Could Suez, the Taurus and the Zagros have been a plausible stop-point for early Muslim expansion?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Assuming the Muslims still emerge, unify Arabia, and conquer Mesopotamia and the Levant, could the Persians have regrouped and held them at the Zagros, and could the Byzantines have held them on two fronts, Anatolia and Suez, thus retaining Egypt and Africa on a long term basis?

This may or may not be workable but I think its a more workable stopping point than the land gained under the Rashidun Caliphs before the Ummayads, which extended from Libya through to Iran.
 
I think the only reason why the Arabs were able to conquer so much IOTL was because they manage to catch both the Roman and Persian giants when they were weak after centuries of beating each other up. In my opinion, it's an all-or-nothing situation for the Arabs; they would just have their arses kicked in the Levant and Mesopotamia had either the Romans or the Persians been strong.

The only plausible scenario I can think of for the above situation to work is if, with both the Romans and Persians strong, they hire the Arabs as mercenaries, and let them keep what they conquer as a buffer state in a Mega English Calais-like situation.
 
Assuming the Muslims still emerge, unify Arabia, and conquer Mesopotamia and the Levant, could the Persians have regrouped and held them at the Zagros,

Notionally, they could. The Persian Empire was quite the mess on the eve of the battle of Nihavand (where the stopping at Zagros would occur): it was riven by factionalism and had a badly weakened militarily, not to mention they had just lost the capital of the Empire itself, its richest province, and a good portion of its traditional leadership. But a alt-Nihavand where they manage to stop the Arabs' momentum is conceivable, and if they can buy time enough to consolidate in the Plateau, they have a chance at fending off the Arabs for a long time and perhaps permanently (though the Sasanid days on top are likely counted anyway).

and could the Byzantines have held them on two fronts, Anatolia and Suez, thus retaining Egypt and Africa on a long term basis?

Probably not. Africa just might be doable (logistical overstretch by the Arabs at work), but the Suez isthmus is a terrain where the Arabs play to all their advantages, so hardly a barrier the Byzantines can use on a long term basis (and the logistics of fortifying the thing aren't good either). Egypt is likely to be taken, and it would in any event very hard to keep for Constantinople without a land connection. Indeed, an independent Egypt stands a better chance to resist the Arabs here (nevermind how unlikely it is in itself).
 
Probably not. Africa just might be doable (logistical overstretch by the Arabs at work), but the Suez isthmus is a terrain where the Arabs play to all their advantages, so hardly a barrier the Byzantines can use on a long term basis (and the logistics of fortifying the thing aren't good either). Egypt is likely to be taken, and it would in any event very hard to keep for Constantinople without a land connection. Indeed, an independent Egypt stands a better chance to resist the Arabs here (nevermind how unlikely it is in itself).

Land connection is largely irrelevant - communication, trade and most transport was done by sea. Thus, a hypotethical fleet carrying a force of 5000 men dispatched from Constantinople, sailing at an average speed of 7.5 knots, would reach Alexandria in ~4 days, give or take, far quicker than they would reach, say, the Balkan hinterlands.

To answer the OP, yes, the Eastern Roman could very well have held Egypt. Have Heraclius live just a teeny tiny bit longer, just long enough to get the army he was assembling actually deployed in Egypt, prior to Alexandria falling.

Alternatively, have the battle of Heliopolis go the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Heliopolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Babylon_Fortress
 
I think an independent Coptic Egypt based in the south would be a better option for this specific scenario

How? It's a divided country, since the Greek Church still has a large amount of followers who would oppose any independent Coptic dynasty. And it doesn't have nearly as large of resources to draw upon, like the rest of Byzantium does.
 
How? It's a divided country, since the Greek Church still has a large amount of followers who would oppose any independent Coptic dynasty. And it doesn't have nearly as large of resources to draw upon, like the rest of Byzantium does.

As another said, it's very improbable that an empire based in Constantinople to maintain control over Egypt without a land connection. Throughout history you'll see that if the Levant fell, Egypt came right after.
 
As another said, it's very improbable that an empire based in Constantinople to maintain control over Egypt without a land connection. Throughout history you'll see that if the Levant fell, Egypt came right after.

Then I doubt you could check them at the Suez. Africa and Italy survived as exarchates under Byzantium, so there could still be the chance of a Byzantine exarchate in Egypt. Either total Muslim conquest as seen OTL or an Exarchate of Egypt is far more likely in that era than an independent Coptic Egypt.
 
Then I doubt you could check them at the Suez. Africa and Italy survived as exarchates under Byzantium, so there could still be the chance of a Byzantine exarchate in Egypt. Either total Muslim conquest as seen OTL or an Exarchate of Egypt is far more likely in that era than an independent Coptic Egypt.
Egypt would be fine in this case; a good comparison would be Late Period and Ptolemic Egypt in which they co-existed for centuries with empires that controlled the Fertile Crescent.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could the Arabs have conquered the whole Persian Empire while failing to make gains against the Byzantines (at least in their initial century or two)? I get the impression that both Persia and Byzantium were exhausted, but Persia was worse off.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@Falecius

Why is Suez not a good stopping point?

I get that it is desert terrain ideal for Bedouin, but the Suez isthmus is relatively narrow. Certainly narrower and less vulnerable to flanking over the long term compared to portions of Africa west of Egypt.

You made a remark about Suez being difficult to fortify – Is that because supplying Byzantine garrisons with water would be too daunting? What about defenses closer in to the Nile delta. I figure the Nile Delta and Nile Vally could support large garrisons in terms of waterThIn the Nile,, the garrisons and forts should not go thirsty. This does lket the Bedouin range the eastern deseert in Eguypt however. Perhaps that dooms the defense Egypt as the Byzzies cannot be strong everywhere, the Arabs could ford the Nile at some point, and operate well in both desert flanks of the Nile Valley?

I get how North Africa to the west is further outside of Arab range, and it was defended longer.

There I think there is good hope of possibly holding on to Tunisia for a prolonged period, but I think that is unlikely to halt Islamic expansion to the west via the Saraha in the long or even medium term.

The Arabs are likely to expand via the Sahara and eventually meet up with and convert desert berbers, and assault coastal points from there..
 
There I think there is good hope of possibly holding on to Tunisia for a prolonged period, but I think that is unlikely to halt Islamic expansion to the west via the Saraha in the long or even medium term.

The Arabs are likely to expand via the Sahara and eventually meet up with and convert desert berbers, and assault coastal points from there..

The Berbers were very heterodox. They had strange fusions of their indigenous faith, various Christian traditions, and Judaism, and as evidenced by their wars with the Caliphate, aren't exactly fertile ground for converts. The later Berber revolt is definitely related to that, plus you had other Berbers with heretical interpretations of Islam existing for centuries after that.
 
The Berbers were very heterodox. They had strange fusions of their indigenous faith, various Christian traditions, and Judaism, and as evidenced by their wars with the Caliphate, aren't exactly fertile ground for converts. The later Berber revolt is definitely related to that, plus you had other Berbers with heretical interpretations of Islam existing for centuries after that.

I thought it was rather that the Berbers converted relatively quickly to Islam, but continued to be treated like dhimmis anyway, leading to the revolt?
 
Last edited:
One problem with using the Zagros as a defensive barrier is that the Sassanids were far more economically dependent on Mesopotamia than the Romans were on Syria. Thats not to say that Syria wasn't a key region, but that Rome could economically absorb that loss better than the Sassanids could their's. On the other hand, stopping the caliphate at the Zagros doesn't need to be an economically viable long term solution. As a short term way to stem the losses and force the Arabs to fight harder, I'd say there's potential.

Especially if their overall tremendous momentum is stymied by the Romans, as well. And if the Arabs still end up having a major civil war on schedule, then that could be all the time the Romans and Sassanids need to recover and consolidate.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could the Arabs have conquered the whole Persian Empire while failing to make gains against the Byzantines (at least in their initial century or two)? I get the impression that both Persia and Byzantium were exhausted, but Persia was worse off.

For instance, could we get an Islam that fails to make any permanent conquest on the Mediterranean, but expands east into Persia and India, and south down the coast of Africa, gradually converting the territories covered in black below from the 600s CE to the 1400s CE ?



East-Hem_610ad-changed-alternate  spread of Islam, south and east only.gif
 
For instance, could we get an Islam that fails to make any permanent conquest on the Mediterranean, but expands east into Persia and India, and south down the coast of Africa, gradually converting the territories covered in black below from the 600s CE to the 1400s CE ?



View attachment 381645

In an infinite universe, anything is possible.

Is that general spread of Islam probable? Not even remotely.
 
Could the Arabs have conquered the whole Persian Empire while failing to make gains against the Byzantines (at least in their initial century or two)? I get the impression that both Persia and Byzantium were exhausted, but Persia was worse off.

Syria and Palestine are very close to Arab bases, and both economically and symbolically important so conquest is likely anyway. Your impression, however, is correct, and actually explains the historical outcome. The ERE, even if badly weakened, stood, Persia did not.
As for your other scenario, it is unlikely to the extreme. Past the eastern borders of Sasanid Persia, the Arab conquest faced very considerable challenges, which would not be eased by NOT having Syria: a longer border with the Romans would require a larger military commitment to the West if anything, not more forces spare to take India and Central Asia (places that historically tended to rebel).
 
@Falecius

Why is Suez not a good stopping point?

In one word, desert.

I get that it is desert terrain ideal for Bedouin, but the Suez isthmus is relatively narrow. Certainly narrower and less vulnerable to flanking over the long term compared to portions of Africa west of Egypt.

Yes, but in the early phase of the conquest, the Arabs do not appear to have ventured deep into the Sahara. They did not need to, by the way, in order to "flank" Roman coastal positions.

You made a remark about Suez being difficult to fortify – Is that because supplying Byzantine garrisons with water would be too daunting?


I would say so. Historical precedents suggest that, after people have camels, the Suez isthmus is more a causeway than a border.


What about defenses closer in to the Nile delta. I figure the Nile Delta and Nile Vally could support large garrisons in terms of waterThIn the Nile,, the garrisons and forts should not go thirsty. This does lket the Bedouin range the eastern deseert in Eguypt however. Perhaps that dooms the defense Egypt as the Byzzies cannot be strong everywhere, the Arabs could ford the Nile at some point, and operate well in both desert flanks of the Nile Valley?

I suppose so.

I get how North Africa to the west is further outside of Arab range, and it was defended longer.

There I think there is good hope of possibly holding on to Tunisia for a prolonged period, but I think that is unlikely to halt Islamic expansion to the west via the Saraha in the long or even medium term.

The Arabs are likely to expand via the Sahara and eventually meet up with and convert desert berbers, and assault coastal points from there..

It depends on how solid Byzantine rule in Africa is. IOTL, the Arabs came when it was shaky; the Berbers controlled most of the area already, and they were the largest force opposing the Arabs in the early first, before converting (relatively early too, but also quite superfically at first, as noted).
 
Top