I'd also argue that in terms of momentum and conversions, a seemingly miraculous victory sure helped. Getting absolutely battered by a larger Byzantine army would have been an enormous PR blow. Hard to argue your new faith has God on its side after its army gets wiped out.
What could the Byzantines have done better at Yarmouk?
- Thread starter rf_31
- Start date
I'd also argue that in terms of momentum and conversions, a seemingly miraculous victory sure helped. Getting absolutely battered by a larger Byzantine army would have been an enormous PR blow. Hard to argue your new faith has God on its side after its army gets wiped out.
Doubly so considering (at least if I remember rightly) that Yarmouk had drawn forces from Mesopotamia to fight. A drastic victory for the Romans (even a Pyrrhic one for the Caliphate) would distinctly weaken their hold in Mesopotamia, tying the Caliphate down to Mesopotamia if they wanted to keep it, which might not even succeed.
Harry Turtledove's "Agent of Byzantium" which you can probably find at a used book store. It is about a Byzantine secret agent in an atl where the Eastern Roman Empire is a little bigger than size of Justinian's empire and the "present" is sometime in the 1300s. The Sassinid Empire is still around and the MC's rival/love interest is a secret agent from there.
Though the PoD is only vaguely refered to, the MC is particularly fond of the liturgy of "St Mohammad the Arab" which starts out "there is no God but God and Jesus is his son."
Marc
Donor
I am going to plagiarize myself, a bit pressed for time at the moment (bold italic are tiny addenda).
"I really don't want to sound dismissive, but I get the sense that most of you have only a vague idea about the history of Rashidun Caliphate and its successor states.
Best overview to read is God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, by Robert Hoyland.
If you really are a fan of the Byzantines, then learning about the Rashidun does illuminate a lot of what happened in that crucial century when the empire lost 2/3's of its territory, and gives insight into what really could have happened. (I would add that not knowing in some depth about their other great enemies, the Mongols and the Seljuk Turks is a real handicap to understanding why history happened the way it did with the Byzantines.)
Just a couple of quick comments:
the Rashidun armies had already conquered Mesopotamia decisively through a series of battles culminating in the Battle of Firaz, where they heavily defeated a much larger coalition army of Byzantines, Persians and Christian Arabs. Persia was wrecked and was only waiting for the end after the Rashidun had dealt with the Byzantines. To use the old phrase: They were dead men walking, regardless.
No student of Byzantine history can let themselves not know about Khalid ibn Walid. Think Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon - yeah, he was on that level. Very unfortunately for the Byzantines and Persians. In fact, you want a creditable alternative to Arabic conquest of the later and near conquest of the former? Just erase him from history.
Finally, those Arab armies were highly sophisticated, well equipped, well trained, and ably led down through the ranks, and very devoted to a faith that gave them a coherent meaning and purpose, not a ragtag collection of desert horsemen who would melt away from setbacks, or even a true disaster. (What is it with underestimating both the Arabs and the emotive power of Islam?)
Mind, I am not saying that the Byzantines couldn't have done better against a new arch-enemy, but it could have been terribly worse.
Such is the riptides of history...
More of aside: People like to speak of more experienced troops as being superior, in fact, there is really a limit on how much experience you need to be a capable solider, trust me. There is also a downside, too much combat over the years can wear on troopers, and degrades their efficiency.
As for the numbers, everyone agrees that the Byzantines had a massive advantage. On the other hand, they were up against one of the greatest generals in history, Khalid ibn al-Walid. Arguably, as a force multiplier, he mostly canceled the Byzantine numerical advantage.
But all right, assume the best for the Byzantines on that battlefield, assuming utter destruction is pushing it, possible, but the Byzantines would pay heavily - and the Caliphate can quickly move tens of thousands of other warriors for yet another battle, and another. The Byzantines were quickly losing their numerical advantage as the Caliphate rapidly recruited - including some thousands of Byzantine deserters.
While it's clear that the Byzantines could have fought considerably better (that they didn't, in the face of what they knew was a very dangerous foe, is telling), even with the Emperor Iraklios in command I suspect the stars weren't in their favor on that battlefield that week. A lesser defeat would allow them a more delaying action; they might have held onto Antioch, for a while."
"I really don't want to sound dismissive, but I get the sense that most of you have only a vague idea about the history of Rashidun Caliphate and its successor states.
Best overview to read is God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, by Robert Hoyland.
If you really are a fan of the Byzantines, then learning about the Rashidun does illuminate a lot of what happened in that crucial century when the empire lost 2/3's of its territory, and gives insight into what really could have happened. (I would add that not knowing in some depth about their other great enemies, the Mongols and the Seljuk Turks is a real handicap to understanding why history happened the way it did with the Byzantines.)
Just a couple of quick comments:
the Rashidun armies had already conquered Mesopotamia decisively through a series of battles culminating in the Battle of Firaz, where they heavily defeated a much larger coalition army of Byzantines, Persians and Christian Arabs. Persia was wrecked and was only waiting for the end after the Rashidun had dealt with the Byzantines. To use the old phrase: They were dead men walking, regardless.
No student of Byzantine history can let themselves not know about Khalid ibn Walid. Think Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon - yeah, he was on that level. Very unfortunately for the Byzantines and Persians. In fact, you want a creditable alternative to Arabic conquest of the later and near conquest of the former? Just erase him from history.
Finally, those Arab armies were highly sophisticated, well equipped, well trained, and ably led down through the ranks, and very devoted to a faith that gave them a coherent meaning and purpose, not a ragtag collection of desert horsemen who would melt away from setbacks, or even a true disaster. (What is it with underestimating both the Arabs and the emotive power of Islam?)
Mind, I am not saying that the Byzantines couldn't have done better against a new arch-enemy, but it could have been terribly worse.
Such is the riptides of history...
More of aside: People like to speak of more experienced troops as being superior, in fact, there is really a limit on how much experience you need to be a capable solider, trust me. There is also a downside, too much combat over the years can wear on troopers, and degrades their efficiency.
As for the numbers, everyone agrees that the Byzantines had a massive advantage. On the other hand, they were up against one of the greatest generals in history, Khalid ibn al-Walid. Arguably, as a force multiplier, he mostly canceled the Byzantine numerical advantage.
But all right, assume the best for the Byzantines on that battlefield, assuming utter destruction is pushing it, possible, but the Byzantines would pay heavily - and the Caliphate can quickly move tens of thousands of other warriors for yet another battle, and another. The Byzantines were quickly losing their numerical advantage as the Caliphate rapidly recruited - including some thousands of Byzantine deserters.
While it's clear that the Byzantines could have fought considerably better (that they didn't, in the face of what they knew was a very dangerous foe, is telling), even with the Emperor Iraklios in command I suspect the stars weren't in their favor on that battlefield that week. A lesser defeat would allow them a more delaying action; they might have held onto Antioch, for a while."
Last edited:
BEEG
Banned
The best way for the Byzantines would be to cut off the snakes head - go for al-Walid directly, be it on the battlefield or offer his weight in gold to anyone willing to assassinate him.
During the battle itself - they missed a golden moment - when the left wing of the Muslims gave up - Varan should've given an all-out attack order...or just charge them from the get-go and use his numerical superiority to swamp them...even led his Armenian guard personally and try to route the opponents, then use the still in reserve cavalry to mop up the field.
During the battle itself - they missed a golden moment - when the left wing of the Muslims gave up - Varan should've given an all-out attack order...or just charge them from the get-go and use his numerical superiority to swamp them...even led his Armenian guard personally and try to route the opponents, then use the still in reserve cavalry to mop up the field.
If it was the pre third century crisis army there is no chance in hell that Arabs win the war. The Late Republic/Early Imperial army is in the top 3 best pregunpowder army in history. The other two are Alexander's and the conquering Mongolian steppe army. I wouldn't put the Arabs on the top 10 army list. Allot of there success comes from that the Byzantines and Sassanids had been fighting a terrible war just 10 prior and without that war there would be no Arab conquests.
Marc
Donor
It is not a matter of the Rashidun army being that tremendous (by the way I use Rashidun rather than Arab the same way I would use Byzantine rather than Greek), it is that compared to the Byzantines, and the Persians, they were easily as good, had stronger morale, and far better led - at the point in time.
(Side note: It's incredible that anyone interested in Byzantine history can't help but realize that the empire escaped a fatal bullet by not being in the Mongol cross-hairs, to mix some temporal metaphors.)
The notion that their success was based on the exhaustion of their enemies is, in fact, more of an historical excuse used to try to explain away events - a very popular excuse in the West in the 19th century (issues with Semites of all identities), not so much by modern scholars.
The romans at Mongols did the correct move of paying tribute. No reason the Roman not paying tribute outside of leadership arrogance. More costly to wage wars than to pay tribute. And the romans have a history of doing this.
The exhaustion is about money and manpower. You cannot keep raising taxes and recruit people for army if you have been doing this for decades.
Absent of the eternal war the amount of money and manpower that was lost instead is now used against the arabs.
Its quite arrogant to think that the arabs would win war vs rome and persia if both can keep raising armies for 10 years like the eternal war due yo the absence of the etwrnal war.
Even in otl the arab roman border was stabilized at taurus mountain with otl resources, the extra money and manpower not wasted due to the absence of eternal war, would go somewhere like continious counter offensve vs the arabs from the anatolia that is assuming the arabs even win yarmouk or if there wiuld even be a yarmouk.
Look at this way, a genius general wont fight an uphill war vs the romans nor would the campaign be the same vs an atl roman empire with more resources.
You are basing too much on everything happeing in favor of the arabs on the basis of otl roman resources, with romans doing the same thing as otl instead of atl resources.
Marc
Donor
There is no evidence that while the very high taxation imposed during the Byzantine-Persian wars was very unpopular, they affected the military capacity of the respective states, particularly after the conflict ended. Neither was manpower meaningfully affected, as witness how large the armies they were able to employ against the Rashidun army. Not if you want to make the argument that their morale was exhausted - a la the sentiment in much of Europe after the first World War - there is some merit, but not much history to support it.
Last edited:
You also did not address that extra money and manpower couldnt stabilize borders somewhere else like beyond Taurus mountains.
You merely assumed everything is like OTL even the Arabs attacking the Romans.
You know extra taxation means growing economy beyond OTL. Less deaths means more people and talented people that died, that either could have done something vs the Arabs or parents of those who could done something.
That is what ATL means. Not what you insist like everything will be like OTL.
Edit: Roman-Sassanid wars the recent was 20 years of continuous war. While fighting the Persians, the Romans had to deal with Slavs, Avars at the same time.
The amount of cash and manpower lost to that which can be used vs the Arabs instead.
And I dont mean just ordinary people, I mean talented people. Instead Vahan leading Yarmouk or main pitch battle, you would have a different person leading instead.
Of course, like any other ATL, Romans hammering the Arabs or avoiding war with the Arabs, the Romans could do worse than OTL depending if the pod is a yank or a screw.
Last edited:
Agreed. Lets consider that the Rashidun were not nearly as unified as many tend to assume. Islam was stil in its infancy, does anyone really think that all the formerly pagan Arabs completely embraced the new faith by this point? What of the Christian Arabs that were part of the Rashidun army? They were along for the ride, because the Muslims were winning.
For further proof, look at what happened once the conquests slowed: the Caliphate broke into civil war. I think it is likely the same thing would happen if the Byzantines held them off, just several decades early. And it would likely be far more chaotic, with less consensus among the Arabs.
The Rashidun Caliphate descending into civil war had absolutely nothing to do with the slowing down of conquests and everything to do with the Kharijite and Shiite schisms.
Marc
Donor
All right, a few more comments.
Heraclius: the conceit that if the emperor was there, the battle at Yarmouk would have gone differently. Sure, a worn out, frail man, suffering from Peyronie's disease, frequently in pain, and likely dying of prostate cancer (by contemporary accounts), is going to be brilliant against the very best. Sure.
(We won't get into the seriously distracting issues he was having with his niece-wife and her desire to have the least genetically crippled of her sons as his heir).
You all do know that in 619 CE there was yet another major plague - one of the terrible series that devastated the Eastern Med/Middle East from the 6th to the 8th centuries - that we know hit both Constantinople and Alexandria very hard (by implication, much of the rest of the of the empire - as we are informed it did Mesopotamia some years earlier). That most likely caused more loss in income and available manpower than years of war (nothing like villages filled with bulbous dead bodies to encourage recruitment). But yeah, that doesn't count.
Most of the onerous "extra" taxes levied came from demanding/stripping money from the Church. Money that could have/would have been used otherwise. Sure.
By and by, the economy of the times was mostly static; that is, economic growth or decline was dependent on non-monetary factors. We are talking about an era, like most of history, where GDP growth averaged .1%.
Wars are only very short term deleterious to manpower available. People have babies, over and over, as much as they can. Boys, tragically are sent off to war, over and over. As I said before, witness the size of the armies raised. I'll repeat, there is no objective evidence that the decade's long war with the Persians actually affected troop strength when it came to dealing with the Arabs.
I have no problem with the notion that there was profound psychological exhaustion on the part of the Byzantines and the Persians - especially the later, given how close they came to victory earlier. Any arguments against that as being a major factor in their loss? It goes a long way to explain why they were constantly defeated by inferior numbers.
Finally, keep in mind, that almost all of our history for that era comes from a handful of accounts on the Byzantine side, about none from the Persian, and fragments from the Arabs. Everything per force is major extrapolations...
Heraclius: the conceit that if the emperor was there, the battle at Yarmouk would have gone differently. Sure, a worn out, frail man, suffering from Peyronie's disease, frequently in pain, and likely dying of prostate cancer (by contemporary accounts), is going to be brilliant against the very best. Sure.
(We won't get into the seriously distracting issues he was having with his niece-wife and her desire to have the least genetically crippled of her sons as his heir).
You all do know that in 619 CE there was yet another major plague - one of the terrible series that devastated the Eastern Med/Middle East from the 6th to the 8th centuries - that we know hit both Constantinople and Alexandria very hard (by implication, much of the rest of the of the empire - as we are informed it did Mesopotamia some years earlier). That most likely caused more loss in income and available manpower than years of war (nothing like villages filled with bulbous dead bodies to encourage recruitment). But yeah, that doesn't count.
Most of the onerous "extra" taxes levied came from demanding/stripping money from the Church. Money that could have/would have been used otherwise. Sure.
By and by, the economy of the times was mostly static; that is, economic growth or decline was dependent on non-monetary factors. We are talking about an era, like most of history, where GDP growth averaged .1%.
Wars are only very short term deleterious to manpower available. People have babies, over and over, as much as they can. Boys, tragically are sent off to war, over and over. As I said before, witness the size of the armies raised. I'll repeat, there is no objective evidence that the decade's long war with the Persians actually affected troop strength when it came to dealing with the Arabs.
I have no problem with the notion that there was profound psychological exhaustion on the part of the Byzantines and the Persians - especially the later, given how close they came to victory earlier. Any arguments against that as being a major factor in their loss? It goes a long way to explain why they were constantly defeated by inferior numbers.
Finally, keep in mind, that almost all of our history for that era comes from a handful of accounts on the Byzantine side, about none from the Persian, and fragments from the Arabs. Everything per force is major extrapolations...
Last edited:
When we postulated that Heraclius being there would have changed the outcome of the battle,we are also suggesting that he was well enough to be there and take command.This is after all a website about alternate history,and any POD is alright as long as it's not ASB.And honestly,even if he was worn out,in frequently pain and possibly dying,his presence in the field alone likely would have changed a lot in terms of the relationship between different units. We know that the commanders who fought the battle might not really up for the task. For some strange reason,Heraclius placed a bureaucrat in charge of the army,who in turn appointed an Armenian prince whom we know very little of as de facto commander of the army.There was also a level of mistrust between this Armenian prince and different contingents of the army.Vahan simply lacked the authority and charisma that the emperor commanded which could have unified different parts of the army. More soldiers =/= greater strength if the commander was not up to the task,and could prove to be a liability if he wasn't up to the task of commander such a large army.And even then,there were in fact several moments during the battle when your 'very best' nearly did lose the battle.
Back in those days,most armies are paid by looting the local population,there would have been massive disruption in trade and civil order.There would have been no way that the population as a whole remained largely unaffected by decades of war. Just look at the population records of China for example,the population of China before the Anshi Rebellion was 52 million.Nine years later,the population decreased to 17 million.
I don't really know much about the Persians,but in regards to the ERE,please do point out a battle in the following years after Yarmouk where the ERE was able to field an army which outnumbered the Arabs as overwhelmingly.There was none.And you do realize that most armies require many years of training in the era before the invention of gunpowder?This was no longer the Republican era where the Romans can just conjure an army up from simple peasants.Each soldier had to receive much more dedicated training in the post-Diocletian era,and most soldiers were in fact recruited from soldier families who would have provided military training to the troops from a young age. So even if the vast majority of the civilian population was unaffected by the turbulence of warfare,it's unlikely that the trained population could have remained static.Even if the ERE was able to continuously refill their depleted armies and maintain troop strength,many of the troops would have been poorly trained and equipped conscripts.We see this effect in the years after the Battle of Adrianople,the quality of the East Roman army declined drastically
Last edited:
trajen777
Banned
The Answer could be broken into three answers : And some general comments :
A. The Arab forces were small in nature. Loss of significant manpower would have been difficult to replace.
B. The elite core of the Arab forces were the religious fanatics, the remainder were forces driven by loot and the successes gained in the past 10 years. A complete defeat would most likely have shattered the aura of invincibility.
C. When Vaugn moved to Yarmouk - a sizable part of the army withdrew under Theodore north (hostility) - If Heraculus had been in attendance this would not have happened
Answer 1 : The battle of Yarmouk never happens -- the plan was for the Byz to move to the center of the dispersed Arab forces. The two main commanders of the Byz forces Theodore and Vaughn had a history of non cooperation (Treadgold) and they were slow in moving forward to take the interior lines. If they had moved quicker they would have been able to defeat or cause significant losses to the Arab forces. In a base case they destroy 1-2 Arab armies (of the 5 ) and defeat one additional armies driving the rest back.
Answer 2 : Her. commands and if answer 1 did not happen then the combined forces of Theodore and Vaugn would have been in attendance. The moral of Her. at the battle with his aura of victory vs Persia would have had created 25% more forces at the battle with higher moral and a better commander for the Byz.
Answer 3 : at the battle have day 1 the center engages faster and holds the center -- have the Byz Calvary reserve become engaged from day 1 - 3
A. The Arab forces were small in nature. Loss of significant manpower would have been difficult to replace.
B. The elite core of the Arab forces were the religious fanatics, the remainder were forces driven by loot and the successes gained in the past 10 years. A complete defeat would most likely have shattered the aura of invincibility.
C. When Vaugn moved to Yarmouk - a sizable part of the army withdrew under Theodore north (hostility) - If Heraculus had been in attendance this would not have happened
Answer 1 : The battle of Yarmouk never happens -- the plan was for the Byz to move to the center of the dispersed Arab forces. The two main commanders of the Byz forces Theodore and Vaughn had a history of non cooperation (Treadgold) and they were slow in moving forward to take the interior lines. If they had moved quicker they would have been able to defeat or cause significant losses to the Arab forces. In a base case they destroy 1-2 Arab armies (of the 5 ) and defeat one additional armies driving the rest back.
Answer 2 : Her. commands and if answer 1 did not happen then the combined forces of Theodore and Vaugn would have been in attendance. The moral of Her. at the battle with his aura of victory vs Persia would have had created 25% more forces at the battle with higher moral and a better commander for the Byz.
Answer 3 : at the battle have day 1 the center engages faster and holds the center -- have the Byz Calvary reserve become engaged from day 1 - 3