if they would hellenize and become cristians they would be a good source of recruits for the byzantine armies. it could be that the byzantines start to adapt turkish warfare
Let’s say that instead of winning an overwhelming victory against the Gepids in the Battle of Asfeld, the Lombard’s suffer a Pyrrhic victory instead, and are either vassalized by the incoming Avars or flee disorganized into Italy in greatly reduced numbers. Though the Empire is in a weakened position regarding Italy due to the effects of the plague, the devastation of the peninsula due to the Gothic Wars and the lack of wealth in the treasury, the Lombard’s are now in no position to seize control of two thirds of the Italy. Perhaps this would give the Empire the time necessary to consolidate its position in the region, however, Italy is fertile and a tempting target for any migrating tribe.
There is much evidence for population growth in pre-Islamic Arabia, and this may be one of the major reasons there was so much movement during this time period. Now, I do agree with you that the rapid early expansion of Islam came partially as a result of Roman and Persian weakness and partially due to the unifying factor of Islam; however, we don’t know that the expansion would necessarily fail or be significantly less without these two factors. To say so is utterly narrow-minded, for you eliminate any other possibilities, which could contribute to early Muslim success. Also, I am well aware that just because things happened in our timeline, they are not inevitable, hence the reason I participate on this board.Well actually, the strenght of the Arabs during that period is often overestimated; even in OTL, it took the political-religious unifying factor of Islam and an extremely devastating war between Persia and Byzantium that had conveniently ended just before Islam arose for the Arabs to succeed in dominating the Middle East.
Without either of those two factors, the expansion of the Arabs would either be significantly less successful than it was in OTL, or it would even fail completely.
..
Also keep in mind that there is no need for Arabia to become properly unified, ever.
Just because it happened in OTL, doesn't mean that it's bound to happen.
I assumed when I stated “expansion,” it would be recognized as referring to the Islamic Arabian expansion. Alas! I was wrong, and for that I apologize. I am well aware of the fact that the Arabians had begun migrating out of Arabia centuries before the period being discussed, and of the importance of the Ghassanid and Lakhmid kingdoms. Of course the Arabians would not be completely isolated from that corner of the world, and they had, I believe, been used as mercenaries by the Romans and Persians for a long time already. From a political standpoint, however, the Islamic expansion was far more significant (territorially and in terms of its effects on the surrounding nations), than these smaller, earlier waves.Ah, there's the all too common misconception that the Arabs didn't venture out of the Peninsula until the rise of Islam!
Arab tribes had already started migrating into Syria and Mesopotamia centuries before the rise of Islam, and some of the more powerful Arab tribes and tribal confederations carved out their own kingdoms in these areas.
The two most powerful pre-Islamic Arab states in this area were the Ghassanid kingdom in southern Syria, which was a vassal state of Byzantium, and the Lakhmid kingdom in southern Mesopotamia, which was a vassal of the Persians. To my knowledge, both kingdoms had been founded in the 4th century, or perhaps even as early as the late 3rd century.
And there had already been earlier Arab migrations in this area, and some of them took place a few centuries before Christ...
Before Islam, the Arabs migrated northwards as individual tribes, or at best tribal confederations, which was a result of the utter lack of political unity in Arabia - and in a scenario/TL without Islam, this will propably remain the same.
And those individual tribes will propably drift into Byzantine or Persian spheres of influence, just like they did in OTL prior to Islam.
What about a Gepid victory instead? The Gepids position was much stronger against nomads as the Avars (more mountainous) and if they lose they will be driven East and south into Romania instead of west into the Po valley.
Even if Arabia unites under different circumstances from OTL the result could be anything. The Arabs had a nearly perfect environment for expansion two exhausted empires for neighbors whose provinces that bordered theirs that were filled with an over taxed and persecuted minority population. Adjust circumstances leading up to the Arab explosion in Byzantines favor a bit and I think they could have come out on top. Even in the they succeed just as well in this time line if the conquest has a different enough feel to it the long term implications will likely be drastic if for example it doesn’t have the religious focus ours did which provided a great deal of unity post conquest Egypt may never see itself as Arab if they don’t have that connection.In my view, no matter what eventually unites the Arabs in ATL, they would still succeed in capturing Egypt, the Levant, and North Africa. The Arab invasions in OTL weren't successful because of superior numbers or martial skill (they had 6,000 men as was said earlier), but by Egypt's population shifting its loyalties. It was the intense taxation and conflict between the Christian sects - things that appeared to be core Byzantine values really until its final fall, and I don't see these things changing.