Just how close was the Muslim Conquest a failure?

Nikephoros

Banned
I'm sorry if my syntax is a bit garbled, I'm just not in a good mood,

I stumbled upon this quote while reading an older thread about who was the best Muslim general:

Frankly, if the Byzantines had been up to fighting trim, the Arabs would have been crushed faster than you could say "spatharokoubikoularios".

So, just how close was the Muslim Conquest to failing? While I am not a fan of Islam, I still feel that their conquest is well within reasonable probability of being sucessful. Agree? Disagree? Let's debate:
 
From what I understand Byzantium was worn out by decades of fighting the Persians, so the Muslims expanded into a vacum. The grabbed up the loser of that conflict and gave the battered victor a good kicking before the bruises had healed.
 
The muslim conquest happened in large part because the regional superpowers, the Byzantines and the Sassanids, were bled white as a result of their last war, which left neither in a position to truly contest the Arabs. If the arabs had emerged when one or both empires were recovered, it would have been a far more one sided contest.
 
I thought it was a raging success until...

A: They overstretched themselves (Southern France)

B: They came up against militarily superior opposition (the Franks)

And

c: The Mongols.
 
I thought it was a raging success until...

A: They overstretched themselves (Southern France)

B: They came up against militarily superior opposition (the Franks)

And

c: The Mongols.

I would not call the Franks superior opposition.

Though they, like everyone else, got their ass handed to them by the Mongols like EVERYONE else so it might not be a fair comparision. The Mongols were a natural disaster.
 
So, just how close was the Muslim Conquest to failing? While I am not a fan of Islam, I still feel that their conquest is well within reasonable probability of being sucessful. Agree? Disagree? Let's debate:
Is that quote in reference to Khalid ibn al-Wahlid?

That would have been a massive loss to the Rashidun, it's possible they would have lost at Yarmouk and it would have cost them more to conquer the Sassanids. I still think Egypt and North Africa would have come under their control, but it's more likely the ME would remain divided for some time after that. I am not much of fan of Islam after Al-Ma'mun myself however I think "failure" is out of the question. Perhaps a more difficult and lesser success. It might have taken longer for them to conquer the northern parts of the Middle East (I am thinking a line from Acre/Damascus/Edessa/Diyarbakir) to enter their control, but unless you butterfly away some other things it is probably going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Is that quote in reference to Khalid ibn al-Wahlid?

That would have been a massive loss to the Rashidun, it's possible they would have lost at Yarmouk and it would have cost them more to conquer the Sassanids. I still think Egypt and North Africa would have come under their control, but it's more likely the ME would remain divided for some time after that. I am not much of fan of Islam after Al-Ma'mun myself however I think "failure" is out of the question. Perhaps a more difficult and lesser success. It might have taken longer for them to conquer the northern parts of the Middle East (I am thinking a line from Acre/Damascus/Edessa/Diyarbakir) to enter their control, but unless you butterfly away some other things it is probably going to happen.

I have to disagree. Early Arab armies were quite literally a rabble of mostly unarmored, poorly armed, tribesmen with little to no discipline. They weren't even particularly numerous...Arabia has never supported a huge population, compared to the more settled regions to the north, and has never had a tremendously large pool of potential military manpower. The ONLY thing the early Arabs had going for them was fanatical religious zeal, but a look at history will show you that in the face of a disciplined, well-armed adversary, fanatical zeal loses just about every time.

But, as it happened, the Arabs erupted from their peninsula at EXACTLY the right time to catch the two major empires to the north...the Byzantines and the Sassanids...at the nadir of their respective strengths. The two had worn themselves out through constant warfare over the previous century, and both were experiencing religious disaffection which severely impacted the loyalty of their populations to their governments. They were both literally teetering on the brink of collapse. And that is exactly when the Arabs hit them.

In short, the success of the Arab onslaught...and by extension, that of early Islam...was a matter of pure luck. There was nothing inevitable about it at all. And, indeed, to me it is surprising that more timelines don't include the failure of Islam as a standard cliche...because the success of early Islam was so unlikely as to almost be in ASB territory to begin with.
 
A lot of rapid expansions are a matter of timing. The Mongol expansion occured at a time when the Russian monarchy was defunct and Russia was a bunch of squabbling duchies, and the same could be said for most of the Islamic powers in the mid east. When the Mongols got to Malemuke Egypt they were defeated. Similarly when the Islamic Berbers made contact with the powerful army of Charles Martel they too were stopped.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
I am not much of fan of Islam after Al-Ma'mun myself however I think "failure" is out of the question.

I probably shouldn't have said that. In all reality, I'm opposed to ALL Abrahamic religions, not just Islam.

A lot of rapid expansions are a matter of timing. The Mongol expansion occured at a time when the Russian monarchy was defunct and Russia was a bunch of squabbling duchies, and the same could be said for most of the Islamic powers in the mid east. When the Mongols got to Malemuke Egypt they were defeated. Similarly when the Islamic Berbers made contact with the powerful army of Charles Martel they too were stopped.

The Mongol conquest was a lot more complicated than that. Russia would have been a non-issue anyways. The areas that they really exceeded all reasonable expectations anyways was China and Iraq. In both cases however, they only had to destroy a few armies--Not a small task, but certainly attainable. The only reasons that the Mamluks won was because of the length of each supply chain, Mamluks were steppe warriors themselves--at least tactically, and that they had superior numbers. Which isn't to say that the Mongols could have destroyed the Mamluks, logistics rules in the Mamluk Sultanates favor.

EDIT: This thread has more to do with just a quote in another thread. I am currently writing a TL right now that has a stronger Byzantine and Persian Empires. I intend to have an Islam-esque sect arise, and I want to know how far they could get in such a situation.
 
Last edited:
Just as a clarification, I assume that the Mongol were substantially similar to other horse-archer nation/armies in tactics etc. Is that the case? If so then the Mongols, like similar armies, are defeatable in the right circumstances. The military authors of Byzantium laid out the circumstances under which to engage powerful horse-archer armies with the best chances of success.

Weak and fractured states are not the best circumstances under which to resist invasion, not matter what the enemy tactics are. I wonder what the fate of the Mongols would have been if they had tried to do their thing a bit earlier, when their opponents would have been the Komnenos, Nur/Salah adin and the pre breakup Kievian Rus. This analogue can be applied to the Islamic onlsaught, if it had been a decade or more later it would have faced a substantially reovered Byzantium and Persia and not fared nearly as well.
 
I have to disagree. Early Arab armies were quite literally a rabble of mostly unarmored, poorly armed, tribesmen with little to no discipline. They weren't even particularly numerous...Arabia has never supported a huge population, compared to the more settled regions to the north, and has never had a tremendously large pool of potential military manpower. The ONLY thing the early Arabs had going for them was fanatical religious zeal, but a look at history will show you that in the face of a disciplined, well-armed adversary, fanatical zeal loses just about every time.

Wow, this is completely untrue. The Arab army was well-balanced and very disciplined, not a rabble - the Battle of Yarmuk raged for five days, in which the Arab army retained its cohesion and organization. A mere "rabble" could never have done that against a veteran Byzantine army.

The Arabs also had some amazing generalship going on, which is no small factor in their success.
 
A lot of rapid expansions are a matter of timing. The Mongol expansion occured at a time when the Russian monarchy was defunct and Russia was a bunch of squabbling duchies, and the same could be said for most of the Islamic powers in the mid east. When the Mongols got to Malemuke Egypt they were defeated. Similarly when the Islamic Berbers made contact with the powerful army of Charles Martel they too were stopped.

It was a little different with the Mongols. The Mongols brought the superweapon of their day, the steppe archer with a compound bow, to a whole new level of organization. While raving Mongol hordes may bring to mind slavering barbarians on horses for a lot of people, the Mongol armies were actually some of the most disciplined fighters on the planet at the time. The steppes had certainly never seen anything like it before. Even if they ran into a Persian dynasty at the height of its power and glory that would likely have still seen little trouble smashing them out of the Transoxonia and probably gotten into Iran itself relatively easily.

The steppe at the time was, in many ways, the same as the Atlantic of four hundred years hence. The Mongols took the role of European explorers and the Russians/Seljuks/Abbasids the poor, disadvantaged natives.
 
Was the Mongol bow substantially different from the bows used by other steppe nomads a century or two earlier?
 
If the Byzantine and Sassanid Persian Empires were up to snuff in the early 600's, the monumentum of Islamic expansion would have been blunted and confined to Arabia, and the Arabs would maybe have broken up into various squabbling factions, both Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs, by the end of the century. At this time, the native Arabian demographic was at its largest in centuries, the Persians and the Byzantines were constantly butting heads, and trade at the time was mainly channelled through Mecca, which attracted a number of settlers, some of which were exiled Christian and Jewish Arabs from the Byzantine Empire.

While the Arab tribesmen were not particularly disciplined or organizationally well developed, the ensuring conflicts between the two empires in the north gave the Arabs the opportunity to conduct far-ranging lightning raids in the Levantine regions, which gave rise to a pool of warriors that were experienced in foreign warfare and enhanced further by the inspired leadership that came later from warlords such as Khalid ibn al-Walid. This ultimately allowed them to take advantage of the two worn out superpowers.

Although the Persians and the Byzantines could still field larger forces, most of them would would have been conscripts, and both had to deal with uprisings from within their own territories. Persia was weakened by economic decline from heavy taxation by Khosrau II to finance his wars, and the increasing power of landholders, while the Byzantines had a tenuous hold on the Levant, which had been under Persian rule for too long, along with te rise of Monophysitism, plus Anatolia was devastated by repeated invasions, and the former Balkan provinces fallen into Slavic hands.

The dire circumstances in the north did far more to enhance the fortunes of the Arabs than Mohammed's Revelation ever did.
 
They weren't even particularly numerous...Arabia has never supported a huge population, compared to the more settled regions to the north, and has never had a tremendously large pool of potential military manpower.
Nortrhern Arabia (without Yemen) had population nearing three million, mostly nomads. It meant up to 600, 000 warriors of tribal militia. In the course of the invasions significant part of that militia became full-time soldiers.
At the same time Byzantine army numbered some 300, 000 soldiers at the best of times, and it couldn't be increased greatly and promptly (it was professional army, and imperial subjects in the Near Eastern provinces weren't very reliable or willing to enlist, so recruitment would take time).
 
Wow, this is completely untrue. The Arab army was well-balanced and very disciplined, not a rabble - the Battle of Yarmuk raged for five days, in which the Arab army retained its cohesion and organization. A mere "rabble" could never have done that against a veteran Byzantine army.

The Arabs also had some amazing generalship going on, which is no small factor in their success.
Not to mention that the Arabs were outnumbered almost four to one at Yarmouk. How likely to win with those odds would an untrained rabble have been?

I completely agree with you, AHP. The Arabs had some of the greatest leadership the world had seen in centuries. Khalid ibn al-Walid should not be underestimated.
 
The Mongol conquest was a lot more complicated than that. Russia would have been a non-issue anyways. The areas that they really exceeded all reasonable expectations anyways was China and Iraq. In both cases however, they only had to destroy a few armies--Not a small task, but certainly attainable.

The Mongol conquest of Iraq was far easier than you make it out to be. Whilst Iraq required a major campaign and was by no means an easy conquest, its fate was pretty much sealed with the defeat of the Kharezmians under Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that one great archievement in western Asia in which the Mongols exceeded all reasonable expectations was the defeat and destruction of Khwarezm (which, thanks to Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu's almost ASB-ish luck, took no less than two major campaigns), which was not only the most powerful polity in west Asia at the time, but also had a massive army of horse archers that were on par with the Mongols in therms of skill, weaponry and fighting prowess.

After Mingburnu's defeat, the Mongols had (relatively) little trouble conquering northern Iran, the Caucasus and Anatolia, giving them a good base of operations against the Abbasid Caliphate and the other remaining Muslim states in the region.

The only reasons that the Mamluks won was because of the length of each supply chain, Mamluks were steppe warriors themselves--at least tactically, and that they had superior numbers. Which isn't to say that the Mongols could have destroyed the Mamluks, logistics rules in the Mamluk Sultanates favor.

Whilst logistics and geography certainly did prevent the Mongols, and later the Il-Khanate, from invading Egypt, the Mongols failed to avenge the defeat at Ain Jalut because of the war that had broken out between the Il-Khanate and the Golden Horde.

Berke Khan of the Golden Horde even went so far as to ally himself with the Mamluks, and it is the war with the Golden Horde that prevented the Il-Khanate from organizing a proper campaign against the Mamluks, which in its turn allowed the Mamluks to establish themselves in Syria and the Levant.

Also, the Mamluks' numbers were never superior to those of the Mongols or the Il-Khanate - even at the battle of Ain Jalut, the Mamluk army was pretty much the same size as the Mongol army, and take in account that the bulk of the Mongol army had temporarily returned to Mongolia along with Hulegu Khan at that point.

The Mamluks didn't exactly use the same tactics either - they were more specialized in close combat (IIRC they defeated the Mongols at Ain Jalut because they managed to corner the Mongols between them and a cliff), whereas the Mongols emphasised archery more.

But even if the Mamluks would have used identical tactics, it still wouldn't have made much of a difference, though - the Mongols had already faced, and destroyed, much larger armies of experienced and highly trained horse archers in Transoxiana, northern Iran, Anatolia and Iraq.

..
Nonetheless, your main point still stands though - the logistics indeed did favour the Mamluks, and even when they were operating from the Mughan Plain, the Mongols were still at a disadvantage in the Levant.
 
While the Arab tribesmen were not particularly disciplined or organizationally well developed, the ensuring conflicts between the two empires in the north gave the Arabs the opportunity to conduct far-ranging lightning raids in the Levantine regions, which gave rise to a pool of warriors that were experienced in foreign warfare and enhanced further by the inspired leadership that came later from warlords such as Khalid ibn al-Walid. This ultimately allowed them to take advantage of the two worn out superpowers.

The dire circumstances in the north did far more to enhance the fortunes of the Arabs than Mohammed's Revelation ever did.

Actually, I just read up on the radical military reforms made by the Rashidun Caliph Umar in 637 C.E. So the Arabs were relatively tribal in organization until their encounters with Roman and Persian forces during their past forays in Mesopotamia and Syria before the birth of Islam, which convinced their leaders to reorganize their order of battle. I am still convinced, however, that stronger Roman and Persian empires in the early 600's would have limited the Caliphate to Arabia.

The spreading of the Islamic Empire saw the drafting of foreign troops and various ethnicities upon conversion, which lead to the greater versatility of the military.
 
Top