Ummayad-Abbasid Cold War?

The question I'm asking is whether it is possible for the Abbasid revolution to stall once they took Mesopotamia, leading to a standoff between the Umayyads and Abbasids, one potentially lasting for decades or even centuries. I know little about this place and time in history, but from what I've read I have gathered that the Abbasid revolution was both very well prepared and had the support of pretty much everyone outside of the Syrian Arabs, so does that make Abbasid victory inevitable? Is it necessary that the Persians and Shia prop up an Alid rather than an Abbasid for this scenario to come to fruition?

Should the Ummayads hold on, how long until they can't sustain their momentum? Their state seems to have been running on loot, if the Romans and Franks hold and the east is closed off to them, do they head towards Nubia and Axum (why didn't they IOTL?) or do they simply implode? Is a reform or a coup by a more moderste clan the likelier option or do they get mopped up by whomever holds Persia? Thank you in advance for any answers.
 
The question I'm asking is whether it is possible for the Abbasid revolution to stall once they took Mesopotamia, leading to a standoff between the Umayyads and Abbasids, one potentially lasting for decades or even centuries. I know little about this place and time in history, but from what I've read I have gathered that the Abbasid revolution was both very well prepared and had the support of pretty much everyone outside of the Syrian Arabs, so does that make Abbasid victory inevitable? Is it necessary that the Persians and Shia prop up an Alid rather than an Abbasid for this scenario to come to fruition?

Should the Ummayads hold on, how long until they can't sustain their momentum? Their state seems to have been running on loot, if the Romans and Franks hold and the east is closed off to them, do they head towards Nubia and Axum (why didn't they IOTL?) or do they simply implode? Is a reform or a coup by a more moderste clan the likelier option or do they get mopped up by whomever holds Persia? Thank you in advance for any answers.
For that you would need ummayds to hold Egypt and split levant and Arabia proper,(the two mosque working as a Casablanca/neutral zone in Hajj times)

Or ummayds are even more successful in Europe , so they become a more 'european' entity vs the more Arab Abbasid
 
For that you would need ummayds to hold Egypt and split levant and Arabia proper,(the two mosque working as a Casablanca/neutral zone in Hajj times)

Or ummayds are even more successful in Europe , so they become a more 'european' entity vs the more Arab Abbasid
Wasn't their inflexibility and Arabs uber alles memtality a large reason for their impopularity? Becoming more European sounds unlikely.
 
While the term "cold war" is much older than most people think, I could see an Umayyad-Abbasid standoff result in it being coined even earlier.
 
Wasn't their inflexibility and Arabs uber alles memtality a large reason for their impopularity? Becoming more European sounds unlikely.
Technically was that they didn't expanded Islam as fast the Abbas future backers considered and once the amazigh proved ummayds model was a mess, they smelled blood in the water, I say as you need to give the ummayds a bigger powerbase that just Andalus to make them a threat too
 
Technically was that they didn't expanded Islam as fast the Abbas future backers considered and once the amazigh proved ummayds model was a mess, they smelled blood in the water, I say as you need to give the ummayds a bigger powerbase that just Andalus to make them a threat too
So would a heavier settlement of Egypt by (pro-Ummayad) Arabs be enough?
 
Is it possible to see something similar to a division of the pre manzikert 11th century but earlier ? Like with Rome , the uymaed caliphate having a similar range as the Fatimid one and the Abbasid as the Seljuk empire ?
 
Top