WI if Khalid had been defeated at the Yarmuk river.

Seraphiel

Banned
In 634 the muslim general khalid defeated a far numericaly superior byzantine force at the yarmuk river near damascus, what if he had lost, would islam still have conquered such a large area?
 
"Would Islam be anything other than a footnote?" might sum it up, depending on how things go after Yarmuk.
 
If Khalid's forces are broken and dispersed to the four winds, the ability of the Muslims/Arabs to continue to expand is pretty minimal.

Yarmuk going the other way lead to them being able to overrun what they did, what's so hard to imagine about an equally decisive victory (spoken from the Roman perspective on if it was a defeat or a victory) preventing them from being anything more than a temporary exception to the rule that nothing dangerous has come out of Arabia and nothing ever will?
 

Philip

Donor
Is ONE defeat sufficient to halt the Arab/Islamic expansion ?
In 634? A solid defeat of the Islamic forces could easily cause the Arabs to splinter. The Ridda Wars had just ended the year before and might well erupt again.

That being said, Arab expansion would continue. It would probably take the form of the smaller migrations that had been going on long before the rise of Islam.
 
How are the Arabs going to expand into the ERE (or Persia) while those empires remain intact?

Arabs as individuals and families and such moving is one thing (and likely to be absorbed by the states in question without it changing very much), Arab conquest is another.
 
At this early stage, much of the legitimacy of Islam is its military success and the ability to pay its members what it could pillage and conquer. Because Islam prevented the Arab tribes from attacking each other, more or less they had to attack non-Muslims instead. The Arabs are still bedouin raiders, and if they are going to fight, they need to be paid in booty. And if they can't get booty from non-Arabs, they are going to go back fighting themselves for such goods.

A major defeat this early could cause a significant number of tribes to apostatize once again. And depending on how many devout Muslims died, and if Khalid himself died, it might be hard for the core Muslim group to reconquer them. If the Muslims can unit the arabs once again, they are going to need to attack Byzantium and Persia again.

Of course, this assumes that Khalid suffered a crushing defeat at Yarmouk that allowed the Byzantines to drive them out. By this time Khalid had already conquered most of Palestine, Jordan, and southern Syria, and the Muslims controlled much of Mesopotamia as well. A defeat that kept most of the Muslim army in the field would probably mean the war would continue as Byzantines attempted to reconquer the lands lost to Khalid while the Persians attacked the Muslims in the east. It is just as easy to see the Muslim forces regathering and win its subsequent battles as it would with Muslims losing everything. Khlaid was an extremely good general. In which case, the loss at Yarmouk would probably be seen as "Allah humbling the pride of the Muslims to make them more worthy of victory" or a similar ex post rationales.

So everything depends on how big a victory the Byzantines get at Yarmouk and whether Khalid survives.
 

Philip

Donor
Arabs as individuals and families and such moving is one thing (and likely to be absorbed by the states in question without it changing very much),

This. With the devastation of the Roman-Sassanid wars, I can see both Rome and Persia considering resettling areas with nearby Arabs. It has also been suggest here in the past that Arab expansion could occur down the east coast of Africa and around the Indian Ocean.

Arab conquest is another.
Agreed.
 
My guess is that it depends on how bad it goes for the Arabs. At this point, Levant is probably going to become Arab in a way or another - but not necessarily Muslim. Also, it has to be seen how this affects Arab expansion into Persia. If Persia still falls, the Romaioi are in a situation not very different from OTL. If, as said, they manage to drive the Arabs back... well, it is probably the last chance to write off Islam as a world force in the old Eurasian world - but this is far from assured.
 
I think it also depends on whether Khalid survives or not because he was such an incredible commander.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
What if Khalid got killed, the main arab army dipersed or destroyed (very possible as the byzantines had more soldiers) and the lands the arabs conquered could be easily retaken. SOrt of like the conquests of the persian shah khosrau, useless.
 
Then the status quo is restored as far as Byzantium and Persia are concerned. As for Islam, it's very hard to say. Their charismatic founder is dead, and they are now discredited due to their defeats. Many of the Arab tribes apostatize. Some go back to the old pagan ways. Others briefly have their own "prophets." There is probably a core of extremely devout Muslims who keep the faith, and other Arabs who remain "Muslim" for the time being but could still apostatize later. We might see Ali seize control of Islam that will lead to a very different line of legitimate succession of the Caliphate.

At that point, it is very hard to see how well Islam does. It might remain a popular local religion which is eventually regarded by historians as a Christian heresy. It might eventually collapse all together in the next few decades. If it is to become the predominant religion of the Arabs, it needs to be able to win wars. Unfortunately, as time goes by, neither the Byzantines or the Persians will be as weak as they were at that time (having spent most of the time prior to the Muslim invasions at war with each other). Without the wealth of Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia (at least), it is very hard to see how Islam can become a major religion as it did IOTL.

In neither case will Byzantium or Persia really push into Arabia. The area is just too poor to be worth it. They reassert control over the Arab tribes on their flanks, and might encourage them to occassionally mount preemptive strikes against any Arab tribal confederation, or against Mecca/Medina in particular. But that will probably only be after everyone recovers their strength for a while.
 

Philip

Donor
In neither case will Byzantium or Persia really push into Arabia. The area is just too poor to be worth it.
Persia (after time to recuperate and retake Mesopotamia) may very well try to retake the eastern and southern coasts of Arabia.
 
Yarmouk comes up again and again. A severe defeat at Yarmouk is likely to lead to Arab unity under Islam fragmenting once again. It may be put back together, it may not. Islam could be totally aborted, it could become a small fringe religion, or it could enjoy spectacular successes in different circumstances. I think the middle option is most likely, personally.

The ERE gains some more breathing space, and the Monothelite compromise may bed down. By about 645 though, the Levant and Egypt should be recovering strongly from the wars with Persia. If the Eastern front remains quiet (Arabs and Persians perhaps continuing to experience civil war), concerted attempts will be made to reconquer the Balkans. Perhaps earlier Justinian II style population transfers of Slavs, but here to the frontiers of Egypt and Syria?
 
Islam could always spread by Arab merchants towards Africa and Asia though it might not gain as much ground as it would in OTL.
 
Top