WI Byzantine Empire survived Muslim conquest.

In this Scenario, the Byzantines manage to hold back the Islamic caliphates' armies, long enough for the invaders to decide it wasn't worth it, could there be a possibility that the Byzantines could have survived possibly into the 21st century? If they hadn't been destroyed in any other conquest (I.E Napoleon's conquest of Europe, WWI, WWII)
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Assuming that you mean what you're saying, and that the Empire survives without losing territory, then you've got a half-decent chance of the Empire surviving till modern day - assuming they maintain their strength.

It had a reasonably dominant primary culture that was creating a "Roman" mega-culture that would have been able to survive an ATL seperatist nationalism.

I've always maintained that the Caliphate might not survive a defeat by the Romans, but if it does, then they'll be just enough to prevent the Romans and Persians from attacking each other for fear the Caliphate intervenes.

Considering a surviving Empire might have the time to recover from the weaknesses created by Justinian - they could reconquer the Balkans, and encourage the Exarchate of Africa to peacefully integrate local rulers - and still provide the resources to back them up given a decade or two. Having Syria and Egypt will really help support the Exarchate. Even better is that they can finish the reconquest of Italia, and support Spania.

The could very well survive as an Empire that controls Italia, Spania, Africa, Egypt, Syria, Anatolia and Haemus (OTL Balkans). With no repetitive Arab wars of reconquest and the Persian Empire in no small amount of chaos, they have breathing room for a few decades/a century and can consolidate. Don't forget, this Empire has been getting battered and bruised for nigh on two centuries. This is their first breather.

Importantly, there is no Charles Martel in this timeline, or Charlemagne technically as he can't defend against an Arab invasion that doesn't happen. So no HRE. The biggest threats in the short term are the Visigoths in Spain - the Franks in France, Arabs, and Persians - once the Balkans and Italia are secured. There is every chance that if the Byzantines can rest - they'll be able to hold the territories, as they won't be obsessed with rebuilding the Empire to the cost of fighting the Visigoths and Franks - at best they'll try and take advantage of civil wars.

Additionally, if the Visigoths decide that they don't want to trade via the Byzantines, they can lead the age of discovery, which the Byzantines are now in a position to exploit.

TL;DR Yes, the Byzantines can survive till the modern day. Just let them have this win, reconquer italy and the balkans, and REST. They've not had a chance to rest/regain manpower since Theodosius. With their culture and territory, they can survive.
 
Do you mean the Arab invasions or the Turkish ones?

I presume he meant the latter, but the thread has ended up largely covering a discussion on the former?

Considering a surviving Empire might have the time to recover from the weaknesses created by Justinian

I'd greatly dispute that Justinian's policies caused imperial weakness down the line: his conquests were done very much on the cheap, and probably brought a net income into the treasury considering how cheaply they were run thereafter. Justinian was always aware that Iran was the important enemy, and spent massively more in holding off Khosrau than he did fighting the western kingdoms.

The Empire was undoubtedly in a weaker state in 565 than it had been in 527, but I'd say that's more in spite of Justinian's titanic efforts than because of them.
__________

As for the OP, I'll refer to the post I made in a similar thread the other day.

As I said in the post about Nahavand, it's difficult to say exactly what might have happened, given we don't really know much at all about what really went on: all of the Arab sources are keen to portray vast hordes of unbelievers seeking to crush the heroic Muslims, and are from generations after the event. The Christian sources come from the same tradition.

Remember that the Romans did win some scrappy victories prior to Yarmouk, and drove the Arabs out of Damascus, so there's no guarantee that a victory at Yarmouk is going to immediately bring the conquest to a stop.

Assuming it does, I'd be fairly confident in saying that Islam as we know it will never arise. The early Arab conquerors were no more Muslims than St Paul and the first Apostles were Christians: monotheists who followed the teachings of a charismatic religious leader, but not what we would understand as members of the modern day doctrinal religions. Without the conquest of early and sudden victory, "Muhammad-Monotheism" is going to develop in different directions to OTL, if it manages to avoid simply fading away.

More broadly, I'd imagine this means for the ERE a continuation of the policies of attempting to square the circle of appeasing the anti-Chalcedonian Churches of Syria and Egypt while avoiding condemnation from the Latin churches of Italy and Africa, who have little understanding of theological niceties that only really make sense in the Greek language and philosophical tradition. So I can see the Emperors in Constantinople behaving in an increasingly heavy handed manner towards one side or another: IOTL it tended to be the Westerners who were more harshly treated, contrary to established opinion. This might conceivably lead to the Papacy seeking Frankish intervention earlier than IOTL.

A post-Heraclius imperial regime will look to shore itself up with cheap and quick victories to show divine approval, so I'd imagine we'll see attempts to bring the Balkans back under control in the 640s. If the Sclavenes can largely be defeated, then I imagine large-scale population transfers of them to the areas of military pressure. IOTL this was Anatolia, ITTL I'd imagine Syria or maybe even Italy. This of course assumes that they can be defeated: if there are repeated military setbacks against them, expect coups to find an Emperor who enjoys divine support on the matter. This will feed back into aforementioned religious policies.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'd greatly dispute that Justinian's policies caused imperial weakness down the line: his conquests were done very much on the cheap, and probably brought a net income into the treasury considering how cheaply they were run thereafter. Justinian was always aware that Iran was the important enemy, and spent massively more in holding off Khosrau than he did fighting the western kingdoms.

The Empire was undoubtedly in a weaker state in 565 than it had been in 527, but I'd say that's more in spite of Justinian's titanic efforts than because of them.

See I am quite a fan of Justinian, but I was persuaded that the fall of the Balkans to the incoming tribes was largely because he took those resources to commit to largely incomplete conquests of Italy and Spain. I admire his gusto, but the reason I think they need to recover is that the Balkans went from recruiting ground to culturally uncooperative warzone. If you have good reason to persuade me otherwise I'm really quite curious!
 
Top