone one with generous and probably impossible to keep terms? At least some of the leadership are undoubtedly true believers and zealots, and the remainder are practical and motivated by plunder. There's no call to give money to the Romans, nor to the Sassanians - by Yarmouk, the Sassanians are reeling and broken. If one foe proves difficult to raid and plunder and conquer, why not just keep going after the other?
The Romans are exhausted - they'd probably accept a mere truce or anything given their current state - especially if you posit them losing something like a third of their army (and heavy losses are reasonable, given that the Romans in this period had no counter to Arab tactics).
Edit: Here's a map as well, in case you need region and city names.
MAP
from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Heraclian_dynastyHowever, a sandstorm blew on 20 August 636 against the Byzantines and when the Arabs charged against them they were utterly annihilated
I take offense to this metaphor. We Americans do too like soccer!(P.S. if you're American or don't like soccer, just sub out Germany and Denmark for the Patriots and the Lions or something.)
Hey man the Lions are number one in the NFC North right now(P.S. if you're American or don't like soccer, just sub out Germany and Denmark for the Patriots and the Lions or something.)
In this timeline, the sandstorm blows the other way, severely harming the Muslim army. August 20th is the last day of the battle and where the timeline starts, so the previous days are the same as OTL.
The Lombards decided that the Empire was weak after two large wars and decided to invade with greater numbers and ambitions. The Byzantines also have a lot more territory to control so their army is more spread out.I'm not sure,how come Italy collapsed so easily in this timeline when in otl,the empire controlled Italy for an extra century despite being much weaker?
But the empire in otl faced the same problem and actually lost the second war.Also,what remained of the army was tied up against the Slavs and the Arabs in a constant war and with even less manpower and resources.The exarchate managed itself well with what troops it could muster locally.I also don't think the Lombards will know much of the Arab war considering it was a pretty short and seemingly insignificant war.The Lombards decided that the Empire was weak after two large wars and decided to invade with greater numbers and ambitions. The Byzantines also have a lot more territory to control so their army is more spread out.
From what I've read, the Exarchate didn't have much real control over the countryside and it's destruction was a long time coming. ITTL, the Lombards notice the lack of troops in the area and invade, quickly surrounding the Roman heald cities and putting them under siege with little trouble.But the empire in otl faced the same problem and actually lost the second war.Also,what remained of the army was tied up against the Slavs and the Arabs in a constant war and with even less manpower and resources.The exarchate managed itself well with what troops it could muster locally.I also don't think the Lombards will know much of the Arab war considering it was a pretty short and seemingly insignificant war.
With the infatuation that this site has for Byzantium, I'm suprised that there hasn't been any Yarmork timelines, or much in the way of interest generally, for a POD which was argurably greatest in its history.
Subscribed.