Without the Islamic conquests, just how long do the Byzantines hold onto Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and the Maghreb?

[WolfBear]

Without the Islamic conquests (such as if Islam is never created in the first place at all), just how long do the Byzantines hold onto Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and the Maghreb? FWIW, this is what alternatehistory.com user Underlankers has speculated about this a decade ago:

AHC: Islam Fails

What if either Muhammad was killed before the Hijra or the forces of the Jihad were completely defeated before the Caliphate controls all of the Arabian peninsula? How will this change history?

www.alternatehistory.com

I agree the ERE as a whole can and will survive, but whether it holds on to Palestine and Egypt forever is an interesting question, though I can't see Persia holding on to them for any very long period of time either. Hmm....Coptic equivalent of the Fatimid Caliphate, anyone?

Anyway, what do you personally think about this, @stevep @History Learner @Circle of Willis? Is an eventual Coptic equivalent of the Fatimid Caliphate actually plausible, for instance? Or, for that matter, long-term Persian rule over Egypt in place of long-term Byzantine rule there?

 

[Agent23]

Until we Slavs and Bulgars find a way to sack Constantinople.

Now a bit more seriously, the West was a mess during Byzantium s heyday, so as it stabilizes and the sectarian war grows more pronounced the anti-Muslim crusades of Western knights might turn into anti-Orthodoxy crusades.
Tribes of Asian steppe nomads and Slavs and those guys with the longships will continue to push into Byzantine territories, and considering how corrupt the Byzantines were, I think it will be inevitable for a fundamentalist, anti-big church and big government christian sect to arise and gain prominence, Byzantium had a bunch of those in OTL.

 

[WolfBear]

Until we Slavs and Bulgars find a way to sack Constantinople.

Now a bit more seriously, the West was a mess during Byzantium s heyday, so as it stabilizes and the sectarian war grows more pronounced the anti-Muslim crusades of Western knights might turn into anti-Orthodoxy crusades.
Tribes of Asian steppe nomads and Slavs and those guys with the longships will continue to push into Byzantine territories, and considering how corrupt the Byzantines were, I think it will be inevitable for a fundamentalist, anti-big church and big government christian sect to arise and gain prominence, Byzantium had a bunch of those in OTL.

Why exactly can't Byzantium's government reform like it did in real life? Under the Isaurian and Macedonian dynasties, for instance?

 

[Agent23]

Why exactly can't Byzantium's government reform like it did in real life? Under the Isaurian and Macedonian dynasties, for instance?

It might reform, but eventually its luck will IMHO run out.

 

[WolfBear]

It might reform, but eventually its luck will IMHO run out.

Maybe, but things would be easier without a Muslim threat in the East. Though the crucial question would be just how aggressive would the Persians be in the long(er)-run?

 

[Agent23]

Maybe, but things would be easier without a Muslim threat in the East. Though the crucial question would be just how aggressive would the Persians be in the long(er)-run?

Pretty aggressive, don't forget that the reason Islam had such an easy time of taking Byzantium and Persia's stuff was because they were both very exhausted due to long-running animosity and wars going between the two of them.
I wonder how this will influence the Mongols, for one.
Do the Golden Horde become christian, and what will be the state of central and east Asia.

 

[Circle of Willis]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Heraclius had already reached (more like forced, in the case of the Western Church) a more-or-less satisfactory theological compromise with the Syriac & Egyptian Christians in Monothelitism, which IOTL was only abandoned because the loss of Syria & Egypt to Islam rendered it pointless. Barring another unforeseen religious schism, the Byzantines can absolutely hang on to their eastern and southern territories without Islam jumping on them while they were still exhausted from fending off the Sassanids & Avars.

However, you'll probably see their westernmost regions eventually break away or be overrun by barbarians. The territories allotted to the Exarchate of Carthage (so basically the former WRE's half of Roman North Africa) were pretty restive - aside from the local Mauro-Roman kings, the region was not any more sympathetic to Monothelitism than the Roman Holy See and was something of a breeding ground for anti-Constantinople rebels throughout the 7th century, starting with Heraclius himself and culminating with his kinsman Gregory. The Exarchate of Ravenna, of course, has already been shot full of holes by the Lombards even before the start of the 7th century and will probably be continuously chipped away by them & maybe the Franks as well.

I'd bet on a fracturing and collapse of the Byzantine positions west of the Balkans at some point in future centuries, as well as the Papacy asserting Western Christianity's independence from the diktat of the Emperor in Constantinople - Monothelitism is likely to be a sticking point, as it was unpopular in the Latin West and the Popes only agreed to it in the first place under coercion (including straight-up torture in the case of Pope Martin I) by said emperors. All they would need is a protector strong enough to resist the inevitable Byzantine backlash: whether that's a Frankish king, a Lombard one, or even a Moorish attempt to revive the WRE out of Africa.

Between the much stronger barbarian kingdoms remaining in the west as well as the restive Mauro-Romans, the Avars and other nomadic conquerors + the rising power of the Slavs to the north, and a surviving Sassanid rival in the east - I think the Byzantines can retreat to and hold their 'core' and original (from 395) territories in the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt without Islam to worry about, but they can kiss the remnants of Justinian's conquests goodbye without a whole bunch of miracles. At most I'd imagine they can realistically hold expansions into southern Italy and Persian Armenia, but not project power further than that on account of all the alternative regional hegemons rising to challenge them abroad.

 

[WolfBear]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Heraclius had already reached (more like forced, in the case of the Western Church) a more-or-less satisfactory theological compromise with the Syriac & Egyptian Christians in Monothelitism, which IOTL was only abandoned because the loss of Syria & Egypt to Islam rendered it pointless. Barring another unforeseen religious schism, the Byzantines can absolutely hang on to their eastern and southern territories without Islam jumping on them while they were still exhausted from fending off the Sassanids & Avars.

However, you'll probably see their westernmost regions eventually break away or be overrun by barbarians. The territories allotted to the Exarchate of Carthage (so basically the former WRE's half of Roman North Africa) were pretty restive - aside from the local Mauro-Roman kings, the region was not any more sympathetic to Monothelitism than the Roman Holy See and was something of a breeding ground for anti-Constantinople rebels throughout the 7th century, starting with Heraclius himself and culminating with his kinsman Gregory. The Exarchate of Ravenna, of course, has already been shot full of holes by the Lombards even before the start of the 7th century and will probably be continuously chipped away by them & maybe the Franks as well.

I'd bet on a fracturing and collapse of the Byzantine positions west of the Balkans at some point in future centuries, as well as the Papacy asserting Western Christianity's independence from the diktat of the Emperor in Constantinople - Monothelitism is likely to be a sticking point, as it was unpopular in the Latin West and the Popes only agreed to it in the first place under coercion (including straight-up torture in the case of Pope Martin I) by said emperors. All they would need is a protector strong enough to resist the inevitable Byzantine backlash: whether that's a Frankish king, a Lombard one, or even a Moorish attempt to revive the WRE out of Africa.

Between the much stronger barbarian kingdoms remaining in the west as well as the restive Mauro-Romans, the Avars and other nomadic conquerors + the rising power of the Slavs to the north, and a surviving Sassanid rival in the east - I think the Byzantines can retreat to and hold their 'core' and original (from 395) territories in the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt without Islam to worry about, but they can kiss the remnants of Justinian's conquests goodbye without a whole bunch of miracles. At most I'd imagine they can realistically hold expansions into southern Italy and Persian Armenia, but not project power further than that on account of all the alternative regional hegemons rising to challenge them abroad.

What odds would you place on an eventual Persian comeback in the East? And how would the Byzantines have interacted with Central Asian Turks and/or Mongols without Islam?

 

[History Learner]

Without the Islamic conquests (such as if Islam is never created in the first place at all), just how long do the Byzantines hold onto Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and the Maghreb? FWIW, this is what alternatehistory.com user Underlankers has speculated about this a decade ago:

AHC: Islam Fails

What if either Muhammad was killed before the Hijra or the forces of the Jihad were completely defeated before the Caliphate controls all of the Arabian peninsula? How will this change history?

www.alternatehistory.com

Anyway, what do you personally think about this, @stevep @History Learner @Circle of Willis? Is an eventual Coptic equivalent of the Fatimid Caliphate actually plausible, for instance? Or, for that matter, long-term Persian rule over Egypt in place of long-term Byzantine rule there?

Personally I see it as more likely we get a ecumenical synod that fixes thing over the long run.

 

[WolfBear]

Personally I see it as more likely we get a ecumenical synod that fixes thing over the long run.

Elaborate, please. More details.

 

[History Learner]

What odds would you place on an eventual Persian comeback in the East? And how would the Byzantines have interacted with Central Asian Turks and/or Mongols without Islam?

Worth noting that by the time Islam arrived, it appeared Zoroastrianism was on the decline and Mesopotamia was likely majority Nestorian.

 

[WolfBear]

Worth noting that by the time Islam arrived, it appeared Zoroastrianism was on the decline and Mesopotamia was likely majority Nestorian.

Yes, but there's no reason that different Christian groups can't hate each other.

Also, interestingly enough, Snake Featherston had a much more optimistic view about the future of Zoroastrianism without Islam here:

AHC: Islam Fails

What if either Muhammad was killed before the Hijra or the forces of the Jihad were completely defeated before the Caliphate controls all of the Arabian peninsula? How will this change history?

www.alternatehistory.com

In many ways, few of them for the better. For one thing the Middle East will in all probability remain divided for some time between two monotheistic empires in a perpetual war until both implode and are replaced by different versions. Given that the ERE was by far the more fragile of the two regimes the Middle East winds up being Persianized and Christianity replaced with Zoroastrianism.

 

[Circle of Willis]

What odds would you place on an eventual Persian comeback in the East? And how would the Byzantines have interacted with Central Asian Turks and/or Mongols without Islam?

Well, the Sassanids were by far worse off than the Byzantines after their last round of fighting - that Featherston guy in the old AH thread you linked claiming the Byzzies were the more fragile empire and would surely eventually get their ass handed to them by the mighty Aryans doesn't have a clue, not only had Heraclius threatened Ctesiphon (and destroyed Khosrow's palace at Dastagird) just before, but past Roman emperors repeatedly sacked it in the past while the Persians never managed the same with Constantinople. Plus they immediately fought a civil war after Heraclius' final victory over them which can't be a good sign.

However the Sassanids have bounced back from similarly nasty spots in their history, like that time the Hephthalites kicked their ass hard and then installed a(n initially friendly) Shah a few years afterward toward the end of the 5th century. Even if they don't recover, I can't imagine a successor dynasty that topples them will be much friendlier to the Romans, who have persistently been Persia's archenemies for many centuries already.

Which brings me to the next point. Can't say anything about the Mongols (way too far out from the POD) but the Byzantines historically allied with the Gokturks against the Sassanids. And I do think the Turks are much more likely to overrun Persia before they ever bother to hit the Byzantine lands due to the former's geographic proximity. However, even the House of Sassan being replaced by a Turco-Persian empire is IMO no guarantee of peace, as the Turks will have inherited Persia's position as the most obvious eastern-based rival to the Byzantines with equally obvious places to fight over (Armenia, Georgia, upper Mesopotamia...).

 

[WolfBear]

Well, the Sassanids were by far worse off than the Byzantines after their last round of fighting - that Featherston guy in the old AH thread you linked claiming the Byzzies were the more fragile empire and would surely eventually get their ass handed to them by the mighty Aryans doesn't have a clue, not only had Heraclius threatened Ctesiphon (and destroyed Khosrow's palace at Dastagird) just before, but past Roman emperors repeatedly sacked it in the past while the Persians never managed the same with Constantinople. Plus they immediately fought a civil war after Heraclius' final victory over them which can't be a good sign.

However the Sassanids have bounced back from similarly nasty spots in their history, like that time the Hephthalites kicked their ass hard and then installed a(n initially friendly) Shah a few years afterward toward the end of the 5th century. Even if they don't recover, I can't imagine a successor dynasty that topples them will be much friendlier to the Romans, who have persistently been Persia's archenemies for many centuries already.

Which brings me to the next point. Can't say anything about the Mongols (way too far out from the POD) but the Byzantines historically allied with the Gokturks against the Sassanids. And I do think the Turks are much more likely to overrun Persia before they ever bother to hit the Byzantine lands due to the former's geographic proximity. However, even the House of Sassan being replaced by a Turco-Persian empire is IMO no guarantee of peace, as the Turks will have inherited Persia's position as the most obvious eastern-based rival to the Byzantines with equally obvious places to fight over (Armenia, Georgia, upper Mesopotamia...).

Did the Gokturks ever express any interest in Egypt? Or, at least, could they have eventually expressed such an interest if they conquered Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, et cetera beforehand?

 

[Circle of Willis]

I don't see why not, if the opportunity arises to go for it. Egypt was rich, fertile and populous - what's not to like from a conquering nomad's POV? Well, maybe concerns about overextension, but I don't believe this would be overwhelming if we're talking about a Turco-Persian successor state rather than a Gokturk hegemony that extends from the Sea of Azov and the Euphrates to Inner Mongolia. (The Gokturks had already fractured into eastern & western halves by the early 7th century anyway, a third Persian-flavored southern breakaway from that western half isn't inconceivable in the event that they overrun the Sassanids)

 

[WolfBear]

I don't see why not, if the opportunity arises to go for it. Egypt was rich, fertile and populous - what's not to like from a conquering nomad's POV? Well, maybe concerns about overextension, but I don't believe this would be overwhelming if we're talking about a Turco-Persian successor state rather than a Gokturk hegemony that extends from the Sea of Azov and the Euphrates to Inner Mongolia. (The Gokturks had already fractured into eastern & western halves by the early 7th century anyway, a third Persian-flavored southern breakaway from that western half isn't inconceivable in the event that they overrun the Sassanids)

Interesting. Would be cool to do a TL where they go for Egypt and also defeat the Byzantines in a Manzikert-style battle. In such a TL, could we eventually see Western Europe engage in Crusades against the Tengrist Gokturks to help the Byzantines and also liberate the Holy Land from heretics and infidels?

 

[History Learner]

Yes, but there's no reason that different Christian groups can't hate each other.

Also, interestingly enough, Snake Featherston had a much more optimistic view about the future of Zoroastrianism without Islam here:

AHC: Islam Fails

What if either Muhammad was killed before the Hijra or the forces of the Jihad were completely defeated before the Caliphate controls all of the Arabian peninsula? How will this change history?

www.alternatehistory.com

Yes, but that's sort of the point I was making. For one, with the Imperial core of the Sassanids going Nestorian, religious division and fighting seems likely on the horizon given the elites and clergy remain Zoroastrian, as does the Iranian core. As @Circle of Willis put it far more elegantly than my earlier one sentence post did, the Byzantines seemed like they were on the path to resolving much of their internal religious tensions; in effect, the opposite of what it had been for the last few centuries vis-a-vis the Persians. Likewise, the Sassanids going Nestorian also makes them less attractive to any of the Syriacs or Copts, removing that card they had to play before.

 

[History Learner]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Heraclius had already reached (more like forced, in the case of the Western Church) a more-or-less satisfactory theological compromise with the Syriac & Egyptian Christians in Monothelitism, which IOTL was only abandoned because the loss of Syria & Egypt to Islam rendered it pointless. Barring another unforeseen religious schism, the Byzantines can absolutely hang on to their eastern and southern territories without Islam jumping on them while they were still exhausted from fending off the Sassanids & Avars.

However, you'll probably see their westernmost regions eventually break away or be overrun by barbarians. The territories allotted to the Exarchate of Carthage (so basically the former WRE's half of Roman North Africa) were pretty restive - aside from the local Mauro-Roman kings, the region was not any more sympathetic to Monothelitism than the Roman Holy See and was something of a breeding ground for anti-Constantinople rebels throughout the 7th century, starting with Heraclius himself and culminating with his kinsman Gregory. The Exarchate of Ravenna, of course, has already been shot full of holes by the Lombards even before the start of the 7th century and will probably be continuously chipped away by them & maybe the Franks as well.

I'd bet on a fracturing and collapse of the Byzantine positions west of the Balkans at some point in future centuries, as well as the Papacy asserting Western Christianity's independence from the diktat of the Emperor in Constantinople - Monothelitism is likely to be a sticking point, as it was unpopular in the Latin West and the Popes only agreed to it in the first place under coercion (including straight-up torture in the case of Pope Martin I) by said emperors. All they would need is a protector strong enough to resist the inevitable Byzantine backlash: whether that's a Frankish king, a Lombard one, or even a Moorish attempt to revive the WRE out of Africa.

You actually touched almost exactly on an idea I had the other day.

Gist of it was the ERE seeks a compromise with the Copts/Syriacs, but provokes an earlier split with the West that allows more Western varieties to flourish because of the weakened state of ERE influence and the Papacy still coming into its own at this time. Donatism in North Africa comes to unite the Berbers of North Africa-they appeared to be having a heyday of sorts between the 600s to 800s-and they take advantage of the traditional Visigothic infighting to conquer much of Iberia. In effect, you still get an Al-Andalus analogue, but it's Donatist and firmly Berber dominated fighting the local Catholics still.

Between the much stronger barbarian kingdoms remaining in the west as well as the restive Mauro-Romans, the Avars and other nomadic conquerors + the rising power of the Slavs to the north, and a surviving Sassanid rival in the east - I think the Byzantines can retreat to and hold their 'core' and original (from 395) territories in the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt without Islam to worry about, but they can kiss the remnants of Justinian's conquests goodbye without a whole bunch of miracles. At most I'd imagine they can realistically hold expansions into southern Italy and Persian Armenia, but not project power further than that on account of all the alternative regional hegemons rising to challenge them abroad.

This I'm a little more iffy on, if only because I think the Empire can still capitalize on weakness of its neighbors, especially given a couple of generations to recover and work out the kinks with the Eastern Christians within it. For example, if the Nestorian/Zoroastrian divide really does shake up the Sassanids, taking Mesopotamia and establishing the new border on the Zagros seems possible. With the Persians finished as a major threat for a time, the focus can shift back to the West.

 

[History Learner]

Well, the Sassanids were by far worse off than the Byzantines after their last round of fighting - that Featherston guy in the old AH thread you linked claiming the Byzzies were the more fragile empire and would surely eventually get their ass handed to them by the mighty Aryans doesn't have a clue, not only had Heraclius threatened Ctesiphon (and destroyed Khosrow's palace at Dastagird) just before, but past Roman emperors repeatedly sacked it in the past while the Persians never managed the same with Constantinople. Plus they immediately fought a civil war after Heraclius' final victory over them which can't be a good sign.

Most of my interactions with Featherston were on the ACW and I was unequally impressed, for whatever that's worth when discussing his view on this; as you note succinctly, the actual evidence supports quite the opposite outlook. Indeed, I don't see how one can have this conclusion of his when the ERE not only managed to beat back the Persians in their Final War, but then go on to survive the Arab conquests while the Sassanids didn't.

However the Sassanids have bounced back from similarly nasty spots in their history, like that time the Hephthalites kicked their ass hard and then installed a(n initially friendly) Shah a few years afterward toward the end of the 5th century. Even if they don't recover, I can't imagine a successor dynasty that topples them will be much friendlier to the Romans, who have persistently been Persia's archenemies for many centuries already.

Which brings me to the next point. Can't say anything about the Mongols (way too far out from the POD) but the Byzantines historically allied with the Gokturks against the Sassanids. And I do think the Turks are much more likely to overrun Persia before they ever bother to hit the Byzantine lands due to the former's geographic proximity. However, even the House of Sassan being replaced by a Turco-Persian empire is IMO no guarantee of peace, as the Turks will have inherited Persia's position as the most obvious eastern-based rival to the Byzantines with equally obvious places to fight over (Armenia, Georgia, upper Mesopotamia...).

What's your opinion on the viability of Mazdakism? I've seen it argued it could've been the force to reinvigorate the Zoroastrian religion at large, but I'm doubtful.

 

[WolfBear]

Most of my interactions with Featherston were on the ACW and I was unequally impressed, for whatever that's worth when discussing his view on this; as you note succinctly, the actual evidence supports quite the opposite outlook. Indeed, I don't see how one can have this conclusion of his when the ERE not only managed to beat back the Persians in their Final War, but then go on to survive the Arab conquests while the Sassanids didn't.

Interestingly enough, the Sassanids not only failed to hold out, but fell in less than 20 years. However, the Persian people as a whole were more resilient, preserving their language and parts of their culture in the face of Arabization up to the present-day.