How would Egypt, Carthage and the Holy Land have developed under continued Byzantine rule?

[Silver01]

You mean like the Germanic tribes attacked from only one front aka the Rhine-Danube?

the rhine frontier was 400 km long and the danube even been longer Palestine frontier was shorter , also as mentioned the goths were already in the empire

Arab Peninsular is harder to control and patrol as there is no clear geographic boundary to ease said control.

there is a gigantic stretch of desert that prevents easy crossing not to mention the ghassanids who while weakened remained loyal vassals.

which was not the case OTL

as mentioned Khalid movement through the desert as shown to surprise the Romans was risky even then some historians doubt it happened like Ryan J. Lynch but then again khalid march was a concentrated effort and the risk was to surprise the Romans and join up with the southern forces who had to take the normal route of Palestine i dont see starving refugees ( because the migration most likely would be kicked off do the drought of 638) taking such a dangerous route for what? there most likely seeking asylum not wishing to conquer the place like the goths did when they pleaded to Valens.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

I did not even consider that a good example would be the crossing of the rhine while alaric was running in italy while some
View attachment 743869

While most of the arabs would be attacking Palestine like the early muslims, with maybe some going to syria ( in the otl the attack on syria was risk calculated on khalid since he had to cross a barren part of the desert and it could have ended in disaster for him)

Not a good example as Alaric was in Stilicho's employ and in Illyricum when the Crossing of the Rhine took place. The Rhine frontier had been depleted over decades, in part due to the Imperial Civil Wars under Theodosius. Even so the Germanic tribes attacked from one direction and once the Empire actually got its stuff together under Constantius III. they were beaten and pacified.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

the rhine frontier was 400 km long and the danube even been longer Palestine frontier was shorter , also as mentioned the goths were already in the empire

there is a gigantic stretch of desert that prevents easy crossing not to mention the ghassanids who while weakened remained loyal vassals.

as mentioned Khalid movement through the desert as shown to surprise the Romans was risky even then some historians doubt it happened like Ryan J. Lynch but then again khalid march was a concentrated effort and the risk was to surprise the Romans and join up with the southern forces who had to take the normal route of Palestine i dont see starving refugees ( because the migration most likely would be kicked off do the drought of 638) taking such a dangerous route for what? there most likely seeking asylum not wishing to conquer the place like the goths did when they pleaded to Valens.

View attachment 743871

And yet the actual large-scale incursions in 376 and 406 occurred in geographically very small areas. The trouble really started once the tribes were inside the Empire and able to move freely. Plus as I mentioned before, the Goths were a non-factor in 406 and even if the Invasion of Radagasius didn't occur, the Rhine frontier was weakened long before as the Western Army sustained massive casualties during the Theodosian Civil Wars.

Also again, why does the drought kick the migrations off? The factors leading up to it had been present for decades before, smaller scale incursion were going on even before the Final Byzantine-Sassanid War started. The combination of a pressurized Arabian Peninsula and two weakened, in one case crumbling, Empires to its north meant that the migrations could have started at many points.

 

[Silver01]

Why exactly would the Migrations come so much later? Just the drought? Islam wasn't the sole factor that drove the Arabs out of the Peninsula and imo there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't hit the Empire around the same time. And while Islam definitely helped, it was nowhere near the force it would be decades later. Early Islam was a fragile thing and very different from the one that would drive the Turk and Ghazi Warriors of later centuries.

and what is your evidence that they would hit the empire in 633? the Arabs expanded out of Arabia due to many reasons yes, climatic change and other pressures but Islam made it a concentrated effort of the state, what immediate pressure existed on the tribes in 633 to make them migrate? nothing in the Muslim sources stated that the Arabs need to expand in any immediate necessity other than to spread the Islam, secure the caliphate and make the Arab that was under Persian and Roman rule to join them, hence why i say the drought of 638 is the perfect pod for the beginning of the waves of migrations .

early Islam was fragile yes as shown by the ridda wars but it was still a united Arabia vs two weakened empires compared to disunited arabia which some tribes would migrate while others would not

 

[Silver01]

Not a good example as Alaric was in Stilicho's employ and in Illyricum when the Crossing of the Rhine took place. The Rhine frontier had been depleted over decades, in part due to the Imperial Civil Wars under Theodosius. Even so the Germanic tribes attacked from one direction and once the Empire actually got its stuff together under Constantius III. they were beaten and pacified.

I know i was referring to the theory that Stilicho deprived the rhine of some legions when he moved them to fight the Alaric invasion in 402 and despite the debate stlicho and Alaric reached their peace in 405, while its not a fact that Stilicho did weaken the rhine to deal with Alaric its still a possible explanation and yes the rhine had been depopulated earlier i mean Julian settled the franks there to deal with this and these remained loyal, even so, when the crossing occurred and Constantine III rebelled alaric came back and Stilicho could not deal with all of this at the same time

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Same as yours for the 638 Drought being the definitive starter. Nothing aside from what we know about the factors that lead the Arabs to push out. Hence me giving no exact starting point rather than a general period sometime during the first half of the 7th Century. A scenario with no Islam can also mean that it never even arises, meaning the decade-long build-up, which had the Arabs focused inwards, wouldn't occur. The creation of the First Caliphate was a long process and its absence means that the Arabs are much less occupied at the exact point when Byzantium and Persia are at each other's throats.

What is clear is that even in a No-Islam world, the Byzantine East and Africa will contend with two of the forces it did in OTL: Arabs and Berbers. Islam or no, they will still be an issue and in the case of the Arabs, bring a whole sleugh of religious issues as well. There is also the fallout of the collapsing Sassanid Empire to deal with and whatever rises in its place will be an issue later down the line. Economically, the region would probably be better off for a while, as it is also spared the strife of the Fitnas. For religious issues, you probably will be looking at more conflicts between provinces and Empire and within the Pentarchy itself. At first there wouldn't be too much change in terms of faith as Islam didn't convert larger populations until later centuries.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

I know i was referring to the theory that Stilicho deprived the rhine of some legions when he moved them to fight the Alaric invasion in 402 and despite the debate stlicho and Alaric reached their peace in 405, while its not a fact that Stilicho did weaken the rhine to deal with Alaric its still a possible explanation and yes the rhine had been depopulated earlier i mean Julian settled the franks there to deal with this and these remained loyal, even so, when the crossing occurred and Constantine III rebelled alaric came back and Stilicho could not deal with all of this at the same time

Exactly. And Constantine rebelled because the Crossing gave him the perfect opportunity. And he was almost beaten by Stilicho's subordinate Sarus and survived in large part due to luck. Alarich also only enters the picture again after Stilicho is killed and Honorius has purges the families of his foederati. The invasion is the catalyst for the following problems and in the end it is Roman intrigue aka Stilicho being brought down by Honorius that truly causes things to escalate. Which brings me back to my original point: it is not the invasion itself that is most important but how the ERE deals with it. Islam or no Islam, Roman decision making is the key here. And quite honestly, my opinion of Heraclius is not high enough to remain without doubt here.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

You mean like the Germanic tribes attacked from only one front aka the Rhine-Danube? Not to mention that the frontier with the Arab Peninsular is harder to control and patrol as there is no clear geographic boundary to ease said control. Plus this assumes that all Arab tribes would take only one route into Syria or Palestine, which was not the case OTL and would not be the case ITTL. Especially since Sassanid Persia is collapsing there is reason to predict that Arab tribes could and would attack along the entire frontier.

The Rhine-Danube is much longer and difficult to patrol though, I would not count it as a single front, not to mention the issue of Britain or the barbarians already roaming around within the borders at the time. And the West was also similarly exhausted as the East was two centuries later yet, after a decade of mayhem, almost managed to restore order throughout the empire (not meant to last because the competent emperor died before the incompetent one among other things).

While his policies did make inroads and the claims of unrest are overblown, the situation in Egypt, Palestine and Syria was not entirely stable. And while it is hard to predict what would happen, it certainly does not help the Roman position in the east.

This is much more difficult to assess, but I'll give this: if the Arabs are invading not as a united force, thus likely not unified by Islam, instead still following their own version of Christianity (at least if we are talking about the tribes close to the empire), the invaders might actually be popular among the local population. A certain Roman historian of anti-Chalcedonian beliefs, was more sympathetic to the Arabs rather than the emperor in Constantinople after all.

Having experience and doing the right thing in a specific situation are two different things. Yes, the ERE had experience with Arab incursions, but these were on a smaller scale than those of the 7th Century would be and largely coming from sources easier to deal with. Which is what I was saying. It depends on how the ERE handles the situation and there are imo large number of possible outcomes that range from "pretty much perfect" to "utterly disastrous".

That is why I admitted things could still go wrong anyway, though I don't see a disorganized effort going much further than Egypt (definitely no Spain, nor siege of Constantinople and Africa seems also out of hand). But the Romans would be more familiar with this kind of attack and theoretically could better handle it (especially with diplomacy and infighting being an option here).

I did not even consider that a good example would be the crossing of the rhine while alaric was running in italy while some
View attachment 743869

While most of the arabs would be attacking Palestine like the early muslims, with maybe some going to syria ( in the otl the attack on syria was risk calculated on khalid since he had to cross a barren part of the desert and it could have ended in disaster for him)

This is what I was talking about: a disorganized effort would resemble the military crisis of the early V century: an unprecedented disaster for the empire to be sure, but one they could recover from (like the WRE almost did) if handled correctly.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I know i was referring to the theory that Stilicho deprived the rhine of some legions when he moved them to fight the Alaric invasion in 402 and despite the debate stlicho and Alaric reached their peace in 405, while its not a fact that Stilicho did weaken the rhine to deal with Alaric its still a possible explanation and yes the rhine had been depopulated earlier i mean Julian settled the franks there to deal with this and these remained loyal, even so, when the crossing occurred and Constantine III rebelled alaric came back and Stilicho could not deal with all of this at the same time

I think at this point you are giving Alaric too much credit: It was Radagaisus who indirectly caused the distraction exploited by Constantine III and the tribes beyond the Rhine.

 

[Silver01]

I didn't say the East was in danger due to his policies, but that they did cause trouble. Which is a logical consequence of state policy being implemented in the provinces. While not threatening per se, they were a potential source of trouble should Imperial attention be focused elsewhere.

what trouble really i have read the material and especially the monophysite response to the Arab invasion by John Moorhead what danger was there in? Heraclius did not implement his compromise by force quite the contrary also most of the population wouldn't care/ know about the heresy i will quote some parts of a long post of mine
As for sources in the 7th century few of them from these groups have survived, but in Heresies in the early Byzantine Empire Imperial policies and the Arab conquest of the Near East Rashad Odetallah quoting E. R. Hardy stating how for most of the territory the conflict would not have existed

so I am in good faith asking what is the danger here?

This is also a bit of an overestimation of Heraclius' position. The guy was a Usurper, who had severely worsened the course of the last great war no less, and barely managed to come out victorious. His position isn't unassailable and bad luck on the military frontier is often a good source of discontent.

your applying our modern views on him, and while this would have merit in say 624 this was not case in 630 Heraclius was not seen as a usurper and while he did arguably make the war worst he won it and was seen and he presented himself as the empire savior /deliverer were chanted ( a good read on this is Heraclius by Walter E. Jr. Kaegi) also why would a rebellion happen? in the otl Heraclius lost hard he lost Syria and Egypt was falling when he died and yet we had no revolt during his reign Heraclius did face a lot of criticism in his later years but again the man lost Syria and was losing Egypt yet one revolted if no one did after a massive disaster like Yarmouk , and losing Babylon fortress why would some one for something less?

And didn't Constans II. get his throne thanks to Valentinus? He raised the boy to the throne after pushing Heraklonas off it which shows that the Dynasty was not as secure as might be assumed.

he mostly got it for his dad dying wish sure Valentinus played a role but there was no civil war no one wanted Heraklonas and Martina in power and like mentioned the instant Valentinus tried to userp Constans II he was killed if the biggest dynastic issue was exiling two people despite the arabs having conquered Syria and egypt now it shows the dynasty was still secure not the other way around.

Also last but not least, and this is mostly meant in jest, never underestimate the ability of the Romans to start civil wars at the worst possible times.

I don't but I am basing myself on the otl where I am against the state the rise of Islam was the worst-case scenario and yet from its start in 634 we have to wait until 647 for any major revolt to start with Gregory

 

[Admiral_Zann]

The Rhine-Danube is much longer and difficult to patrol though, I would not count it as a single front, not to mention the issue of Britain or the barbarians already roaming around within the borders at the time. And the West was also similarly exhausted as the East was two centuries later yet, after a decade of mayhem, almost managed to restore order throughout the empire (not meant to last because the competent emperor died before the incompetent one among other things).

That is why I admitted things could still go wrong anyway, though I don't see a disorganized effort going much further than Egypt (definitely no Spain, nor siege of Constantinople and Africa seems also out of hand). But the Romans would be more familiar with this kind of attack and theoretically could better handle it (especially with diplomacy and infighting being an option here).

This is what I was talking about: a disorganized effort would resemble the military crisis of the early V century: an unprecedented disaster for the empire to be sure, but one they could recover from (like the WRE almost did) if handled correctly.

But the important incursions only occurred at one relatively small point and should have been easier to deal. Reason both 376 and 406 went so badly was Roman incompetence and distraction more than anything else. Britain also doesn't factor in here as the usurpation of Constantine III. shows. Had Britain experienced barbarian trouble on a big enough scale at the time there wouldn't have been enough resources for Constantine to make his move. Its that usurpation that leaves Britain defenseless.

I also didn't try to indicate that anything like loss of all eastern provinces bar Anatolia or a Siege of Constantinople would happen. When I said "similar to the WRE" I meant more smth like the state in the aftermath of Stilicho's downfall: a chaos in some areas that the Empire could still deal with even if it would be painful.

 

[Silver01]

Same as yours for the 638 Drought being the definitive starter.

I never claimed the drought was the definitive starter not for the otl, since I mentioned the reason why the caliphate expanded, I said the drought in a world with no Islam and no caliphate or united equivalent would be the catalyst for the waves of migrations.

Nothing aside from what we know about the factors that lead the Arabs to push out. Hence me giving no exact starting point rather than a general period sometime during the first half of the 7th Century.

hence why I said the drought is a good starting point since the reasons why the Arabs expanded exactly in 633 our sources tell us why abu bakar and the caliphate expanded.

A scenario with no Islam can also mean that it never even arises, meaning the decade-long build-up, which had the Arabs focused inwards, wouldn't occur. The creation of the First Caliphate was a long process and its absence means that the Arabs are much less occupied at the exact point when Byzantium and Persia are at each other's throats.

and this is where you lost me, for one Mohamed started to preach in 610 and was really no different than Jesus at first ie he had no political power this remained till he fled mecca his tribe he and his tribe didn't have conflict until 623 for most of Mohamed decade long build-up was in spreading the religion and building up the community from these 10 years the Quraysh could have done anything but they seemed to be contempt already been the most powerful tribe in the hejaz and controlling many trade routes.

also Mohamed did not even fight with the local Jewish tribes till 624, and he didn't invade the Najd until 625 so Mohamed only kept the Arabs busy in the last 9 years of his life, and most of that energy was in his own tribe so I say Mohamed for most of the byzantine Sassanid war didn't prevent any tribe to attack the Persians and Romans as he was politically irrelevant during the first decade of a new religion, in fact, Mohamed himself caused some migrations in 620s when he expulsed the Banu Nadi and Qaynuqa and these did not kickstart an invasion, in fact with no strong power like Mohamed what happens to the Yemen and Oman is anyone guess maybe the local Sassanid garrisons are expelled maybe they revolt and become independent kings

Now i would not say there is no possibility that the Quraysh unite arabia I mean they were already the strongest one in hejaz and the richest In probably all of Arabia but one would need a pod and reasons why the Quraysh would want to expand since we know for the otl they had plenty of time after their victory against the Njad coalition in the war of 602 to the rise of Mohamed as a political entity in 620s and did really nothing

What is clear is that even in a No-Islam world, the Byzantine East and Africa will contend with two of the forces it did in OTL: Arabs and Berbers. Islam or no, they will still be an issue and in the case of the Arabs, bring a whole sleugh of religious issues as well.

why? most of Arabia was polytheistic I mean dealing with polytheists I guess would mean that the Romans would see them in a bad light

There is also the fallout of the collapsing Sassanid Empire to deal with and whatever rises in its place will be an issue later down the line. Economically, the region would probably be better off for a while, as it is also spared the strife of the Fitnas. For religious issues, you probably will be looking at more conflicts between provinces and Empire and within the Pentarchy itself. At first there wouldn't be too much change in terms of faith as Islam didn't convert larger populations until later centuries.

As mentioned the religious conflict is exaggerated but yeah the west did not like Heraclius compromise

 

[Admiral_Zann]

what trouble really i have read the material and especially the monophysite response to the Arab invasion by John Moorhead what danger was there in? Heraclius did not implement his compromise by force quite the contrary also most of the population wouldn't care/ know about the heresy i will quote some parts of a long post of mine
As for sources in the 7th century few of them from these groups have survived, but in Heresies in the early Byzantine Empire Imperial policies and the Arab conquest of the Near East Rashad Odetallah quoting E. R. Hardy stating how for most of the territory the conflict would not have existed


View attachment 743889

View attachment 743890

so I am in good faith asking what is the danger here?

your applying our modern views on him, and while this would have merit in say 624 this was not case in 630 Heraclius was not seen as a usurper and while he did arguably make the war worst he won it and was seen and he presented himself as the empire savior /deliverer were chanted ( a good read on this is Heraclius by Walter E. Jr. Kaegi) also why would a rebellion happen? in the otl Heraclius lost hard he lost Syria and Egypt was falling when he died and yet we had no revolt during his reign Heraclius did face a lot of criticism in his later years but again the man lost Syria and was losing Egypt yet one revolted if no one did after a massive disaster like Yarmouk , and losing Babylon fortress why would some one for something less?


he mostly got it for his dad dying wish sure Valentinus played a role but there was no civil war no one wanted Heraklonas and Martina in power and like mentioned the instant Valentinus tried to userp Constans II he was killed if the biggest dynastic issue was exiling two people despite the arabs having conquered Syria and egypt now it shows the dynasty was still secure not the other way around.

I don't but I am basing myself on the otl where I am against the state the rise of Islam was the worst-case scenario and yet from its start in 634 we have to wait until 647 for any major revolt to start with Gregory

So as the sources you posted state: the Empire had not much control outside Alexandria in Egypt, something which is always a potential source for trouble should an Emperor attempt to change that or outside forces weaken the realms overall power again. Not to mention that apparent agreement with Heraclius' policies seems to have been confined to Alexandria. Again going by your sources. Even if religion isn't the trigger, the east is not as 100% stable as one might believe.

And this isn't a modern view. The man was a Usurper, same as Phocas, but managed to stabilize his position through the conclusion of the war. Heraclius also had the fortune of dying shortly after his greatest disasters, meaning there wasn't much one could blame on him. That there wasn't much resistance against his successors is in large part due to the fact that Constantine had been established as a co-ruler and successor since 613. Unlike the WRE, where internal conflict facilitated disintegration, the ERE faced an existential threat that drowned out most ideas of usurpation, especially since it bound basically all military resources.

Also the dying wish of Constantine doesn't matter too much. From reading on it, it seems like Valentinus was the power behind the move, in part because he didn't want Heraklonas and in part to secure his own power. Again, not a sign of the Heraclians position being extremely strong. Dynastic principle was still ingrained in the Romans and many military strongman preferred being the power behind the throne, smth that had tradition in the ERE going back to the early 5th Century.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

I never claimed the drought was the definitive starter not for the otl, since I mentioned the reason why the caliphate expanded, I said the drought in a world with no Islam and no caliphate or united equivalent would be the catalyst for the waves of migrations.

hence why I said the drought is a good starting point since the reasons why the Arabs expanded exactly in 633 our sources tell us why abu bakar and the caliphate expanded.

and this is where you lost me, for one Mohamed started to preach in 610 and was really no different than Jesus at first ie he had no political power this remained till he fled mecca his tribe he and his tribe didn't have conflict until 623 for most of Mohamed decade long build-up was in spreading the religion and building up the community from these 10 years the Quraysh could have done anything but they seemed to be contempt already been the most powerful tribe in the hejaz and controlling many trade routes.

also Mohamed did not even fight with the local Jewish tribes till 624, and he didn't invade the Najd until 625 so Mohamed only kept the Arabs busy in the last 9 years of his life, and most of that energy was in his own tribe so I say Mohamed for most of the byzantine Sassanid war didn't prevent any tribe to attack the Persians and Romans as he was politically irrelevant during the first decade of a new religion, in fact, Mohamed himself caused some migrations in 620s when he expulsed the Banu Nadi and Qaynuqa and these did not kickstart an invasion, in fact with no strong power like Mohamed what happens to the Yemen and Oman is anyone guess maybe the local Sassanid garrisons are expelled maybe they revolt and become independent kings

Now i would not say there is no possibility that the Quraysh unite arabia I mean they were already the strongest one in hejaz and the richest In probably all of Arabia but one would need a pod and reasons why the Quraysh would want to expand since we know for the otl they had plenty of time after their victory against the Njad coalition in the war of 602 to the rise of Mohamed as a political entity in 620s and did really nothing

why? most of Arabia was polytheistic I mean dealing with polytheists I guess would mean that the Romans would see them in a bad light

As mentioned the religious conflict is exaggerated but yeah the west did not like Heraclius compromise

Even Mohammeds early conflicts with Mecca occupied quite a bit of attention and the fighting drew in Arab focus from 623 on. Not to mention that ten years is already quite a bit of time considering the biggest influence on that period of time is essentially removed here. No Mohammed completely changes the dynamic on the peninsula during the 620s hence why I think that migrations/incursions could start anywhere from there, over OTL Islamic Invasions up to the 640s and 650s.

Most of Arabia was polytheistic? Thats not really true since large parts where Christian in various forms, not to mention the Jewish Kingdoms/tribes of the southern areas. There is a reason that Islam rose where it did since the Peninsula was essentially a religious melting pot decades before Mohammed came to prominence.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

But the important incursions only occurred at one relatively small point and should have been easier to deal. Reason both 376 and 406 went so badly was Roman incompetence and distraction more than anything else.

Agree on 376, not so much on 406. No one expected the crossing, not even some of the tribes close to the Rhine and the invaders in question. The Franks ended up fighting the Vandals after the crossing, but Rome was dealing with a much more pressing issue in Italy. So it's not as much a matter of incompetence, rather (as you said) of distraction. Definitely though, not something easy for the Romans to deal with (not immediately at least). Wrong measures were taken (the execution of Stilicho among them), but in the end the empire still showed the ability to bounce back, over the span of a decade.

Britain also doesn't factor in here as the usurpation of Constantine III. shows. Had Britain experienced barbarian trouble on a big enough scale at the time there wouldn't have been enough resources for Constantine to make his move. Its that usurpation that leaves Britain defenseless.

Britain did experience troubles though, that is why Theodosius senior campaigned there. But I was not referring to barbarian threats to Britain anyway, rather to the army of the Diocese itself. Stilicho gambled that he could deal with the Goths and other barbarians before Constantinus III invaded Gaul. Constantine speed in moving to and taking over Gaul was what harmed Stilicho and made his position at court untenable. Britain was definitely a factor for Stilicho, who hoped he could deal with it a later time. Unfortunately for him, Constantine showed more resolve than expected and that is what made the crisis even worse.

I also didn't try to indicate that anything like loss of all eastern provinces bar Anatolia or a Siege of Constantinople would happen. When I said "similar to the WRE" I meant more smth like the state in the aftermath of Stilicho's downfall: a chaos in some areas that the Empire could still deal with even if it would be painful.

It seems we are on the same page then (though we may disagree on minor details): a disorganized Arab invasion of the East (given the peculiar timing of that and the unfortunate state of the empire) would still represent a considerable emergency for the Roman military. Better tools and measures to deal with it would be available though (as opposed to having to deal with the Caliphate), and up to the Roman leadership to properly employ them and mitigate the disaster or succumb anyway.

 

[Silver01]

So as the sources you posted state: the Empire had not much control outside Alexandria in Egypt, something which is always a potential source for trouble should an Emperor attempt to change that or outside forces weaken the realms overall power again. Not to mention that apparent agreement with Heraclius' policies seems to have been confined to Alexandria. Again going by your sources. Even if religion isn't the trigger, the east is not as 100% stable as one might believe.

yes the war was destabilizing and can be a potential source of trouble even though this could change as seen by forces from outside Egypt that helped defend it during the Muslim conquest also the reason why the source only mentions Alexandria ( since it was talking about egypt) was because the monophysite controversy was only an issue of the elite clergy there not an Egypt wide phenomenon as for Syria these to accepted Heraclius position and I never did say the east is stable I mean it had not recovered from the byzantine Sassanid war of 602-628 in fact the only group who could and did hail the Arab as liberators are the jews which Heraclius detested do their revolt earlier in the war.

And this isn't a modern view. The man was a Usurper, same as Phocas, but managed to stabilize his position through the conclusion of the war. Heraclius also had the fortune of dying shortly after his greatest disasters, meaning there wasn't much one could blame on him. That there wasn't much resistance against his successors is in large part due to the fact that Constantine had been established as a co-ruler and successor since 613. Unlike the WRE, where internal conflict facilitated disintegration, the ERE faced an existential threat that drowned out most ideas of usurpation, especially since it bound basically all military resources.

it most certainly is because again by 630 no one called or regarded Heraclius as a usurper he did a userpation but was not considered one also what do you mean of having the fortune of dying before his greatest disaster? and little could be blamed on him he suffered the defeat of Yarmouk lost Syria and the Levant, by the time he died all that was left of Egypt was truly only Alexandria been left a lot was blamed on him and yet as we mention not revolt despite this been a disaster.

as for the argument of there was no revolt because of existential danger Gregory revolted for the exact reason that he could do a better job than Constans II he failed but still a revolt was very possible but it did not happen

Also the dying wish of Constantine doesn't matter too much. From reading on it, it seems like Valentinus was the power behind the move, in part because he didn't want Heraklonas and in part to secure his own power. Again, not a sign of the Heraclians position being extremely strong. Dynastic principle was still ingrained in the Romans and many military strongman preferred being the power behind the throne, smth that had tradition in the ERE going back to the early 5th Century.

And again, a No-Islam scenario goes far beyond just the 630s.

as you mentioned Constantine played a part while Valentinus was the mastermind Constantine had asked him for this and as mentioned one did and no one was going to fight for Martina and by proxy Heraklonas they hated them and as I keep mentioning when Valentinus tried to usurp power away from Constans II he was killed
and I agree with you that a no Islam scenario goes far beyond 630 hence why I said Constans II ( depending of the pod) IMO is very key to what would happen next

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Britain did experience troubles though, that is why Theodosius senior campaigned there. But I was not referring to barbarian threats to Britain anyway, rather to the army of the Diocese itself. Stilicho gambled that he could deal with the Goths and other barbarians before Constantinus III invaded Gaul. Constantine speed in moving to and taking over Gaul was what harmed Stilicho and made his position at court untenable. Britain was definitely a factor for Stilicho, who hoped he could deal with it a later time. Unfortunately for him, Constantine showed more resolve than expected and that is what made the crisis even worse.

To clarify what I meant regarding Britain: when I said that Constantine III. wasn't a factor, I meant that he wasn't one before the Crossing. Thereafter he became a major factor, but before that it was Radagasius (as you said) who had force Stilicho back into Italy and away from the future area of conflict. And while Britain had experienced trouble in the 360s, by the 400s it seems to have been calm enough for Constantine to consider moving his army into Gaul.

 

[Silver01]

Even Mohammeds early conflicts with Mecca occupied quite a bit of attention and the fighting drew in Arab focus from 623 on. Not to mention that ten years is already quite a bit of time considering the biggest influence on that period of time is essentially removed here. No Mohammed completely changes the dynamic on the peninsula during the 620s hence why I think that migrations/incursions could start anywhere from there, over OTL Islamic Invasions up to the 640s and 650s.

and the early conflicts began in 623 with caravan raids, and also as mentioned the attention Mohamed drew away was limited to mecca and the Jewish tribes of medina the Najd later on in 625 Mohamed did not distract most of Arabia till after 628 when the war was over most of his unification was from 628 to 632 and yes I do agree Mohammed not existing does change 620s for all of Arabia ? no mostly for the Quraysh and the Jewish tribes who don't have to deal with them and hence why do not believe the migrations could have started in 620s because Mohamed was a lesser player and only affected Hejaz and some parts of Nejad from 623 to 628 again if the migration could have started any time one must wonder why didn't the northern tribes who Mohamed had no touch with till 627 or as late 630 like the many tribes of Banu Bakr bin Wa'il who had already defeated a Persian invasion in 609 migrate or heck even attack the Persians as khosrow was losing the war Mohamed played no role with the north tribes and a time a migration /invasion could have started.

I also didn't try to indicate that anything like loss of all eastern provinces bar Anatolia or a Siege of Constantinople would happen. When I said "similar to the WRE" I meant more smth like the state in the aftermath of Stilicho's downfall: a chaos in some areas that the Empire could still deal with even if it would be painful.

I also agree with that it's possible however I find it the less likely option based on what we know about the heraclian dynasty and the pod , heck I think the Berbers pose more a threat since we do have evidence of the Berber kingdoms and tribes consolidating and becoming powerful and they already have some animosity with the Romans hence why in my timeline the Berbers become the treat during a civil war not the Arabs.

so in summary is possible the arabs conquer some things yes? do I find it likely with a late pod-like Mohamed getting killed in 620 after his uncle died and Islam never amounting to anything no I don't find it likely nor do I find it likely migrations could start in 620s because there is really no evidence to indicate that based on the otl what would trigger it? would be the real question hence why I subscribe to the idea that the drought is a good way to start since it would force tribes to migrate they have to , which gives more time for the Romans to recover and the initial Arab migration would be met by two competent emperors what happens next is an issue of butterflies

 

[Admiral_Zann]

comment

So why we disagree on the details (sometimes in a major way) we can agree on Arabs and Berbers at least being an issue for the Heraclian ERE during the period. Tbh I think the main threat for the Byzantines will come from whatever emerges from the corpse of the Sassanid Empire anyway, rather than the Maghreb or Arabia.

 

[Silver01]

So why we disagree on the details (sometimes in a major way) we can agree on Arabs and Berbers at least being an issue for the Heraclian ERE during the period. Tbh I think the main threat for the Byzantines will come from whatever emerges from the corpse of the Sassanid Empire anyway, rather than the Maghreb or Arabia.

yes we can agree in my timeline alt Constans had to deal with a crisis similar to Valens where Arabs came to ghassanids who asked him for refuge and like Valens it became violent the difference been that alt Constans crushed the Arab colation but even with that premised he could have lost and the Arabs would be free in the Levant ( the difference been since I was basing myself on otl Constans II he was a much better strategist than Valens and would not have done something that hasty if not desperate ).

as for Persia, this is complicated Yazadgered III was a puppet and his empire was collapsing around him it's likely that another player takes hold I chose Gil Gavbara of the Dabyid dynasty we must also take into consideration the Romans and Arabs for who takes power in Persia I personally went with the Maurice Khosrow line of though Gil Gavbara asked the Romans to help him get the throne after all Heraclius in the otl made a deal with shahbarraz to leave if he recognized him as shah and even offered troops.

how ever I don't think for a while Persia would be much of a treat it has to deal with any new leader has to reunify it first if I compared to anything its persia after the fall of the ilkhante rather than the Parthian one as there where many splintering factions , then they had to deal with the got Turks /Khazar raids arab raids and finally more Turkic raids as the tang would arrive defeating the western Turkic khaganate and that might push turks to the west to a weak persia while I am convinced these turks would not conquer Persia there still a nuisance