What would the Byzantine Empire have to do to survive?

[Emperor Killaman]

I think the Byzantine empire would have survived a great deal longer if they had just posted guards at Yarmuk during the sandstom. If they do this then Umar's army is greatly reduced allowing the Byzantines to crush Islam; which means no Manzikert and no Fourth Crusade. Of course after this they would have hand to withstand barbarian, Venitian and later Mongol invasians.
In my opinion their greatest downfall was their complacency.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think the Byzantine empire would have survived a great deal longer if they had just posted guards at Yarmuk during the sandstom. If they do this then Umar's army is greatly reduced allowing the Byzantines to crush Islam; which means no Manzikert and no Fourth Crusade. Of course after this they would have hand to withstand barbarian, Venitian and later Mongol invasians.
In my opinion their greatest downfall was their complacency.

Sandstorm? Isn't that a legend? Yarmuk was fought over several days, with only the last day resulting in collapse.
I can't see any possibilty of how the Romans would have been able to 'crush Islam' after winning the battle of Yarmuk. They would have retained Syria (at that moment) but they still would have lost Egypt and the other African provinces. But the Arabs were also busy crushing Persia, which the Romans would hardly have been able (or willing) to stop. My guess is that even if the Romans would have been able to hold on to all eastern territories (which I doubt they could), the Arabs would have replaced the persians as enemies. Islam would never have been 'stopped' by the Romans.

[M. Demetrius]

I can't see any possibilty of how the Romans would have been able to 'crush Islam'

And I'm not sure that even the Eastern Empire would have been motivated to do so. Too much traditionalism still remained for the Romans to have tried to "crush" a religious system in another culture. While they held Christianity to be the state religion at that time, they would probably still have let others keep their own. But we're talking late 7th early 8th Cent AD here, aren't we?

[Theodosius the Great]

That would have been the best way to survive - get access again to the western soldiers!
The western legions were always of better quality than the Syrian troops. Time and again we hear of the supposed higher quality of the gallic infantryman when compared to the Syrian troops. The posssibility of the Roman empire to move legions around was one of its big strengths.

They still existed at that time, Procopius tells us. How could the empire link up with them then - via the Alps from reconquered Italy ?

I can't see any possibilty of how the Romans would have been able to 'crush Islam' after winning the battle of Yarmuk. They would have retained Syria (at that moment) but they still would have lost Egypt and the other African provinces. But the Arabs were also busy crushing Persia, which the Romans would hardly have been able (or willing) to stop. My guess is that even if the Romans would have been able to hold on to all eastern territories (which I doubt they could), the Arabs would have replaced the persians as enemies. Islam would never have been 'stopped' by the Romans.

But Egypt fell after Syria. The former was more difficult to conquer than the latter.
Depending on how great a victory the Byzantines could have achieved at Yurmuk, the Arabs may have been rendered too weak to conquer all of Persia, IMO.

Too much traditionalism still remained for the Romans to have tried to "crush" a religious system in another culture. While they held Christianity to be the state religion at that time, they would probably still have let others keep their own. But we're talking late 7th early 8th Cent AD here, aren't we?

Not if Islam was seen as a heresy which it probably was given a shared belief in Christ (to a point), the Old Testament, etc... But I don’t think Killaman meant a conscious, concerted effort to eliminate it. Rather it would have imploded on its own by losing credibility if the Arabs were massacred at Yurmak, for example. (Just think, if Constantine was defeated at the Milvian Bridge would Christianity have spread as fast as it did in the fourth century ?)

~Theo

[Gluteus Maximus]

Maybe if Syria and Egypt had been governed like the other provinces and not simply exploited as a resource, things would have been different. The wrangle over monophysitism further angered the populace in Egypt. Without these conditions, the Arabs would have at least found these provinces more loyal to Constantinople, and a lot harder to conquer and convert.

Reducing Ostrogothic Italy to vassalage / protectorate status rather than outright conquest would have been a good move IMHO. After all, the ruling Ostrogoth were fast converting to Roman ways and speaking Latin, and 'real' Romans sympathetic to Imperial interests still abounded. This would also have ensured an Italy strong enough to withstand the Lombard invasion, thus preventing the final demise of Roman material culture in the West.

[nikolaos]

When you look at post conquest events you see that the majority of the bureaucratic apparatus of the Empire was absorbed by the Porte, and Greeks remain in positions of influence and power, including ministers, diplomats, and generals. There wasn't even forcible conversion of Christians.

So, you could say the Byzantine Empire did survive after a hostile takeover removed a broken down board of directors

Cole

[Gluteus Maximus]

...which I believe is exactly how the Ottomans viewed the situation. If our hindsight view can rename an Empire Byzantine - even though its rulers and inhabitants never used the term and would be puzzled by the nomenclature - then why shouldn't we accept Mehmet II's view that he was simply taking on the administration of an empire, rather than destroying it?

[PMBardunias]

Yet, I must disagree with the bit on conversion to Islam. If East Rome converted, it is more likely that it would have been swept up under the tide of expansionism. Perhaps it could have become a sort of vassal or tributary state to the Caliphate.

Ah, but the beauty of converting to Islam is that all you need do it find some long lost scion of Fatima or some other line of Mohammed and marry her off to your emporer. Caliph Nikephoros has a nice ring to it. My guess is that if the Byzantines converted early all of Europe would have fallen as well and the focus of islam would have moved to Constantinople. Bagdad afterall is not where Islam originated, but a chosen capitol.

I'm no scholar on this topic, but it seems that Islam was rapidly changed by its absorption of Sassanian Persia. I wonder what effect the Byzantines would have had.

Of course the real winners then are the native Americans, who are now "discovered" by small groups of traders and fishermen instead of an expedition fresh from slaying heathens with a darker skin tone in Iberia.

[Ordovices]

Did not the Plague of Justinian (boubonic) and the loss of 25 million people derail Justian's program of reuniting the Roman world ?

[Robert Vermaat]

Quite so. But even after that and the rise of Islam, the Empire managed to get back on its feet (despite a myriad of rebellions), reform the military, defeat both Russians and Bulgars, reconquer Anatolia and push into Syria. The Empire really had a chance at becoming a great empire again during the early 10th century. Italy was still held on to, plans were made to reconquer Sicily and Palestine.

But then there was a period of 'mismanaged peace', as Treadgold puts it, in which the military was neglected. And then there was the Seljuq Turks, made possible by envy and rebellion, and the whole thing came down like a house of cards after Manzikirt in 1072.

[S SEVERUS]

Indeed, neglecting the theme armies and not having a reliable central field army was I think one of the reasons of the decline.
The Comnenoi had to relay on a mercenary army that in the end was to costly to maintain when they failed to reconquer Anatolia and Armenia (a good source for soldiers). After that it was impossible tot revive the old empire. By losing Anatolia to the Turks the empire had lost it's backbone.

[marka]

yes stop fighting civil wars
but economically they were weak too.

to survive they needed to one thing above all conquer right to the other end of the 'silk road'.

[marka]

they should have shown more religious tolerance as well.

[Peter Raftos]

To whom?

[marka]

To whom?

all the christian churches who disagreed with them......the copts in egypt,the syriac? orthodox church,the armenian as well as mainstream catholicism.
and the jews as well.