WI: From 1000 to 1900, Screw Islam as Hard as Possible

ben0628

Banned
You should always wine and dine Islam before you screw it. Make Islam feel special and make sure that if you're going to screw, either you or Islam uses protection.

In all seriousness though, a more successful crusades in both the Levant and Egypt would help, as would a Byzantine revival and a more powerful Georgia.

Several hundred Crusaders during the crusades actually dragged galleys across the Sinai and raided Muslim ports in the Red Sea, so Mecca could be potentially sacked.
 
Do you know of any sources that go into detail about the battles themselves? I never find any good books (that do not put a very big hole in my pocket) that gives details about any of these wars that the Romans fought. The short accounts give an impression that the difference between hyper-competence and uselessness is of two or three pages. Very jarring.
A pragmatic ruler with thoughts about the future and reform would be necessary. Pure military force would be necessary to punch the current muslin topdog.

Same here.

I was reading Encyclopedia Iranica the other day (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii) and I found it to be pretty informative, assuming the citations are done properly to allow chasing the backward trail (which I trust is the case). Anyways, Heraclius had been in charge for nearly 5+ years when Egypt was lost to the Persians, and so a non-trivial portion of the responsibility falls to him. Don't get me wrong, he was bloody brilliant in the way he turned the situation around, but he was also largely responsible for letting it get that bad.

Gibbon's quote seems pretty apt:
Of the characters conspicuous in history, that of Heraclius is one of the most extraordinary and inconsistent. In the first and last years of a long reign, the emperor appears to be the slave of sloth, of pleasure, or of superstition, the careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities. But the languid mists of the morning and evening are separated by the brightness of the meridian sun; the Arcadius of the palace arose the Caesar of the camp; and the honour of Rome and Heraclius was gloriously retrieved by the exploits and trophies of six adventurous campaigns.

The problem is that Byzantium in 1000 could not afford to have the Basileus as a careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities. They need people who can at least hold the ship steady for a new conqueror if they are to restore Herclian borders.
 
So my TL winds/will wind up doing something like this, although that was not the principal objective. I am trying to create a dystopic world resulting from a Byzantine wank, and consequently Middle eastern borders needed to be redrawn (details+map in sig).

My personal feelings about this is:
1. Basil II is too late, especially with the early civil wars that allowed Fatimids to become top dog in most of the Levant and let the Bulgarians recover from Arcadiopolis. You need a longer reign by Nikepheros Phokas (problematic as he didn't handle Bulgars well) or John Tzimiskes (the best bet in my opinion, seeing that he pushed the Empire further in the Levant than any before or after him: only to see it be lost as his successor had other things to handle). Tzimiskes in particular could have probably seized Jerusalem given a few more years, though the Fatimids could have re-taken it. Nonetheless that can be a catalyst for getting western help under direct Byzantine leadership.

2. Phokas/Tzimiskes's succession should be smooth. Easiest way would be a dynastic marriage to Basil II, Romanos I style. This has the added benefit of increasing chances of a Macedonian male heir.

3. Basil II should build up military experience under his predecessors guidance, learning on the job is too inefficient. OTL however indicates that he'd be brilliant once he is ready.

4. Increasing naval presence in the East could set the Empire up for striking Egypt itself if it is under bad leadership (like OTL Al-Hakim). Still majority Copt, and so there is an opening for conquest if Constantinople is willing to go for some reconciliation.

5. With Egypt itself under control, the Arabian Red Sea coast can be dealt with anytime the Empire is sure that a large muslim uprising is not going to be a big problem. It's certainly a big leverage. The Empire may also enter the Indian Ocean trade, which can butterfly/impact SE Asian Islamification.

6. At least a stalemate or like at TTL Manzikert. The Empire and Turks will fight, and the Empire needs to hold it's ground. Equilibrium ala ERE-Sassanids is one option. Even better, a flipped Manzikert where Arp Arslan gets captured, and the the Emperor ransoms him/gives him an army to go back could create a Seljuk civil war that could have devastating consequences for them. Bonus point if Arslan somehow converts and winds up creating a Crusade. Doesn't have to be successful, just create a situation where the ERE can relax a bit about the west and try to assimilate Islamic elites in conquered lands.

Overall, Romans need steady, continuous good leadership from 950-1075 or so. Not totally impossible, seeing the century long Komnenian golden age.

7. Meanwhile in South Asia, a different outcome in Tarain can stop the Delhi Sultanate from happening, ending any chance of Bengal falling etc. Not a stable solution, especially if Roman expansion in the West makes expansion east preferable, but I am not knowledgeable enough about that period in SAsia to make a more wise comment.

8. TTL Mongols destroy whatever Islamic polities remain in Iran or so, many are forced to become refugees in the Empire where they are forcibly relocated to assimilate fast. The Empire can be the main beneficiary in the aftermath of the horde collapsing, if they can hold the Mongols from seizing the Levantine coast or Central Anatolia or Egypt in the first place. I think this is possible as the larger Empire could field both the manpower and organization for this.

9. Finally a more conservative Byzantine government smarting from blows by any Islamic central asian horselord (think Timur) could finally be pissed enough to go for the throat, especially if assimilation has been successful to the point of ensuring domestic problems will be small.

Several of the last points will be valid even if the Byzantines lose Egypt to the Copts.
 
He was in direct command of the Battle of Antioch with the Persians,which he lost.He also appointed the commanders who fought at Yarmouk.My opinion of him is that he is capable of doing brilliant things but at the same time,he is also capable of fucking up in the worst possible way.This is why I think he's overrated.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you on this.

Heraclus was quite easily the greatest ruler and General of the Byzantine throne.

To start with, Maurice an effective general and ruler and still one of the best Byzantine rulers, mainly for his conquest of Iran and the throning of Khisrau as the Shah of the Sassanids and his actions in keeping the Avars and remants of the Hunnic horde at bay. Was overthrown by the seemingly competent (I don't doubt he was) Phocas, who then took the throne murdering Maurice and his family.

This sparked the final Sassanid- Byzantine confrontation with Khisrau as a sign of admiration took up arms to avenge his former patron Maurice and find an heir to the throne and place him on the throne of Byzantium, as Maurice had done for him.

Khisrau then cut through the armies of Phocas as he was inspired it mentions and conquered much of the Mid East. Further he signed an alliance of sorts with the Avars which had broke the lines in the Balkans following the mutiny of Phocas and with their various forces including Slavic tribes marched southward.

However Heraclus who then rebelled from Africa, took the throne from Phocas (no small feat) and killed him in Constantinople, was at the helm of the Byzantine war effort. Despite all the odds against him with the Avars and Sassanids on either side he defeated both armies in battle and invaded Iraq taking much land forcing the Sassanids who had just previously ruled the entire Mid East to capitulate and surrender under any and all terms. Mind you this was not against a feeble ruler but Khisrau, a famed general for the time period. No other Byzantine tuner achieved such a great feat as this, none.... To turn a war with such imbalance around on both sides competent outclassed two of the most major powers in the classical world and gave the most resounding victory Byzantium would ever give to an Easter for ending intermittent wars of over 400 years. Basil II did not do this much that is assured.

In terms of the Arab conquest, look at the Sassanids.... They were completely torn apart and emasculated by a highly motivated and large fighting force. Compare that to the Byzantine situation....


The first of these battles that Heraclus engaged in was the skirmish at Mu'tah where Heraclus and the Ghassanids massacred the Arab army led by Khalid ibn Walid and Thabit ibn al-Arqam. This mind you was likely a massively decisive victory as Mummad himself shied away from further moves north into Byzantium for fear of losing an even larger army, and since no formal war was declared by Heraclus, he felt safe.

After this battle, 629, Heraclus had fallen ill and at the worst time. As the Muslim forces fresh off of constant war in Arabia invaded Syria in earnest.


The first major engagement at Ajnadayn was an enormous victory for Khalid Ibn Walid and his army made primarily of formerly pagan Makkans, with a severe loss of Byzantine general Vardan. The losses are reported as being heavy and the death of many nobles of Makkah were killed which solidified the power of the newly empowered Ansar (helpers of Muhammad, the ones closest to him).

Then shortly after the Arabs won in Fahl defeating Theodore with a combined army of Khalid ibn Walid and Amr ibn al-'As.

Then culminating to the battle of Yarmouk where the larger Byzantine force was defeated by Khalid ibn Walid. This however was genius by him, as he is noted to have concentrated on a decisive battle, exactly the opposite of the Byzantine general strategy of fortification and skirmishes. Thus in a similar manner to the Russo-Japanese, the glass canon strategy worked to perfection as the smaller more determined and experienced army ravaged the large exhausted army.

Never before had the Byzantines faced such a tactic and where used to the style of warfare waged before of fortifying everything and waging large skirmishes across the field and further the Byzantines were even less prepared to fight Arab armies of mass light archers determined on decisive battle victories. Previously they tasked the now mutinied Ghassanids to keep the Arabs in check.

One then must understand that Heraclus was faced whilst a sick man, an opponent of extreme power who due to distance was near destined to capture lands as how where the Byzantines to invade Arabia? They would get lost or swarmed in the desert. Further with the complete collapse of the Sassanids, they had no possibility of a two front war. Then we must realize the victories of Heraclus in stopping the Muslim invasion into Anatolia and stopping the flood of the Muslim armies as the Sassanids couldn't.


Further do not forget the even more relentless invasions as launched by Muawiyyah and the Umayyads under the concept of Baqqiyah wa Tattamadad, to wage war with no end, the peace is never achieved until Rum is within Islam and at the time many Muslim believed the world after which would end. One cannot describe the outstanding abilities of the Byzantine empire in warding off the Umayyads paving the way for Basil II, easily in my opinion the most impressive period in terms of Byzantine military achievement.


Yet, after all the loses Byzantium was dealt, they outlived both the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid. It was because of Heraclus and his close successors for stabilizing the situation unlike the Sassanids which allowed themselves to be absolutely crushed. The Umayyad crumbled and the Abbasids were destroyed by internal contradictions. So who truly won the overall Arab-Byzantine war? As there was never a peace...
 
Last edited:
@John7755 يوحنا I think it is extremely likely that Phocas wasn't as bad as a ruler as we thought and that Heraclius' rebellion against Phocas fucked the empire more than he'd liked to admit--with Phocas ending up the scapegoat for Heraclius' failures.The situation in the ERE didn't completely collapse until Heraclius took the reigns of power,and one of the decisive battles that led to the Persians overrunning Syria,Palestine and Egypt was directed personally by Heraclius himself.

As for fighting the Muslims,people have often mentioned that the ERE is scraping the bottom of their manpower bucket,but then again,his army at the start of the war with the Muslims not only outnumbered the Muslims,but was a highly experienced force.When comparing with the complete collapse of Persia,one should also remember that the internal situation of Persia was also much worst compared to the ERE at the end of the Roman-Persian war.

Like I've mentioned,Heraclius is hypercompetent in his own way,but he's also capable of incredible blunders.He's basically the Winston Churchill of the ERE.
 
@John7755 يوحنا I think it is extremely likely that Phocas wasn't as bad as a ruler as we thought and that Heraclius' rebellion against Phocas fucked the empire more than he'd liked to admit--with Phocas ending up the scapegoat for Heraclius' failures.The situation in the ERE didn't completely collapse until Heraclius took the reigns of power,and one of the decisive battles that led to the Persians overrunning Syria,Palestine and Egypt was directed personally by Heraclius himself.

As for fighting the Muslims,people have often mentioned that the ERE is scraping the bottom of their manpower bucket,but then again,his army at the start of the war with the Muslims not only outnumbered the Muslims,but was a highly experienced force.When comparing with the complete collapse of Persia,one should also remember that the internal situation of Persia was also much worst compared to the ERE at the end of the Roman-Persian war.

Like I've mentioned,Heraclius is hypercompetent in his own way,but he's also capable of incredible blunders.He's basically the Winston Churchill of the ERE.


Well we can't really know on the Phocas situation fully. Further this isn't my area so I will allow one of our experts in this area debate this point or refute me.

However I do know that the position of the Arab writers was extreme admiration of Heraclus as the savior (for Byzantium) and greatest enemy of the Muslim of the time period and a foe for Khalid Ibn Walid whom Heraclus defeated at Mu'tah.
 

longsword14

Banned
Well we can't really know on the Phocas situation fully. Further this isn't my area so I will allow one of our experts in this area debate this point or refute me.

However I do know that the position of the Arab writers was extreme admiration of Heraclus as the savior (for Byzantium) and greatest enemy of the Muslim of the time period and a foe for Khalid Ibn Walid whom Heraclus defeated at Mu'tah.
The problem as I see is that unlike modern sources histories of this time are full of little gaps that do not allow one to get the complete picture.
The arguments against Heraclius are #1 He was responsible mostly for the complete collapse of ERE in the middle east because of gambling for a decisive battle. #2 His lack of ability led to the delayed response against the Arab incursion and the destruction of Byzantine armies in short order.
For #1 Is it clear how bad the situation was before Phocas was thrown down? Some sources make Phocas the main cause for the situation going that bad others call Heraclius' actions the cause for making the situation worse by messing with the top of Byzantine authority.
#2 Heraclius himself never was present at the battles where the decisive blows were struck. How responsible was he for the overall picture in the Levant?
It is to be remembered that further Arab incursions were stopped by him.
 
The problem as I see is that unlike modern sources histories of this time are full of little gaps that do not allow one to get the complete picture.
The arguments against Heraclius are #1 He was responsible mostly for the complete collapse of ERE in the middle east because of gambling for a decisive battle. #2 His lack of ability led to the delayed response against the Arab incursion and the destruction of Byzantine armies in short order.
For #1 Is it clear how bad the situation was before Phocas was thrown down? Some sources make Phocas the main cause for the situation going that bad others call Heraclius' actions the cause for making the situation worse by messing with the top of Byzantine authority.
#2 Heraclius himself never was present at the battles where the decisive blows were struck. How responsible was he for the overall picture in the Levant?
It is to be remembered that further Arab incursions were stopped by him.
As commander in chief,he's the one picking the commanders.So ultimately,he shares the responsible for his commander' military defeats.As mentioned before,he was in direct command of the Battle of Antioch,which caused the complete collapse the situation in the east with the Persians.Heck,most of the east fell to the Persians well into Heraclius' reign,not Phocas'.So the man's military record was far from spotless.
 
The Knights Templar takes over central Anatolia to secure a route to the Holy Land, converting the Turks and Greeks to Catholicism. Later they form a state-like entity, similar to the Teutonic Order. This state has the military and financial advantages of a highly-trained knight order, the geographical advantages of the Ottoman Empire, and the ideological advantages of both.

Also if the Renaissance still happened and progresses similar to OTL, this empire would ally with Spain and Austria, rather than being at odds with them.
 
Could you still have an Islam but have it be nothing but the ethnic religion of the Arabs? That would be the ultimate "Islam screw". But even then, it could still make inroads into India, East Africa, and Indonesia to some extent or another (as long as it exists in OTL Yemen/Oman). It would likely also be different than any Islamic sect in OTL but be recognisable as Islam.

That probably requires a POD in the 7th century, though, but I'm not as knowledgable as some people are in this thread to comment on that.
 
Top