So paradoxically, a less modern army but with better discipline, like Caesar's legions or Trajan's legions, would have done a lot better? What if someone like Marius or Scipio was commanding the field that day, would that have made the difference? Was Vahan just plain incompetent?I think the changes necessary for the battle to be won are much more administrative and strategic than tactical. After all, the Romans very nearly won at several points, but ultimately morale and coordination proved decisive flaws that left the Arabs with the field. Resolving the religious and even ethnic strife in the army is much more necessary than any tactical change. The only real tactical change I might make would be to deploy the Roman cavalry earlier on rather than holding them in reserve until it was too late; it is possible that the Romans might have managed a double envelopment early in the battle had this occurred.
Interesting. Heraclius was no slouch himself but I had no idea al-Walid was that great.As I have noted a number of times before, in addition to various issues within the Byzantine army, they were up against one of the greatest generals in history: Khalid ibn al-Walid.
Think Hannibal, Alexander, Napoleon - at their peak, with their best armies.
Military geniuses are vastly overrated.No military genius can win against great odds unless their opponent make serious mistakes,or that their opponents command large but qualitatively inferior armies.As I have noted a number of times before, in addition to various issues within the Byzantine army, they were up against one of the greatest generals in history: Khalid ibn al-Walid.
Think Hannibal, Alexander, Napoleon - at their peak, with their best armies.
What could the Byzantines have done better at Yarmouk in hindsight
Convert to Islam?![]()
Kill all the Arabs/Muslims. Either stratagy would have worked.
More seriously, deploy fewer troops, relieving the sectarian and logistical tensions allowing you to coordinate better, fighting defensively. Include Jabalah, the Arab Christian leader, in the planning.
Weren't Gallic, Numidian, or Sarmatian cavalry quite good? Which the Principate would have had.This.
As for the question of whether an older Roman army could have one, it's possible but it really comes down to the quality of the Roman auxiliary cavalry. Roman cavalry overall was better in the later period and so I'd think that the "best" general/army combo to face the Arabs would be the period of Stilicho, Flavius Aetius, or Belisarius.
And while Al-Walid was no slouch, I'd say that a more competent Roman commander could take advantage of their hard-to-flank position to negate most of his tactical skill.
Would Trajan or Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus be good enough to get the job done?Weren't Gallic, Numidian, or Sarmatian cavalry quite good? Which the Principate would have had.
I honestly think that if Heraclius himself was in command of the army,then it could have been done,given the army's full of veterans from the previous war.Would Trajan or Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus be good enough to get the job done?
Weren't Gallic, Numidian, or Sarmatian cavalry quite good? Which the Principate would have had.
I disagree, by winning at Yarmouk the situation would have changed a lot on account of them still having their veteran army and now also more time to prepare for adittional invasions from that angle.Coda on my part:
Keep in mind that the Byzantines were thrashed regularly and repeatedly by the Rashidun army. On the battlefield and in siege, the Byzantine were outfought by an enemy they clearly outnumbered, but was as battle hardened, with far better morale, and had not just as good, but more brilliant leadership. It wasn't until they retreated to the mountains of eastern Anatolia that they were finally able to hold on. Winning at Yarmouk would have delayed, but not changed the strategic outcome.
If you have any problems with that. I can suggest a number of objective books on the subject. Let's get past the romanticism, shall we?
You want an effective point of departure? Use Harry's notion of Mohamed becoming a Christian instead of starting a powerfully competitive faith.
Population wise,it would have been difficult for the Muslims to deal with the consequences of a defeat,so I disagree on your point about winning at Yarmouk would have only delayed the strategic outcome.Coda on my part:
Keep in mind that the Byzantines were thrashed regularly and repeatedly by the Rashidun army. On the battlefield and in siege, the Byzantine were outfought by an enemy they clearly outnumbered, but was as battle hardened, with far better morale, and had not just as good, but more brilliant leadership. It wasn't until they retreated to the mountains of eastern Anatolia that they were finally able to hold on. Winning at Yarmouk would have delayed, but not changed the strategic outcome.
If you have any problems with that. I can suggest a number of objective books on the subject. Let's get past the romanticism, shall we?
You want an effective point of departure? Use Harry's notion of Mohamed becoming a Christian instead of starting a powerfully competitive faith.