An Open Ended Question

[Emperor Goblinus]

If the Muslim conquests had not occurred after the big war between the Romans and the Persians, and the Romans recovered, how do you think that Roman history would have developed?

[Gaius Octavius]

PERHAPS, the Italian city states and the then developing Western European nations along with Russia might have continued to nibble away at the Empire. Since the Empire did not have the power to maintain control over reconquered territories before the fall in 1453, it is hard for me to think that they could ever have returned to the status of the Early Empire, which they would have had to do. Yet, had the Empire decayed, and the other Europeans taken possession, the entire world would be completely different today. Perhaps, the so-called Dark Ages might never have come about and science and technology might have advanced more quickly.

It would not have been sufficient for the Empire to simply recover militarily. The entire system would have had to have been rejuvenated. The power of the magnates had to have been broken. War lords overcome. And most importantly, the allegience of the people restored.

[Caius Maxentius]

Had the Empire not faced such a massive challenge from the Arabs after Heraclius's victories over the Persians, I think it might have had the necessary breathing time to regain its strength and prosperity. I doubt that the Byzatines could have retained their hegemony in Egypt and Syria/Palestine for much longer -- the peoples of these regions had been living under Greco-Roman supremacy since the days of Alexander the Great (and were glad to shuffle it off), and they disagreed greatly with Catholic and Orthodox views on religion -- but if not for the Arabs, perhaps some kind of Greek nation with its capital at Constantinople would have been passed down to the present day.

 

That's a big "if" though -- Islam obviously answered some kind of sociological need for millions of people in the near East, and if it had not ignited a big change in the cultures of the region, something else might have.

 

If the Arabs had not arisen as a great power in the seventh century, what would this have meant for the Turks? They may well have migrated West anyway, and disrupted Byzantine stability.

Edited April 23, 2006 by Caius Maxentius

[AEGYPTUS]

Personally I think at Constantinople nature took its course. No Empire can last forever. Also a Greek state coming to pass I think is also highly unlikely as the lower classes of the Near East and Mesopotamia,Egypt etc... Did not want to learn Greek as was said above by Gaius Octavius the entire administrative system would have to be redone before the Empire even stood a chance of trying to rejuvenate. I personally do not think that would have been possible if the locals if not some at least were willing to learn Greek.

So I don't think the Empire if you could even call it that by 1453 would have stood much of a chance if it did not fall to the Arabs it would just have been some one else at a different time. Rebellions could have been a possobilite.

Edited June 5, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Basil II Bulgaroctonus]

The Eastern Empire in its early years would have been extremely difficult to unify. Not only are there diverse cultures and peoples, the geography ensures that the Byzantines would have had to keep a standing navy in prime shape at all times in order to link Africa with Greece, which it obviously failed to do.

 

If Islam had not risen, I supposed the Byzantines would have had to continue their power struggle with some other Middle-Eastern empire (which would certainly have arisen in the place of Persia), or vie with Western Europe. Either way, the empire being located at the borderline of Europe/Asia would not have lasted much longer than it did.

 

My personal feeling is that Islam kept Western/Eastern Europe from going at each other's throats immediately by presenting itself as a unified danger. The religious differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism would have easily been enough to start war had not the early Arabic states kept them in an uneasy alliance.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Basil II Bulgaroctonus

[Aurelianus]

Naturaly, it is hard to invisage such a what if question, but if the Empire had had time to recover its strength i dont think the outcome would have been any diferant. If it the south fell in the reighn of a compatent emperor like Heraklios, then there were plenty of long periods when the empire was in chaos, with apauling emperors in charge.

In my oppinion the Turks were far more responsible for the disintergration of the empire than the arabs, or more likely, the idiotic policies of emperors like Konstantinos X and Michael VII Ducas that lost asia minor. With asior minor the empire lost its most valuable source of man-power, and so when a competent Emperor such as Alexius I Komnenus comes to revitalize the empire the resources are limited.

I belive that had the turkish invasion of byzantine lands never occered, then the turks and arabs would have fought each other to exhastian, and there would most likely be a modern greek state that would encompas modern Greece, Macedonia and Turky.

[Tobias]

If the Muslim conquests had not occurred after the big war between the Romans and the Persians, and the Romans recovered, how do you think that Roman history would have developed?

 

I doubt considerably that things would have been much different. Justinian died in 565. King Chosroes II of Persia invaded in 603 A.D, and things had already been falling apart; Displaced by the Avars , the Lombards invaded Italy in 568. By the time peace came about (around 605A.D.), the Romans had lost about half of Italy, but had managed to prevent a unified Lombard Kingdom. In 575 A.D, the Visigoths repudiated Roman suzerainty and began to conquer the Roman territory in Southern Spain. The Balkans were constantly being raided by Avars, and Slav settlers were immigrating in their wake.

 

The situation was pretty dire before the Persians invaded, and before and after Heraclius came to the throne. The fact was that the Later Roman Empire was in a rather difficult geographical and political position; it could be attacked from literally any and all directions. It is possible that the predicament the empire was in with the Persians caused the Romans to stop paying the Arabs to remain where they were, as they couldn't afford it, although this is unlikely to be the whole reason behind the Arab invasion.

 

But getting back to the topic, had the Arabs not invaded, then it would be likely that the Romans would have been shattered by some other power that would have risen to fill the vacuum of power; possibly a resurgent Persian state later on. The wars left the Romans exhausted, militarily and financially. Some enemy would have overwhelmed them, even if it was on a different front.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Tobias

[Cohort]

What big war are you referring to?......Heraclius ( a passed over genius imho) defeated and bowed the last remnants of the eastern empires enemies ..yes Islam soon came like a whorl wind, but he bequeathed to his successors a cohesive empire with fertile recruiting grounds from which less talented emperors saved the core of the empire, which with help, Leo etc. kept alive and safe , the empire and Christendom.

[Honorius]

i thought Heraclius' newly conquered lands were quickly lost.. aswell as all of the levant etc. imho i dont think he left the empire that well off...sure the sassanids were defeated but that just left a power vacuum allowing the arab armies to fill it and as tobias already said he left the empire weak and exhausted.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Honorius

[Tobias]

What big war are you referring to?......Heraclius ( a passed over genius imho) defeated and bowed the last remnants of the eastern empires enemies

 

I was referring to Heraclius' invasion of Persia. He may have beaten the armies of Persia and restored the territories conquered by the Persians to the Roman Empire, but as i said, the Empire was exhausted, and was obviously unable to resist the flood of Muslim invaders.

 

I don't dispute that Heraclius was a genius, and a very unrecognised one at that. His re-organisation of the Imperial Army was what helped the Empire to hold onto Carthage for so long against the Muslims, which was a place from which the Empire could gain a second wind. He is credited with laying down the initial plans of the themata organisation of the empire which would ensure the survival of the Empire for many centuries to come. He walked in the footsteps of Alexander in his campaign against Persia, and emulated him thus in my opinion.

 

The fact is that his defeat of the Persians only bought the Empire breathing space for a short time. His restored Empire pretty much lasted for less than half a decade, and by the time of the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 A.D, the restored empire was well on the way to being lost.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Tobias