WI: Failed Muslims Conquests

I'm sure the whole no-Islam horse has been beaten to death, but I couldn't find anything like this scenario. The POD centers around Khalid ibn al-Walid. He was the military genius who led the Muslim armies to unite Arabia and conquer Iraq, Levant, Syria, and Eastern Anatolia, defeating the Byzatines and Sassanids in tens of battles. He was without a doubt one of the keys to the Muslims' great conquests.

At the Battle of Chains, which was the first battle during the Muslim invasion of Persia, the Sassanid general Hormoz challenged Khalid to a duel before the battle. In OTL, Khalid killed Hormoz and destroyed his demoralized army. What if Hormoz killed Khalid in the duel? Would it have any lasting effect on the future of the Caliphate, or was it already set in stone that the crippled Byzantines and Sassanids were doomed to the Muslim tide?

n4n0 said:

Would it have any lasting effect on the future of the Caliphate, or was it already set in stone that the crippled Byzantines and Sassanids were doomed to the Muslim tide?

Click to expand...

It could conceivably have derailed the Muslim conquests outside of the Arabian peninsula altogether, since they required such a complicated web of different factors coming together just so that even a minor pod (and the early death of Khalid ibn al-Walid would be significant) could throw the whole thing into ruin.

The Muslim conquests of the 7th Century are one of those historical events that, had that not actually occurred, would be dismissed in this forum as ASB.

It would be a world without all those Islamists in power.

I'm still figuring out how the populace of the Arabian peninsular managed to conquer the Persian and large parts of the Eastern Roman Empires.

Anaxagoras said:

The Muslim conquests of the 7th Century are one of those historical events that, had that not actually occurred, would be dismissed in this forum as ASB.

Click to expand...

That's for sure. It would be as if a new state emerged during the Cold War and destroyed both the United States and the Soviet Union. That's the best analogue in my opinion for the conquest of Persia and whipping of the Byzantines. Not to mention they pushed across the Mahgreb, destroyed the Visigoths, and almost brought down the Carolingian Empire as well, all within the span of 150 years.

ASB!

Spelf said:

That's for sure. It would be as if a new state emerged during the Cold War and destroyed both the United States and the Soviet Union. That's the best analogue in my opinion for the conquest of Persia and whipping of the Byzantines. Not to mention they pushed across the Mahgreb, destroyed the Visigoths, and almost brought down the Carolingian Empire as well, all within the span of 150 years.

ASB!

Click to expand...

Except that the Muslims faced two exhausted states, one of which was struggling to handle a major leadership crisis (aka civil war) and the other of which was lead by a worn out ruler with other problems on top of the burden of rebuilding and restoring imperial rule in territories that had been fought over for some time before the Muslims came out of Arabia.

Neither the US or the Soviet Union in the 1950s-1960s were in such a vulnerable place, even allowing for all the rebuilding the USSR needed post-WWII.

Frankly, if you want ASB like performance in the Middle East, this isn't it.

Spelf said:

That's for sure. It would be as if a new state emerged during the Cold War and destroyed both the United States and the Soviet Union. That's the best analogue in my opinion for the conquest of Persia and whipping of the Byzantines. Not to mention they pushed across the Mahgreb, destroyed the Visigoths, and almost brought down the Carolingian Empire as well, all within the span of 150 years.

ASB!

Click to expand...

Yeah best anology so far. Spot on. Def very ASB in their success

n4n0 said:

Would it have any lasting effect on the future of the Caliphate, or was it already set in stone that the crippled Byzantines and Sassanids were doomed to the Muslim tide?

Click to expand...

It would have an impact, for sure, but I doubt it would prevent the caliphal rise and holds : even defeated, it managed to keep an hold because the tendency and dynamism favoured Arabo-Muslims and not two states exhausted by a long war as Byzantines and Persians.
I could likely see Arabs attacking again once reformed, something that shouldn't take long.

The conquests most easily avoidable are North African (that took a long long time without real immediate benefits at the exception of former byzantine provinces), Spain (that dependent heavily on Berber motivation and quasi-civil war in the peninsula), Anatolia.

And almost brought down the Carolingian Empire as well

Click to expand...

When exactly? I'm sorry, I just can't remember a decisive battle between Arabs (well, Arabo-Andalusian, as Charlemagne had an "agreement" with Abbassids) and Carolingians that would have led to Franks being invaded (admittedly, the reverse isn't true).
The only decisive battle that could have happened during an invasion campaign (and not a raid) with Pippinids more or less concerned, is the Battle of Toulouse against Arabo-Berbers and Aquitains (in fact, mix of Vascons, Franks and Aquitains proper) in 721. it didn't exactly almost brought Carolingian Empire (or more likely Pippinids domination) down.

Anyhow : a smaller Caliphate would have definitely be more arabised, having an even less motivation to convert non-Arab populations (OTL, it was avoided, mainly because it meant less taxes recieved). Arab dynasties as Umayyads, that favoured such position, would have more support and would have less suffered from non-Arab Muslims revolts.

If Persia isn't entierly conquered, I think we could see as well less persian influence on the Caliphate (while still important).

Except that the Muslims faced two exhausted states, one of which was struggling to handle a major leadership crisis (aka civil war) and the other of which was lead by a worn out ruler with other problems on top of the burden of rebuilding and restoring imperial rule in territories that had been fought over for some time before the Muslims came out of Arabia.

...

Frankly, if you want ASB like performance in the Middle East, this isn't it.

Click to expand...

it still sound like ASB.

if you read history until just before Muslim Conquest, Persia and Rome didn't look like exhausted state. Heraclius had intact capital and northern Africa, army that winning numerous battle, etc. Persian also had core Persian lands uninvaded, successful general as regent, and regain Mesopotamia. and Persia and Rome had suffered civil war before, losing Ctesiphon and Antioch also not first time happened.

we only know Persia and Rome weakness because Arab conquest success. it didn't show any fundamental weakness prior to Arab conquest, contemporary people before Arab conquest, or historian who studies until just before conquest would be unlikely to find evidence of weakness.

It would have an impact, for sure, but I doubt it would prevent the caliphal rise and holds : even defeated, it managed to keep an hold because the tendency and dynamism favoured Arabo-Muslims and not two states exhausted by a long war as Byzantines and Persians.
I could likely see Arabs attacking again once reformed, something that shouldn't take long.

Click to expand...

Not sure about this, Muslims only very recently united, several defeat could trigger another fitna civil war. Arabs also could be romanized or persianized, increase of number ethnic Arab in ME is not guarantee they could establish a 'state', they could be absorbed.

PhilippeO said:

it still sound like ASB.

if you read history until just before Muslim Conquest, Persia and Rome didn't look like exhausted state. Heraclius had intact capital and northern Africa, army that winning numerous battle, etc. Persian also had core Persian lands uninvaded, successful general as regent, and regain Mesopotamia. and Persia and Rome had suffered civil war before, losing Ctesiphon and Antioch also not first time happened.

Click to expand...

It sounds nothing like ASB. And after twenty years of war, the idea that they didn't look like exhausted states defies common sense, nevermind evidence - for which I suggest you ask Basilus Giorgios (as one of the experts on Late Antiquity here) to elaborate better than I can.

As for civil war being suffered before - yes, and that on top of the existing exhaustion from twenty years of war (and selling off crownlands, for example) is very much a bad situation if a new power emerges with energy and good leadership like the OTL Muslims.

we only know Persia and Rome weakness because Arab conquest success. it didn't show any fundamental weakness prior to Arab conquest, contemporary people before Arab conquest, or historian who studies until just before conquest would be unlikely to find evidence of weakness.

Click to expand...

Except that historians who have done so have discovered evidence of weakness. Maybe not anything fundamental, but in the sense of the immediate future? Hell yes.

The Arab conquest was a success precisely because the Arabs faced such a favorable situation and had the leadership to take advantage of it.

Part of the reason many people tend to take the Arab Conquests as an "ASB" event is that most historical teaching fails to appreciate how sophisticated the Arabs were (admittedly, Muslim tradition contributed a bit to that, putting an emphasis on how ignorant they supposedly were before Islam for obvious reasons).
Arabia was not just an irrelevant desert with a few backward nomads that inexplicably dawned to history around 620 A.D.
There had been important cities and even more important trade routes that had been producing culture there for millennia at that point. Especially in Yemen, but not only there.
This is not understate the rise of the Arab Caliphate, that is a very impressive feat. But it had its roots and bases in the past and in the conditions of the time.

So what happens to Byzantium and Persia if the Arabs stay disunited? Some fraying in the borderlands, maybe? Does Persia fragment?

One way of keeping the Arabs out of Persia is if someone else (the Buddhist Hepthalites of Afghanistan perhaps?) who are not exhausted conquer Sassanid Persia a few years before the Arabs do.
The Arabs would have a difficult time dealing with the Hepthalites if they encountered them early on, on the Euphrates instead of a couple hundred years later.
Or you could simply butterfly away or delay the 536 AD Kraktau Eruption that caused several years of volcanic winter and famine and may well have led to the Plague of Justinian. Or butterfly away the Plague of Justinian in either Persia or Byzantium by having someone discover and teach the necessity of killing off the rats to prevent plague. IOTL, Ibn Sina finally figured out the relationship between rats and Plague 400 years later, also in Persia. Why not someone earlier?

Persia, as a land and economical/social group, not as civilisation, was exhausted.
I don't think it that it matters much if the dynasty in charge is native or not : plague, wars with Byzantines, eventual war of conquest, plague is going to make the region vulnerable against an united group relativly spared by the war (and that actually grew more prosperous because of it, thanks to the divert of trade roads by exemple) and the plague (while debtated, the desertic regions would have isolated from most of the ravages).

n4n0 said:

I'm sure the whole no-Islam horse has been beaten to death, but I couldn't find anything like this scenario. The POD centers around Khalid ibn al-Walid. He was the military genius who led the Muslim armies to unite Arabia and conquer Iraq, Levant, Syria, and Eastern Anatolia, defeating the Byzatines and Sassanids in tens of battles. He was without a doubt one of the keys to the Muslims' great conquests.

At the Battle of Chains, which was the first battle during the Muslim invasion of Persia, the Sassanid general Hormoz challenged Khalid to a duel before the battle. In OTL, Khalid killed Hormoz and destroyed his demoralized army. What if Hormoz killed Khalid in the duel? Would it have any lasting effect on the future of the Caliphate, or was it already set in stone that the crippled Byzantines and Sassanids were doomed to the Muslim tide?

Click to expand...

Khalid wasn't where the buck stopped. While he was fighting the Persians in Iraq, other Arab commanders had already raided the Levant. The Muslims still had a whole host of talented generals.

Egypt was conquered by Amr ibn al-Aas. The Battles of Qadisiyyah and Nahavand which were the biggest Arab victories in Persia were commanded by Saad ibn Abi Waqas. Much of Syria was conquered by Abu Obaidah ibn al-Jarrah and Yazid ibn Abu Sufyan. Khalid did play a pivotal role and was a very capable commander who won a number of battles, but his death doesn't mean the end of Muslim conquests.
A Persian victory in the Battle of Chains only prolongs the inevitable. The Sassanids were teetering, and the Arabs would return soon enough.

If you are looking for what would happen if there were no Muslim conquests, then Islam would be confined to Arabia and perhaps would take a much more maritime role. Islam spread by trade in many places and since they are unable to expand north they will turn to the sea. I can see places such as the East African coast, the coasts of India and such being Muslim in this scenario.

Whilst the Arabs seem to have hit a perfect storm of circumstances to enable them to expand in OTL it is not of ASB proportions. The ASB is the rise of the USA until 1850!

Sorry to revive a dead thread...

Been reading up on Khalid recently... honestly I'm more than willing to call bullshit on him were it not actually true. Yes, the Byzantine and Sassanid empires were exhausted and plagued by internal problems. On the other hand...

Khalid over the course of the conquest of Mesopotamia alone won every battle he fought: Chains, River, Ullais, and Walaja, went home to put down a rebellion, got back and defeated every Persian relief army in detail before they could link up (Muzieh, Sanni, and Zumail), and then put the icing on the cake by defeating a combined Byzantine-Arab force at Firaz.

He did this in 8 months, and in none of these battles did he ever outnumber the enemy except for the Battle of Zumail. He did not one but two Cannae-level double envelopments, the first of which at Walaja was when he was outnumbered nearly three to one and the second of which at Firaz when he was outnumbered nearly ten to one. All of this without ever having heard of Hannibal. In this conquest alone the Persians would muster well over 100,000 troops to Khalid's 20,000, who were largely the same troops he started with. Even Alexander had to rely on locally recruited mercenaries to replace his losses; Khalid just kept going.

If it weren't history it would at least be considered an Islamowank, and it veers into ASB territory easily. Sure both empires were considered weak and exhausted from war, sure the Persians were burdened by an obsolete military doctrine, but this guy still went toe-to-toe with one of the greatest empires on earth with more or less the best equipment money could buy, was grossly outnumbered or evenly matched at every turn, and came out with barely a scratch only to do it again in four years to the Byzantines.

Also, did I mention he did it with basically only light cavalry and no horse archers?

Were I a man with more time I'd write a TL where he's only a very good general, not a blend of Alexander, Hannibal, Belisarius, Genghis Khan and Georgiy Zhukov. As it is, I have to settle for waiting for someone else to do it.

Once again sorry for reviving a dead thread.

*AHEM*

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=267220

Malta said:

*AHEM*

Click to expand...

Haha, subscribed and I'll read it when I don't have to hop on a jet plane in a few minutes. That being said it's not quite what I'm looking for, simply because an aborted Islam is much less interesting in my mind than the sudden emergence of a successful militarily, socially, culturally, and religiously innovative third power as an interloper between the Byz and Sassanids. They'd have to blast on the scene but not be quite as hideously successful as they were IOTL.

Falcata said:

Haha, subscribed and I'll read it when I don't have to hop on a jet plane in a few minutes. That being said it's not quite what I'm looking for, simply because an aborted Islam is much less interesting in my mind than the sudden emergence of a successful militarily, socially, culturally, and religiously innovative third power as an interloper between the Byz and Sassanids. They'd have to blast on the scene but not be quite as hideously successful as they were IOTL.

Click to expand...

That's where the Khazars come in.