Arab conquests if Persia is not conquered

[Pachac]

Let's say that the Arabs, for whatever reason, sign a peace with Persia after the taking of Mesopotamia. Where would they attack if Persia is not on their agenda? Would the Byzantines face the full brunt of their assault? Would they target North Africa and the Nile south of Makuria? Would they do something else?

 

[Elfwine]

I imagine they would go for the Byzantines, judging by their actions OTL after the rest of their conquests.

Makuria and southward doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Pachac]

I imagine they would go for the Byzantines, judging by their actions OTL after the rest of their conquests.

Could the Arabs firmly establish themselves in such areas Crete, Rhodes, and most of Anatolia without the Persians to worry about?

 

[Laurentia]

Could the Arabs firmly establish themselves in such areas Crete, Rhodes, and most of Anatolia without the Persians to worry about?

Perhaps. Is it a lasting peace? Does one side backstab the other?

 

[Pachac]

Perhaps. Is it a lasting peace? Does one side backstab the other?

The Arabs seemed to want to avoid war with Persia, with the Caliph explaining that 'Persia is for Persians'. Of course that doesn't stop his successors from doing it but I would think they would try to kill off Byzantium first.

 

[Laurentia]

The Arabs seemed to want to avoid war with Persia, with the Caliph explaining that 'Persia is for Persians'. Of course that doesn't stop his successors from doing it but I would think they would try to kill off Byzantium first.

In that case, I can see an Arab presence in Cyprus and Crete, at the very least. They were able to hold them for a century or so even with the fighting with Persia, so with no Sassanid's to worry about, I can see them doing much better against the Byzantine's.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

They would pull whatever forces they would had sent into invading Persia to conquer the Eastern Empire's remaining lands outside the Balkans, maybe even besiege Constantinople.

 

[Pachac]

They would pull whatever forces they would had sent into invading Persia to conquer the Eastern Empire's remaining lands outside the Balkans, maybe even besiege Constantinople.

Interesting. Could The Byzantines be so crippled after this failure that they lose Anatolia permanently?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Interesting. Could The Byzantines be so crippled after this failure that they lose Anatolia permanently?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know too much about that period. Would be interesting to see the Caliphate government model themselves on the Byzantine bureaucracy.

 

[Elfwine]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know too much about that period. Would be interesting to see the Caliphate government model themselves on the Byzantine bureaucracy.

Didn't they do that to some extent anyway?

On losing Anatolia permanently: That would be kind of hard, particularly as the Caliphate crumbles (since it will, just as OTL, for the same kind of erasons).

And owing to the benefits of a heavily Christian population to tax...

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Anatolia still might not fall

I'm going to assume that Constantinople will still be besieged. However, I think that if the sieges still fail as IOTL, then Anatolia will remain Byzantine. The Byzantines didn't really keep it because they were able to drive the Muslim armies off, they kept it because the Muslim armies tended to either raid, or just go straight for the cities on the Aegean coast, retreating when winter came. That allowed Byzantine forces to regain control whenever the opposing armies left.

Though I'm not saying Anatolia won't or can't fall to the Caliphate, I just don't see Persia staying alive as preventing the Byzantines from keeping it.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I'm going to assume that Constantinople will still be besieged. However, I think that if the sieges still fail as IOTL, then Anatolia will remain Byzantine. The Byzantines didn't really keep it because they were able to drive the Muslim armies off, they kept it because the Muslim armies tended to either raid, or just go straight for the cities on the Aegean coast, retreating when winter came. That allowed Byzantine forces to regain control whenever the opposing armies left.

Though I'm not saying Anatolia won't or can't fall to the Caliphate, I just don't see Persia staying alive as preventing the Byzantines from keeping it.

I think I agree with this analysis.

Though I think it's unlikely in the long term that Persia would've avoided conquest, it was simply too tempting a target for the Arabs. I suspect at the very least they'll take Mesopotamia, though Iran could well hold out if the Arabs aren't putting as much effort into it as OTL.

 

[Pachac]

I think I agree with this analysis.

Though I think it's unlikely in the long term that Persia would've avoided conquest, it was simply too tempting a target for the Arabs. I suspect at the very least they'll take Mesopotamia, though Iran could well hold out if the Arabs aren't putting as much effort into it as OTL.

The OP explains that after they take Mesopotamia they go west.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Didn't they do that to some extent anyway?

On losing Anatolia permanently: That would be kind of hard, particularly as the Caliphate crumbles (since it will, just as OTL, for the same kind of erasons).

And owing to the benefits of a heavily Christian population to tax...

Not so much so. The Persians ended up becoming the administrative class of the Caliphate. In this scenario, you might have more Greeks.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

IOTL Persia didn't want to make peace, the arabs did want to stop with Mesopotamia but the Persian King kept raiding and attacking them, so they decided to remove that annoyance

 

[MNP]

Not so much so. The Persians ended up becoming the administrative class of the Caliphate. In this scenario, you might have more Greeks.

This was my thought as well. More influence from the Romans.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

This was my thought as well. More influence from the Romans.

It would be interesting if the Arabs manage to conquer the Eastern Empire, including Constantinople, or at least most of it to know how long it would take for an Islamized Greco-Roman dynasty to emerge. The thought of it sounds rather interesting.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

It would be interesting if the Arabs manage to conquer the Eastern Empire, including Constantinople, or at least most of it to know how long it would take for an Islamized Greco-Roman dynasty to emerge. The thought of it sounds rather interesting.

Pretty quickly, I think. IOTL, the Caliphate was "Persianised", ITTL, I suspect it'll pretty quickly become "Romanised". Greek speaking Caliphs building gorgeously decorated mosques and centring their empire on Mediterranean trade?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Pretty quickly, I think. IOTL, the Caliphate was "Persianised", ITTL, I suspect it'll pretty quickly become "Romanised". Greek speaking Caliphs building gorgeously decorated mosques and centring their empire on Mediterranean trade?

I figure the mosques built by any "Roman" Caliphs to be based off Byzantine architecture, which they already were to my knowledge.

 

[MNP]

I figure the mosques built by any "Roman" Caliphs to be based off Byzantine architecture, which they already were to my knowledge.

What would also be interesting is if the new caliphate is centered on Constantinople, what will happen to the Arabian/Egyptian lands? Will they become more schismatic going along Roman tradition? Will they occasionally break away? Especially if Persia has the time to patch itself back together a more widespread but fractious Islam might be a result.