No Islam Byzantine dominate Middle East

[Silver01]

I don't think they would need a "major Arab army". The Romans only had a single remaining field army to muster, and the Arabs wiped it out IOTL. Most modern estimates put both sides at fairly even (and small) numbers, somewhere around 20k each at Yarmouk. Neither side really had a "major army".

Very debatable and 40k is still very much plausible for the Romans.

I think people sometimes forget that Heraclius did not 'reconquer' the Oriens or Egypt in the traditional sense. Their return was negotiated without any fighting really happening there. Having such a massive area handed back to the empire overnight without any fighting would have to leave a massive power vacuum, and imperial control there initially must have been very weak.

It was there was a reason why Heraclius and his brother every book I read about it says the area was under economic and political recovery that the defense system was not fully re established by 634 when the Arabs arrived.

I also think this assumption kind of underestimates the military skills the Arabs had pre-Islam. The Ghassanids in particular were very impressive. Not only managing to raid deep into the Lakhmids and razing their capital, but also rebelling against the Romans, killing a Dux, destroying one of their armies and taking several cities (and this was under Maurice, before the Persian War massively depleted the empire).

While the Arabs aren't to be understatement there would be a big difference between the ghasanids kingdom and likely waves of Arabs seeking asylum from the great drought the migration would be more like the goths and valens

The Arabs were very skilled at warfare, and the geography did not benefit the Romans. The Syrian desert is a navigable obstacle to the Arabs, whereas for the Romans its a impassable barrier. When Roman control is weak, and they have very few troops to work with, and the population isn't all that willing to do more fighting, the Arabs have a good shot at disrupting things in major ways.

Khalid had to make use of his camels and could have easily died on his desert crossing, that was professional army doing good rationing the idea that most likely Arab refugees who are fleeing starvation are going to pull this thing of I personally find unrealistic

 

[Flavius Phocas]

While the Arabs aren't to be understatement there would be a big difference between the ghasanids kingdom and likely waves of Arabs seeking asylum from the great drought the migration would be more like the goths and valens

Khalid had to make use of his camels and could have easily died on his desert crossing, that was professional army doing good rationing the idea that most likely Arab refugees who are fleeing starvation are going to pull this thing of I personally find unrealistic

Who's saying they need to be refugees? Sure, some might be, but they could also be raiders. Again, we're talking about a massive, wealthy area in the middle of a massive power vacuum. Perfect window of opportunity for raiders to seize.

My point is that I don't think Islam necessarily determined the Arab need to push into these areas. They were very weak and juicy regardless of Islam, and it simply makes strategic and economic sense for Arab tribes to prod the Levant for weak spots.

 

[Silver01]

Who's saying they need to be refugees? Sure, some might be, but they could also be raiders. Again, we're talking about a massive, wealthy area in the middle of a massive power vacuum. Perfect window of opportunity for raiders to seize.

i think most are going to be refugees and i gave the reason why the great drought of 638, i dont think starving people first though would be lets raid the empire it would be lets ask for assylum, now as valens showed this could also end up in a disaster but thedore and Heraclius were much more competent that Valens

Perfect window of opportunity for raiders to seize.

raids would not be anything but unless the border tribes get support from more arabs likely the refugees i mentioned these arent going to be conquering much also 638 as start off point gives the empire and 4 years also many of the frontier tribes were byzantine allies example Banu kalb, Taghlib and even the taay could this change? yes i mean these groups did swtich to islam some later than others but there is no caliphate now.

My point is that I don't think Islam necessarily determined the Arab need to push into these areas. They were very weak and juicy regardless of Islam, and it simply makes strategic and economic sense for Arab tribes to prod the Levant for weak spots.

so we know the arab tribes in the border were byzantine allies, we know they from 629 to 633 did not attack the east during their weakpoint some of them did switch to the caliphate side until they started to win by point is you are very likely not going to see an invasion in 634 onward until late 630s giving more time for the empire to recover

 

[Johnharry]

Who's saying they need to be refugees? Sure, some might be, but they could also be raiders. Again, we're talking about a massive, wealthy area in the middle of a massive power vacuum. Perfect window of opportunity for raiders to seize.

My point is that I don't think Islam necessarily determined the Arab need to push into these areas. They were very weak and juicy regardless of Islam, and it simply makes strategic and economic sense for Arab tribes to prod the Levant for weak spots.

Hejaz in my opinion has a good chance of being unified and becoming a power (though not a religious one.) Their tribes were strengthening militarily.

Yet without the universalist ideology of Islam they will ignore Najd in all likelyhood, and possibly ignore Yemen (though I see Yemen as quite likely unlike Najd, which is sort of barren.) They will be attracted to the levant and are like OTL Muslims still primed to co-opt the strength of the Ghassanid military and clans, it may even be faster than OTL as there will be no pressure on them to gradually Islamize. Likewise it will go for former lakhmid territories which would push it towards war with the Sassanids.

The Byzantines in this scenario *could* withstand the onslaught and retain Damascus, but in my opinion Persians are doomed. A less religious Arab force would make the Parthian royal houses loose interest earlier, and could be more accomodating to their local power than the Rashidun were.

That being said I don't think they will push all the way into eastern khorasan and an alexander type fragmentation is likely. The eastern successor can then focus on expanding east later, while perhaps fighting both the "western arabs" and romans for mesopotamia.

Note: I am not saying a Hejazi power is in any way inevitable. But its quite possible. It would likely be far less dynamic than the Rashidun. But its lax attitude to religion actually will have certain benefits.

Edit: Also in eastern Khorasan Sassanid remnants (whether their royal house, the parthian clans, or hepthalshahs) will have more strength and remain a force for longer, and a reconquest is not *impossible*but it would lead to something a bit different than the previous Sassanid-Parthian confederal order in Iran, even if elements of the model are retained. I do think it is either -an Arab led state subdues these eastern remnants eventually or - the remnants successfully retake Persia proper.

Mesopotamia is very wealthy real estate and Eastern/Western Arabs will fight over it probably.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Didn’t the Christian populations of the Middle East hate the Byzantines because they oppressed them both religiously (blatantly disregarding the local religious hierarchy to impose the will of the religious leadership in Constanstinople) and financially (heavy taxes to pay for ruinious wars)? That plus the constant warfare, political tension, and dealt plagues in the Byzantine Empire meant that the Byzantine Empire was functionally rather fragile at that time period. Even if there was no Islam, it is easy to see the Byzantine Empire losing territory and power because of these obstacles.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Good POD. For one, I am not convinced that an Arab invasion is imminent. Without a unifying warlord, they may keep feuding among each other. Heraclius enacted Church unions with the Nestorians and Monophysites. We can very well see a long period of internal stability.

 

[Silver01]

Good POD. For one, I am not convinced that an Arab invasion is imminent. Without a unifying warlord, they may keep feuding among each other. Heraclius enacted Church unions with the Nestorians and Monophysites. We can very well see a long period of internal stability.

Minor correction chalcedonian and Monophysite and Miaphysites an Arab migrations is very likely given the drought of 638 which in the otl the medina ran out of food, but 638 as start of point already gives Heraclius an extra 4 years he didn't have in the otl and also it would not happen all at once it would be waves and likely refugees not invaders so as long as the byzantine don't screw up like in 376 they should for the most part be fine

 

[Flavius Phocas]

Didn’t the Christian populations of the Middle East hate the Byzantines because they oppressed them both religiously (blatantly disregarding the local religious hierarchy to impose the will of the religious leadership in Constanstinople) and financially (heavy taxes to pay for ruinious wars)? That plus the constant warfare, political tension, and dealt plagues in the Byzantine Empire meant that the Byzantine Empire was functionally rather fragile at that time period. Even if there was no Islam, it is easy to see the Byzantine Empire losing territory and power because of these obstacles.

Not really, this is the traditional narrative (the so-called 'nationalist narrative'), but it is one that's been largely discredited by modern scholars.
Main reason being that it simply doesn't line up with what's found in the papyri, or even many of the primary chronicles.

There was a persecution going on against people not adhering to the Monothelite compromise at the time of the conquest, that is true. But this, I think was likely the effect of the outcome of the Persian War, not the cause. These provinces had been lost for 20 years, and needed to be reintegrated. Trying to force the non-Chalcedonian creeds into a compromise was a way of furthering this.

However, the truth is a lot more nuanced than what later sources (which had a vested interest in demonstrating how 'supportive' of the early Caliphs they were to gain favor with their current overlords) imply. Many Monophysites did accept Monotheletism, were happy to play along for the sake of unity, or simply didn't care much about it. It also needs to be stressed that a dislike of imperial religious doctrine was never equated with a hatred for the empire as a whole. The wish of the Monophysites was to convert the Emperor to their doctrine, to see the error of his ways and make the whole empire Monophysite. There was never any large scale advocacy for an independent Monophysite state, which would have been unthinkable at the time (Rome had been there for almost 700 years!).

I am of the belief a Arab Conquest would happen regardless as long as the Persian War still happens. But their success would, much like in our own timeline, not be driven by so-called 'Monophysite resentment', but instead by the inability of the empire to protect them.

 

[LibPrime]

hey'll still have a massively depleted economy, massive manpower issues, barely any remaining field armies, recently reconquered provinces that will take time to integrate, an old/increasingly feeble emperor and a population that isn't all too willing to do more large scale fighting.

Yeah but as a result of population decline, wouldn't wages be higher with less competition, resulting in a rising (or at least a stable) economy?

 

[Stellar_Lights]

Origins of Islam may not be a single event but a culmination of several local Middle Eastern people's movements, to change the corrupt power balance, and for others to seek new power (Arab tribes). For this to not happen, Byzantines need to wield power into the Middle East, more. And how is that possible? They will need to mitigate the plagues and avoid engaging in the devastating wars. To do the former, and eventually the latter, they will need to stabilize the religious strife within the Empire and actually get to use some funds to work on the new things,

 

[Silver01]

Didn’t the Christian populations of the Middle East hate the Byzantines because they oppressed them both religiously (blatantly disregarding the local religious hierarchy to impose the will of the religious leadership in Constanstinople)

Common misconceptions debunked by modern scholarship as seen in Jonh Moorhead books

and financially (heavy taxes to pay for ruinious wars)? That plus the constant warfare, political tension, and dealt

This is true taxes were raised

 

[KOLO cript]

The effects on Persia would be interesting, probably Persia would be invaded by horse-lords in the north and Arabs in the south, a Persian dynasty like the Parthians would rise i think, the best that the Byzantines could do would be ignore Persia and focus in maintain the Arabs fragmented and restore the stability in Balkans and Italy, after some decades they can return to beat the Persians and do a Justinian again if they want.

 

[Silver01]

The effects on Persia would be interesting, probably Persia would be invaded by horse-lords in the north and Arabs in the south, a Persian dynasty like the Parthians would rise i think, the best that the Byzantines could do would be ignore Persia and focus in maintain the Arabs fragmented and restore the stability in Balkans and Italy, after some decades they can return to beat the Persians and do a Justinian again if they want.

To add to this with no caliphate the tang dynasty has essentially free rule in transoxiana I can see tang expansion that could mean the Turkic tribes defeated by the caliphate in 670-710s are just pushed west by the tang or become tang vassals

 

[Silver01]

Origins of Islam may not be a single event but a culmination of several local Middle Eastern people's movements, to change the corrupt power balance, and for others to seek new power (Arab tribes). For this to not happen, Byzantines need to wield power into the Middle East, more. And how is that possible? They will need to mitigate the plagues and avoid engaging in the devastating wars. To do the former, and eventually the latter, they will need to stabilize the religious strife within the Empire and actually get to use some funds to work on the new things,

As mentioned before wars are kind of easy the Turkic Empire starter a long decline in 630 so no war with them, and the avar Khagante is free fall and suffering from samo rebellion, Persia yeah so the major powers are in no condition for war in 630

 

[AtreusHashim]

I am also of the opinion that the Arabs will be pushing out into the Levant and Iraq (at the very least) regardless of whether Islam is founded or not. We know that Arabia was experiencing climatic conditions that can only be described as apocalyptic in the 6th century AD. The droughts led to general upheaval among the Bedouin and caused the fall of the Himyar and Kindite order which had dominated Arabia prior to Islam.
(source: DOI: 10.1126/science.abg4044)

These people are going to be leaving for (literally) greener pastures no matter what. And given they've now gone through 1-2 generations of nearly incessant tribal warfare/raiding it is unlikely they will be doing so peacefully or only as traders. However I think the situation would likely be more similar to the Norse expansions into Europe than the earlier Germanic migrations simply because of the population dynamics (there are not enough Arabs to change the region unless they are completely united). Likely the Arabs will eventually settle and become Hellenic/Syriac/Persianate. Though you may see Arab dynasties in Egypt, the Levant and Iraq (perhaps even an Arab dynasty in Constantinople?).

 

[Silver01]

I am also of the opinion that the Arabs will be pushing out into the Levant and Iraq (at the very least) regardless of whether Islam is founded or not. We know that Arabia was experiencing climatic conditions that can only be described as apocalyptic in the 6th century AD. The droughts led to general upheaval among the Bedouin and caused the fall of the Himyar and Kindite order which had dominated Arabia prior to Islam.
(source: DOI: 10.1126/science.abg4044)

These people are going to be leaving for (literally) greener pastures no matter what. And given they've now gone through 1-2 generations of nearly incessant tribal warfare/raiding it is unlikely they will be doing so peacefully or only as traders. However I think the situation would likely be more similar to the Norse expansions into Europe than the earlier Germanic migrations simply because of the population dynamics (there are not enough Arabs to change the region unless they are completely united). Likely the Arabs will eventually settle and become Hellenic/Syriac/Persianate. Though you may see Arab dynasties in Egypt, the Levant and Iraq (perhaps even an Arab dynasty in Constantinople?).

Yeah I mentioned the great drought of 638 in the otl medina ran out of food so migrations to the levant and mesopotamia will occur now Iam one that disagreed that this will mean a conquests even if when we compared to early Rome valens could have avoided the crisis and the goths could have been defeated and the crisis was dealt with it was roman civil war and incompetence that led to the Germanic migrations been so bad in the 5th century , Heraclius and thedore were both competent

And if the heraclian emperors are as competent as the otl see Constants II and Constantine IV the empire imo would do fine the Arabs would be settled and for something like the Germanic invasions something terrible has to occur like Adrianople, possible but I find it unlikely mesopotamia on the other hand is screwed we saw in the otl how because of khosrow actions many tribes near the iraq border joined the Muslims or betrayed the Sasanids this for the most part didn't occur with the Romans until they were crushed in 636 as the ghasanids and other fedorati stayed loyal

 

[AtreusHashim]

Yeah I mentioned the great drought of 638 in the otl medina ran out of food so migrations to the levant and mesopotamia will occur

Actually as you can see from the figure I included the dry period began as the mid 400s and continued well into the late 600s. The drought of 638 is visible as having affected the measurements from the Levant the most but was relatively minor in Arabia proper where the period of greatest aridity was between 500-530. This coincides with the destruction of the Marib dam and the fall of the Himyarite Kingdom.

now Iam one that disagreed that this will mean a conquests even if when we compared to early Rome valens could have avoided the crisis and the goths could have been defeated and the crisis was dealt with it was roman civil war and incompetence that led to the Germanic migrations been so bad in the 5th century , Heraclius and thedore were both competent

I specifically said that I thought Arab invasions w/o Islam would not be like the Germanic migrations seen in the Roman Empire. The comparison I made was to the Norse in the 9th/10th centuries. I think Arab raids on cities and town in the Fertile Crescent would become pretty much endemic for the next few centuries as the population shifted northwards due to the aforementioned climatic pressures. Essentially wherever the local governments grow weak enough they may be able to grab a chunk (as the Norse did in Normandy), but this is inherently hard to predict.

And if the heraclian emperors are as competent as the otl see Constants II and Constantine IV the empire imo would do fine the Arabs would be settled

The problem they are facing ITTL is inherently different to the one they faced IOTL. In this case, Byzantium is facing constant raids from a people who can attack a settlement with lighting speed and then vanish into the desert where the Romans cannot follow. Unlike IOTL there is no single Arab army which is going to make concentrated strikes or give pitched battle (which would be to the Byzantines favor). This is arguably a worse situation for a militarily exhausted state which really only has a single army left in the field (and very little man power to mobilize further).

The Arab Foederati are going to be outnumbered and, I think, largely unable to deal with the scale of the problem without imperial help (which for the aforementioned reasons is unlikely to arrive). The Ghassanids et. al. will likely stick to defending their own lands and not those under direct Imperial authority. The Byzantines best move is likely to baptize as many of the migrants as possible and integrate them into the Imperial system (though where they will find lands for them is a difficult question to answer). Arab Varangians perhaps?

mesopotamia on the other hand is screwed we saw in the otl how because of khosrow actions many tribes near the iraq border joined the Muslims or betrayed the Sasanids

Unfortunately if Mesopotamia falls then likely the entire Sassanian empire disintegrates. The confederate nature of their state means that without their central demesne, the Sasanian emperors would be utterly powerless as the great houses are not necessarily obligated to aid them. This means that the Arabs will be able to raid deeper into Iran as it essentially crumbles into constituent kingdoms. This is also trouble for the Byzantines. They now have a constant thorn in their side as a (probably) stable (and rich!!) Arab kingdom is in control of the fertile lands of southern Mesopotamia.

 

[Silver01]

specifically said that I thought Arab invasions w/o Islam would not be like the Germanic migrations seen in the Roman Empire. The comparison I made was to the Norse in the 9th/10th centuries. I think Arab raids on cities and town in the Fertile Crescent would become pretty much endemic for the next few centuries as the population shifted northwards due to the aforementioned climatic pressures. Essentially wherever the local governments grow weak enough they may be able to grab a chunk (as the Norse did in Normandy), but this is inherently hard to predict.
I said it wouldn't be like the Germanic migrations in the sense the heraclian emperor imo would not be like valens but I do think at least the initial migration of the 7th century would be like the Germanic migrations they wouldn't be for the most part raiders they would be refugees fleeing the climate conditions and or tribal warfare because said conditions.

The problem they are facing ITTL is inherently different to the one they faced IOTL. In this case, Byzantium is facing constant raids from a people who can attack a settlement with lighting speed and then vanish into the desert where the Romans cannot follow.

I don't think that's is very true imo most as mentioned imo most of the Arabs won't be raiders they will be refugees seeking asylum from hunger or fleeing other tribal warfare why would they go back when they fled?

Unlike IOTL there is no single Arab army which is going to make concentrated strikes or give pitched battle (which would be to the Byzantines favor). This is arguably a worse situation for a militarily exhausted state which really only has a single army left in the field (and very little man power to mobilize further).

There was no single army in 634-636 in fact there 4 that all united to attack the levant assuming the sources are true for example Khalid entered Syria and despite having an organized army and rationing he could have easily died in the Syrian desert I don't think starving or less organized Arabs are going to pull this off also in 636 Heraclius again mobilized the army that got destroyed in yarmourk

The Arab Foederati are going to be outnumbered and, I think, largely unable to deal with the scale of the problem without imperial help (which for the aforementioned reasons is unlikely to arrive)

I don't see why not ? For one the Arabs are most likely coming later giving the area more time to recover also the response to the rashidun attacks were immediate it's just that thedore got defeated by Khalid and then the Romans slowed the rashidun until Heraclius gathered his army in 636

. The Ghassanids et. al. will likely stick to defending their own lands and not those under direct Imperial authority.

Why? In the otl the ghasanids supported any imperial army from 634 until it was crushed in 636 why would the ghasanids not support the imperial army now given that you said they couldn't handle the Arabs alone

The Byzantines best move is likely to baptize as many of the migrants as possible and integrate them into the Imperial system (though where they will find lands for them is a difficult question to answer). Arab Varangians perhaps?

Which I find likely given how the heraclian emperors did this with captured slavs by settling them in Anatolia and giving how the Balkans need to be repopulated it wouldn't surprise he if by agreement or after a defeat an emperor would sent a couple thousand Arabs there.

Unfortunately if Mesopotamia falls then likely the entire Sassanian empire disintegrates.

When I mean screwed I mean that mesopotamia imo does get raided way worse than the Romans but for conquest I don't know much is plausible

The confederate nature of their state means that without their central demesne, the Sasanian emperors would be utterly powerless as the great houses are not necessarily obligated to aid them. This means that the Arabs will be able to raid deeper into Iran as it essentially crumbles into constituent kingdoms.

Persia fate is up in the air even though I believe another dynasty likely takes its place in my timeline I chose the dabuyids because they were related to the Sasanids and we'll their position in northern Iran was secured as it didn't have to deal with pressures from other borders like the Turkic tribes the eastern houses would deal with

This is also trouble for the Byzantines. They now have a constant thorn in their side as a (probably) stable (and rich!!) Arab kingdom is in control of the fertile lands of southern Mesopotamia.

This is is true an Arab kingdom would be the worst raiding unless some how the Persians recover beyond the zagros and both empires team up to get rid of it

 

[AtreusHashim]

I said it wouldn't be like the Germanic migrations in the sense the heraclian emperor imo would not be like valens but I do think at least the initial migration of the 7th century would be like the Germanic migrations they wouldn't be for the most part raiders they would be refugees fleeing the climate conditions and or tribal warfare because said conditions.

I don't think that's is very true imo most as mentioned imo most of the Arabs won't be raiders they will be refugees seeking asylum from hunger or fleeing other tribal warfare why would they go back when they fled?

I think it's likely they will operate as raiders because of their tribal confederation society. Isolated families will not be moving into Syria/Egypt/Mesopotamia by themselves. Instead you'll have entire tribes or federations of tribes (nations, more or less) moving into regions en masse. A group of that size needs to raid in order to feed itself and will naturally come into conflict with the people settled on whichever land they move to.

There was no single army in 634-636 in fact there 4 that all united to attack the levant assuming the sources are true for example Khalid entered Syria and despite having an organized army and rationing he could have easily died in the Syrian desert I don't think starving or less organized Arabs are going to pull this off also in 636 Heraclius again mobilized the army that got destroyed in yarmourk

I agree the Arabs are extremely unlikely to pull off anything like Yarmouk without the organization provided by Islam.

I don't see why not ? For one the Arabs are most likely coming later giving the area more time to recover also the response to the rashidun attacks were immediate it's just that thedore got defeated by Khalid and then the Romans slowed the rashidun until Heraclius gathered his army in 636

Why? In the otl the ghasanids supported any imperial army from 634 until it was crushed in 636 why would the ghasanids not support the imperial army now given that you said they couldn't handle the Arabs alone

I'm struggling to see the Ghassanids, Arab Christians, fighting against other Arab Christians in order to defend Byzantine lands unless the Byzantines make an effort to defend them themselves. If there are Byzantine armies in the area trying to deal with the problem, I agree the Arab Foederati will support. What I meant was, if the Byzantines stay at home and hope the Ghassanids will deal with it, I don't think that would end well.

 

[Silver01]

think it's likely they will operate as raiders because of their tribal confederation society. Isolated families will not be moving into Syria/Egypt/Mesopotamia by themselves. Instead you'll have entire tribes or federations of tribes (nations, more or less) moving into regions en masse. A group of that size needs to raid in order to feed itself and will naturally come into conflict c the people settled on whichever land they move to

For one not all the tribes were nomadic you had semi nomadic and even sedentary tribes also again moving with families doesn't mean raids the goths in 376 showed up with warriors and families and they don't need to raid to feed themselves like the goths their likely idea isn't raid to feed themselves which the idea to steal food and bo back to desert is unsustainable reefing to your comment of their an enemy that can go back to desert and reminds me of matpad when he said vikings raided for food now what you say in this comment makes more sense but again I don't think the first idea would be raid rather seek asssylum which yes conflict can occur because the emperor might refuse to grant asssylum or something could go wrong like we saw at Adrianople.

I'm struggling to see the Ghassanids, Arab Christians, fighting against other Arab Christians

Most Arab tribes were not chirstians those who were like banu taglib and taay are christians but many other tribes wouldn't be most of them would be pagans

in order to defend Byzantine lands unless the Byzantines make an effort to defend them themselves

If there are Byzantine armies in the area trying to deal with the problem, I agree the Arab Foederati will support. What I meant was, if the Byzantines stay at home and hope the Ghassanids will deal with it, I don't think that would end well.

That makes more sense the byzantine would at first leave the fedorati to deal with it with maybe some local support untill the situation becomes big enough to call for more attention that would depended when exactly the Arabs start to show up Heraclius was staying in Syria to see the reconstruction in 634 and Theodore was left in southern Syria it's likely that even if the Arabs don't show up until years later they encounter Theodore would help the ghasanids if they get overwhelmed it really depends when the Arabs show up the later the better of the empire except maybe assuming constans II is still born the period were he is a kid from 641-646 as the regent would be responsible for this