Byzantine Victory in Byzantine-Arab Wars

Is this ASB, or in any way possible, becuase the way I see it, if the Byzantines can hold onto North Africa, Arabia and the Middle East, then theres no rise of Turkish or Caliphate forces, and the Empire lasts longer, and Islam never enjoys it's spectacular rise to prominence, and ends up rather backwater, like Baha'i or at least stateless, like Judaism until 1948. Then we may see a North Africa without Islam, that'd be interesting.
 
The Romans never controlled Arabia or a good portion of the Middle East (Persia, and all points east)... A world where the Arabs are completely untogether and can't defeat either the Romans OR the Sassanids would probably lead to the outcome you're speaking of.

Arab conquests or not, the Turks are still going to start arriving in the area between 900-1000. Without Islam, I wonder if they might become Christian? It's possible they could achieve a peaceful unity with the Roman Empire if they convert to Orthodox Christianity -- although if that's the case modern Turkey might not deserve the name at all.

As I see it, the Romans' logical goals were to defend Greece/Anatolia first, the Levant second, and North Africa third. Remember that right at the time the Arabs came the Romans and Sassanids were recovering from a brutal war with each other. Maybe if you get rid of this war, then the Arabs would be less lucky.

Remember, also, that most of the people east of Persia who converted did so (relatively, for the day and age) peacefully -- so even if Islam's western advance is halted, I still think it would be a major world religion (assuming the Arabs still defeat the Sassanids).

If the Romans hold onto the Levant, I'd say that might butterfly away the Crusades to a certain extent -- but there's still a lot of Christian European infighting, one of the reasons for the Crusades. Possibly, the Catholics would decide to "liberate" Jerusalem from the heretical Orthodox Christians, leading to an alternate Crusade against the Eastern Roman Empire -- the Orthodox/Catholic split was still recent enough that I don't know if this would happen. However, I think that'd be an interesting TL.

If the Latin Catholics invaded the Orthodox Levant, then the Muslims (including the Turks? Possibly) would step in, leading to a massive three-way war for the Holy Land. Okay, I actually really like this idea. It may be time to start my first TL.

One consequence of this might actually be a shortened lifespan for the Roman Empire... The Latins' sack of Constantinople in 1204 was something the Romans never recovered from; imagine if the Catholics had been intending to fight the Romans from the very beginning.
 
If we butterfly away the last Roman-Persian war, perhaps by having Maurice be more popular/understanding of the legions, and Rome holds onto the Levant and Africa, if the strengthened imperial armies (even after the devastation of the plague) so much as glance at the few-thousand-strong Arab armies, they'll shatter.

Even though Arabia wasn't under direct Roman control, it was certainly in the Roman sphere of influence. That influence was withdrawn when China lost its monopoly in silk... just in time for Muhammad's birth. If China keeps its monopoly, even if the last Roman-Persian war still occurs, butterflies will keep Muhammad from being recognizable as in OTL and it's doubtful that he'll even attempt to start a religion.

It would basically be incredibly ASB for the armies of an Arab from Mecca to start a new religion and raise armies that would conquer the Levant, Persia, Egypt, North Africa and Iberia... but it happened. Even the smallest historical differences could and probably would squelch it before it even began.
 

Typo

Banned
I agree, just get rid of the murder of Maurice and avoid a Persian-Byzantine war of such epic proportion and the Arab tribes will see much smaller success.
 
It’s also possible to stop the Arabs with a number of later PODs. Killing off Khalid ibn al-Walid before his victories over Byzantium and Persia would deprive them of their best general which alone might be enough to limit their expansion noticeably from OTL. Or you could have Heraclius personally assume overall command of the Byzantine counter offensive and have his strategy remain secret long enough so that he is able to defeat the separate Arab forces individually before they learn of his plan and mass their forces together as in OTL.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
It’s also possible to stop the Arabs with a number of later PODs. Killing off Khalid ibn al-Walid before his victories over Byzantium and Persia would deprive them of their best general which alone might be enough to limit their expansion noticeably from OTL. Or you could have Heraclius personally assume overall command of the Byzantine counter offensive and have his strategy remain secret long enough so that he is able to defeat the separate Arab forces individually before they learn of his plan and mass their forces together as in OTL.

Or you could have Constantine IV longer and have more luck. Or even have Justinian II rule longer and more effectively and make perhaps some recoveries. Granted, a lot has been lost by then, but there are still possibilities.

Maurice seems the best one to go with though since you'd avoid the utter disaster that was Phokas the Tyrant - almost certainly the worst Roman Emperor in history.


Sargon
 
Or you could have Constantine IV longer and have more luck. Or even have Justinian II rule longer and more effectively and make perhaps some recoveries. Granted, a lot has been lost by then, but there are still possibilities.

Maurice seems the best one to go with though since you'd avoid the utter disaster that was Phokas the Tyrant - almost certainly the worst Roman Emperor in history.


Sargon
As I believe I said in another thread awhile back I’m of the opinion that Khosrau II would probably have gone to war with the Romans at some point even if Maurice or his son was Emperor. His ego was just far too enormous to let a little thing like gratitude stand in his way forever. I do however completely agree with Phocas being a world class screw-up. I’ve toyed with the idea of having him get crushed by a loose piece of stonework on his way to Hagia Sophia shortly after killing Maurice in order to pave the way for Heraclius to become Emperor sooner but never done anything with it. I also think Constantine IV & and Justinian II were too late to really contain the Arabs like the OP wants which I would say you’d really have to before they take Eygpt.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
As I believe I said in another thread awhile back I’m of the opinion that Khosrau II would probably have gone to war with the Romans at some point even if Maurice or his son was Emperor. His ego was just far too enormous to let a little thing like gratitude stand in his way forever. I do however completely agree with Phocas being a world class screw-up. I’ve toyed with the idea of having him get crushed by a loose piece of stonework on his way to Hagia Sophia shortly after killing Maurice in order to pave the way for Heraclius to become Emperor sooner but never done anything with it. I also think Constantine IV & and Justinian II were too late to really contain the Arabs like the OP wants which I would say you’d really have to before they take Eygpt.

I like the masonry idea. Have him linger for a few days in agony too. He deserves nothing less.

As for the Rhinotmetos, well, you'll have to wait and see what happens in my TL. There are perhaps lots of possibilities if things fall into place.


Sargon
 
As I see it, the Romans' logical goals were to defend Greece/Anatolia first, the Levant second, and North Africa third.

In order of importance: Constantinople > Egypt > Everything else

By this time the Romans had already lost most of Italy to the Lombards and the Danubian frontier is insecure. Allowing Maurice to survive is probably the best option. He restored the Danubian limes and his organization of the Exarchate in Italy is arguably what stopped the Lombard advance and saved the corridor that would later become the donation of Pepin.

With a surviving Maurice who knows how things could have gone. He was an incredibly able commander, having beaten pretty much every enemy Romania had at the time at least once; he was a good administrator (especially in comparison to the one who followed him) and even had something of a tolerance for the monophystite heresy, meaning Egypt and the Levant are less likely to be as restive as they were prior to the OTL Arab invasion.

The best way to do this would be to improve his handling of the military. He was notoriously careless in this matter, denying and cutting pay, refusing to ransom large numbers of soldiers, etc.
 
The best way to do this would be to improve his handling of the military. He was notoriously careless in this matter, denying and cutting pay, refusing to ransom large numbers of soldiers, etc.
Yes sadly it something that seems would have caught up with him at some point even if Phocas manages to die not so tragically on an Avar’s spear. I also don’t see an easy way to change it since most of his problems with the military stemmed from him being so miserly. This ironically was part of what made him such a good Emperor otherwise. Maybe give him a smaller revolt earlier to deal with which serves as enough of a wakeup call not to piss his soldiers off so much?
 
I see no reason why that couldn't work. You could even have several possible outcomes of the Phocian revolt be the tipping point.
 
Top