WI: Byzantine Victory at Yarmouk

What if the Rashidun forces had been defeated at Yarmouk? Obviously the implications depend on the kind of victory. If it's only a minor defeat for the Muslims than history probably progresses similarly to OTL. However, what would be the ramifications of a decisive Byzantine victory? At this point Muslim control of Iraq is secure, but the rest of Persia is still Sassanian. I think that even a few years of peace after Yarmouk would be enough for the Byzantines to regroup. What say you?
 
Id liked to have witnessed that battle to understand how the very experienced Cataphracts of the ERE could be so manhandled by their lighter armed opponents.

Yes, a few years of peace might have worked wonders for Heraclius. The East, however, was very fractious and alienated.
 
Id liked to have witnessed that battle to understand how the very experienced Cataphracts of the ERE could be so manhandled by their lighter armed opponents.

Yes, a few years of peace might have worked wonders for Heraclius. The East, however, was very fractious and alienated.

Apparently they never really used the Cataphracts to their advantage? The field commanders kept them in reserve until it was too late when the Muslims had gained field superiority.
 
What if the Rashidun forces had been defeated at Yarmouk? Obviously the implications depend on the kind of victory. If it's only a minor defeat for the Muslims than history probably progresses similarly to OTL. However, what would be the ramifications of a decisive Byzantine victory? At this point Muslim control of Iraq is secure, but the rest of Persia is still Sassanian. I think that even a few years of peace after Yarmouk would be enough for the Byzantines to regroup. What say you?

Well, first of all, you need the geass and contingent not make défection because it has not been paid. That was one of the Keys of the battle. The byzantines lacked the ghassanid might ça ally to face the arabic light cavalry.

Then, even if it's a major victory, you will still have a strong pressure coming from the arabic peninsula that has just been politically united.

One important question is : does Khalid al Walid remain alive or free after the battle ? Because he was the artisan of muslim victories and conquests.
 
Well, first of all, you need the geass and contingent not make défection because it has not been paid. That was one of the Keys of the battle. The byzantines lacked the ghassanid might ça ally to face the arabic light cavalry.

Then, even if it's a major victory, you will still have a strong pressure coming from the arabic peninsula that has just been politically united.

One important question is : does Khalid al Walid remain alive or free after the battle ? Because he was the artisan of muslim victories and conquests.

Let's say Khalid al Walid dies in the battle. As you say he was the architect of the Muslim victories so his death would change quite a lot. In my opinion, Khalid dying means the Muslims won't be making their OTL conquests. At least not in a similar timeframe. If he lived Kalid might be able to overcome the (relatively) re-invigorated Byzantine and Sassanid Empires.

Perhaps we could take Khalid's death as our POD for the Byzantines winning Yarmouk?
 
If it's a decisive victory in which Khalid al Walid dies, it still does not imply the survival of the Sassanid Persia. It was in a weaker state than the Byzantine Empire, and likely would still fall.

Would a defeat at Yarmouk mean the Islam will only spread to the east? Could we see a Muslim China and Indochina?
 
Lets remember that the Arabs were acting like raiders in force, so they'd still likely be probing the Byzantine defenses all throughout the Levant, even with a loss. They'd likely be much more cautious, but I would not at all be surprised if they lost that caution after future engagements went more positively for them (unless we assume a string of Byzantine victories in all conditions).
 
If it's a decisive victory in which Khalid al Walid dies, it still does not imply the survival of the Sassanid Persia. It was in a weaker state than the Byzantine Empire, and likely would still fall.

Would a defeat at Yarmouk mean the Islam will only spread to the east? Could we see a Muslim China and Indochina?

I don't see any reason for a weaker initial Arab expansion to result in greater gains for them elsewhere. After all, they could rely on the vast wealth of Syria and Egypt historically (as well as the majority of the rest of the Med), and, presuming that we're following up a defeat with an inability to take territory from the Byzantines, they're going to have fewer resources. And a more powerful enemy right next door.
 
Top