7th century Islam POD

I've had an idea for another alternate timeline and I'm just trying to get some ideas as to what to do with it.

Say, POD is the Battle of Yarmouk. What circumstances would there have to be for any of the following to happen?:

* The Ghassanid Kingdom and Kingdom of Axum expanding into western Arabia with Byzantine support (not necessarily military). BTW, what sort of Christianity did the Ghassanids follow?

* A resurgent Lakhmid dynasty overthrowing the Muslim Arabs in Mesopotamia and establishing a new Nestorian Christian state.

* Islam, as a majority religion, being largely confined to the Hedjaz or the southern Arabian coast. Or perhaps, depending on how far the Arab conquest of the Sassanids is by this POD, surviving as a minority in roughly modern-day Azerbaijan?

* Egypt and the Exarchate of Africa eventually seceding from Constantinople under a their own ruling classes.

* The Sassanid dynasty being overthrown and replaced by either another native Persian dynasty, or the Iranian plateau being conquered by a Turkic tribe like the Oghuz.

I'm just looking for some opinions on any of the above ideas and their consequences.
 
Last edited:
* The Ghassanid Kingdom and Kingdom of Axum expanding into western Arabia with Byzantine support (not necessarily military). BTW, what sort of Christianity did the Ghassanids follow?
Perfectly plausible- the Empire had a long history of contracting out its foreign policy in Arabia to Syrian Arab and Nilotic client states. A good example is the intervention backed by Justin I to overthrow a Jewish Himyarite regime in 525 that had been persecuting Christians. And the Ghassanids were Monophysites. The fact that they were able to both be Monophysites and receive lavish subsidies and favour from Constantinople is IMO one of the most obvious arguments to use against the whole "EV0L INTOLERANT CATHOLIC BYZANTINES" meme.

* A resurgent Lakhmid dynasty overthrowing the Muslim Arabs in Mesopotamia and establishing a new Nestorian Christian state.
Possible, but less likely than the above. The Lakhmids had been gone for over thirty years by the time of Yarmouk.

* Islam, as a majority religion, being largely confined to the Hedjaz or the southern Arabian coast. Or perhaps, depending on how far the Arab conquest of the Sassanids is by this POD, surviving as a minority in roughly modern-day Azerbaijan?
I could be wrong, but I THINK that the Arabs were still to conquer Ctesiphon, yet alone push into Iran proper, by the time of the Battle of Yarmouk. Islam itself could be thrown into doubt by this PoD anyway- I'm of the view that it's pretty unlikely that the Arabs emerged from nowhere in 632 with their belief system fully formed, and quite convinced by the view that it wasn't until the time of the Caliph Abd al-Malik in the later seventh century that Islam as we know it properly emerged.

* Egypt and the Exarchate of Africa eventually seceding from Constantinople under a their own ruling classes.
Anything can happen, but I'd say that this is fairly unlikely. There's no other example in Roman history that I can think of of provinces going their own way permanently. You could sort of use the example of the revolts in Italy in the eighth century as one, but that was due to a number of factors, largely revolving around the inability of the Emperor to defend his subjects- and even there, Rome continued to be an important Imperial mint into the 770s, despite the most major uprising coming in 727.

* The Sassanid dynasty being overthrown and replaced by either another native Persian dynasty, or the Iranian plateau being conquered by a Turkic tribe like the Oghuz.
Another Iranian dynasty (perhaps a Parthian one) replacing the Sasanians is quite doable, as is a Turkic conquest of Iran. These Turks will probably become "Iranianised", though.

I'm just looking for some opinions on any of the above ideas and their consequences.
I hope my ideas have been useful! :)
 
Perfectly plausible- the Empire had a long history of contracting out its foreign policy in Arabia to Syrian Arab and Nilotic client states. A good example is the intervention backed by Justin I to overthrow a Jewish Himyarite regime in 525 that had been persecuting Christians. And the Ghassanids were Monophysites. The fact that they were able to both be Monophysites and receive lavish subsidies and favour from Constantinople is IMO one of the most obvious arguments to use against the whole "EV0L INTOLERANT CATHOLIC BYZANTINES" meme.

Alright then. I guess then it's just a question of how long Ghassanid and Axumite influence in Arabia will last, at least until they become a threat to the Byzantines. I can't remember whether or not Axum was in decline by the POD or not, because the last time they had any territory in Arabia was, I think, during the reign of Justinian I.

Possible, but less likely than the above. The Lakhmids had been gone for over thirty years by the time of Yarmouk.

Okay, so if not the Lakhmids, would it be another Arabic tribe or a native Mesopotamian dynasty? I'm guessing a Nestorian Christian state in Mesopotamia wouldn't last long once the Iranians got back on their feet.

I could be wrong, but I THINK that the Arabs were still to conquer Ctesiphon, yet alone push into Iran proper, by the time of the Battle of Yarmouk. Islam itself could be thrown into doubt by this PoD anyway- I'm of the view that it's pretty unlikely that the Arabs emerged from nowhere in 632 with their belief system fully formed, and quite convinced by the view that it wasn't until the time of the Caliph Abd al-Malik in the later seventh century that Islam as we know it properly emerged.

So Arabia would remain a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and Paganism then?

Anything can happen, but I'd say that this is fairly unlikely. There's no other example in Roman history that I can think of of provinces going their own way permanently. You could sort of use the example of the revolts in Italy in the eighth century as one, but that was due to a number of factors, largely revolving around the inability of the Emperor to defend his subjects- and even there, Rome continued to be an important Imperial mint into the 770s, despite the most major uprising coming in 727.

In the case of Carthage, I was thinking it might happen in a way the Byzantines lost control of Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic islands. If the Exarchate was to be conquered by external means, who would be the most likely candidates? The Visigoths? The Franks? The Lombards? The native Berbers?

As for Egypt, I was going under the (common?) assumption that Syria and Egypt were becoming resentful of Byzantine rule combined with the Monophysite controversy.

Another Iranian dynasty (perhaps a Parthian one) replacing the Sasanians is quite doable, as is a Turkic conquest of Iran. These Turks will probably become "Iranianised", though.

Perhaps the new Iranian dynasty would come from one of the Seven Parthian Houses, if any of them were still around by the 7th century.

What I had in mind was a mixture of the two, similar to the co-existance of both the Parthians and Greco-Bactrians:

* The Sassanids being overthrown and replaced by either another Iranian dynasty mainly confined to the Iranian plateau or a banch of the Oghuz Turks (I'd suggest the Seljuks, but it's too early.)

* A short-lived breakaway kingdom in Central Asia, in either Bactria, Khwarezm or Sogdiana.

As for religion, I'm guessing the Persians would be too proud to give up Zoroastrianism and would be under no pressure to give it up, but would Nestorian Christianity or Buddhism be able to make more ground into the area?

I hope my ideas have been useful! :)

Yep, very useful! Thank you. :)
 
Okay, so if not the Lakhmids, would it be another Arabic tribe or a native Mesopotamian dynasty? I'm guessing a Nestorian Christian state in Mesopotamia wouldn't last long once the Iranians got back on their feet.
I think another Arab people is quite likely. Mesopotamia by the 630s AD had been part of an Iranian world for over a millenium, so I suspect that the emergence of a consciously Mesopotamian dynasty in Erak probably wouldn't happen, but I'm very far from an expert. Nestorianism was certainly growing in influence in the region though, and could well have been a religious plurality.

So Arabia would remain a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and Paganism then?
Well yes, though Muhammad probably was teaching something that was a distinct new form of Abrahamic monotheism. It just may very well be that ITTL his teachings won't evolve into a religion that we call Islam.

In the case of Carthage, I was thinking it might happen in a way the Byzantines lost control of Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic islands. If the Exarchate was to be conquered by external means, who would be the most likely candidates? The Visigoths? The Franks? The Lombards? The native Berbers?
Well I suppose that's possible, but it seems likely that these areas only dropped out of Imperial influence for good once Sicily had begun to fall. With neither Arab distractions in the East nor a hostile power in Sicily, I would think that these western outposts will be held, especially a fairly wealthy part of the world like Africa. I think that at worst, imperial control will be reduced to the major port cities, and even from that spot, it'll probably rebound.

The most likely conquerors are Berbers, though, nibbling away at imperial territory whenever there are distractions outside or the Exarch revolts.

As for Egypt, I was going under the (common?) assumption that Syria and Egypt were becoming resentful of Byzantine rule combined with the Monophysite controversy.
Monothelitism seems to have been quite popular in Syria and Egypt- there were certainly no revolts against Heraclius' reimposed order in the 630s. Now, given that that restored Roman rule fell apart so quickly, one would assume that a determined revolt could have succeeded easily- but none came. I don't think there was the stomach for revolt in either Egypt or Syria.

Perhaps the new Iranian dynasty would come from one of the Seven Parthian Houses, if any of them were still around by the 7th century.

What I had in mind was a mixture of the two, similar to the co-existance of both the Parthians and Greco-Bactrians:

* The Sassanids being overthrown and replaced by either another Iranian dynasty mainly confined to the Iranian plateau or a banch of the Oghuz Turks (I'd suggest the Seljuks, but it's too early.)

* A short-lived breakaway kingdom in Central Asia, in either Bactria, Khwarezm or Sogdiana.

As for religion, I'm guessing the Persians would be too proud to give up Zoroastrianism and would be under no pressure to give it up, but would Nestorian Christianity or Buddhism be able to make more ground into the area?
All of that sounds quite possible- and yes, I'm almost certain that several of the Parthian houses remained intact until well into the period of Arab rule.

Nestorianism will be making inroads, but I think that traditional Zoroastrianism has got at least another century or two of life in it in the Iranian plateau. After that, I think the chances of Iran going Nestorian or staying Zoroastrian are about 50/50. Plus, there's always the chance of another prophet in the style of Mani or Mazdak emerging- they did IOTL under the Arabs.
 
Byzantine Lover, would you like some assistance on your timeline from my personage? I would really like to see where you're going with this, and I would like to be of personal help! What assistance do you currently need?
 
The most likely conquerors are Berbers, though, nibbling away at imperial territory whenever there are distractions outside or the Exarch revolts.
I would think that the Berbers of their own accord wouldn't end up overwhelming the exarchate. Perhaps a replay of the earlier Roman north African frontier; with its contractions and expansions.

Monothelitism seems to have been quite popular in Syria and Egypt- there were certainly no revolts against Heraclius' reimposed order in the 630s. Now, given that that restored Roman rule fell apart so quickly, one would assume that a determined revolt could have succeeded easily- but none came. I don't think there was the stomach for revolt in either Egypt or Syria.

I agree with BG on this. If anything a revolt would only be temporary in its results. Romanitas by this point was so ingrained in the people's mind as was Christianity. It'd be interesting to see what results Monothelitism would have yielded if the Empire hadn't been so caught up fighting for its survival. I think that eventually either the Nicene creed or Monophysitism would have been faded out in favor of Monohtelitism; that's how it worked out with the previous councils and their "heresies."

All of that sounds quite possible- and yes, I'm almost certain that several of the Parthian houses remained intact until well into the period of Arab rule.

Nestorianism will be making inroads, but I think that traditional Zoroastrianism has got at least another century or two of life in it in the Iranian plateau. After that, I think the chances of Iran going Nestorian or staying Zoroastrian are about 50/50. Plus, there's always the chance of another prophet in the style of Mani or Mazdak emerging- they did IOTL under the Arabs.

I'd have to look this up, but I think that Zoroastrianism was quite widespread with the Iranian populace until the mid 9th century, when the Abbasids began to actively proselytize among them. Previously Islam had been seen as the religion of the Arab rulers; once the caliphate moved to Baghdad, it was a lot closer to Iran, and was dominated by Iranians, thus influencing the decisions with regards to the people in a different manner. In an ATL I would consider Zoroastrianism holding its own pretty strongly; even more so if the Iranians turn somewhat bigoted towards the "Christian" Nestorians in aftermath of the Great War of 603-626.
 
Byzantine Lover, would you like some assistance on your timeline from my personage? I would really like to see where you're going with this, and I would like to be of personal help! What assistance do you currently need?

Listed are all the ideas that have spilled out of my head so far. My main problem, if I was to write this, is my lack of experience. My last ATL, an alternate Crisis of the 3rd century, was not the best. As much as I wish so, I am also not that good at making maps.

Alternate 7th Century AD

628 - Byzantine Empire wins the Battle of Yarmouk against the Rashidun Caliphate (POD). Aware of the damage a united Arabia could pose to the empire, the Romans renew their alliances with the Ghassanid Kingdom and the Kingdom of Axum and provide financial support for invasions of western Arabia. While the Ghassanids and Axumites deal with the Arabians, the Byzantines are free to focus on the Slavs and Avars.

* Via Egypt, ships are provided to the Ghassanids and Axumites for naval invasions. The Ghassanids and Axumites manage to conquer Medina and Mecca respectively along with some of the surrounding territory.

* The initial string of Arab victories against the Sassanids is seen as weakness on the part of the current ruler, Yazdegerd III. In a palace coup, Yazdegerd and his entire family, including his son Peroz are assassinated. The remnants of the Sassanid Empire are broken apart by infighting, primarily amongst the Seven Parthian Houses and their followers.

In the end, six successor kingdoms emerge:

* Armenia gains its independence from Persia but is too weak to exercise much real power.

* A native Arabic dynasty conquers Mesopotamia with the support of the local people. They have grown resentful of Sassanid rule but, adhering to Nestorian Christianity, are no friends of the Romans.

* The House of Mihran manages to gain control over most of the Iranian plateau except for Hyrkania, ruled by the House of Karen.

* The Kingdom of Sogdiana, ruled by the House of Sohae, manages to conquer much of the old empire’s Central Asian territories. Much of its armies are drawn from surrounding Turkic peoples and they are firm allies of the expanding Tang Dynasty in China.

* The House of Suren retreated to their core in Sakestan and had the least involvement in the civil wars. Unwilling to take on the Mihranid Empire, their sights instead turn towards the rich and divided lands of India.

Other ideas I have for this TL include:

* The Byzantines losing control of Northern Italy and Corsica to the Lombards and Franks as per OTL. Sardinia would also be conquered by the Franks but would be retaken via Sicily. Deteriorating relations between the Pope and Emperor would lead to Charlemagne being crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope.

* The Nestorian Christian Kingdom of Erak briefly expands down the east Arabia coastline but are just as quickly reconquered by the Mihranid Empire. Constantinople is appealed to for help, but they are too preoccupied with the Ghassanid Kingdom which has become powerful and rich. The Ghassanids briefly conquer Egypt and Palestine before being crushed.

* The Surenid Kingdom expanding into Pakistan and Northern India, embracing Buddhism as minority religion but fervently preaching Zoroastrianism, much to the disdain of their Indian subjects.

* After putting down the Ghassanid Empire, the Byzantines contemplate annexing Armenia altogether as Trajan once did.

* The Kingdom of Oman becoming the main land and naval power on the Arabian Peninsula and the main centre of trade in the Peninsula.

So, yeah, those are my main ideas at the moments. I’m not too sure how far I’d want to go with this timeline.

If someone could make a map of the areas listed in the Persian successor states section I would be really grateful.
 
Unfortunately, the last of the Greco-Indian Kingdoms was conquered by the Indo-Saka around 10 AD, so no.
 
The only other Central Asian kingdoms around the time were the Western Gokturk Khaganate and the remnants of the Hephthalites or White Huns. I guess I forgot about them in my TL as well.
 
Top