Deserts, Caravans, and Raiders

How effective would desert raiders/light cav be against a prepared opponent who had access to capable light cav?

I know there are alot of sources about Muhammad's raids but it seems like their opponents were just completely unprepared for raiding and handled it incompetently until Muhammad's raiders were too strong & wealthy to be resisted effectively.

If they had been more proactive about stopping Muhammad's raiding, wouldn't he have failed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids
 
I think the common point is that very few people had the wherewithal to train and maintain a significant force of mixed light and missile cavalry, whereas Muhammad could afford to.

Muhammad was a religious war profiteer, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Divinely inspired or not, he and his family profited. It was a strange justice that he was denied an heir.[/opinion]

But in all seriousness, he built up his strength and power base by raiding mostly peaceful traders who had not the strength of manpower nor resources to fight back effectively. The first wave of expansion under Muhammad was predatory, end of story. To answer your question, the defenders would have needed a Muhammad of their own, so to speak.
 
...

But in all seriousness, he built up his strength and power base by raiding mostly peaceful traders who had not the strength of manpower nor resources to fight back effectively. The first wave of expansion under Muhammad was predatory, end of story. To answer your question, the defenders would have needed a Muhammad of their own, so to speak.

Do you think its reasonable and not ASB for them to possess a Bedouin Clan capable of acting as that "Muhammad" of their own?
 
The Ghassanids and Lakhimids served as the two pseudo-Christianized Arabic buffer states used by the Byzantines and Persians respectively. They were both destroyed just prior to the expansion of Islam.

Even in a world without Muhammad, the destruction of these buffer states would mean an Arab world that could raid the settled peoples of the fertile crescent with semi-impunity, at least until the Byzantines and Persians restored the system with two new dynasties. As would probably happen in due time.
 
The Ghassanids and Lakhimids served as the two pseudo-Christianized Arabic buffer states used by the Byzantines and Persians respectively. They were both destroyed just prior to the expansion of Islam.

Even in a world without Muhammad, the destruction of these buffer states would mean an Arab world that could raid the settled peoples of the fertile crescent with semi-impunity, at least until the Byzantines and Persians restored the system with two new dynasties. As would probably happen in due time.

Fair enough, I suppose time to find some other POD. :)
 
The Ghassanids and Lakhimids served as the two pseudo-Christianized Arabic buffer states used by the Byzantines and Persians respectively. They were both destroyed just prior to the expansion of Islam.

Even in a world without Muhammad, the destruction of these buffer states would mean an Arab world that could raid the settled peoples of the fertile crescent with semi-impunity, at least until the Byzantines and Persians restored the system with two new dynasties. As would probably happen in due time.

Buffer states won't prevent the Islamic Conquests after Muhammad's death (the 'second wave' that established the Caliphate). Honestly, it was a perfect storm and Muhammad and his successors knew that. Again, however divinely inspired, it was a sound strategic decision to strike out when they did.

Throwaway (nice name btw): I do think it's unreasonable. I'm inclined to disbelieve the 'divine inspiration' behind Muhammad's rise to power and the onslaught of expansion by his successors. I think it was deliberate both in timing and execution. How else (besides the whole "ALLAH HU AKBAR" thing) can one explain the overwhelming success of these conquests? As far as specific tactics, no, I don't think even a well-trained and professional force of light cavalry (such as the ERE and the Sassanid Empire possessed, but rarely deployed offensively) could have bested the veteran spearhead of the master-stroke that was the Islamic Conquests.
 
...

Throwaway (nice name btw): I do think it's unreasonable. ...

Thanks but I kinda abandoned that plan and now too lazy to wait days for a replacement name :p

And fair enough, I'm just trying to think of where and how I'd build a counterpoint to America with Zombie Legions.

A stopped Arab expansion and a powerful ERE surviving into the 17th century might have enabled that.
 
Thanks but I kinda abandoned that plan and now too lazy to wait days for a replacement name :p

And fair enough, I'm just trying to think of where and how I'd build a counterpoint to America with Zombie Legions.

A stopped Arab expansion and a powerful ERE surviving into the 17th century might have enabled that.

I'd co-author a TL about an Islam-less world (or at least one in which the waves of Islamic Conquest are much, much less successful) if I wasn't already committed to my own [first] TL. I have to resist the 'play my alt' urge---I can't just run off and start eight different TLs and not finish any.

I'll give yours a read; read the first post and it sounds interesting (if ASB ;))
 
I'd co-author a TL about an Islam-less world (or at least one in which the waves of Islamic Conquest are much, much less successful) if I wasn't already committed to my own [first] TL. I have to resist the 'play my alt' urge---I can't just run off and start eight different TLs and not finish any.

I'll give yours a read; read the first post and it sounds interesting (if ASB ;))

Well, I'm dropping the Islam-less world idea since I can't do it without ASB. I'll need to stick with my original Time Traveler import plan after the current character. I was hoping to create a bigger tech & magitech disparity with AH Empire in the region.

EDIT:

Actually, the Ottomans would do. It wasn't until WW1 they became impossible to salvage as a major empire w/o ASB.
 
Last edited:
Top