If the Romans had Won at Yarmuk...

Romulus Augustulus

The start of the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire began on August the 20th, 636, when a "Roman" force of 40,000 was defeated by an Arab force of 20,000 after 12,000 "Roman" Arab Christians switched sides. The battle was close, and it was decisive; it marked the beginning of the relentless Arab expansion of the 7th and 8th centuries. I wonder, what would have happened had the Arabs been trounced and bloodied at that battle? I was hoping other would be willing to shed light on their perception of the issue.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
I'm leery of any 'decline' that begins 600 years before the actual 'fall' its supposed to presage. I'd always heard that the real decline of Byzantium began in 1071, at Manzikert, which began in earnest the gradual but very real conversion of Asia Minor from a Greek-European to a Turkish-Asian cultural base. Yarmuk seems to me to be more a battle that set limits on Byzantium rather than began its end.

I don't see a Byzantine victory, unless its very decisive, as having any effect beyond delaying eventual Islamic 'conquest' of the area. The people here welcomed the Arabs as liberators. As far back as the Hellenic rulers the area has always been a hotbed of revolt, with only its very strategic location being the reason most empires did not abandon it as a bad deal early on.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
NapoleonXIV said:
I'm leery of any 'decline' that begins 600 years before the actual 'fall' its supposed to presage. I'd always heard that the real decline of Byzantium began in 1071, at Manzikert, which began in earnest the gradual but very real conversion of Asia Minor from a Greek-European to a Turkish-Asian cultural base. Yarmuk seems to me to be more a battle that set limits on Byzantium rather than began its end.

I don't see a Byzantine victory, unless its very decisive, as having any effect beyond delaying eventual Islamic 'conquest' of the area. The people here welcomed the Arabs as liberators. As far back as the Hellenic rulers the area has always been a hotbed of revolt, with only its very strategic location being the reason most empires did not abandon it as a bad deal early on.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the problem was that the Romans didn't realize there WAS an "Arab Conquest" occurring. For centuries Arab tribes would emerge from Arabia and attack other Arab tribes in Roman territory, with the aim of replacing them as Roman clients and thus gaining an imperial subsidy. When the Muslims emerged, the government assumed this was the case, and it wasn't until later they realized these Arabs were here to stay. If someone had understood the gravity of the situation early on, it would have been easy to stop the Muslims.
 

LordKalvan

If the Monofisites of Syria and Egypt had not been always rebellious against the orthodox interpretation of Christianity, one or two victories of raiding Arab armies would not have had much significance. The Byzantine empire was quite used to barbarians boiling out of the Caucasus, or the Balkans.
The real problem with the Arab invasion was that it invaded the minds of the imperial subjects in the area. So, even a victory at Yarmuk might not be enough.
 

LordKalvan

DominusNovus said:
Perhaps some ballsy Emperor decides to defy the establishment and be a bit nicer to the Monophysites?
Click to expand...
There were emperors (and empresses, think of Theodora) who favored the Monophysites. The issue is that you must really change the traditional imperial policy of trying to appease the popes (traditionally orthodox) to regain control of the Western Empire; the populations of the ME and Egypt got always shafted in this exchange, even if these regions were the most settled and rich of the empire.
One of the ways of getting better relations with them might be that the eastern emperors recognise that west is gone, and concentrate on what they have.
Another (and for me much better) way is to avoid endorsing (and participating) in Church Councils. Constantine is to blame here (Nicea). OTOH, it might be doubtful that the concept of one empire=one church can be done away with so easily.
 

wkwillis

I thought that it was the bad weather that forced the Arab tribes out of Arabia and into the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. If that volcano hadn't gone off, would the Empire have been weakened enough to lose Egypt, etc?
Of if they had not simultaneously been attacked by the protoslav Bulgars and the Persians, and pushed so far back into the Med and Constantinople would they have had the forces to keep Egypt?
Bottling the Arabs into the Arabian peninsula would have been a major POD.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
wkwillis said:
I thought that it was the bad weather that forced the Arab tribes out of Arabia and into the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. If that volcano hadn't gone off, would the Empire have been weakened enough to lose Egypt, etc?
Of if they had not simultaneously been attacked by the protoslav Bulgars and the Persians, and pushed so far back into the Med and Constantinople would they have had the forces to keep Egypt?
Bottling the Arabs into the Arabian peninsula would have been a major POD.
Click to expand...

Just to show how truly abysmal my knowledge of Byzantine history must be. What volcano?
 

DuQuense

In 535 [?? not sure of date due to calender mixups] Kroatoa exploded causing a Year without Summer senerio. Destroying meso American areas. plague in Celtic Britian allowing the Saxons to conquer, destroying the Italian Goth Kingdom, and leading to the plague thaat killed 250.000 Plus [the plus being due to the record keepers dieing, so the record ends] in Constantinople. The eastern Roman empire never recovered from this population lose.
 

LordKalvan

wkwillis said:
I thought that it was the bad weather that forced the Arab tribes out of Arabia and into the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. If that volcano hadn't gone off, would the Empire have been weakened enough to lose Egypt, etc?
Of if they had not simultaneously been attacked by the protoslav Bulgars and the Persians, and pushed so far back into the Med and Constantinople would they have had the forces to keep Egypt?
Bottling the Arabs into the Arabian peninsula would have been a major POD.
Click to expand...
Just not having the Krakatoa explosion (which probably was no more than 50-50 chance) would be a hell of a pod
 

Romulus Augustulus

Muhammad had a Christian cousin, who translated some scripture into Arabic. What if Muhammad decided to convert to Christianity after a couple of nights of discussion, and what if he eventually did conquer all of Arabia, but stayed put in Arabia? That would have been interesting...
 

wkwillis

DuQuense
I think it was what enabled the pastoral Celts to kick starving agricultural Saxon butt at Badon Hill.
Romulus
Turtledove did a Christian Mohammed story. He wrote a lot of hymns.
 

DuQuense

DuQuense
I think it was what enabled the pastoral Celts to kick starving agricultural Saxon butt at Badon Hill.
Click to expand...

I thought Badon hill was usally dated at 525-- before-- the Eruption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top