Christianity in a Byzantine Levant

[Al-Za’im]

Assuming that by some set of circumstances, Heraclius is able to repel the Arabo-Islamic incursions into the Levant; effectively cementing the Levant as part of Rhomania for centuries to follow.
Without the permeation of Islam, Christianity likely reminds the dominant faith within the region. Indeed, even with the advent and consolidation of Islamic polities: the Levant remained a plurality Christian up to the Crusades.

In an era rife with Christological debate, it is fascinating to hypothesise on the potential effects of continued Byzantine/Rhomanian dominance. The question arises on whether Monothelitism could be retained as doctrine - perhaps allowing for the growth of the Maronites across the entirety of the Levant. Although, it must be taken into account that it elicited only grudging acquiescence with both the Orthodox and Jacobites increasingly apprehensive (if not scornful) towards it.


Furthermore, the question is raised on how would the demographics of the Christian majority overall manifest? Would the delineation between Miasphyite and Monophysite doctrines remain a fuel of controversy? Jacobite-Orthodox-Maronite sectarianism may emerge as a century-long complication. Moreover, important implications are raised on the doctrine of Christianity in itself. How would the retention of the Levant effect Christianity as a whole? Could the Monothelitist doctrine avoid being proscribed a heresy?

 

[Tosa Inu]

Well, if Heraclius being able to hold the Islamic invasion against Levant, there won't be Islamic expansion into Egypt and North Africa either, considering that Levantine Region, especially Gaza and Sinai being the gate who guarded access to and from Egypt.

It is much harder to hold Jerusalem than holding the historical fortress region of Migdol/Sinai/Gaza, one of the most contested region since the Wars of the Diadochi, and Rome only able to dominate the PtolemIoi after they managed to put Levant under control (since the alternative would be naval assault or marching though the Libyan desert.

Expect the Coptic Orthodoxy to still being majority faith in Egypt, and there will be a series of Roman Fortresses to defend the region. The Holy Land thus becoming what is effectively military frontier of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Using historical precedences, assuming The Sassanids still fall to the Arabs, the Roman Fortresses will start on the South in the Ancient Egyptian Fortress at Migdol, linked to the rejuvenated Diadochi-era Forteesses at Sinai Mountains and Gaza, continued to the Citadel of Hebron, added with another extra Forteesses at Jordan River crossings, the Tiberias Forteess at Galilee, the Citadel of Damaskos, then Antioch, and from there, regarding to whatever the butterfly flaps, either having Hayasdan mountain Fortresses, or being pushed back to Trebizond, or going as far as hisotical Armenia as tbe Northeast Caucasian Frontier.

This in turn, Meant that Islam is likely to spread Northwards into the Steppe earlier, which might give us an interesting possibility of the Kievan Russ being Muslims this time around.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Expect the Coptic Orthodoxy to still being majority faith in Egypt, and there will be a series of Roman Fortresses to defend the region. The Holy Land thus becoming what is effectively military frontier of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I'm not sure that'd hold forever. Just as it fell into decline under Muslim rule, I expect over time Eastern Orthodoxy (or a hybrid of the two) would come to dominate.

Using historical precedences, assuming The Sassanids still fall to the Arabs, the Roman Fortresses will start on the South in the Ancient Egyptian Fortress at Migdol, linked to the rejuvenated Diadochi-era Forteesses at Sinai Mountains and Gaza, continued to the Citadel of Hebron, added with another extra Forteesses at Jordan River crossings, the Tiberias Forteess at Galilee, the Citadel of Damaskos, then Antioch, and from there, regarding to whatever the butterfly flaps, either having Hayasdan mountain Fortresses, or being pushed back to Trebizond, or going as far as hisotical Armenia as tbe Northeast Caucasian Frontier.

Yeah, this is the trouble with the idea, that's a hell of a long border if you're expecting a desert-comfortable army to attack you. Is the Levant, Egypt and Carthage worth it? Probably. However I expect a lot of Roman interests will involve setting up allied buffer states in the north and something to act as a counter like the Ghassanids were.

This in turn, Meant that Islam is likely to spread Northwards into the Steppe earlier, which might give us an interesting possibility of the Kievan Russ being Muslims this time around.

I'm not convinced that an Islam that makes it to the Steppe is going to convert the Kievan Rus. For one, it's going to have taken a big blow not conquering the Levant - which hurts its prestige. Which makes me dubious as to whether the Volga Bulgars would even ask for instruction (let alone be able to convince the Rus to give up wine!)

If we assume a more Persian Islamic world, then I expect we'd more likely see moves into India and down the coast than into the Steppe. Arab cavalry are used to a different climate and will have issues that far north, but could probably win in Central Asia. But I can't help but think that this alt-Caliphate would get *wrecked* by the Mongols if that still happens.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Yeah, this is the trouble with the idea, that's a hell of a long border if you're expecting a desert-comfortable army to attack you. Is the Levant, Egypt and Carthage worth it? Probably. However I expect a lot of Roman interests will involve setting up allied buffer states in the north and something to act as a counter like the Ghassanids were.

I expect that a realistic scenario in this regards will involve a surviving Zoroastrian Sassanid Satrap holding up against the Islamic Army, and then managed to convince the Romans to let him form a buffer State made of Zoroastrian refugees who refused to convert. This way, we have stopgap to prevent Islamic expansion into Anatolia.

The Southern -Egyptian front is rather defendable. Migdol, Sinai, and Gaza was never razed, and while desert-comfortable Arab Armies will put a sting every now and then, a series of forts in addition to the Diadochi-era Citadel of Hierosolyma/Hebron could basically hold the Arabs through the Southern Mountain passes up to the natural border of Jordan River Crossings, if managed under competent commanders, in theory

The most vulnerable part in this part? Aurelian and subsequent Emperors never actually rebuild the Tiberias Citadel after the Palmyran Empire was defeated, and Palmyra Razed. This, and the fact that Antioch is far away.... Meant that any enterprising Muslim commander, after conquering Persia, could simply move west and rush from the still ruined Palmyran line.

Dunno about the other religious repercussions, but yeah, successfully holding Levant will mean No access to Egypt except by conquering Ethiopia (and good luck with that since Ethiopia basically hold out until Mussolini threw Chemical Weapons at them in 20th century).

 

[Tomislav Addai]

Without the Muslim conquests you would have different development of Orthodoxy. The whole Iconoclast controversy could be in fact butterflied away, and the space us likely to be filled with some other philosophical religious controversy.

The end result being is that you will have a much different Orthodox Christianity. Now remember the Emperors have wanted to maintain religious compromise, so expect to have something more in-line with the Syriac traditions

 

[Evil Crusader]

Generally speaking, in Late Antiquity Christian orthodoxy and the Empire were one and the same; as such, heresies tended to crop up in the areas more disaffectioned with Imperial rule. If the Empire stays, that will not change; Monothelism will be abandoned as much as every other Imperial-proposed compromise in the past, with more to come. Some kind of alt-Iconoclasm, if Islam still overtakes Persia, is likely to eventually emerge.
The Papacy will be for a bit longer an Imperial tool, and the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate will still eventually emerge as an important player as centuries of prestige and Imperial favor start rolling in. Africa stays theologically relevant for a longer while, as does Alexandria - Antioch by then was the lesser seat.
Islam would appeal for its warlike nature, but as noted, the ban on alcohol will prove hard to circumvent for the Russians. It also doesn't necessarily come with the same kind of patronage (educated monks) that helped estabilish Orthodoxy in Slav areas OTL. it also probably adversely affects Western style Monasteries, due to weaker Western Christianity all around.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Also minot note, that if the border stabilized by a century or so, while Islam pushed into India and South East Asia earlier, they might ended up getting in confilict with China, perhaps during one of the Interdynasty conflict.

Or at least could push with extra zealotry to convert Indians and Chinese this time around.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

The role of the non-Orthodox churches in the Levant and Egypt seems unlikely to go away-- they won the battles against their local pagans on their own pretty much, and remain as representatives of what might be called the intelligentsia. They are the politically active and educated representatives of their region's interests (often drawn from or led by scions of powerful families) in negotiations with the Empire's representatives. They uphold differences in calendars and festivals-- stuff that involves how people down tot he lowest level organize their life and who they look to for guidance.

Not only that but the Syrians have a reserve of foreign allies in the form of the Armenians, while the Mesopotamians have their Persian connections. Egypt is more "alone" but given that conquering Egypt is really only synonymous with conquering the Nile Delta, a small region within which politicking might win over one among the small number of crucial fortresses, you can't quite predict what will happen there-- the Normans and Berbers of South Italy and Africa may have something to say.

Which makes me dubious as to whether the Volga Bulgars would even ask for instruction

The Volga Bulgars are far enough upriver that the Caspian Sea is more important than the Black; they will go as Central Asia does. Buddhist, Muslim, Nestorian, whatever.

(let alone be able to convince the Rus to give up wine!)

Very overrated, Muslims sin and seek forgiveness all the time. Not only that, but various schools of jurisprudence have differed from each other and over their own school's past attitudes over 1) what kinds of alcohol are allowed 2) how much, maybe "moderate" amounts that don't lead to intoxication are forgivable. Modern attitudes can't be taken as representative of medieval ones. It might be the Rus have to give up grape wine for keeping honey mead, which is one way to embargo Byzantine products.

EDIT: And uh, there's always hashish/cannabis, which... well, it is not wine. To be honest, an Islam that lacks the Levant (the rich but recent acquisition that required but also amply supplied a large army of occupation, the same army Mu'awiya used in his intrigues) and perhaps also Mesopotamia (the land of new towns and colonies, but also the "gold rush" mentality of a society divided between early winners and latecomer losers-- leading to the emergence of Ali's cause as a cause for social and not just political conflict) right away lacks both the rationale for the emergence of a Shia schism and of the Sunni orthodoxy constructed against it. I would not expect it to resemble our Islam that closely at all, either in its ability to enforce rules across the rapidly decentralizing Arabian Peninsula (which after the initial conquests reverted in many cases to a more simple way of life, with even small towns not being reestablished until a few hundred years before the present) or the content of the rules.