The Romans had superior men and more experienced forces (Roman-Persian Wars). What if the Roman forced annihilated the Rashidun forces at Yarmouk. Would they be able to mount an invasion of Arabia?
It seems that the Romans were never that interested in Arabia. They probably do not pursue the Arabs further, especially given that their armies are still recovering from the Sassanid war.
The Romans had superior men and more experienced forces (Roman-Persian Wars). What if the Roman forced annihilated the Rashidun forces at Yarmouk. Would they be able to mount an invasion of Arabia?
If that's the case, then the Byzantines can also do exactly that, especially considering that they control much more fertile and populated lands than the Arabs. And also considering that religious movements, like islam in that context, depend on early victories to last.Calphate can quickly move tens of thousands of other warriors for yet another battle, and another.
I think that sometimes commanding too many troops at once may turn out to be too much for a commander who might otherwise do better if he commanded a much smaller force,therefore eroding the efficiency of his command.Throughout the years,few Roman commanders actually commanded such a vast army in one place.More of aside: People like to speak of more experienced troops as being superior, in fact, there is really a limit on how much experience you need to be a capable solider, trust me. There is also a downside, too much combat over the years can wear on troopers, and degrades their efficiency.
As for the numbers, everyone agrees that the Byzantines had a massive advantage. On the other hand, they were up against one of the greatest generals in history, Khalid ibn al-Walid. Arguably, as a force multiplier, he mostly canceled the Byzantine numerical advantage.
But all right, assume the best for the Byzantines on that battlefield, assuming utter destruction is pushing it, possible, but the Byzantines would pay heavily - and the Calphate can quickly move tens of thousands of other warriors for yet another battle, and another.
A never knew that about heraclius I just knew that he was the guy that lost the West perhaps of the Islamic invasion were in his son reign or much later they would have been crushed and justina amen people alway say he was the last one to dream but he threw the empire away and he only did so well because he had the best General in history arguably and then he thought the genealogy was lying but he was only and enacted he kept throwing away chance for peace in east by violating the treaty supporting a usper and trying to bribe loyal allies?! Of the sassinds if he was empire in the Islqmuc invasion the empire would have collapsed also people say he brought the empire back to greatness he did not do that at allWell, Emperor Heraclius wasn't that young. He had held the Roman Empire together, defeated the Persians in the Roman-Sassanid Wars, and after his defeat by the Arabs, he laid the groundwork for the theme system, which held the Empire stable for nearly 400 years, keeping it a world power. If he had not lost at Yarmouk, then he would most probably be regarded as one of the best Roman Emperors in history (Perhaps lesser or equal to the 5 Good Emperors of the Principate). Definitely better than Justinian.
Justinian is probably one of the most overrated pieces of shite you could imagine. He bankrupted the Empire through his campaign to restore the west. He made the Empire vulnerable to Persian invasion (Khosrau Anushirawan) and at the end of it all, he did nothing to contain the plague which weakened the Empire. Rome was nearly destroyed by Justinian's carelessness. Heraclius, on the other hand, decisively defeated the Sassanians at Nineveh, stopping the collapse of Rome. He reorganized the Roman military after Yarmouk. This stopped the Arabs from taking Anatolia. He attempted to mend the Schism with the Monophysites that was growing. He also presided over good diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe.
I don't think so because teh empire would still fractureSyria and Asia Minor may survive as part of Byzantium, but I don't see Egypt doing so. So we still have a massive Arab empire as the new regional hegemony with the Byzantines as a degraded state. Most likely the provinces of Syria and Asia Minor will revolt in the following centuries and receive a good influx of Muslim immigrants, so the situation both cultural and political would end up as pretty much the same.
I think this is just silly, if the Romans retain Syria I really thinks it’s unlikly that an orthodox Christian theocracy gets a lot of Muslim migrants, which it is unlikely to want or allow in the first place. Without Muslim naval dominance in the eastern med, which they are unlikly to have without the Levant this alone puts the Romans in a much stronger position economically and militarily.Syria and Asia Minor may survive as part of Byzantium, but I don't see Egypt doing so. So we still have a massive Arab empire as the new regional hegemony with the Byzantines as a degraded state. Most likely the provinces of Syria and Asia Minor will revolt in the following centuries and receive a good influx of Muslim immigrants, so the situation both cultural and political would end up as pretty much the same.
Syria and Asia Minor may survive as part of Byzantium, but I don't see Egypt doing so. So we still have a massive Arab empire as the new regional hegemony with the Byzantines as a degraded state. Most likely the provinces of Syria and Asia Minor will revolt in the following centuries and receive a good influx of Muslim immigrants, so the situation both cultural and political would end up as pretty much the same.
I never said anything about Egypt being a super power, I only said that the Arabs would get Egypt which is of strategic importance in the Middle East, one of the breadbaskets of the Roman Empire and an entrance to the rest of North Africa, which is very likely to still get conquered in this scenario if the Arabs get Egypt, not to mention its size.Egypt is hardly the defining measure of a superpower—just ask the Mamluks. During the era of the Caliphates it seems that Mesopotamia was far more important.
In addition, there’s no real impetus for Muslims to emigrate to Syria unless they’re militarily invading which granted is still possible. And Syria and Asia Minor would revolt why? To join a foreign nation that is zealously against their faith?
I dunno without the naval dominance the Arabs had historically, invading and holding North Africa is going to be an order of magnitude harder. And I could be wrong but Rome’s reliance on Egypt for grain was a product of the western empire and I’m not sure the east relied upon it in the same way.I never said anything about Egypt being a super power, I only said that the Arabs would get Egypt which is of strategic importance in the Middle East, one of the breadbaskets of the Roman Empire and an entrance to the rest of North Africa, which is very likely to still get conquered in this scenario if the Arabs get Egypt, not to mention its size.
Didn't the Arabs conquer the Maghreb by land? Why would they need a fleet in that case?I dunno without the naval dominance the Arabs had historically, invading and holding North Africa is going to be an order of magnitude harder. And I could be wrong but Rome’s reliance on Egypt for grain was a product of the western empire and I’m not sure the east relied upon it in the same way.
I never said anything about Egypt being a super power, I only said that the Arabs would get Egypt which is of strategic importance in the Middle East, one of the breadbaskets of the Roman Empire and an entrance to the rest of North Africa, which is very likely to still get conquered in this scenario if the Arabs get Egypt, not to mention its size.
Defeating superior armies rely heavily on the incompetence of your foes and good luck, on top of your own genius.As soon as Napoleon was confronted with somewhat competent opponents with massive numerical superiority,he was toasted.No student of Byzantine history can let themselves not know about Khalid ibn Walid. Think Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon - yeah, he was on that level. Very unfortunately for the Byzantines and Persians. In fact, you want a creditable alternative to Arabic conquest of the later and near conquest of the former? Just erase him from history.
Finally, those Arab armies were highly sophisticated, well equipped, well trained, and ably led down through the ranks, and very devoted to a faith that gave them a coherent meaning and purpose, not a ragtag collection of desert horsemen who would melt away from setbacks, or even a true disaster.
Mind, I am not saying that the Byzantines couldn't have done better against a new arch-enemy, but it could have been terribly worse.
Such is the riptides of history...