DBWI: Arabs defeat Byzantium

[Nicole]

In the early 600s, Arab armies, under the First Caliphate, overwhelmed the Sassanid Empire of Persia, conquering everything in their path- in the east. However, the Byzantine (East Roman, I suppose is the official name) Empire, though nearly as war-weary as Persia, managed to keep the Arabs out of their land.
Christianity would likely not be the majority religion of Africa today... and since areas like Mesopotamia became Arabic in culture after the invasion, might the same thing happen to Egypt (maybe a bit far-fetched, Egypt has so many people after all) or the Holy Land? What would Islam look like with more Christian influence? What about Greece- I don't think the Caliphate was well known for it's navy...

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

Even if the Muslims managed to defeat Roman forces in Egypt and the Holy Land, it is likely that the superior strength of the Byzantium and the degree of Romanization of the two regions would have resulted in the Arabs being later expelled. The Monophysite element did propose a problem for the Romans in our timeline, although this was, as you know, rectified by the sons of the Emperor Heraclius. Overall, for this to succeed, I think that the Empire would have had to have been far weaker than it was in our timeline. Perhaps an even more devastating war with Sassanid Persia? I’m Alexandrian by birth, but Germanic in ethnicity and I shudder to think what my life would have been like under the rule of one of the barbarian kingdoms of the north. I’m proud to be Roman!

 

[Nicole]

Romanization? Egypt still speaks Egyptian, though admittedly with alot of Greek influences. I would guess that it was less in 600...

Perhaps if the war against Persia was more devastating- though perhaps only the battles themselves need be changed. A large part of the Byzantine Army was made up of Christian Arabs from the Ghassanid Kingdom... perhaps if the Muslim Arabs could convince them to defect somehow?

As for the barbarians, this could have a unifying effect on Christiandom- note that the Franks kept splitting themselves up because of their inheritance policy, which is why they were so weak. Visigothica was, convieniently, under a civil war at the time they could be conquered... But a strong enemy could unite the Franks into a powerful Kingdom.

 

[Iñaki]

An interesting what if.

Well one of the most interesting what ifs that I like a lot is if the battle of Yarmuk the Eastern Romans had been defeated.

In OTL Arabs were defeated in Yarmuk, and they after some more pitch combats and after the failure of promote a rebellion in Egypt in 640 decided to center in conquest Sassanid Empire, and well you know that all the northern india was more or less islamized by 900 AD.

But well in an ATL where the arabs win Yarmuk, the Holy Land is easily conquested (in fact in Yarmuk Heraclius send the most part of the troops that he had, so a defeat means no reserves for Eastern Romans and no sufficient troops to defend Holy Land) and Egypt could be, the arabs are now strong and possibily the rebellion in Egypt is now succesful.

North Africa I think is too much hard for the arabs to conquer, plenty of Eastern Roman troops and an important region for Constantinople (I remember in history books that North Africa was the region where the eastern roman fleet sails to help the visigoth roman candidate Rekhared III against the franks of Carloman, so it was an importan military region).

So I think that arabs had conquested Holy Land and Egypt but North Africa is too much hard for the arabs.

Christian influences I don´t know, the fact is that the relations the Second Caliphate and Eastern Roman Empire was very good and influence of the islamic culture spreads in Eastern Roman Empire an christian culture in Second Caliphate.

With a more dangerous and victorious caliphate could be the christians look with far more fanatism the arabs and could be a serie of wars between christians and arabs: could be named the islamic wars as in OTL the Aquitaine Wars when the Papacy establishes in Bordeaux because the conquest of Italia by Constantine IV and the proclamation of the New Roman Empire, wars between the New Roman Empire and Aquitaine Kingdom were long, hard and very destructive imagine you the same against the arabs,worse the wars could happen in Holy Land, all the destructions of the Aquitaine Wars in northern italy and Provence would be happen in this ATL in Holy Land

 

[DominusNovus]

Yarmuk is really easy for the Romans to lose. Have the Ghassanid allies (Monophysites by faith) get treated shittily enough, and they'll turn.

 

[Nicole]

Hm, interesting ideas... You know, looking at the defensive situation in Anatolia and Constantinople especially, I think Byzantium could hold on to some major territories even with a conquest... perhaps even up to Antioch, though that might be pushing it... Though such a Byzantium would probably be more focused on gaining the land where Jesus lived than anywhere else... So no reconquest of Italy?

(Sorry to any Roman members offended about my use of "Byzantium"- the educational system in New Eire uses it exclusively, so it's what I'm used to- no offense is meant.)

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by DominusNovus
Yarmuk is really easy for the Romans to lose. Have the Ghassanid allies (Monophysites by faith) get treated shittily enough, and they'll turn.

Yes, it is surely the POD more adequate to make the romans defeated at Yarmuk.

In fact military historians (and I have a very interesting book about the battle "Yarmuk Battle 636 AD" from Cincinnatus Editors ) considers that if emperor Heraclius had not been more tolerant to the monophisites and the jews (for example Heraclius at the end decided to not aprove an initial decree that had obligated the jews to convert to the christianism, Heraclius although a man of great faith, he was also a pragmatic and after the hard battles against the persians he realizes that is better not have rebellions in a so problematic region as the Holy Land) Yarmuk battle had been very different, in fact one of the key encounters was the defeat of the muslim cavalry of Zarrar by the arabs auxiliars of the romans if this auxiliars had been desmoralized previously by a possible more fanatical politic of Heraclius, well Zarrar had ocuppied the roman encampment of Yaqusah and after well....by bye romans.

Hmm,... this Cincinnatus Editors have a lot of good military books (Yarmuk arabs vs romans, Toulouse romans vs aquitaines, Regensburg frankonians against mongols... I recommend these books)

 

[DominusNovus]

(Sorry to any Roman members offended about my use of "Byzantium"- the educational system in New Eire uses it exclusively, so it's what I'm used to- no offense is meant.)

As long as you're only using it to refer to the empire prior to the reunification, most of us don't get too bitchy.

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

Hey, I speak Greek and I know quite a few Egyptians who do as well. Most of the theme is actually bilingual I think, except in the rural, rather remote areas. As to the term Byzantine, we do generally prefer to be called Romans, although I for one don't find the other term to be offensive.

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by Imajin
(Sorry to any Roman members offended about my use of "Byzantium"- the educational system in New Eire uses it exclusively, so it's what I'm used to- no offense is meant.)

Ah! No problem

Well I am vasconian and the vasconian are allies of the Roman Sistem of Power but we are more tolerants than the romans about use of byzantium or romans, but I think that romans members of the forum know that in other parts of the world byzantium is also used, so I think that they will understand that there is no offense in the use of the terms.

Originally posted by Imajin
Though such a Byzantium would probably be more focused on gaining the land where Jesus lived than anywhere else... So no reconquest of Italy?

Surely, it costs a lot of fight against lombards and Franks for the romans to reconquer Italy and by luck Carloman was not a great military leader as Raimund of Aquitaine.

So with all the energies in reconquesting Holy Land, Italy well I don´t know could be lombard, frank or aquitaine (Could be Aquitaine was not born in this ATL, Aquitaine Kingdom that fights against the romans was formed after the defeat of Carloman by the romans and all the civil war after the death of Carloman, if Carloman is not defeated well is possible we butterflies Aquitaine -shit this have a lot of effects in the future and Vasconian Confederation not formed? and I am not born? )

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

The Empire today vs. a succesful Muslim invasion:

 

[Iñaki]

A good map.

If Raimund of Aquitaine had not defeated the romans, Visigothica and Vasconia would be part of Roman Empire and not independent countries (althoug allies of Roman Empire), the frontier in Italy has not changed too much from the aquitaine victory of Toulouse.

I assume that the red would be the empire if the arabs had been victorius, so all the other lands, North Africa is conquested by the arabs? and Italy?

The brown is the bulgars I suppose?

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

Thanks. Yeah, you guessed right, sorry I didn’t include a map key. The light pink is the Roman Empire now and land that I'm assuming would've been conquered by the Muslims. The reddish-pink is the "core" of the Empire, which I’m assuming would’ve held through the attack and the brown, is the Empire's client state of Dacia, which is populated by a number of Slavic peoples and has long served as a buffer between the Empire and the barbarians to the north.

 

[Iñaki]

Dacia, the "wall of Rome", yes, an interesting country with a people very courageous.

 

[DominusNovus]

Whoa. I really can't see the religious capital of the empire, Rome, no matter how unofficial its status may be falling into foreign hands (let alone muslim hands). Maybe if the empire kept Jerusalem, but with both falling?

Although, it would allow for the emperor to keep closer tabs on the church, since it'd likely relocate to Constantinople. But that might hinder the growth of freedom of religion, as well as the reformation of the Orthodox Catholic Church of Rome.

 

[Peter Cowan]

Come come....the very idea that a bunch of desert nomads could defeat the foremost military power (under one of history's greatest generals) has to rank amongst the most unlikely ideas ever seen on this board. Ok, you could factor in some extra idea like him being distracted by an illness - say he had piles, thought I doubt even they could result in a great general so miscalculating a battle.

So, the Empire loses a battle....what next? These nomads spread through the empire taking land that has been Roman since before the incarnation? Yes....like even heterodox and heretics would desert Christianity for the sun baked dreams of a semi-literate camel merchant.

I suppose after this you will propose that the Franks and Saxons would lead some holy war to liberate the holy land.....

 

[Iñaki]

Well this nomads conquered the Sassanid Empire and the northern india during the First and Second Caliphate and well the Third was the last caliphate before the civil wars and separatism, the actual situation in the islamic countries with their civil unrest and little wars between them could have think that the things were of this manner ever but in the past these nomades were an important factor in a lot of regions, yes yes at the end only chaos in their countries and Roman Empire it seems eternum and the most powerful nation of the planet -in fact only the Luang Empire in China is now the power that can rivalizes with Roman Sistem of Power (The Empire and his vassal and allies)-.

And respect a Holy War against the arabs, well I suppose that the arabs could conquer Palestine and Egypt but more territory I think is unlikely I suppose that the Empire prefers to make his own war against the arabs if this conquest palestine and Egypt before to demand help to Franks and Saxons.

Although in this case could be an interesting system to maintain united the franks, so is possible if the Empire demanded help to Franks that this provided some kind of ideal to maintain united the Franks (strange thing seeing Carloman allied with the romans but possible in this ATL) and could be the Franks without continuous civil war not disappear like in OTL where Saxons and Aquitanians destroy completely the Frank kingdoms.

 

[Nicole]

As long as you're only using it to refer to the empire prior to the reunification, most of us don't get too bitchy.

Well there's the problem- many of my textbooks even mention "Byzantium's role in the Global War (1960-1965)" (Actual quote). Many in the post-war generation that still runs the country have a hatred of the Roman Empire because they blame it for why New Eire and our allies lost the war, and though relations have really warmed up as of late it's still a problem. I don't know why the upper class refuses to fully make up, I mean, Eire was able to get over losing the war, and they were treated much more harshly.

But anyway, back on topic...

So, the Empire loses a battle....what next? These nomads spread through the empire taking land that has been Roman since before the incarnation? Yes....like even heterodox and heretics would desert Christianity for the sun baked dreams of a semi-literate camel merchant.

Well, look what happened in Persia- a nation with a long, ancient history of wealth and power, and today the Persians are all followers of said camel merchant, and write in the Arabic alphabet (in their own language, though)... Admittedly Armenia, which was ruled by the first two Caliphates, is still Christian, providing an opposite example, but they're something of an exception...
Also note that Jerusalem is a holy city in Islam as well, so a large number of Arab pilgrims could move to the area...

 

[Peter Cowan]

Sure, the Persians fell. After all the Empire had just trashed them and compared to their infidel heathen faith, i suppose even the arabic monotheism would be preferable.

I was considering the absurdiity that a whole swathe of Christians, even the heretic types which abounded back then, would apostasise. I have read that someone suggested a tax exemption for converts might work but I cannot see how - it didn't work for the Heracleids. True believers, even if in error, would not be swayed by mere monetary concerns

 

[Nicole]

Zoroastrianism is pretty much monotheistic as well, I thought... They have a "God" and a "Satan", and the difference is that the Satan is more powerful than the Christian Satan. They had written holy texts, a strong priesthood... and yet now there's barely any traces of their religion in Persia. The Monophysites then believed that Jesus' humanity is separate from his divinity- is it that much of a stretch from that belief to go to the Islamic belief that Jesus was a human chosen by God? And of course, it could just go like Mesopotamia, where Arabs swamped the pre-conquest population- bam, instant Islamic majority.