What if Heraclius was present at Yarmourk

[Silver01]

this a popular pod and I have not seen anyone doing a timeline about and this will not be the exception this will only be writing the battle had Heraclius actually led if you want to a timeline based on how I write the battle go ahead
So In This what if, in this scenario, the formation of the real battle is the same, with Heraclius commanding the center right.

The first day was just a reconnaissance attack; their attack was slow and wasn't meant to break the Arabs. The sources said some figthing occurred for some hours; it was to be the second day when the battle began. Before dawn, Heraclius sent the ghassanids to probe the Muslims, and they were met in turn by their counterparts as Khalid feared a night attack. Despite losing the element of surprise by dawn, the migthy imperial army moved to an already prepared Arab force.

As both armies clashed, the Arab center was not pressured much, and the same could not be said for the wings on the Roman left; they attacked twice but did not break the Arabs, yet the Romans had reserves and used them to push the Arabs and finally break them. Some in the Arab right moved to the center or towards the camp. The cavalry of the wing countered, but they could not stop the Roman tide. It only slowed them down, but like a hammer, the concentrated pressure also broke the Muslims. As they fled to the camp, it was only their wives who had shamed the retreating warriors, and they, fearing for them, reformed and marched to face the Romans. On the other side of the battle, as the Romans had the best infantry in the empire, they saw even more success. In their first attempt, they broke the Muslim infantry, and the cavalry did not even delay the Roman juggernaut. Yet again, the Muslim women shamed the men into returning.

Khalid had watched the battle like a hawk, looking for who to support. He decided that his right flank needed help. He took his reserve cavalry and attacked the Romans left, from their flank. This was a surprise and forced them to retreat, but what happened next would surprise the great general. The Roman center also retreated; the only exception to this was the Roman right wing, which again engaged the reinvigorated Muslim left, and perhaps for the first time in his career, he was faced with a serious dilemma: if he kept his pressure on the Roman left, taking advantage of his retreat, he could route them completely from the field, but if he did not move to save the Muslim left, the Romans could then attack from the rear. Despite being known for his bold moves, he could not afford to gamble now, so instead he ordered the army to keep pursuing the Romans as he moved to help the Muslims left, as he charged the Roman flank, but this was the best infantry, and despite being attacked, they resisted suffering fewer casualties.

However, at this point of the battle, the emperor gave his signal, and the retreating Romans soon wheled around and crashed into the surprised Muslim center and right, who barely held the line and were now being pushed back, suffering many casualties Khalid saw this and quickly ordered Dhaqar to take advantage of the gap that still existed and charge the Roman center right, and so he did attack their flank to pin them; fierce fighting occurred here. Dairjan was slain, but emperor Heraclius and his excubitors joined, with their army morale bolstered by his presence, and as the Roman right wing retreated to match, the Muslims were pushed slowly but surely back. It was only nightfall that stopped the days of fighting, The Romans had taken heavy casualties due to Khalid mobile cavalry, but the feint retreat had also caused major losses in all the Muslim formations. Khalid criticized himself for allowing the Arabs to chase the Romans; some comforted him as few knew about the specific tactics Heraclius would use, much less that this was his favorite tactic in the great Roman Persian war of 602–628; others criticized him for the days losses, especially the center, who saw the worst of the fighting after the Roman countercharge. But Khalid swore that no such thing would occur again

After the battle some roman commanders were frustrated that they had not taken day but the emperor said : patience for we are many and they are few and God is with us, these barbarians are skilled for have they not destroyed the armies of the fire worshipers and my brother but I to have bested the fire worshiper and God had indeed favored myself above Theodore
Vahan the second in command then spoke: Basileus shall I offer them again gold or food

To which the emperor replied : they are not the goths of the time of valens for while they are greedy they are not hungry nor desperate they are an army set forth from the desert of the south to conquer and I will drive them back towards the sand they have become from or Wash these sands with their blood but we shall offer them terms if not to give Time for the king of Persia to strike at these Arabs

 

[Silver01]

In the second day the the Muslim right had taken most of the casualties over all so it was that the emperor decided that it was to be the target as the entire army moved to pin the Muslims, yet unlike the other day the arabs resisted more despite this Heraclius plan seemed to have worked as Muslim right were forced to retreat under the weight of the roman numbers this time how ever when they reformed they sent their reserve cavalry to outflank the romans but they in turned sent their own reserves and did the same when Khalid attacked them from the flank and this worked as well but as the romans lost their depth they were painfully pushed back having the momentum the Arabs charged again but like then again the Muslim tide stopped when Heraclius joined the fray he again bolstered the morale of the romans and they slowly pushed he arabs back not with out suffering great casualties

Heraclius had incorrectly assumed that he could break the Muslims and then crush the center; he could not deny these barberians were tenacious, but he had promised he would make them flee or kill them here, and so he would.

Khalid was worried. He sent word to the caliph asking for any possible reinforcements, and if he was to delay, he would have caused many casualties, but each successful attack was hard countered by the Romans, so he sent a list of demands to the emperor to convert or pay the jyzia Some later sources said he could keep his empire, but this is unlikely. Heraclius likely apocryphal response was: You and your commanders have taken Damascus in glory, and I shall take you there in chains.

to which Khalid replied: I shall not be there, for the enemies of Allah shall never see me chains as he shall raise us to the ranks of the martyrs.

And thus the fourth day began, and the Romans left again, charged with haste, and soon the Muslim right was pushed back, though not as much as before. Still, it was enough that gaps had formed, and the Romans, seeing a possible end to this state of attrition, soon charged into the gaps as the Muslims held the line, not without suffering massive casualties. He ordered the left to charge the Romans, Heraclius himself was surprised, but again, he calmed his troops, and his seemingly unmoving confidence, along with the superior Roman archers, caused so many casualties that it would be remembered as the day of lost eyes. The emperor, with great effort, forced the Muslims to retreat. The Roman right and center left were ordered by the emperor to chase them, but the emperor did a bold attack and moved his excubitors and reserve to attack the Muslim center. Khalid, who at this point had attacked the Romans, left, but they had delayed him by retreating in good order, yet the Ghassanids, not being well armored, had suffered many casualties. Thus, Khalid barely managed to stop the emperor guard and reserve, and for the first time, the sword of Allah and Neo-Scipio saw each other as the feud only got more fierce, as one chronicler said:

He went forth himself against the barbarian. he ( Heraclius) was grazed by a barbarian sword, which the emperor sliced off his entire shoulder At the sight of the excubitors was filled with they moved energetically against the Arabs, but they fought like a swarm of wasps, for their leader, one named Khalid, also fought with such boldness and valor that no man was able to get close to him without being pierced or cut in half by him.

After hours of fighting, both sides retreated this time, not due to dusk but sheer exhaustion. Both sides were getting frustrated. Despite the brave figthing, Heraclius returned to his camp and nearly collapsed. He was, after all, an old man, and while his spirit was strong, his body was becoming more frail. He sadly knew that he was too imporant, and even so much as he dared leave them to retreat for health concerns, the battle would be lost. It was at this point that Heraclius sent terms to Khalid, which he rejected. But the general also realized something: up until the last day, the Romans had resisted, but now they were apparently no longer eager for battle. So Khalid decided to take the offensive, and on the fifth day, no fighting occurred. During the night, Khalid now decided to take the offensive and reorganize his troops as a gamble to break the Romans. All cavalry regiments were grouped together into one powerful mounted force, with the mobile guard acting as its core. It was about 6,000 mounted warriors; not only that, but Khalid planned to trap Byzantine troops. For this, he sent 500 cavalry under Dharar to block the only bridge, and tomorrow he saw the final destruction of the Roman army.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

I voted no, but solely because TL will be more interesting that way with even harder Byzantine screw, otherwise it'd be just rehash of "The heirs of Heraclius" (keep up the good work, by the way, but why create a copy, when you can read the original?).

 

[Silver01]

I voted no, but solely because TL will be more interesting that way with even harder Byzantine screw, otherwise it'd be just rehash of "The heirs of Heraclius" (keep up the good work, by the way, but why create a copy, when you can read the original?).

thanks well no Islam and this is different as By Persia have suffered and so have the Byzantines

 

[Silver01]

Thus, the sixth day of the battle began, and both sides attacked. Khalid sent a portion of his cavalry to attack the Roman right side. The Roman reserve prevented this outflanking maneuver, and seeing this, Khalid prepared to pounce to deal with the Romans until again something occurred that surprised him. The entire Roman line retreated immediately, though it was a feigned retreat, or simply put, they had realized what he was trying to do in both. Khalid feared a counterattack, yet the sword of Allah decided to chase them, for even if there was a feigned retreat or just to organize themselves, he still had an ace up his sleeve.
As they were chased, Khalid charged towards the right; he had correctly assumed it was a false retreat, as during it Heraclius had moved a large part of the cavalry reserve, including himself; the reserve had moved to the right, so there was to be no flanking attack that would catch the Romans by surprise. Khalid committed his cavalry; he knew if he could route them or, better yet, kill the emperor, nothing would stop him from destroying the Roman infantry, and like the fourth day, the best of the Arabs met the best of the Roman world. Heraclius himself had to admit the strategy was a bold and genius move, and had it not been for his scouts, the day would have probably already gone to the Arabs.

Khalid then sent word to Dharar to charge the Romans from behind and spread chaos as the battle continued. Khalid himself killed many commanders, and Heraclius had minor injuries on more than one occasion, yet no side was giving in. But as hours passed, Khalid began to think the worst had happened, so he slowly but surely retreated back towards the rest of the Muslim line. Unknown to him, he had just saved his contingent, for when a 1500-strong cavalry contingent came from the north, had he not retreated, it would have crashed them from the rear, but this contingent carried something. Dharar, head on pike, during the last night Heraclius scouts, had told him not only of Khalid's actions but also of the contingent he sent towards the bridge; thus, the emperor sent a 1500-strong force to deal with them at dawn. The Muslims were surprised despite their bravery; the strength of numbers soon crushed them, but if the Emperor thought this action would demoralize the Muslims, he was wrong; instead, it angered them, and they again resisted all their might as the Romans slowly pushed them back

Even when darkness came to the plain, the fighting did not stop, as now the battlefield was filled with corpses, It was then that the Arabs said, If we fight for an hour more, we shall be defeated and thus, in the darkness, they retreated. Luckily for them, the Romans were also exhausted, thus ending the day of hardship.
When returning to the camp, Heraclius collapsed, exhausted, The men thought he had died, but he had just merely passed out for a moment. The toll on his body was great, and yet he had not broken the Arab force.


In the Muslim camp, there was another debate; they had inflicted many casualties over the course of the battle, killing Theodore Trithyrius and Dairjan. The Romans, in turn, had killed Yazid and Dharar, and worse yet, the mobible guard had taken heavy casualties. It said that Khalid planned for the next day to try another deep flanking maneuver using the nearby deserts and hills for an ambush, but Abu Ubaidah stepped in and mentioned how this battle had become a war of attrition, and the infidel spirit was still strong not to mention. The emperor seemed content with the casualties, so long as he grinded the Muslim force to the dust, he offered to save what they could retreat to Arabia or join the Mesopotamian guard. Khalid outright refused, and the debate continued for hours until the Muslims intercepted a letter from Heraclius as he ordered the governor of Caesarea to come to their aid, and the same with garrisons he had retaken.

Khalid called this a bluff, but this helped convince Abu Ubaidah to leave, and so they did, heading back to Arabia. It had indeed been a bluff; Heraclius was not gathering more men and did not want to continue fighting, and so the battle of the river Yarmourk ended. It said the Romans had lost nearly 1/3 of their force while the Arabs had also lost 1/3 of their force, mainly the Yemeni archers and the cavalry, who were the hardest hit due to the last days of fighting. Once they returned, Umar chastised Khalid not for retreating once he heard the details; he was understood rather for the general instance of staying and blaming for the massive losses in the last day, but he could not dismiss him. He sent him north to prepare for a possible invasion of Arabia, an invasion that would never come. The Levant was devastated, and the imperial force was already taking a massive economic toll on the province. Still, the emperor was cheered as a hero once again, but he knew he had not crushed the Arabs; they would be back, and he knew invading Arabia was simply not possible. Thus, he planned to send some token forces to the Persians, but unknown to him, Umar also sent a fairly large contingent to Saad force. The future of the Arab expansion was to be decided in Mesopotamia.

 

[Silver01]

So i leave it like that pretty much when reading Yarmourk the problem was Vahan was in love with his strategy of using his numbers to break the wings yet he failed to capitalize on many breakthroughs and also the final day showed the romans did not scout well, I based Heraclius strategies mainly on the Persian roman war, his feigned retreats and good use of scouts that won him the battles of 622, and the three battles of 624 while Heraclius is a much better commander than Vahan a big plus of him was the factionalism in the byzantine army would not be present but I dont think this grants him a crushing victory and I think the battle would end with the Arabs retreating as in attrition the romans have more chances of winning well hoped you like this small writing.

you can debate what happens next based on this set up

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

thanks well no Islam and this is different as By Persia have suffered and so have the Byzantines

Would Islam aborted early would be all that different from no Islam? I think Muslims completely taking over Anatolia (possible if Heraclius died in battle) would be more interesting to read, especially as more western focus of Islam means Persia has chance to survive (essentially like reverse of OTL situation of Persia and Byzantines), Islam would also stay closer to Christianity, perhaps ATL Islam would be seen as sub-branch to Arianism?
And Byzantine control over Balkans collapsing completely means lots of interesting shenaningans with Avars, Bulgar's and Samo's Empire (which is still around and if it survived, it could play similar role to Berber empire from "Heirs of Heraclius" - big empire emerging basically out of nowhere).

 

[Silver01]

Would Islam aborted early would be all that different from no Islam? I think Muslims completely taking over Anatolia would be more interesting to read, especially as more western focus of Islam means Persia has chance to survive (essentially like reverse of OTL situation of Persia and Byzantines), Islam would also stay closer to Christianity, perhaps ATL Islam would be seen as sub-branch to Arianism?

It would be intresting how ever this short not timeline rather battle scenario leaves the future open, the islamic conquest not still born the romans have fended of the arabs they had not destroyed the main army and saad force is till in Mesopotamia and can still receive reinforcements to crush the persians like they did in otl

And Byzantine control over Balkans collapsing completely means lots of interesting shenaningans with Avars, Bulgar's and Samo's Empire (which is still around and if it survived, it could play similar role to Berber empire from "Heirs of Heraclius" - big empire emerging basically out of nowhere).

survivng samo empire is really interesting

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

It would be intresting how ever this short not timeline rather battle scenario leaves the future open, the islamic conquest not still born the romans have fended of the arabs they had not destroyed the main army and saad force is till in Mesopotamia and can still receive reinforcements to crush the persians like they did in ot

Yeah, I don't mean to criticize you, I am certain you'll write good TL even with another Byzzie-wank, but I think Persia-Byzantine swap and Arabs having Anatolia would be most interesting scenario (with Islam presumably getting closer to Christianity ITTL) and it could even mean survival of Anatolian Greek which could play similar role to Persian in OTL's Islamic world (in fact, in that world, presumably, Anatolia will be main Greek-speaking region).

It would be intresting how ever this short not timeline rather battle scenario leaves the future open, the islamic conquest not still born the romans have fended of the arabs they had not destroyed the main army and saad force is till in Mesopotamia and can still receive reinforcements to crush the persians like they did in otl

survivng samo empire is really interesting

Yeah, survival of Samo's empire would be interesting (tho more doable in Byzzie screw, as Samo would have opportunity to take more developed economically lands in Balkans which could give enough surplus of resources to create lasting state), it would also mean that vast swathes of central Europe are ripe for taking, if Samo's polity lasted beyond it's founder death, it'd most probably absorb further north Elbean Slavic tribes (like Veleti or Obodriti) and eventually (tho it'd not happen overnight, it'd need decades to achieve that) reach the Baltic Sea, hence my comparison with Berber empire from "the Heirs of Heraclius" which also developed in seemingly unimportant and rather poor region and gave good beating to main powers of it's world. Old Great Bulgaria could also survive Khazar attacks which also would be interesting (they would probably subdue the Eastern Slavs, but would they mingle with them and Slavicize like they did in Balkans or would they keep OG Turkic language?).
Tho if Samo's empire survived, I see it being called Wendish Empire as of course it lasting means that it's subjects (tribal elites) will develop some common identity not solely centered on monarch and Samo was known as "rex Winedorum" by Fredegar, so I think his ATL succesors will be also called "rex Winedorum" so ultimately, the state's name in Latin would be "Regnum Vinedorum" and to outside world, it's inhabitants will be known as some variation of "Wend".

 

[Silver01]

eah, I don't mean to criticize you, I am certain you'll write good TL even with another Byzzie-wank, but I think Persia-Byzantine swap and Arabs having Anatolia would be most interesting scenario (with Islam presumably getting closer to Christianity ITTL) and it could even mean survival of Anatolian Greek which could play similar role to Persian in OTL's Islamic world (in fact, in that world, presumably, Anatolia will be main Greek-speaking region).

criticism are fine but yeah im not making another timeline any time soon but Yeah i have not seen many good fall of the byzantine scenarios its totally plausible how ever most people have not make one so far in reality many good scenarios have not been made for some reason like this Yarmourk one no one has made a timeline to my knowledge

some should make that timeline really also the one you mentioned about Samo which he is constantly ignored just needs one good son to be elected and you can have it evolve from there

 

[Xenophonte]

I think that even if costly victory would have given a very needed breathing room to the Romans and at least in the Syrian-Palestine front it would have stopped the Arabs momentum while allowing the Romans to recuperate the lost initiative.
Given, that even if the events in Mesopotamia would develop as OTL, IMO, the Empire even if may seem that not much but still would have been granted a precious time and even more valuable knowledge from their enemy, for help them being prepared for the next round...
Also, if the Saanian army collapse may be averted then, perhaps, this would have as possible consequence depending either if the Roman Army sent there would be able to coordinate with the Persians and/or to collaborate effectively with them.
Then, it could, may be, lead to a different Persian strategy which if not prevent the Arab victory it could result in more costly Arab victories.
And, if so, it could lead to that the Caliphate deciding with a surviving Roman Syria-Palestina and/or even perhaps Roman Egypt, to consolidate any possible gains in Mesopotamia and then refocus again to Syria, along with Armenia and Eastern Anatolia.One scenario that, IMO, would for the Romans to resemble their wars against the Sasanians but against the Caliphate taking their place and that besides from the south it would be attacking them from similar attack axis and bases.

 

[Silver01]

Also, if the Saanian army collapse may be averted then, perhaps, this would have as possible consequence depending either if the Roman Army sent there would be able to coordinate with the Persians and/or to collaborate effectively with them.

given the scenario I wrote still took place maybe a little later than the otl since Heraclius wanted to wait for the persians but they just were it really depends if Rostram hears of Heraclius victory and decides to attack earlier than in the otl and how much of the surviving army of Yarmourk gets sent to al-Qadisiyyah,

While you are rigth that the empire needed time we must not ignore the brief 2 year occupation had done a number on the already weakened the area and the drought might also lead to the plague of like the OTl but then again the great drought of Arabia also occurred in 638 so not having rich syria would be bad for the caliphate

 

[Xenophonte]

we must not ignore the brief 2 year occupation had done a number on the already weakened the area and the drought might also lead to the plague of like the OTl but then again the great drought of Arabia also occurred in 638 so not having rich syria would be bad for the caliphate

Also, IMO, even would be economic and tax benefices from conserving the Syrian Coastline and easternmost Anatolia or from sparing both Anatolia from the being suddenly placed on the war frontline and to the Empire itself from the tax and military effort from a defensive battle in the core Anatolian territories. And, perhaps, more important to at very least, denying to their enemy key material and material resources for the formation of the Caliphal navy...

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

criticism are fine but yeah im not making another timeline any time soon but Yeah i have not seen many good fall of the byzantine scenarios its totally plausible how ever most people have not make one so far in reality many good scenarios have not been made for some reason like this Yarmourk one no one has made a timeline to my knowledge

some should make that timeline really also the one you mentioned about Samo which he is constantly ignored just needs one good son to be elected and you can have it evolve from there

Isn't that another TL of yours?
As far as Samo is concerned, I think his state would either need to take more of Balkans or Avar centre of power, completely eliminating khaganate because it'd create enough surplus of resources to maintain lasting state.

 

[Silver01]

Isn't that another TL of yours?

??? the one i wrote now here is not a timeline Its just a battle scene I wanted to write I only have one timeline

 

[Avrorrange]

I never understood why Heraclius wasn’t physically present,given how big the operation was . He could have physically been there and left the actual command to someone else even if he was of ill health .

 

[Silver01]

I never understood why Heraclius wasn’t physically present,given how big the operation was . He could have physically been there and left the actual command to someone else even if he was of ill health .

by some sources he had edema by this point of his life by some others he simply did not want to go there for what due to thedore defeat. but yeah Heraclius was a better comander than Vahan and he could have done like saad who could not even walk and still ordered at al-Qadisiyyah,

 

[Avrorrange]

by some sources he had edema by this point of his life by some others he simply did not want to go there for what due to thedore defeat. but yeah Heraclius was a better comander than Vahan and he could have done like saad who could not even walk and still ordered at al-Qadisiyyah,

He could still command if he had oedema. He even survived a few years after the disaster.At least supervise what the commanders were doing and leave actual command to someone else .There was quite a bit of infighting between the different commanders. His presence would have likely eliminated a lot of the problem.

 

[Silver01]

He could still command if he had oedema. He even survived a few years after the disaster.At least supervise what the commanders were doing and left actual command to someone else .There was quite a bit of infighting between the different commanders. His presence would have likely eliminated a lot of the problem.

Yeah I agree I cant say for sure most sources do not mention it or just go with the his sickness prevented him I personally see it as that + he was worried that if he died the empire was doomed as mentioned Thedore lost badly and he by some sources barely escaped his death but then again a shy Heraclius goes against his bold moves up until 627

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

??? the one i wrote now here is not a timeline Its just a battle scene I wanted to write I only have one timeline

Ok, I didn't understand you, sorry.