No Islam Byzantine dominate Middle East

[octoberman]

The POD is that Islam is not founded. Byzantine Empire recovers from the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. The Heraclian dynasty consolidates the empire. The Army is rebuilt to the strength it had under Justinian. Italy is soon reconquered.
Yet the Sasanian Empire is still in the damage from the Sasanian civil war of 628–632 in which the Sasanian dynasty lost control over it's aristocracy. The Byzantine Empire conquers Sasanian Mesopotamia and it's Emperor is recognized as the King of Kings of Iran despite holding no territory there

How will this effect Christianity and Zoroastrianism ?

How will this effect European and Middle Eastern history ?

 

[Flavius Phocas]

Thing is, if the war between the Sassanids and Romans still took place, I still think the Arabs will invade, Islam or no Islam.

Sure, it might be a smaller scale conflict, and they might not conquer much more than the Levant. But I highly doubt it would be all sunshine and rainbows for the Romans after that war when all the issues they faced IOTL will still be there. They'll still have a massively depleted economy, massive manpower issues, barely any remaining field armies, recently reconquered provinces that will take time to integrate, an old/increasingly feeble emperor and a population that isn't all too willing to do more large scale fighting.

The main difference I suppose is that these Arabs would likely be some sect of Christian. Which would make it more likely that the Arabs would integrate more into the local population and 'become Roman'. Much like the Bulgars or Serbs did in the Balkans.

 

[Johnharry]

Thing is, if the war between the Sassanids and Romans still took place, I still think the Arabs will invade, Islam or no Islam.

Sure, it might be a smaller scale conflict, and they might not conquer much more than the Levant. But I highly doubt it would be all sunshine and rainbows for the Romans after that war when all the issues they faced IOTL will still be there. They'll still have a massively depleted economy, massive manpower issues, barely any remaining field armies, recently reconquered provinces that will take time to integrate, an old/increasingly feeble emperor and a population that isn't all too willing to do more large scale fighting.

The main difference I suppose is that these Arabs would likely be some sect Christian. Which would make it more likely that the Arabs would integrate more into the local population and 'become Roman'. Much like the Bulgars or Serbs did in the Balkans.

It also may not be a unified Arab Empire like the Rashidun Caliphate were, but rather, perhaps one that ignores certain regions of Arabia like Nejd, and fragments sooner.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

It also may not be a unified Arab Empire like the Rashidun Caliphate were, but rather, perhaps one that ignores certain regions of Arabia like Nejd, and fragments sooner.

Yes, and there might not even be a single 'Arab Empire' that invades. An analogous situation with the Germanic migration into the Western Roman Empire could very well also happen.

 

[DocJamore]

With or without Islam, the Turkic Migrations will still happen. A weakened Persia combined with the Turks on the move will have unpredictable consequences . The Byzantines will stay/be their own worst enemies, just like in OTL. This is certainly not some sort of “end of history” scenario.

The Christian pentarchy would even more important than OTL in a Middle East without Islam. There would be Arab migration but I doubt Arabic would replace the other Semitic languages. Aramaic would probably be one of the major holdouts given the prestige of being the language of Jesus.

There would be way more Greek speakers. I think we could consider Greek culture role in TTL as analogous to Chinese culture in East Asia. Egypt could be Hellenized into becoming majority Greek speaking. Then again it’s plausible it stays Coptic. I think it’s about a 50:50 chance either way.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

I don't think the Romans would seek to conquer Mesopotamia. They'd probably concentrate on reclaiming the Balkans and then Italy from the Lombards (Maurice would've done this if he wasn't overthrown). They'd be pretty inward-focused as would the Sassanids.

The arabs would probably be a major problem going forward in terms of agitating and raiding, but without Muhammad's unification or inspiration to actually conquer you might see more the Ghassanids seeking to become more important in the Imperial networks - kinda like becoming the Goths or Stilicho or even Odaenathus

Boiling it down, Heraclius would seek to rebuild and repair, with his children focusing on Italy and the Balkans once a semblance of stability forms.

 

[UnaiB]

@Silver01

 

[Silver01]

Thing is, if the war between the Sassanids and Romans still took place, I still think the Arabs will invade, Islam or no Islam.

Sure, it might be a smaller scale conflict, and they might not conquer much more than the Levant. But I highly doubt it would be all sunshine and rainbows for the Romans after that war when all the issues they faced IOTL will still be there. They'll still have a massively depleted economy, massive manpower issues, barely any remaining field armies, recently reconquered provinces that will take time to integrate, an old/increasingly feeble emperor and a population that isn't all too willing to do more large scale fighting.

The main difference I suppose is that these Arabs would likely be some sect of Christian. Which would make it more likely that the Arabs would integrate more into the local population and 'become Roman'. Much like the Bulgars or Serbs did in the Balkans.

Depending on the pod the empire will do fine after Heraclius constans II even in our timeline due to heraclian heritage was saved from a attempted coup by this father in law, in a timeline were his grandfather is inmoralized as the new Scipio he will be fine he wouldn't have to face the rashidun during his regency and early years and if history showed is the man was superb at administration and ok commander.

So it really depends on the timing on the migrations imo the best candidate for that would the the great drought of 638 as starting point but that already gives the empire and extra 4 years it didn't have in the otl

 

[Silver01]

Yes, and there might not even be a single 'Arab Empire' that invades. An analogous situation with the Germanic migration into the Western Roman Empire could very well also happen.

Could but what allow the Germanic take over was bad rimming and bad luck along with very incompetent leaders and among the worst roman emperors and rebellions Heraclius and constans II were not and there authority would not be challenged

 

[Silver01]

With or without Islam, the Turkic Migrations will still happen. A weakened Persia combined with the Turks on the move will have unpredictable consequences . The Byzantines will stay/be their own worst enemies, just like in OTL. This is certainly not some sort of “end of history” scenario.

There is 5 centuries of butterflies by the alt 11th century Persia could be strong enough to stop any Turkic empire or limit conquest to just transoxiana

 

[Silver01]

I don't think the Romans would seek to conquer Mesopotamia. They'd probably concentrate on reclaiming the Balkans and then Italy from the Lombards (Maurice would've done this if he wasn't overthrown). They'd be pretty inward-focused as would the Sassanids.

The arabs would probably be a major problem going forward in terms of agitating and raiding, but without Muhammad's unification or inspiration to actually conquer you might see more the Ghassanids seeking to become more important in the Imperial networks - kinda like becoming the Goths or Stilicho or even Odaenathus

Boiling it down, Heraclius would seek to rebuild and repair, with his children focusing on Italy and the Balkans once a semblance of stability forms.

Balkans with out a doubt would be the first task and the empire as shown by constans in otl defeating the draguvites the tribes of Greece and Macedonia not hold out for long.

 

[Silver01]

So I'm going to cheat and use my timeline since I thought these are the most likely events

Heraclius will continue to consolidate the east and push his compromise that would be for now be accepted he would probably in the last years of his life due a Balkan campaign or most likely order one.

Yazdagered is screwed and has two ideologically opposed men In court who while not trying to kill each other will likely try to undermine each other in court

The likely trigger of Arab migrations is the great drought of 638.

Gregory could still rebel due to him being related to Heraclius and using christological issues and constant age as an excuse even though the revolt is probably not as big as the locals in the otl were also tired of defeats and Arab raids that would not occur in this otl .

If there is any massive Balkan campaign and or Italian reconquest its constans II doing in the otl once the Arabs got distracted he defeated the draguvites with a bigger empire his campaign against the slavs would be bigger.

Also Benevento is at risk in the otl in 663 constants II nearly captured the city of Benevento had he actually just killed a guy instead of sending him to make a surrender possible it's quite likely not knowing that his dad was coming to help that the duke would have given the city, in a timeline were the emperor brings more troops I suspect that siege would go way way faster.


Also side note the war of 602-628 wasn't a stalemate people often seem to forget the 591 border included most of Persian Armenia and half of Sasanid Iberia, but during the war all of Armenia and all of Iberia became byzantine vassals even the prince of Caucasian Albania declared his loyalty to Heraclius but the Persians actually disputed this and his son was loyal to the Persians before he switch to become a full byzantine vassal .

It's quite likely this state of affairs continue with the Byzantines essentially winning over the Caucasus as lazica, Persian Armenia and the principality of Iberia and later Caucasian Albania all become byzantine vassals.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

Balkans with out a doubt would be the first task and the empire as shown by constans in otl defeating the draguvites the tribes of Greece and Macedonia not hold out for long.

The army heraclius sent to yarmouk probably would be used to pacify the Slavs in the Balkans. The Avars would probably need to wait a while.

Benevento and Spoleto could probably be made vassals in preperation for an invasion of the Lombards.

Think Heraclius could've saved at least Andalusia and Valencia in Spain?

 

[Putnam]

The POD is that Islam is not founded. Byzantine Empire recovers from the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. The Heraclian dynasty consolidates the empire. The Army is rebuilt to the strength it had under Justinian. Italy is soon reconquered.
Yet the Sasanian Empire is still in the damage from the Sasanian civil war of 628–632 in which the Sasanian dynasty lost control over it's aristocracy. The Byzantine Empire conquers Sasanian Mesopotamia and it's Emperor is recognized as the King of Kings of Iran despite holding no territory there

How will this effect Christianity and Zoroastrianism ?

How will this effect European and Middle Eastern history ?

Honestly, even without the Islamic invasions it's unlikely that the Empire recovers Italy particularly quickly. Remember, there will be reappearances of the Plague of Justinian up until the mid-8th century.

And of course we know that the Empire is unlikely to have to deal with a threat from Persia, but the Romans can't be certain of that, so they will see the need to keep substantial troops in the East to ensure peace with the Persians.

And also, the priority of Constantinople will be towards re-securing the Balkans.

At best you might see an attempt to secure Southern Italy, but that's about it.

And then at the end of the 7th century you'll have to deal with the arrival of the Bulgars in the Balkans that will cause more problems

Overall, it's important to remember that the last Roman-Persian War and the Civil War between Phocas and Heraclius wasn't the start of the Empire's problems, it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The Empire was severely overstretched even before that and pushing the Empire's borders near to the heights seen under Justinian would be difficult and not really something the Empire should be doing. The 7th and 8th centuries should be about the Empire consolidating what they have and dealing with their internal problems.

Thing is, if the war between the Sassanids and Romans still took place, I still think the Arabs will invade, Islam or no Islam.

I'm not entirely sure about this. Islam brought a level of unity to the Arabs that had never existed prior. Without Islam there's no major Arab Army to invade the Levant with.

Not that I don't think the Arabs won't feature at all during the 7th and 8th centuries, but it just won't feature as a major military invasion. It'd be more like the Germanic migrations into the Western Empire during the 3rd-5th centuries, except that, without something like the Huns to kick them into high gear, this Arab migration would be a much more laid back and gradual process, thus giving the Romans a better chance to integrate the Arabs into the Empire. Not that the Romans can't still fuck it up (the Romans have proved they were always capable of snatching failure from the jaws of success), but it won't be an immediate loss of the East, like in OTL.

Indeed, I think the Romans will welcome the Arabs in order to repopulate their eastern provinces from the plague, heck, they might even bring some Arabs into the Balkans.

 

[Silver01]

The army heraclius sent to yarmouk probably would be used to pacify the Slavs in the Balkans. The Avars would probably need to wait a while.

Maybe not that big the slavs were no were near that also Heraclius wouldn't have to worry about the Avars there way to busy dealing with samo rebellion

Benevento and Spoleto could probably be made vassals in preperation for an invasion of the Lombards.

Depending on how things go Lombardy it's self could fall in otl the king faced a revolt not soon after the byzantine invasion

Think Heraclius could've saved at least Andalusia and Valencia in Spain?

No, to far away and not in his priority

 

[Silver01]

Honestly, even without the Islamic invasions it's unlikely that the Empire recovers Italy particularly quickly. Remember, there will be reappearances of the Plague of Justinian up until the mid-8th century.

The plague of Amwas isn't happening and the next plague to hit the empire doesn't occur till 698.

And of course we know that the Empire is unlikely to have to deal with a threat from Persia, but the Romans can't be certain of that, so they will see the need to keep substantial troops in the East to ensure peace with the Persians.

Would be pretty hard to miss the governor's going rouge

And then at the end of the 7th century you'll have to deal with the arrival of the Bulgars in the Balkans that will cause more problems

The Khan arrived at the perfect moment when the siege of Constantinople occured in 670s and even the Constantine IV could have ended Bulgaria there had he not gotten sick the siege isn't happening so a direct march to kick the Bulgars South of the Danube could occur .

I do think a return of Justinian borders with out Spain are very possible because most major roman enemies that made Justinian successor so much problems are gone, are in bad situation Persia is going to be a non factor also the fact that tang expansion to transoxiana will cause problems, the Avars are in full decline and facing samo rebellion the western Turkic Khagante started to decline in 630.

 

[Putnam]

The plague of Amwas isn't happening

Mind explaining why?

Would be pretty hard to miss the governor's going rouge

Going red?

But seriously, what do you mean by this?

The Khan arrived at the perfect moment when the siege of Constantinople occured in 670s

There is no concrete evidence that there was a siege of Constantinople in the 670s. You should listen to the History of Byzantium podcast. He gives a fairly good argument that there was no siege.

I do think a return of Justinian borders with out Spain are very possible

Maybe it's possible and maybe it's not, but it's most definitely ill-advised. All the Empire would be doing, in a time where they barely had the resources to hold what they had (even before the Last Roman-Persian War), is overstretching their resources needlessly.

The real world isn't a Paradox Grand Strategy game, where expansion is in inherent good in itself.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

I'm not entirely sure about this. Islam brought a level of unity to the Arabs that had never existed prior. Without Islam there's no major Arab Army to invade the Levant with.

I don't think they would need a "major Arab army". The Romans only had a single remaining field army to muster, and the Arabs wiped it out IOTL. Most modern estimates put both sides at fairly even (and small) numbers, somewhere around 20k each at Yarmouk. Neither side really had a "major army".

I think people sometimes forget that Heraclius did not 'reconquer' the Oriens or Egypt in the traditional sense. Their return was negotiated without any fighting really happening there. Having such a massive area handed back to the empire overnight without any fighting would have to leave a massive power vacuum, and imperial control there initially must have been very weak.

I also think this assumption kind of underestimates the military skills the Arabs had pre-Islam. The Ghassanids in particular were very impressive. Not only managing to raid deep into the Lakhmids and razing their capital, but also rebelling against the Romans, killing a Dux, destroying one of their armies and taking several cities (and this was under Maurice, before the Persian War massively depleted the empire).

The Arabs were very skilled at warfare, and the geography did not benefit the Romans. The Syrian desert is a navigable obstacle to the Arabs, whereas for the Romans its a impassable barrier. When Roman control is weak, and they have very few troops to work with, and the population isn't all that willing to do more fighting, the Arabs have a good shot at disrupting things in major ways.

 

[Evil Crusader]

The real world isn't a Paradox Grand Strategy game, where expansion is in inherent good in itself.

Only partially correct. Pdox GSG are correct that expansions, if successful, are inherently good for the realm, but forget to present the heavy amministrative and maintenance bill in any meaningful capacity.
To come back to the question, it's not that holding parts of Hispania wouldn't benefit Byzantium, it's that they don't have the attention span to do it without risking more meaningful assets so they try to make do with local resources until they are forced out.

 

[Silver01]

Mind explaining why?

According to dols famine played a role, Dauphine says it was due to climate but it also ignores the large movement of armies and the effects the Arabs had during the conquest now while the cruelty argument is tenuous the argument that the movements of army and the effects war had on the famine simply put it you remove the Islamic invasions the strain 634-637 had on the local population from all the sieges to maintaining Heraclius big army that was destroyed etc you at the very least make a less severe outbreak.

2) confused rogue but by 632 there were areas in the Sassanid empire that essentially were defacto independent it would be very hard for the Romans to miss governors acting on their own especially if they decided to take up arms.

There is no concrete evidence that there was a siege of Constantinople in the 670s. You should listen to the History of Byzantium podcast. He gives a fairly good argument that there was no siege.

Even if there was no siege and we take theophanes the Syriac sources tells us the caliphate was going at least as far as the Aegean even the Syriac sources say Constantine IV in 670s was busy in war with the Arabs so either way if you doing believe there is a siege of even a series of annual raids that reached the capital, by all our sources the Bulgars show up during a romano- Arab conflict .

Maybe it's possible and maybe it's not, but it's most definitely ill-advised. All the Empire would be doing, in a time where they barely had the resources to hold what they had (even before the Last Roman-Persian War), is overstretching their resources needlessly.

The real world isn't a Paradox Grand Strategy game, where expansion is in inherent good in itself.

Well the reconquest of the Balkans is obvious why, Italy it's priority but it's possible you would see a lot of population transfer larger scale the otl constants II moved slavs to the east and you would likely see that on larger scale Italy is less sure but again the difference between 570 and 660s would be that while the empire was overstretched due to the plague it was also not in a good situation paying tribute to Persia and then to the Avars dealing with two front war that as we saw with the 572 -591 war it couldn't deal with the Avar Khagante in 626 has entered a period of decline and would be in no condition to attack the empire, Persia meanwhile was falling apart.