Discussion: The Lord Reigns in Arabia (successful Aksumite siege of Mecca)

It's a working title, any way. I figured it's about time for me to get up off my lazy hind end and get to work on my first TL for alternatehistory.com if I want to be taken seriously.

In AD 570, the Aksumite Empire decided to strike across the Red Sea into Arabia, with an army, a navy, and at least one elephant, and tried to besiege and take the city of Mecca. The tribes of the region were disunited and warred constantly. By all rights, the Aksumite army should have been able to take the city. But a plague swept through the Aksumite forces and they were forced to retreat. Before they could send another force, the Persian emperor Khosru had sent forces into the area (at the Arabs' request) to prevent another such excursion.

But let's say that the plague doesn't come, and that the Aksumite forces take Mecca, destroy the Ka'aba, and shatter the rule of the Arab clans in the area, introducing Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity into the region. They already ruled much of modern Yemen at the time, so could we see extensive Aksumite rule in the Peninsula? What are the long-term implications for a world in which Mecca is taken, and Islam never comes to be?

To have an Ethiopian Orthodox Church in Arabia presents some very interesting butterflies. There's a strong possibility that the Arab tribes of the interior may never properly unite, and will continue to be used as pawns in the wars of the Romans and Iranians. Adding Axum to the equation though, could be interesting.

Assuming that the Axumites establish themselves properly in Western Arabia by about AD600, this is likely to be very bad news for the ERE, since they'll be facing an heretical power that threatens Egypt, as well as Avars to the North and Iranians to the East. I suppose butterflies are everything here, and the deposition of Maurice in 602 may well not happen, but when the next big Roman/Iranian war comes along, as it will at some point, the Axumites will be able to play a very active role.

Whose side they will choose is a difficult one to answer. Will they be more tempted to break Iranian control over the prosperous Arabian coastline, and set themselves up as the sole power in the peninsula? Or will they want to ally with the Sassanids and make a bid for Roman Egypt? Their religious views may well be appealing to the monophysite communities of the Roman East...

An interesting one- you should do a TL on this!

Basileus Giorgios said:

To have an Ethiopian Orthodox Church in Arabia presents some very interesting butterflies. There's a strong possibility that the Arab tribes of the interior may never properly unite, and will continue to be used as pawns in the wars of the Romans and Iranians. Adding Axum to the equation though, could be interesting.

Assuming that the Axumites establish themselves properly in Western Arabia by about AD600, this is likely to be very bad news for the ERE, since they'll be facing an heretical power that threatens Egypt, as well as Avars to the North and Iranians to the East. I suppose butterflies are everything here, and the deposition of Maurice in 602 may well not happen, but when the next big Roman/Iranian war comes along, as it will at some point, the Axumites will be able to play a very active role.

Whose side they will choose is a difficult one to answer. Will they be more tempted to break Iranian control over the prosperous Arabian coastline, and set themselves up as the sole power in the peninsula? Or will they want to ally with the Sassanids and make a bid for Roman Egypt? Their religious views may well be appealing to the monophysite communities of the Roman East...

An interesting one- you should do a TL on this!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the encouragement - I do plan to write it.

I'd say that it's rather likely that more than one big Roman-Persian war will occur down the road, and the Aksumites are likely to switch sides more than once, whenever it suits them. I'm interested in the demographic shift in the Arabian Peninsula here as well, considering that Ethiopians are likely to begin populating the area, should it remain under their rule.

The Axumites don't need to hold the area; they simply need to conquer it, however briefly. Muhammad was born in 570, the same year as the invasion; simply have him killed in the sacking of the city. Though this verges on 'Great Man' theory, and you would still have an Islam-equivalent, it would still be different enough to have some massive butterflies on the region.

wolf_brother said:

The Axumites don't need to hold the area; they simply need to conquer it, however briefly. Muhammad was born in 570, the same year as the invasion; simply have him killed in the sacking of the city. Though this verges on 'Great Man' theory, and you would still have an Islam-equivalent, it would still be different enough to have some massive butterflies on the region.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of leery of introducing a replacement-Islam into the mix. I've seen this in most of the TLs on this site where Islam is never founded, and I feel it best to avoid cliches if I can. Though you're right; even a temporary Ethiopian presence in the region will still have a massive effect regardless of whether they stay.

Basileus Giorgios said:

An interesting one- you should do a TL on this!

Click to expand...

You absolutely should write this timeline. You're POD is a unique one, and I think that we can bet on the aftershock reaching far beyond the middle east. I will follow this eagerly

Once I wrote a sketchy TL on CTT involving a closer ties between the early muslim community and the Axumites, effectively turning Islam into a reformed Monophysite cristianity from the start. I would not write it the same way now, I think. With Ethiopians in control of Mecca, Muhammad could be easily brought up as a Christian. He could be a prominent cleric of the local church, or more likely a reformer maybe successfully leading Arab resistance against Ethiopian rule (maybe he adopts a Christological view different fron the mainstream ethiopian one, or something actually closer to Islam as we know it, where Jesus is no more than a Prophet?). My bet, based on their OTL behaviour, is that Axum would be loosely aligned with Byzantium unless the Byzantine don't manage to seriously piss off their Monophysite subjects.
If the Ethiopians actually manage to have the Arabs on their side, treating them on equal footing at least as long as they Christianize, they could be the same force they have been OTL, just serving the Negus under a Christian banner rather than the Islamic Caliphate. I don't foresee an Ethiopian Empire stretching from Indus to Spain, but the Fertile Crescent and Egypt might be conquered with relative ease.

Falecius said:

Once I wrote a sketchy TL on CTT involving a closer ties between the early muslim community and the Axumites, effectively turning Islam into a reformed Monophysite cristianity from the start. I would not write it the same way now, I think. With Ethiopians in control of Mecca, Muhammad could be easily brought up as a Christian. He could be a prominent cleric of the local church, or more likely a reformer maybe successfully leading Arab resistance against Ethiopian rule (maybe he adopts a Christological view different fron the mainstream ethiopian one, or something actually closer to Islam as we know it, where Jesus is no more than a Prophet?). My bet, based on their OTL behaviour, is that Axum would be loosely aligned with Byzantium unless the Byzantine don't manage to seriously piss off their Monophysite subjects.
If the Ethiopians actually manage to have the Arabs on their side, treating them on equal footing at least as long as they Christianize, they could be the same force they have been OTL, just serving the Negus under a Christian banner rather than the Islamic Caliphate. I don't foresee an Ethiopian Empire stretching from Indus to Spain, but the Fertile Crescent and Egypt might be conquered with relative ease.

Click to expand...

I could see something similar to this occurring (assuming Muhammad survives the invasion, as wolf_brother notes). Knowing the Byzzies, they'll probably eventually do something that the Monophysites won't like.
I'm not planning on making the Aksumites into some continent-bestriding empire, but I certainly wouldn't be adverse to writing the first Aksum-wank to ever appear on this site.

Gruekiller said:

I could see something similar to this occurring (assuming Muhammad survives the invasion, as wolf_brother notes). Knowing the Byzzies, they'll probably eventually do something that the Monophysites won't like.
I'm not planning on making the Aksumites into some continent-bestriding empire, but I certainly wouldn't be adverse to writing the first Aksum-wank to ever appear on this site.

Click to expand...

I can see them controlling Western Arabia, the Levan and the Nile valley. Of course, if the manage to integrate the Arabs. If they don't, something loosely similar to Islam could emerge as the binding ideological force behind an Arab resistance that would drain the Axumites, more or less depening on how they decide those deserts are actually worth keeping.
Axum overlordship over Arabia is going to be challenged by Persia. There was a point when young Shah Khusraw showed pro-byzantine attitudes and seemingly he and the emperor (Maurice, IIRC) liked each other. He also married a Christian (Nestorian) noblewoman, and some speculated about his secret baptism. Could Byzantium and Persia temporarily ally against Axum if the latter grows too powerful? It would affect the ensuing wars between the two powers OTL a lot, and this has a whole bunch of consequences involving the Turk khaganates, the formation of the Khazar state, of the Kingdom of Georgia and what the Byzantines do in the balkans and in Italy. Even is something like Islam emerge, which might not (Muhammad reportedly was not in Mecca as a child. He had been given to a Beduin clan to raise and foster him, IIRC in his early childhood) butterflies are going to be massive.

Sure. But what happens after Maurice and Khosru are dead? I find it likely that the two empires will keep on warring ad infinitum until one of them collapses, if the long, long history of the Graeco-Roman and Persian worlds is any indication.

Gruekiller said:

I could see something similar to this occurring (assuming Muhammad survives the invasion, as wolf_brother notes). Knowing the Byzzies, they'll probably eventually do something that the Monophysites won't like.
I'm not planning on making the Aksumites into some continent-bestriding empire, but I certainly wouldn't be adverse to writing the first Aksum-wank to ever appear on this site.

Click to expand...

The degree to which the Romans indulged in major religious persecution in the period is quite often overstated, I think. At the end of the day, they need to hold Egypt and Syria, and only a literally mad Augustus is going to deliberately stir up trouble in these regions. Justinian is off the throne by this point, so by time the butterflies hit Constantinople, so dreams of religious unity are less important than mere survival. Whilst Emperors would go after those who deliberately asked for trouble, as Maurice did, they were generally content to leave common people to their own devices, as long as they kept quiet and paid their taxes.

The main reason for the very rapid breakdown and lack of resistance after Yarmouk IOTL is probably due to a variety of factors, of which religion was an important, but by no means the predominant one. For starters, an entire generation had grown up in the East prior to the Arab conquests with no experience of Roman rule, and little loyalty to the restored Empire of Heraclius. Taxes levied from Constantinople were high enough to cause significant displeasure amongst reconquered communities- witness the hostility of even the Italians to an Imperial restoration in the 540s. Finally, the general misery of the times should not be ignored.

Needless to say, if you butterfly the sweeping Persian rampage across the East, which I think is probably likely for a POD thirty years before, you remove many of these factors. People will continue to grumble about taxes and low level religious harassment, but without the enormous uphevals of the period 603-627, the bond of innate loyalty to the Roman state that has by this point gone on for the greater part of seven centuries will not have been snapped. This means an easy Aksumite ride based entirely on religious reasons isn't particuarly plausible.

A very strong Aksumite/Persian alliance, though, could quite easily be fatal to the Romans. As you say, though, the Aksumites can really jump either way in this conflict. Just out of interest, what were the capabilities of the Aksumite state? Was it a tax raising bureaucracy in the same way that Rome and Iran were? Or was it more of a "tribal" structure like the Germanic kingdoms of the old WRE and the existing Arab states?

Gruekiller said:

Sure. But what happens after Maurice and Khosru are dead? I find it likely that the two empires will keep on warring ad infinitum until one of them collapses, if the long, long history of the Graeco-Roman and Persian worlds is any indication.

Click to expand...

Maurice planned to divide the Empire between his sons Theodosius, who would take the "traditional" ERE and Tiberius, who would be based in the West, and would direct efforts to expel the Lombards from Italy. If Maurice lives to, say, his seventieth birthday in 609, this could well happen.

Khusrau was Maurice's son-in-law, so any son of the Great King's will be the nephew of the new Eastern Emperor Theodosius III.

Basileus Giorgios said:

A very strong Aksumite/Persian alliance, though, could quite easily be fatal to the Romans. As you say, though, the Aksumites can really jump either way in this conflict. Just out of interest, what were the capabilities of the Aksumite state? Was it a tax raising bureaucracy in the same way that Rome and Iran were? Or was it more of a "tribal" structure like the Germanic kingdoms of the old WRE and the existing Arab states?

Click to expand...

From what I can tell, Aksum was a centralized state with a stratified society, if that answers you questions. It was considered one of the great powers of the region, and from the extent to which it expanded and how long it survived, I'd say it had a pretty strong central government (at least relatively speaking). I need to find more resources on this subject before I start writing the TL.

Maurice planned to divide the Empire between his sons Theodosius, who would take the "traditional" ERE and Tiberius, who would be based in the West, and would direct efforts to expel the Lombards from Italy. If Maurice lives to, say, his seventieth birthday in 609, this could well happen.

Khusrau was Maurice's son-in-law, so any son of the Great King's will be the nephew of the new Eastern Emperor Theodosius III.

Click to expand...

Huh. So there's the potential for stronger Roman-Persian relations, as well as stronger Roman rule in the west? I'll keep this in mind.

Askelion said:

You absolutely should write this timeline. You're POD is a unique one, and I think that we can bet on the aftershock reaching far beyond the middle east. I will follow this eagerly

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Gruekiller said:

Huh. So there's the potential for stronger Roman-Persian relations, as well as stronger Roman rule in the west? I'll keep this in mind.

Click to expand...

There is indeed. I'd guess that, if Maurice survives and his plan to divide the Empire goes ahead, we'll see Roman/Persian relations probably remaining relatively cordial for about twenty years, before things start to sour up again in the late 620s or early 630s. Very likely the Iranians will be unable to resist the temptation of stirring up trouble in Armenia, which has been entirely in Roman hands since 591. Alternatively, something to do with a strong Aksum could equally be a flashpoint.

Looking at Maurice's plans in more detail, it seems he intended to split up the West into various small pieces for his younger sons (according to Wiki, anyway). If that's true, you could see a civil war in the West until there's only one son left. On the other hand, I've only ever read about a two way division between Theodosius and Tiberius, so it might be an idea to take that Wiki article with a pinch of salt...

Basileus Giorgios said:

. On the other hand, I've only ever read about a two way division between Theodosius and Tiberius, so it might be an idea to take that Wiki article with a pinch of salt...

Click to expand...

As I usually try to do. Interesting nonetheless. Something along these lines will probably occur once I can find some reference materials for this. Anyone happen to know any good resources for this time period revolving around Persia, Aksum, and Byzantium?

Basileus Giorgios said:

Maurice planned to divide the Empire between his sons Theodosius, who would take the "traditional" ERE and Tiberius, who would be based in the West, and would direct efforts to expel the Lombards from Italy. If Maurice lives to, say, his seventieth birthday in 609, this could well happen.

Khusrau was Maurice's son-in-law, so any son of the Great King's will be the nephew of the new Eastern Emperor Theodosius III.

Click to expand...

There are accounts of Khusraw marrying a Byzantine princess called Maryam, but, AFAIK, her actual existence is now deemed as probably fictional. This wikipedia article resumes the matter more or less as I knew it myself.

Gruekiller said:

As I usually try to do. Interesting nonetheless. Something along these lines will probably occur once I can find some reference materials for this. Anyone happen to know any good resources for this time period revolving around Persia, Aksum, and Byzantium?

Click to expand...

I'd recomend the first chapters of Maxime Rodinson's work on Muhammad as a very general introduction, though it is a little dated now. Other works I know of are mostly in Italian.

Gruekiller said:

As I usually try to do. Interesting nonetheless. Something along these lines will probably occur once I can find some reference materials for this. Anyone happen to know any good resources for this time period revolving around Persia, Aksum, and Byzantium?

Click to expand...

Peter Brown's "The World of Late Antiquity" is a good one for looking at the Romans in particular, and the sixth and seventh century Iranians too. The website Roman Emperors.net, which I'll provide a link to below, is very good, as it is written by history professors, and is therefore more reliable than wiki.

Falecius said:

There are accounts of Khusraw marrying a Byzantine princess called Maryam, but, AFAIK, her actual existence is now deemed as probably fictional. This wikipedia article resumes the matter more or less as I knew it myself.

Click to expand...

I'm basing my assertations on this source from RomanEmperors.net.

Looks like a pretty good site. It should do nicely, at least for the Roman parts of the timeline.