WI: Failed Muslims Conquests

That's where the Khazars come in.

Perhaps. Not sure what you want to do with them in your TL, so I'll read up on it when I have time.

That being said I'm still interested in a unified Arab expansion without the faceroll... honestly, if anything I feel the Khazars are too easily manipulated. They don't have a strong religious or cultural imperative; historically their imperative seemed to be focused on gold and not much else, and their military innovations diffused by way of mercenaries and proxy wars, not major conquests. I find the intersection of a balance of power upset comparable to 1820-1870 Europe, the emergence of a new religion and a massive change in military tactics to be a potential for a wonderful sh*tstorm of butterflies.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I actually think that Khalid's death would probably have been good in other ways than 'No Muslim Conquests'

IF (and only if) the Arabs can stay united, if Khalid dies, and then they lose a good string of battles against the Persians, it may cow the Muslims into becoming a third, balancing power that keeps the peace in the middle east. They've had a serious setback, so don't have that same confidence that encouraged invasion after invasion, and as such won't go after the Romans after failing against the Persians (or are at least less likely, and without Khalid, less likely to succeed). In addition, whilst Persia is weakened, the Romans won't be stupid enough (I imagine/hope) to invade as they'd expose a HUGE desert flank to a desert power.

I only suggest this as Islam is still so young that the ideology can still change to fit the time.

If Khalid dies, Islam could still expand in the Indian Ocean to convert Indonesians, so they won't be irrelevant. (I don't think their influence on merchants would be butterflied if they still exist)

So all in all, if he dies, and the conquests don't happen, you have a chance for a 3-way balance of power which, whilst probably tense, could help maintain peace between the three. The Arabs will enjoy the Indian Ocean Trade and cooperate with the Romans in trade, the only risk is if the Arabian Caliphate and the Persian empire get into a war over the Silk Road - in which case the Romans could intervene to maintain balance.
 
<snip> you have a chance for a 3-way balance of power which, whilst probably tense, could help maintain peace between the three.

I would believe the upset in the balance of power would affect all three in the exact opposite way. Looking at the historiography of the late Byzantine-Sassanid wars, it's very clear that the Byzantines were driven by a self-perpetuating hatred of Eastern customs and religion. Every war after Constantine I's declaration of himself as protector of the Eastern Christians had a very strong element of holy war to it.

Similarly, the Muslims had an even stronger holy war element (Jihad), a radical new religion and (a point made earlier in the thread) a large number of people who could no longer raid each other and instead needed to raid and plunder their neighbors. The Sassanids were driven by revanchism before and would be doubly incensed by the conquest of Mesopotamia once again.

No, I think that what's most likely is the 1984 solution to the three great power problem: two powers gang up against each other but are unable to ever consolidate their gains, and each side both supports and betrays each other side at least once. The Byzantines can invade Mesopotamia or Media through the Northern Tigris/Armenian route or restore the Ghassanid buffer state, the Arabs can invade the Persian plateau through Fars, Isfahan or Azerbaijan and the Romans through Syria and the Sinai. For their part the Persians can invade from any point from the Persian plateau into Mesopotamia, invade Armenia or Anatolia or make naval raids on Hormuz. Basically, any invasion of one would be met with a counter-invasion by the other unless there was some sort of internal weakness, and even then any conquest would be difficult to sustain.

There is also technically precedent for these kinds of alliances of convenience, as when the Sassanids and Byzantines allied against the Arabs (though it came too late to matter).
 
Last edited:
I've been drawn to later PoD. One of these revolves around the Berbers not undergoing final conversion from Christianity until the 13th Century. If a somewhat weaker of more inept Muslim leadership can be inserted in the region in the decades previous to final nuetralization of the Berbers, then perhaps the Berbers might develop some sort of requnquista as the Iberians did a century or two later? Placing a viable Christian state in the Rif, or all of Morroco from th 13th Century alters many details of development in Iberia and South & Western Europe for some time. Among other things the Reconquista of Iberian might move along much faster, with less bloodshed and intolerance developing. It could also alter the expansion of Hispanic/Portuguse expansion after the 13th Century.
 
Been reading up on Khalid recently... honestly I'm more than willing to call bullshit on him were it not actually true. Yes, the Byzantine and Sassanid empires were exhausted and plagued by internal problems. On the other hand...

Khalid over the course of the conquest of Mesopotamia alone won every battle he fought: Chains, River, Ullais, and Walaja, went home to put down a rebellion, got back and defeated every Persian relief army in detail before they could link up (Muzieh, Sanni, and Zumail), and then put the icing on the cake by defeating a combined Byzantine-Arab force at Firaz.

He did this in 8 months, and in none of these battles did he ever outnumber the enemy except for the Battle of Zumail. He did not one but two Cannae-level double envelopments, the first of which at Walaja was when he was outnumbered nearly three to one and the second of which at Firaz when he was outnumbered nearly ten to one. All of this without ever having heard of Hannibal. In this conquest alone the Persians would muster well over 100,000 troops to Khalid's 20,000, who were largely the same troops he started with. Even Alexander had to rely on locally recruited mercenaries to replace his losses; Khalid just kept going.

If it weren't history it would at least be considered an Islamowank, and it veers into ASB territory easily. Sure both empires were considered weak and exhausted from war, sure the Persians were burdened by an obsolete military doctrine, but this guy still went toe-to-toe with one of the greatest empires on earth with more or less the best equipment money could buy, was grossly outnumbered or evenly matched at every turn, and came out with barely a scratch only to do it again in four years to the Byzantines.

Also, did I mention he did it with basically only light cavalry and no horse archers?

Were I a man with more time I'd write a TL where he's only a very good general, not a blend of Alexander, Hannibal, Belisarius, Genghis Khan and Georgiy Zhukov. As it is, I have to settle for waiting for someone else to do it.

Once again sorry for reviving a dead thread.

Khalid ibn al-Walid was an amazing general, and will always be one of my favourites.

But it is important to note that Caliph Umar relieved him of high command as one of his first acts after assuming power, the reasoning being ""I did not fire Khalid ibn al Waleed because I am angry with him or because of betrayal of trust or responsibility but the reason was just that I wanted people to know that it is Allah who gives victory"

The Muslims began believing Khalid was wholly responsible for Muslim victories, instead of Allah as they should have been believing. Command was given to Abu Ubaidah ibn Al-Jarrah, but Khalid was still an important sub-commander.

Later Khalid was dismissed from the Muslim army due to several controversies regarding misuse of funds, and because Umar feared the Muslims thought he was irreplaceable. Khalid agreed, and even after his dismissal, the Muslims continued with impressive conquests against large odds. The premise of this PoD was rebutted by Caliph Umar himself ;)

Yes, I agree Khalid was amazing but as I said before, the buck didn't stop with him. Other Muslim generals never receive enough credit, such as Abu Obaidah, and Saad ibn Abi Waqas.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned

I disagree, especially in the long term - there isn't anything to gain unless there is a complete and total victory over the Caliphate, the Romans and Persians couldn't do that to each other and still hold the conquered territories. They're both too exposed. Especially as it is likely that the Romans would lose the Ghassanids as clients. (In fact, I think they already did).

The obvious targets are in the Caucuses, Syria and Mesopotamia. Persian Syria and Roman Mesopotamia would both be far too difficult to hold, especially with a third foreign power on the border, whilst a Caucasian conquest just doesn't have the same value. Regardless of who won, the Arabs could just swing in, attack the now-weary victor, and they'd get the spoils. The same balance works the other way if the Arabs started the war. They'd be defeated by a fresh army, and a client state set up in northern arabia.

Whereas taking the Arabian Peninsula... that could work, but again - you'd probably have a northeast/southwest split, with client states in the desert, and a return to a two-power system where the wars could return.

I can see wars to install friendly dynasties perhaps, but otherwise, no - I don't see 1984 eternal war between three enemies. The reasoning in the book was to justify the existence of the states, not just war for its own sake. Otherwise, no-one has any benefit, except in an 'Arabian Campaign' to return to a 2-power scenario.

However, the easiest ways for it to fall apart is one of the three realms getting an idiotically xenophobic or zealotic ruler, but : -

1) The Sassanids look ready to be replaced by a new dynasty that will need to build up its strength, and then protect against the Steppe again, they can still go east into india if the new dynasty wants a war.

2) The Romans could be more interested in conversion in the Balkans than conquests in the east that they can't secure.

2b) It now appears more advantageous for Heraclius to go west Justinian-Style if he wants a war, or north. The east and south are closed.

3) The Arabs, they have just been defeated and need to finish establishing themselves as a state and religion. They may go south and invade E.Africa, but otherwise they've just been defeated, their Holy War doesn't appear to have Allah's favour. They either need to go to war south to complete a Holy War, or find some other way to maintain their unity.

Sorry for the wall, but I figured I'd explain at length rather than just re-iterate my point.

However, I do love the idea of a Muslim East Africa :)

@HShafs - I didn't know that :) Interesting, but if they were about when the PoD suggests Khalid and his army are destroyed, would they succeed? I'm not so sure without the early successes of Khalid. Feel free to show me wrong though.
 
Last edited:
GdwnsnHo, I don't disagree about any of your points relative to what is rational for each country to do. There is no rational reason for constant warfare in the area. With a third interloper any bilateral war is going to be derailed by the third, either by overt threats or by the diversion of strength from any proposed invasion. The difficulty I find is that the history of that region is so rarely rational that those arguments fall flat.

Just looking at the context of 700 years of Persian-Roman and later Persian-Byzantine wars, there is absolutely no way that either empire could have consolidated their gains in the long term. It was literally 700 years of stalemate. And yet they still fought, spanning multiple dynasties and the rise and fall of states (recall that the Sassanids kept up the Parthian tradition of raiding). It is absolutely remarkable how pointless and stupid and consistent this was.

I absolutely agree with the idea that war is not rational under these circumstances, but when did that ever stop the great powers?

Hshafs, I agree that there were other generals... but...

Abu Obaidah kept Khalid al-Walid as an advisor and his cavalry commander, plus he was later detailed to put out fires as in Abu al-Quds and the Byz attempt to recapture Damascus. He also deferred to Khalid for Yarmouk even though he was nominally in command under the order of the Caliph.

I'm not sure about Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas. I view him as a political appointee; despite being a good governor, warrior and one of the prophet's original companions my impression of his generalship was that he delegated almost all combat duties to his understudies. For example, I view al-Qadisiyya as being largely won by Al-Qa'qa' ibn 'Amr, and had the Arabs lost or been stalemated at Yarmouk they may not have been able to send reinforcements.

I think I've wanked too much about this POD already, so I'll give it a rest. If there ever was a summary of the Arab conquests, it would be that the Arabs rolled double sixes in logistics, tactics and army preservation over several dozen major battles and sieges. Undoubtedly the Arabs had a huge number of things going for them influenced by events internal and external, and would have found great success in any case, but I find the Mongol conquests to be far more believable even given the massive numbers involved.
 
If Khalid dies, Islam could still expand in the Indian Ocean to convert Indonesians, so they won't be irrelevant. (I don't think their influence on merchants would be butterflied if they still exist)
That happen in OTL several centuries after the Islamic expansion and after many parts of East Africa and Central Asia had become islamic.And the European colonial powers helped. So I really doubt that something like that would happen, if Islam remained on the Arabian Peninsula. Arab traders will bring the Islam to East Africa but that will be all. It is impossible from them to reach Indonesia without save havens (= muslim controlled realms) outside Arabia.
 
Top