Romans lift the siege of Damascus (634)

[Silver01]

As some one who thinks their speciality is the 7th century Iam kinda of sick of yarmourk and Sebastopolis I get it they are the one that make more change but there is more to it so I propose this
What if while Heraclius sent his men to the eagle pass and Khalid left whether to sending the message or just because he attacks earlier and with 9000 Muslims and Khalid gone Thomas manages to break the siege

Unlike yarkourk other Arab armies still exist and nearly have of the attackers of at the start of the siege still exist
But what do you think happends next is Khalid given another army or seeing as how he devasted mesopotamia they go after the sassanids does this give enough breathing room for the sassanid byzantine alliance to work ?

 

[Vinization]

What was the situation in the rest of Syria at the time? A victory at Damascus could either be a mere delay or a much needed morale boost for the Romans.

 

[Silver01]

What was the situation in the rest of Syria at the time? A victory at Damascus could either be a mere delay or a much needed morale boost for the Romans.

by this time khalid had won some minor battles against the ghassanids , bosra had fallen,the romans had also been defeated in the battle of Ajnadayn to which heraclius retreated to Emessa , the victory gave control of the country side they also defeated a minor byzantine army in the otl the romans resisted 2 years until Heraclius sent an army to figth in yarmourk

 

[Vinization]

by this time khalid had won some minor battles against the ghassanids , bosra had fallen,the romans had also been defeated in the battle of Ajnadayn to which heraclius retreated to Emessa , the victory gave control of the country side they also defeated a minor byzantine army in the otl the romans resisted 2 years until Heraclius sent an army to figth in yarmourk

Hm, I guess they'd be in a better position here than after a hypothetical victory at Yarmouk.

 

[Evil Crusader]

What was the situation in the rest of Syria at the time? A victory at Damascus could either be a mere delay or a much needed morale boost for the Romans.

Syria had mostly been lost, but a victory there could be a very major change in attitude and allow the Romans to regain the initiative. Depending on how big of a defeat we're talking, it could stop the invasion almost overnight.

 

[Silver01]

Syria had mostly been lost, but a victory there could be a very major change in attitude and allow the Romans to regain the initiative. Depending on how big of a defeat we're talking, it could stop the invasion almost overnight.

I was just thinking the half that stayed in the siege are shattered with the survivors running away and the other half also flees

 

[NotAMyth]

Syria had mostly been lost, but a victory there could be a very major change in attitude and allow the Romans to regain the initiative. Depending on how big of a defeat we're talking, it could stop the invasion almost overnight.

The less desperation might mean that the Romans don't seek out an all-in set piece battle at all. Instead reinforcements would probably be divided, opening multiple fronts in Syria, which might play to the Romans advantage of greater numbers.
(Or it might mean a defeat in detail given the Arab mobility, but I think not since in this case they can hardly concentrate all their numbers without fear of being cutoff from their supply lines.)

At worst its a longer and more exhausting Arab campaign, which may translate to lesser gains elsewhere, and at best Romans hold on to Syria for the time being.

 

[Silver01]

The less desperation might mean that the Romans don't seek out an all-in set piece battle at all. Instead reinforcements would probably be divided, opening multiple fronts in Syria, which might play to the Romans advantage of greater numbers.
(Or it might mean a defeat in detail given the Arab mobility, but I think not since in this case they can hardly concentrate all their numbers without fear of being cutoff from their supply lines.)

At worst its a longer and more exhausting Arab campaign, which may translate to lesser gains elsewhere, and at best Romans hold on to Syria for the time being.

Well the Romans can't afford a big army in Syria for the cost would be to high How ever based on real history the Arabs have until 638 were things hit the fan with the great drought in Arabia