What happens to the early Islamic conquests of the 7the century if there's no Byzantine-Sassanian War of 602-628?

From my understanding, a major component in the success of the Rashidun Caliphate's expansion was that the Byzantines and Persians were simply exhausted from fighting each other with major occupations of the opposing empire's territory that went far beyond any previous Byzantine-Sassanian conflict for 26 straight years, not counting the internal struggles going on within both powers (for Rhomania, Phokas' overthrowing of Maurice, which lead to the 602-628 war, his subsequent mismanagement and nepotism disrupting the state, and then Heraclius' overthrow of him in turn; for Persia, Khosrau II's execution and the subsequent civil war as a result of the 602-628 war.)

If the internal disorder of Rhomania is averted; let's say by a a PoD that the treasury problems of Maurice are resolved by the lack of Sassanian peace payments and, thus the rebellion of Balkan troops that led to Phokas' rise is averted, and thus no justification (no dead Maurice) for Khosrau to invade the Levant, North Africa, and Anatolia, no reason for Heraclius to counterattack into Persian territory. Thus both empire are spared the chaos of the conflict when the Arabs come on the scene. Without 26 years of perpetual war, how different are the Islamic conquests from having to deal the two most powerful empires of late antiquity undamaged, not plagued by internal struggles?
 
If you SOMEHOW manage to butterfly away all of that (and frankly I don't think that's possible at all) I think Islam is stopped dead in it's tracks. It'll likely remain a cultural faith of the Arabs for at least another couple of centuries before being gradually eroded away by Christianity.
 
let's say by a a PoD that the treasury problems of Maurice are resolved by the lack of Sassanian peace payments
Which... doesn't work out? Maurice can't even loan from the church in the last years of his reign. I mean it is one thing to change the chain of events to not trigger the 602 war, but a POD that could avoid Maurice going broke needs to be further back and borderline ASB.
 
Does one empire or another try to ally with the Arabs (whether or not that goes well for them) seems a reasonable question at this point, assuming the rebellion that overthrows Maurice doesn't go off as OTL - even if he's still broke, he can make different decisions on how to deal with that.

If you SOMEHOW manage to butterfly away all of that (and frankly I don't think that's possible at all) I think Islam is stopped dead in it's tracks. It'll likely remain a cultural faith of the Arabs for at least another couple of centuries before being gradually eroded away by Christianity.
Why would it be eroded away by Christianity?
 
Does one empire or another try to ally with the Arabs (whether or not that goes well for them) seems a reasonable question at this point, assuming the rebellion that overthrows Maurice doesn't go off as OTL - even if he's still broke, he can make different decisions on how to deal with that.


Why would it be eroded away by Christianity?
Sheer numbers. Without the Arab conquests Islam is going to be confined to the Arabian Peninsula, surrounded on all sides by Christians (The ERE and Coptic Ethopia.)
 
The Arabs would definitely be blunted, given your PoDs , but I doubt that Islam would just wither on the vine. I believe it would still spread, but only through Indian Ocean trade routes initially. If things are similar to OTL in East Africa, the Horn of Africa and Swahili Coast probably convert, and possibly even some Indonesian states. Overall Islam would be a religion associated less with the Middle East and more with the coasts of the Indian Ocean, and one associated more with merchants than with holy warriors.
 
Something to note is that both the Persians and Romans outnumber the Muslim force in otl and were hardened by years of combat and still lost. Assuming the Muslim forces show the same level of Competence and skill as otl. I don't see any reason why Islam going to be limited to the Arabian Peninsula.
 
I'm not sure some troops being "hardened" by combat is all that great an advantage compared to the relative disadvantages compared to TTL's 630s. Not with how draining the fighting was for the empire's.

I don't think Islam is going to be limited to the Arabian peninsula even ignoring the maritime angle, but I don't think their OTL conquests by OTL dates are likely unless there are some truly catastrophic failures of judgment even compared to any OTL mistakes.
 
People also seem to forget how Heraclius was an old and broken man by the time of the Arab invasion. Probably also not that great of a general either, if the events of the first years of his reign can be of example. Thus depriving the empire of competent leadership when they needed it most. Him being succeeded by the short lived Constantine III and then two children doesn't help either. A scenario without that war is also a scenario where possibly a better/younger emperor is in charge.
 
If you SOMEHOW manage to butterfly away all of that (and frankly I don't think that's possible at all) I think Islam is stopped dead in it's tracks. It'll likely remain a cultural faith of the Arabs for at least another couple of centuries before being gradually eroded away by Christianity.
The 602 cue Can be butterflied it nearly happend in in 590s you just need to his to be a close call and have Maurice not attempt something like that again
 
Khosrau is gonna attack, even with a less perfect casus belli. Probably a quick, decisive Persian victory is the better POD here.
Maurice was 62 even if he lives to his early 70s he has a lot of sons so a possibility of the Persian assisting a civil war is there but this also time were khosrow II has to deal with his subject who by 600 many of which already disliked him
 
People also seem to forget how Heraclius was an old and broken man by the time of the Arab invasion. Probably also not that great of a general either, if the events of the first years of his reign can be of example. Thus depriving the empire of competent leadership when they needed it most. Him being succeeded by the short lived Constantine III and then two children doesn't help either. A scenario without that war is also a scenario where possibly a better/younger emperor is in charge.
General is debated unless you believe him becoming old severely affected his generalship which can be argued as he sent Vahan instead of leading the army himself how ever he was smart enough to plan a coordinated persian Roma assault on the Arabs just the Persians got delayed and Vahan didn't stay put.

But yeah on Can argue the age and stress meant heraclius was not in his best

As for the difference of 610 to 622 is a big unknown we don't why Heraclius lost in Antioch , we don't know if he became a better general or was just as good but just had bad luck etc

Heck in this scenario assuming heraclius was good commander in 610s but just had bad luck and with out the stress of winning the war effort he might be a good general against the arabs
 
General is debated unless you believe him becoming old severely affected his generalship which can be argued as he sent Vahan instead of leading the army himself how ever he was smart enough to plan a coordinated persian Roma assault on the Arabs just the Persians got delayed and Vahan didn't stay put.

But yeah on Can argue the age and stress meant heraclius was not in his best

As for the difference of 610 to 622 is a big unknown we don't why Heraclius lost in Antioch , we don't know if he became a better general or was just as good but just had bad luck etc

Heck in this scenario assuming heraclius was good commander in 610s but just had bad luck and with out the stress of winning the war effort he might be a good general against the arabs
All of this is possible, personally I believe he was not that gifted as a commander and even not that resolute (he was about to surrender to the Persians, until they started making unreasonable demands) in resisting the Persian invasion. It's just that Cosroe II forced his hand and Heraclius managed to survive long enough politically and militarily(probably his main merit), that in the end he was able to take advantage of his opponent's mistakes. Still he was too old by the time of the arab invasion, he was bound to die sooner or later and he left the empire to three emperors unable to do much (because of bad luck and young age). That sequence of events is unlikely to repeat itself here, simply because Heraclius and successors are nowhere near the throne here. And that without considering how his empire was still recovering from a war that here is not taking place.
 
All of this is possible, personally I believe he was not that gifted as a commander and even not that resolute (he was about to surrender to the Persians, until they started making unreasonable demands) in resisting the Persian invasion. It's just that Cosroe II forced his hand and Heraclius managed to survive long enough politically and militarily(probably his main merit), that in the end he was able to take advantage of his opponent's mistakes. Still he was too old by the time of the arab invasion, he was bound to die sooner or later and he left the empire to three emperors unable to do much (because of bad luck and young age). That sequence of events is unlikely to repeat itself here, simply because Heraclius and successors are nowhere near the throne here. And that without considering how his empire was still recovering from a war that here is not taking place.
Constans II had much potential but yeah him been a 12 year old in 641 did not help still as mentioned Heraclius could be a good general or statesman in an alt arab invasion but then again die sooner or later he has 10 years of life since the start of the arab invasions in an alt time and no war or a diferent one while Maurice has to deal with problems so does Khosrow
 
Constans II had much potential but yeah him been a 12 year old in 641 did not help still as mentioned Heraclius could be a good general or statesman in an alt arab invasion but then again die sooner or later he has 10 years of life since the start of the arab invasions in an alt time and no war or a diferent one while Maurice has to deal with problems so does Khosrow
If the POD is one that where the Roman and Persian do not fight that war at all, it probably means that Heraclius is not in power. Most likely Theodosius would. Granted that we don't know much of him, but to be honest he doesn't necessarily have to be a good general (up until that point emperors would rarely leave Constantinople), just ensure a stable government (without all the paranoia of Phocas' reign) while the generals do their job. Even a single defeat would not be enough here for the Romans to immediately lose everything in the East (giving them time to regroup and if necessary find a better leadership, nevermind that both romans and persians would keep an eye on the developing situation in Arabia in the first place. Overall I am positive about the chances of the empire coming out of the VII century in a better shape.
 
I think the Arabs can still take Egypt. They basically walked in OTL and not solely due to military force. Plus the logistics are better for them than the Romans which is why reconquest was never a going concern.

With Persia and Syria blocked off by stronger empires, maybe Islam becomes an African faith and Cairo becomes its heart. Maybe the Sahel kingdoms are more integrated into the Mediterranean world and survive longer too
 
I think the Arabs can still take Egypt. They basically walked in OTL and not solely due to military force. Plus the logistics are better for them than the Romans which is why reconquest was never a going concern.

With Persia and Syria blocked off by stronger empires, maybe Islam becomes an African faith and Cairo becomes its heart. Maybe the Sahel kingdoms are more integrated into the Mediterranean world and survive longer too
How in the world can they conquer Egypt without the Levant?
 
If the POD is one that where the Roman and Persian do not fight that war at all, it probably means that Heraclius is not in power. Most likely Theodosius would. Granted that we don't know much of him, but to be honest he doesn't necessarily have to be a good general (up until that point emperors would rarely leave Constantinople), just ensure a stable government (without all the paranoia of Phocas' reign) while the generals do their job. Even a single defeat would not be enough here for the Romans to immediately lose everything in the East (giving them time to regroup and if necessary find a better leadership, nevermind that both romans and persians would keep an eye on the developing situation in Arabia in the first place. Overall I am positive about the chances of the empire coming out of the VII century in a better shape.
hence why iam saying he is gonna be a general not the emperor , as for Theodosius he never went to campaing so yeah its unlikely he becomes a soldier emperor like his father
Khosrow with out the war can go deeper in to arabia there was a battle in 609 were the bark ibn walid won agaisnt the persians here Khosrow not distracted by war can send a bigger force to crush them as for mohamed i dont see at first why the romans or persians would care until Mohamed began to expand his domain to the persian territories
 
Top