Persians win Byzantine wars decisively, or vice versa-

Are the Muslims still like to expand against the winner?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 44.8%
  • No

    Votes: 48 55.2%

  • Total voters
    87
This contradicts everything I was ever taught by Claudia Rapp (Now Professor of Byzantine History at Vienna) and Barisa Krekic (Emeritus, UCLA). Given the approaching lectures in the Byzantine Course I am teaching, I will be in a better position to bring specific sources and scholarship to bear shortly.

I look forward to it. For context, I did my undergrad dissertation on the sixth century Egyptian Dioskoros of Aphrodito, so read quite a lot about the context. Mark Whittow puts the best argument on the matter, but there are others around that are in broad agreement with his basic point that the supposed alienation of the anti-Chalcedonians is enormously overrated as a factor in the Arab conquests.

I recall all of this and agree that it would have been difficult to take Constantinople in 626, but it would not have been impossible. Yes, easier for the defenders I grant you, but this is an alternate history site and the less though still possible may be entertained without it being instantly refuted as highly improbable. I was always taught that the siege of 626 was a severe danger to the Empire and have seen nothing since to make me change that view.

Oh, sure, we can entertain the possibility: and I wouldn't suggest that Constantinople falling at any point is impossible. But if you put the POD on, say, January 1st 626, then the chances of the siege succeeding really are tiny for all the reasons set out in this siege.

Now, if you constructed a scenario where, say, the Avars develop serious naval power in the 610s, and the Sasanians concentrate on thoroughly subduing Anatolia rather than just raiding, and Egypt and Syria and Africa are somehow detached from Constantinople by, say, a pretender, then the City falling becomes a possibility. Still a very slim one though, IMO.
 
It is not easy to occupy Greece and it is not just something that a horde can do easily. As far as I know Greece has never been occupied by a steppe horde in its history and I doubt the Avars are an exception. As well, as far as I know, the Avars had not invaded Greece (outside of the immediate area of Constantinople) and had already been pushed back in the 590s. It was only during the Sassanid invasion did they catch a break, and they failed. The Sassanids did not have anywhere near the power to conquer Carthage at this time, they were already overextended, to think of the Sassanid army going all the way through Libya to get to Carthage lol. If they tried that they would get seriously curbstomped, as would the Avars who are dependent on the success of the Sassanids. As well the Slavs raided Greece but I have not heard of them taking major cities, I know that they failed to take Thessaloniki. Either ways the Slavs are not a huge threat for Byzantium at this time

Constantinople is not just your typical metropolis like Cteshipon (sic),Babylon,Rome etc.. but it is significantly more defensible. First of all it is split on two continents with city on both sides, thus making it impossible to take the city from one side (or extremely difficult), the Sassanids/Avars had that. However the split between the two cities is the Bosporous (sic) strait, one of the busiest sea lanes in the world and constant supplies flow through it. As long as the ports of Greece,South Italy and Carthage are open then so is Constantinople, unless you have naval supremacy in between the strait. This is one of many examples of the integrity of Constantinople, just as the the Caliphates came to find. Unless you are saying that the Sassanids and Avars have a greater staying power than that of Islam and the Ottomans in the early 1400s with improved weapons and far superior logistics to that of the Sassanids/Avars.

I said that the Slavs had invaded Greece. They had. You may wish to reread your Ostrogorsky. He is certainly out of date on points of interpretation, such as the theme system, but is not generally on points of data. The good professor was a superb historian. I repeat, the Slavs were not ejected from Greece until the early 9th century, specifically in the reign of Nicephorus I. Apparently, you have never heard of the Celtic sack of the whole of Northern and Central Greece, including Delphi incidentally, in the 3rd century BC. You may also wish to recall the Cimmerian sack of the Greek colonies in Anatolia ca the 7th century BC. Then there is Burebista's Geto-Dacian domination of Tomis, Histria and Callatis in the first century BC.

I am fully aware of the location of Constantinople and its circumstances, as you will perceive shortly. I understand full well its advantages. Had other nearby regions fallen, and they could have, it would have been increasingly difficult to have supplied the city by sea, not merely logistically, but politically. Do you think that Carthage, S. Italy and the Bosporan province would have been willing to send their grain month after month, year after year through the frequent danger of Mediterranean and Euxine storms and shipwrecks - and you are assuming that it would have arrived consistently - without demurral? Consider the example of Athens in the Decelean War. As regards to the Avars and staying power, I refer you to Book I of Theophylact Simocatta and his statement that Sirmium fell after a several year siege. Nonetheless, I grant you that the imperial troops had the advantage in 626. It was not, however, impossible or even improbable that the siege in 626 could have failed. It was a very severe danger to the Empire. To deny that is to devalue the courage, constancy, resolve and ingenuity of its defenders.

Now, let's talk about credentials and scholarship. I am a 45 year old tenured Professor of Ancient History at a reputable university, academically trained in Greek, Roman and Byzantine history. My knowledge is derived from reading primary sources and modern scholarship. Would you care to state your credentials and sources?
 
Last edited:
I look forward to it. For context, I did my undergrad dissertation on the sixth century Egyptian Dioskoros of Aphrodito, so read quite a lot about the context. Mark Whittow puts the best argument on the matter, but there are others around that are in broad agreement with his basic point that the supposed alienation of the anti-Chalcedonians is enormously overrated as a factor in the Arab conquests.



Oh, sure, we can entertain the possibility: and I wouldn't suggest that Constantinople falling at any point is impossible. But if you put the POD on, say, January 1st 626, then the chances of the siege succeeding really are tiny for all the reasons set out in this siege.

Now, if you constructed a scenario where, say, the Avars develop serious naval power in the 610s, and the Sasanians concentrate on thoroughly subduing Anatolia rather than just raiding, and Egypt and Syria and Africa are somehow detached from Constantinople by, say, a pretender, then the City falling becomes a possibility. Still a very slim one though, IMO.

All fair enough. We can agree to disagree a little on the degree of possibility. Since you live in Leeds, you'll understand about the stubbornness of Yorkshiremen. Thank you for stating your credentials. You will find mine where I have responded in this thread and elsewhere. I have only glanced over my copy of Whittow, but greatly respect his scholarship and his acumen. Obviously, that is much more recent than Krekic who is now 88 and probably wrote his lectures in the 60s, delightful though they were. Did you study with Averil Cameron at all? Another very fine scholar.
 
I'd disagree with this. Islam as we know it is a creation of the later seventh century. The first Arab conquerors were certainly monotheists who revered Muhammad, but I don't think they can any more be described as what we'd recognise as Muslims than the first Apostles can be described as Christians.

What's your opinion of works like In the Shadow of the Sword and Islam: The Untold Story? Are they accurate in their portrayal of the history of the origins of Islam?

Personally, I've always been dubious of the idea that any religion could just appear "prefabricated". Like you pointed out, describing the first Apostles as Christians is dubious, and during its first century what we consider Christianity was more or less a sub-sect of Judaism. It took hundreds of years for Christianity to evolve into a more or less recognizable form.

As another example, despite being considered the founder of Prostentatism, Martin Luther always considered himself to be a Catholic; he only sought to reform the Church, not start his own religion.
 
I said that the Slavs had invaded Greece. They had. You may wish to reread your Ostrogorsky. He is certainly out of date on points of interpretation, such as the theme system, but is not generally on points of data. The good professor was a superb historian. I repeat, the Slavs were not ejected from Greece until the early 9th century, specifically in the reign of Nicephorus I. Apparently, you have never heard of the Celtic sack of the whole of Northern and Central Greece, including Delphi incidentally, in the 3rd century BC. You may also wish to recall the sack of the Greek colonies in Anatolia ca the 7th century BC. Then there is Burebista's Geto-Dacian domination of Tomis, Histria and Callatis in the first century BC.

I am fully aware of the location of Constantinople and its circumstances, as you will perceive shortly. I understand full well its advantages. Had other nearby regions fallen, and they could have, it would have been increasingly difficult to have supplied the city by sea, not merely logistically, but politically. Do you think that Carthage, S. Italy and the Bosporan province would have been willing to send their grain month after month, year after year through the frequent danger of Mediterranean and Euxine storms and shipwrecks - and you are assuming that it would have arrived consistently - without demurral? Consider the example of Athens in the Decelean War. As regards to the Avars and staying power, I refer you to Book I of Theophylact Simocatta and his statement that Sirmium fell after a several year siege. Nonetheless, I grant you that the imperial troops had the advantage in 626. It was not, however, impossible or even improbable that the siege in 626 could have failed. It was a very severe danger to the Empire. To deny that is to devalue the courage, constancy, resolve and ingenuity of its defenders.

Now, let's talk about credentials and scholarship. I am a 45 year old tenured Professor of Ancient History at a reputable university, academically trained in Greek, Roman and Byzantine history. My knowledge is derived from reading primary sources and modern scholarship. Would you care to state your credentials and sources?


I wasn't calling your credentials into play. Did I say that you were not knowledgable on the subject? I however had doubts that the Sassanids/Avars had the capability without a navy, espicially when you consider the failure of the Umayyads and the Ottomans, to take the city. I am a high school student, so no I do not have some sort of incredible credentials but I spend quite a bit of time studying Islamic,Persian and religious history and theology. I was not aware that credentials were needed to state ones opinion. I do not think you are gaining anything by trying to show your credentials to someone who just stated their opinion.

Ether ways, I see your point. Especially the point about the sending of resources and the unlikeliness of them constantly sending them. However I doubt that the Sassanids have the ability to sit and wait forever as pretenders are very likely to rise in response to the lack of a speedy victory. Still I find it improbable for either one to fully conquer the other. If I had to I would lean more towards a Byzantine conquest of Iraq and forcing the Iranians to retreat inward forming a new dynasty.
 
I wasn't calling your credentials into play. Did I say that you were not knowledgable on the subject? I however had doubts that the Sassanids/Avars had the capability without a navy, espicially when you consider the failure of the Umayyads and the Ottomans, to take the city. I am a high school student, so no I do not have some sort of incredible credentials but I spend quite a bit of time studying Islamic,Persian and religious history and theology. I was not aware that credentials were needed to state ones opinion. I do not think you are gaining anything by trying to show your credentials to someone who just stated their opinion.

Ether ways, I see your point. Especially the point about the sending of resources and the unlikeliness of them constantly sending them. However I doubt that the Sassanids have the ability to sit and wait forever as pretenders are very likely to rise in response to the lack of a speedy victory. Still I find it improbable for either one to fully conquer the other. If I had to I would lean more towards a Byzantine conquest of Iraq and forcing the Iranians to retreat inward forming a new dynasty.

Fair enough, lad. I wanted to make sure you weren't just reading wikipedia and spouting. Of course you can express your opinions, but sometimes people will challenge you and want to know your sources. As a professional historian, I am trained in aggressive criticism - and as a Yorkshireman it comes to me naturally - and will sometimes deploy it if I think my knowledge is being called into question unwarrantedly, as on the subject of hordes/Slavs in the Greek world. My apologies if I overreacted. I actually thought you were probably a college student, if that is a consolation.

Clem Attlee.
 
What's your opinion of works like In the Shadow of the Sword and Islam: The Untold Story? Are they accurate in their portrayal of the history of the origins of Islam?

Personally, I've always been dubious of the idea that any religion could just appear "prefabricated". Like you pointed out, describing the first Apostles as Christians is dubious, and during its first century what we consider Christianity was more or less a sub-sect of Judaism. It took hundreds of years for Christianity to evolve into a more or less recognizable form.

As another example, despite being considered the founder of Prostentatism, Martin Luther always considered himself to be a Catholic; he only sought to reform the Church, not start his own religion.

And John Wesley never left the Anglican church. His followers did.
 
the supposed alienation of the anti-Chalcedonians is enormously overrated as a factor in the Arab conquests.
What about the Samaritans? I remember reading somewhere (although I can't now recall where that was), a while back, that they were a sizeable element in the Levant's population (perhaps as many as 2 million of them) at the time of the Arab invasion, and largely chose to cooperate with the invaders rather than remain loyal to their former Christian masters...
 
All fair enough. We can agree to disagree a little on the degree of possibility. Since you live in Leeds, you'll understand about the stubbornness of Yorkshiremen. Thank you for stating your credentials. You will find mine where I have responded in this thread and elsewhere. I have only glanced over my copy of Whittow, but greatly respect his scholarship and his acumen. Obviously, that is much more recent than Krekic who is now 88 and probably wrote his lectures in the 60s, delightful though they were. Did you study with Averil Cameron at all? Another very fine scholar.

I did not: the most important Late Antique professor I had was Charlotte Rouche, in my first year.

What's your opinion of works like In the Shadow of the Sword and Islam: The Untold Story? Are they accurate in their portrayal of the history of the origins of Islam?

Well, Holland isn't an academic historian, and nor does he claim to be: but I think ITSOTS is very useful for gathering up all of the proper scholarly work and presenting it in a readable format. I'm by no means a scholar myself, but I think the majority of the arguments of ITSOTS are quite reasonable: most importantly, the basic unreliability of the oral tradition, and the emphasis that almost all Islamic history dates from the ninth century onwards.

This, incidentally, is also why I'm a bit sceptical about the events of 626 really being that big a danger to Constantinople. Our sources are almost uniformly praising of Heraclius and his (disastrous) reign, so it would make sense that the danger in 626 be exaggerated, all the better to add to the Heraclian achievement of the 620s. It's the same sort of thing as when ancient and medieval sources of all peoples uniformly apply a tremendous degree of exaggeration to the strengths of their opponents and their own weakness.

What about the Samaritans? I remember reading somewhere (although I can't now recall where that was), a while back, that they were a sizeable element in the Levant's population (perhaps as many as 2 million of them) at the time of the Arab invasion, and largely chose to cooperate with the invaders rather than remain loyal to their former Christian masters...

Short answer is that I don't know. I think there was substantial Jewish co-operation with the initial Arab conquerors, because the Jews seem to have seen them as co-religionists liberating them from Christians. It's important to note, I feel, when overexaggerating Chalcedonian spats, that the Arabs seem to have made no real effort to distinguish between different sorts of Christians to aid their conquest. It perhaps suggests that, apart from the most passionate insiders, the division wasn't really all that noticeable on the ground, certainly not to the extent of the basic Jewish/Christian divide.
 
since we've got two Byzantine scholars here -

http://www.amazon.com/The-Byzantine-Republic-People-Power/dp/0674365402

So any initial impressions of Kaldellis' thesis- fairly solid, or full of it?

I'm actually a Professor of Roman (Imperial) history, not a Byzantinist primarily - it was my tertiary field. I don't know the book, but, despite Kaldellis' obviously strong academic credentials, am not convinced by the idea. I accept that Gibbon and others like him were absurdly anti-Byzantine and am willing to modify the view that the imperial monarchy was an unshakable monolith, but my instinct is very strongly that the thesis is tendentious. The term Republican monarchy is a contradiction in terms. Any dynasty has weak patches caused by defeat, natural disaster or just bad luck. Thus my view, for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
I think an important point re:chalcedonians is that few 'random people' really stood against invaders to a significant extent.

My understanding is that Byzantium had armies, which were supposed to defend the cities. If enemy armies showed up to weakly defended cities, the cities surrendered, didn't make a fuss, and waited for the armies to come save them (especially when the invaders weren't being overly harsh). So you wouldn't need anything very special to get the locals to not actively oppose the Arab conquerors.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Muslims did take Constantinople either in the 600s or 700s AD, how much further in the Balkans would they have gone?

HG Wells speculated that had the Muslims concentrated on Constantinople and won, nothing after Constantinople would have stopped them, and the pagan Slavs, Avars, Bulgars and maybe even Saxons would have converted to Islam.

But that touches on a problem with conversions of these tribal peoples and empires to Islam, that in Omayyad and Abbasid times non-Muslim rulers could not just "convert" their domains. Conversions were only considered genuine if they subjected themselves to Caliphal political rule, at least that's how this poster described it:

Quote:
John7755 يوحنا John7755 يوحنا is offline
Member

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
Posts: 133
I doubt that the Khazars would convert to Islam within the timeframe, mainly do to the facts of Abbasid influence and would be more likely to convert to Orthodox Christianity. At this time the Arab caliphates (Abbasid and Umayyad) would claim sovereignty over all believers and would fight to force the said believer to join the caliphate, it was only till the Turks cane on the scene plus enormous social upheaval (Shia and Khawarij revolts) did the Caliph stop this policy. At the same time Byzantium did not claim such power and attempt to gain it, this is shown through the example of Russia, which would be an example of how Khazaria would look.

So in short, the Khazara wished to keep themselves independent from both polities (hince conversion to Judaism) but if he has to choose they would either stay Tengri or would have a Russian style conversion to Christianity.
So this would seem to indicate that, at least until the Abbasid decline (late 800s, or 900s or 1000s) even an Islamic empire that had taken Constantinople limited its prospects for converting large territories to the north of the Mediterranean, because self-respecting Avar, Bulgar, Magyar and Rus khagans, would be opposed to converting as it meant giving up their temporal authority.

So then the Muslims after Constantinople would only convert populations that they literally conquered themselves. So effectively this might mean southern Thrace and and the Aegean littoral, with people's to the north clinging to paganism, or still becoming Christian (or perhaps going for the Khazar Judaism approach) for a lengthy interval before local rulers would feel comfortable converting to Islam.

Excluding conversions of the states set up by the steppe or norse nomads, how much of the Balkans would the Arab Caliphate be able to conquer and how much would it even be able to conquer. Are the Danube, Morava and Drina rivers actually a stretch?
 
Top