The Romans did lose the battle of Yarmouk.
The Romans did lose the battle of Yarmouk.
The Romans did lose the battle of Yarmouk.
No, I think you are thinking of the Second Battle of Yarmouk in the 9th century where the Emperor Leo VI was killed. Although that wasn't against the Caliphate, but one of its successors. We're talking about the First Battle of Yarmouk where Khalid ibn al-Walid was killed, and the Arab invasion of the Roman Empire was turned back.
Oh ok. My bad.
No, but they did go south from there. Even if expansion into the Hellenistic world was blunted by the Yarmouks, the Arabs made enormous advances along the Horn of Africa and down the coast, and even east into the lands near the Indian subcontinent.Luckily the Empire won the Third Battle of Yarmouk since after that the Arabs didn't bother trying to capture the Levant or Egypt
No, but they did go south from there. Even if expansion into the Hellenistic world was blunted by the Yarmouks, the Arabs made enormous advances along the Horn of Africa and down the coast, and even east into the lands near the Indian subcontinent.
The thing we posit when we talk about an Arab victory here would seem to be a greater threat to the Christian world. Maybe that would be enough to promote some semblance of unity. As it is, the Great Schism was inevitably going to divide the church along military lines, and to this day you have loathing and armed conflict over hair-splitting doctrinal matters between the Orthodox, the Catholics and the Copts of Egypt and the Levant, even nearly a thousand years after the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Serbs.
And it wasn't even a real dynasty.The real empire survived in Antioch.Fell to the Serbs is an overstatement. All that ended up happening was the installation of a Serbian Imperial Dynasty on the throne of Constantinople. Eventually the Serbs were Romanized, just like all other invaders. Dynasties come and go, Constantinople is forever.
You one of those 'Antiocheian' Empire wasn't the real Roman Empire people,right?After the Serbs captured and sacked Constantinople by treachery in 1204,a provisional government was established in Antioch under the son-in-law of the idiotic emperor who allowed the Constantinople to be captured.The empire eventually expelled the Serbs in 1261.No, but they did go south from there. Even if expansion into the Hellenistic world was blunted by the Yarmouks, the Arabs made enormous advances along the Horn of Africa and down the coast, and even east into the lands near the Indian subcontinent.
The thing we posit when we talk about an Arab victory here would seem to be a greater threat to the Christian world. Maybe that would be enough to promote some semblance of unity. As it is, the Great Schism was inevitably going to divide the church along military lines, and to this day you have loathing and armed conflict over hair-splitting doctrinal matters between the Orthodox, the Catholics and the Copts of Egypt and the Levant, even nearly a thousand years after the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Serbs.
Spare me. Porphyrios I Dalassenos over in Antioch was never more than a figurehead for a bunch of power-mad old generals who picked him because he was married to Isaac III's daughter and didn't have the ambition to oppose them. The ERE was never a great power again even after his descendants moved back into Constantinople, and it never really reclaimed any of its territories in the Balkans.And it wasn't even a real dynasty.The real empire survived in Antioch.
You one of those 'Antiocheian' Empire wasn't the real Roman Empire people,right?After the Serbs captured and sacked Constantinople by treachery in 1204,a provisional government was established in Antioch under the son-in-law of the idiotic emperor who allowed the Constantinople to be captured.The empire eventually expelled the Serbs in 1261.
Spare me. Porphyrios I Dalassenos over in Antioch was never more than a figurehead for a bunch of power-mad old generals who picked him because he was married to Isaac III's daughter and didn't have the ambition to oppose them. The ERE was never a great power again even after his descendants moved back into Constantinople, and it never really reclaimed any of its territories in the Balkans.
If nothing else the Dalassenos emperors kept the Levant pretty solidly Hellenized.
No, but they did go south from there. Even if expansion into the Hellenistic world was blunted by the Yarmouks, the Arabs made enormous advances along the Horn of Africa and down the coast, and even east into the lands near the Indian subcontinent.
The thing we posit when we talk about an Arab victory here would seem to be a greater threat to the Christian world. Maybe that would be enough to promote some semblance of unity. As it is, the Great Schism was inevitably going to divide the church along military lines, and to this day you have loathing and armed conflict over hair-splitting doctrinal matters between the Orthodox, the Catholics and the Copts of Egypt and the Levant, even nearly a thousand years after the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Serbs.
Just because they stop owning any lands in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia or project power in the West,that doesn't mean they ceased being a great power.They still own Greece,Anatolia,Armenia,Syria,Palestine,Cyrenaica and Egypt.The only post-Justinian regions that the empire didn't reconquer were Italy,Africa(which broke away during the crisis of 1204) and the various Slavic kingdoms in the Balkans.Spare me. Porphyrios I Dalassenos over in Antioch was never more than a figurehead for a bunch of power-mad old generals who picked him because he was married to Isaac III's daughter and didn't have the ambition to oppose them. The ERE was never a great power again even after his descendants moved back into Constantinople, and it never really reclaimed any of its territories in the Balkans.
If nothing else the Dalassenos emperors kept the Levant pretty solidly Hellenized.
Year 636 AD, the Roman Empire won against Arab invaders at the Battle of Yarmouk. Most historians agree that the Romans were very close to losing the battle. What would the consequences have been for the Romans if they had lost? How decisive would such a defeat have been?