Jundist is from Jund, a term come settlement but also means unit as military unit and supporter/backers, in few words, the Jundist means the backbone of bureaucrats, military men/explorer/adventurer who were the backbone of the Ummayd power, you could use Courtier/peerage of the ummayds in a way. Several were also native syrians who convert and that have an axe to grind against the romans/ERE,
WI: Second Arab Siege of Constantinople (717-718) succeeds
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Looking back, I’ll admit I may have been pushing idea of the Ummayads “romanizing” a little hard; even so, I feel like we haven’t given the prospect of what the Caliphate’s internal development looks like in this scenario. Can a more successful regime do a better job of balancing the interests of arabs, malawi, and dhimmi; would something like an Abbasid Revolution be more or less likely TTL?
Actually, let's just start with that last question -- would the Ummayads in this scenario be more or less likely to suffer instability, similar to the Third Fitna or Abbasid Revolution, in the half century or so following the PoD?
Actually, let's just start with that last question -- would the Ummayads in this scenario be more or less likely to suffer instability, similar to the Third Fitna or Abbasid Revolution, in the half century or so following the PoD?
Wouldn't be more Greek?(yes I know but for romanization would need Italy and a romance language
), still the influence would be big as the translation movement already stated and getting Constantinople would increase the Grecco Roman documents massively. Is up how ummayd handled it That ball is on the ummayd court but they could mishandled it or the extra needs of manpower and to reduce tension they would change politics could provoke their subjects or no,those are the butterflies
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Wouldn't be more Greek?(yes I know but for romanization would need Italy and a romance language
True.
As of 718, the Caliph was Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, but he had been appointed with his heir already chosen, that being Yazid II; now Yazid (a) died fairly young, in his early 30's, and (b) had apparently wanted to appoint his son, Al-Walid, but the latter was still young, so he agreed to appoint his brother Hisham as heir, and Walid as his heir's heir. This, apparently, was the source of some problems, because Hisham subsequently tried to get Walid removed as his heir, but was unsuccessful; then, when Walid II became caliph, these machinations saw resentment with his reign causing issues, resulting in his fall from power only a few months into his reign. And it's this that would serve as the context for the outbreak of the Third Fitna.
So, this raises a question -- what if Yazid II had lived just a decade or so longer? That way, his son and preferred heir would be in his 20's, and can come to power without his predecessor trying to undermine him. If you combine this with the caliphate likely being in better financial shape (due to more loot from the ERE), you've basically averted the context for a mass rebellion (even if the caliph himself still likes alcohol, poetry, and sex).
A massive butterfly ,as you also mentioned,he has more time to raise his heir,more if his tuberculosis doesn't kill him at once but gradually weak him, that's give him a shoot to reduce tensions
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Just to flesh this out then, let's say TTL's Walid II (assuming he can avoid being overthrown or assassinated) gets to live a long-ish life of about 60 years, giving him a reign from circa 730 to 770. What can we infer about what his reign is like at ground level, compared to the OTL reign of al-Mansur? Obviously, the capital remains in Damascus, but what else can we infer?
Last edited:
You Mean Yazid II? as Hisham was in Andalus,
Regardless the changes already butterfly away the berber revolt , as the conquest of the ERE might demands more manpower among berbers and might change the clusterfuck of the double tax that Hisham instituted(reverting Umar 2 policies), as Yazid 2 will not fuck it up that badly
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Sorry, Walid II -- the son of Yazid II, who OTL ruled for a little over a year (743-44); TTL, his father Yazid lives longer (dying in 730 instead of 724), allowing him to succeed directly.You Mean Yazid II? as Hisham was in Andalus,
Yeah both factors and Constantinople means Berber Revolt is fully butterflied away, the main tension would be if the tension among those who consider the Ummayds usurpers(some proto-shias and proto-khajarites) but without the failures of Constantinople and Berber revolt, the regime is very solid so those would just minor background noise.
Also post Constantinople, The Balkans and Sicily were next, to hunt whatever ERE remained, there's also Al-Andalus, which was expanding north on his own and without the ERE, if they decided to not goes against the remainder romanoi, they could push into Europe more now
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Just to cover our bases, there were also the Zayd Revolts of 740-43, which are also less likely TTL.
We could easily combine this PoD with the arabs winning the Battle of Toulouse in 721; though I think when that scenario is discussed by itself, it's generally agreed that the muslims wouldn't necessarily push that much further into Europe, though they could probably take Aquitaine. As to the Balkans, I expect that will mostly depend on how things develop with the Bulgarians (and, to a lesser extent, the Slavs in the Pindus Mountains).
At this point, Christendom is pretty much the Frankish Kingdom and Italy (split between the Lombards and the Byzantine remnants).
And england and Ireland but those two very weak for power protection
Ie the shias, but with the victories of the ummayds,they look more formidable that ever so yeah butterflied away
That was the whole point of the expedition, punish the duke Odo for his double crossing, regardless,the empowered ummayds might ask Andalus to going north ,to fully subdued the mountain kingdoms and the whole peninsula would be Muslim
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
And split into petty kingdoms besides...
I don't imagine the Franks will be holding Marseille either long term either, since the Ummayads probably want at least one less Christian power capable of threatening them on the sea,
That's a great point and ummayd long term goal making the Mediterranean a Muslim lake, and with Sicily..that also Open up Italy
I think the conquest of Constantinople could prevent the fall of the Umayyads.
OTL, the failure of Constantinople led to the loss of 100,000 men and most of the Umayyad fleet. As well as a loss of prestige/legitimacy, due to losing the mandate of heaven due to their military failures.
Umar II then went on a more defensive approach. Scared the Byzantines would attack Syria itself, withdrawing troops from Anatolia and considering abandoning Sindh and Andalus entirely to improve defences of the Caliphal centre.
After his death, his successors undid this, and pushed every frontier simultaneously. Despite many of them bringing in no wealth and were very difficult campaigns, such as Khazaria, Central Asia, Afghanistan. And rich frontiers like India being given only 15,000 men....
In Hisham's reign there were significant loses on almost every frontier: the Khazars took Ardabil the Azerbaijani capital, the Turgesh Turks defeated the Muslims on day of thirst and day of the defile Battle of Poitiers was lost, Byzantines defeated the Muslims at Akroinon and All of Gujarat, Punjab and even Sindh was lost etc. Overall this resulting in at least 106,000 troops dying just 2 decades after failure at Constaninople. (End of the Jihad state table 4)
All these losses resulted in the Syrian army, the backbone of the Umayyads being sent to reinforce the provinces. This scattered them throughout the Caliphate, making Syria vulnerable. It also increased provincial tensions who didn't like the Syrian troops.
Worst of all was the Great Berber Revolt, wherein almost the entire Maghreb was lost and tens of thousands of Syrian troops died.
By Hisham's death, the Syrians were too weak to continue their forced hegemony over the Caliphate. Meanwhile, Walid ii pivoted too much towards the Jazirans, resulting in the Syrians assassinating him. Leading to an Umayyad civil war in which Marwan ii and the Jazirans won, afterwhich the Syrians no longer played an important role.
But during the Umayyad civil war, the rest of the Caliphate revolted. Marwan spent the rest of his reign desperately putting down Alid and Kharijite revolts (some anti Marwan Umayyad princes even joined forces with the Kharijites and acknowledged a Kharijite, non Qurayshi Caliph). Until the Abbasids reared their head at the end. Though the Abbasids were almost defeated at the Battle of the Zab....
ITTL, 100,000 troops aren't lost, neither is the costly Umayyad navy. Instead immense wealth is gained via the conquest of the imperial capital of the Romans.
Beyond that, Umayyad prestige and legitimacy would skyrocket. Since there are Hadeeth about the conquest of Constantinople which they could use as propaganda.
Umar II in particular would receive even greater acclaim than OTL [only Umayyad not totally despised by Shi'ites or Khawarij]. With the populace seeing his personal piety as having pleased God, thereby allowing the successful conquest of Constantinople.
(Perhaps he could even marrying into the Alids....)
Ideally this would prevent his assassination. Perhaps allowing him to rule over 20 years longer into his 60s (740s) this alone would prevent the Abbasid revolution, due to his popularity and favourable policies towards the non-Arab converts.
Even despite the victory at Constaninople, Ideally Umar II would still end the policy of expansion on every frontier simultaneously.
Beyond that, Umar ii's comparative popularity among the Shi'ites and Khawarij should allow him to remilitarise the 100,000 or so Iraqis who Hajjaj demilitarised in 701 in wake of the revolt of the Ibn al Ashath. Integrating the Iraqis, making the Umayyad powerbase more broad based. Instead of being Syrian supremacist to the exclusion of the Iraqis.
.
Most importantly trying to integrate the Berbers far more effectively, thereby reducing manpower problems as hundreds of thousands of Berbers are included in the army. (OTL 300,000 may have partaken in the great Berber revolt)
As OTL, Umar would remove the Jizya from the Berber Muslims. But going even further by perhaps appointing some Berber governors of Maghreb Aqsa and Awsat (Morocco and Algeria) and perhaps even Ifriqiyah and Andalus. Making them much less hostile to the Umayyad regime.
Similarly sending scholars and theologians to curtail the spread of anti Umayyad Kharijite ideology among the Berbers.
Providing important manpower for the invasion of Italy and western Mediterranean navies.
The capital wouldn't be moved to Constaninople. At least for quite a few decades.
The main reason for this is that Iraq is the Bankroller of the Caliphate, producing around a fifth of total revenues and 4x more than Egypt. The conquest of Constantinople wouldn't change that too drastically.
But Constaninople is too distant from Iraq to control it effectively. And the move would encourage the anti Umayyad Iraqis to revolt. Cutting off the whole east from the Caliphate.
Instead, the capital could be moved to Antioch, which can use its Mediterranean navy to better control Constaninople. But also being in Syria, the home of the Umayyad armies, able to control Iraq and the east.
So Constaninople would be governed by Maslama ibn AbdalMalik, leader of the 2nd siege and Umar ii's cousin till his death in 738.
The most immediate concern for the Caliphate is to strengthen its control over Anatolia, allowing land connection to Constaninople.
The Anatolian plateau is difficult to control, and is a difficult climate for the Arabs. On the otherhand, the coastal regions are much more familiar climates to the Arabs, which is one of the reasons why Cilicia was able to be settled so effectively by the Arabs.
So the centres of Umayyad control would be on the coast:
Potentially pastoralist Arab nomads, could be settled in the steppes of central Anatolia to increase arabisation and Umayyad control. Though Anatolia's different climate would require them to use cold tolerant Bactrians or Hybrid camels instead of dromedaries. So this might not be effective....
Much of the flat regions of Thrace near Constaninople would fall relatively easily. Taking a defensive approach against the Bulgarians by defending the passes of the Hameaus/Balkan mountains.
While Thessaloniki and Athens would be vulnerable to Umayyad Aegean fleets. But beyond the coast and plains, the Arabs would have little to no control.
In a TL with Constaninople they should be able to achieve far more....)
Leaving the Byzantine remnants in Italy. But they only control Ravenna, Rome, Calabria, Apulia and Sicily. With the rest being in the hands of the Lombards.
The first few years of the Byzantines in Italy would probably be incredibly divided with various candidates for emperor all fighting one another for the small resources remaining. In which some candidates would make pacts and alkiances with the Lombards.
Since Liutprand is the strongest force in the peninsula, I see his chosen Byzantine candidate as winning with his support. Unifying all Italy under a Lombard-Byzantine alliance.
The shift of the Byzantines to Italy would make Iberia and Maghreb far more strategically important to the Umayyads. So unlike OTL, they wouldn't be neglected, anarchic backwaters.
Instead, Umayyad princes themselves would move to the Maghreb and Andalus to take charge of the new theatre of the Byzantine wars. Along with tens of thousands more troops.
These Umayyad princes would become the governors, ending the chaos of Andalus, where governors were constantly being switched. Bringing stability to the province.
While their personal leading of campaigns side-by-side the Berbers should develop a sort of esprit de corps with them. Making the Berbers more loyal to the Umayyad house, instead of seeing them as distant and foreign occupiers.
The most important thing is to develop the Umayyad navy of the western Mediterranean, to challenge the Byzantines.
Ifriqiyah already had sizeable fleets. Beginning its annual attacks on Sardinia, Sicily or Balearics from 704 onwards.
But the central and western Maghreb (Algeria and Morocco) as well as Iberia didn't have a navy at all (Tangier only had ferrying ships, not warships). While the eastern Mediterranean has largely been pacified with the conquest of Constaninople. Allowing much of the Levantine and Egyptian fleets to be shifted westwards.
Founding Bejaia, Algiers, Oran, Rabat, Casablanca as new naval bases. In the process increasing the development and integration/consolidation of the western Maghreb. Helping to prevent revolts.
While in Iberia, revitalising all ports of the peninsula: Heulva, Cadiz, Malaga, Cartegana, Valencia, Tortosa, Barcelona and Narbonne. And to a much lesser extent the Atlantic ports too: Lisbon, Coimbra, Porto, Coruña, Gijon, Santander and Bilbao. These naval bases on the Asturias coast, would be very difficult for the Asturians to attempt to conquer, due to their lack of a navy. Largely hemming them in the mountains, preventing the reoconquista.
This Atlantic navy would be able to raid western France. Making the invasion of Aquitaine much more successful than OTL, taking Bordeaux and going up the Garronne to assist in the 721 siege of Toulouse.
(Perhaps allying with anti Frankish Basques in the process, for the added manpower....???)
Then up the Loire to at least Angers and perhaps Orleans? Coming dangerously close to Paris....
Allying with the Bretons and even Saxons against the Franks.
While from Constaninople supporting the Avars to attack the Franks from the east, as well as attack the Bulgars.
A large navy at Narbonne better control Septimania and push to Marseille and the Provence coast. Perhaps as far as Genoa... It would also allow for raids up the Rhone in tandem with the land forces for much more effective campaigning.
But most of this naval expansion would be for the purpose of attacking the Byzantines of Italy.
Back in 707, Musa ibn Nusayr defeated the Byzantines governors of Balearics, exacting a tribute out of the islands.
Then in 708, he seems to have conquered most of Sardinia in 708. Much of it was lost a few years later, but Cagliari was in Muslim hands until 732, since Luitprand negotiated with Muslims of Sardinia to buy Saint Augustine's bones. ('Sea of the Caliphs' pg 202).
Raids were sent against Sicily also. Between 704 and 740 there were at least 11 raids on the island. In 740 tribute was exacted from Syracuse but the Berber revolt forced them to leave before anything permanent could be achieved.
So in 719 and 720 the new ports and navies of the Maghreb and Andalus would strengthen their holds on the Balearics and Sardinia, directly controlling them and settling a few thousand Muslims.
As well as taking Malta, Pantelleria and perhaps the Aegadian and Aeolian islands too. In preparation of an invasion of Sicily.
At the beginning of 721's campaigning season, landing at Mazara of the Island, with at least 25,000 men (Aghlabids had less than 10k). But the difficult topography would make conquest slow.
From Mazara, marching on Palermo, besieging it for about a year, until it falls in 722. Then moving on Enna, a centrally located fortress in 723, falling after a few months towards the end of the year. Before in 724 moving on Syracuse. Falling after almost 2 years siege in early 726.
Only Messina would remain, falling in late 727. By 728, after 7 years, the entire island would've fallen.
The loss of the wealth and resources of Sicily would be a major blow to the ever dwindling Byzantines. And would open up the mainland to attack.
Meanwhile, by this time, the entire Aegean would've been conquered. As well as all Aquitaine and the Rhone valley up to Lyon.
From there, being the invasion of the mainland. The Aegean navies establishing coastal bases in along the Dalmatian coast, to assist the Sicilian navies in invading the Adriatic coast (perhaps enticing some Slavs to convert to join in on the lucrative raids...). Apulia being quite flat, making it not that difficult to conquer.
In contrast Calabria is very mountainous, so Muslim control would only be over a few fortified coastal cities. The main push would be towards Naples.
Taking Salerno after a few months siege in 733. Then moving on Naples the following year, falling after a year long siege in late 735. Leaving the road to Rome open.
Meanwhile in France, the much larger Muslim forces aided by the Mediterranean and Atlantic navies would win a decisive victory against Charles Martel in 732 Poitiers, sending him fleeing to Austrasia.
In 734 establishing Orleans as their northern base of operations, and beginning forays deep into Neustria. Particularly nearby Paris...
In 739, the Siege of Rome would begin falling a year later in 740. And with it the Roman empire.
Liutprand would retreat to his Capital Pavia, to protect the Po valley from further Muslim incursions and Po river raids.
But after his death in 744 and the weaker rule of Hildeprand and Ratchis, much of the Po valley would fall.
Meanwhile, in France, Paris would fall in 738. Pushing into Austrasia in 739. Besieging it's capital, Metz in 740. With the siege finishing shortly after the death of Charles Martel in 741.
So by the massive naval build up in the western Mediterranean, more effective integration and recruitment of the Berbers, converting unrewarding active frontiers to defensive and the popular Umar II ruling an extra 20 years, Europe would fall.
In 744, at the age of 63, Umar II would pass away, being the Caliph who not only conquered Constaninople, but Rome too.
As to whom his successor would be is unknown. Since Yazid ibn Abdulmalik, Hisham and Maslama had already passed. Some minor sons of Abdulmalik still live, so they could be chosen.
Or perhaps Umar's son himself.
Throughout these decades of campaigning, the Berbers would've heavily integrated themselves into the Umayyads regime. And would make up the majority of the navy and land army of all these western conquests.
So this new Caliph couldn't try to change Umar ii's entrenched policies even if he tried.
Similarly, the Iraqis would be remilitarised and engaging in some of the Westerly campaigns, being far more integrated also. The defensive approach on the Transoxianan campaign would mean the Khurasanis aren't devastated by the Turgesh. So they are happier with the regime.
Perhaps Jafar asSadiq could be a chief judge of Umar II, since he taught both Malik and Abu Hanifa. This would appease the Alids too....
By that Umar II would've created a much more broadly based regime, replacing the previous Syrian supremacist model.
This would allow the Umayyad Caliphate to continue, as long as it remains broadly based.
OTL, the failure of Constantinople led to the loss of 100,000 men and most of the Umayyad fleet. As well as a loss of prestige/legitimacy, due to losing the mandate of heaven due to their military failures.
Umar II then went on a more defensive approach. Scared the Byzantines would attack Syria itself, withdrawing troops from Anatolia and considering abandoning Sindh and Andalus entirely to improve defences of the Caliphal centre.
After his death, his successors undid this, and pushed every frontier simultaneously. Despite many of them bringing in no wealth and were very difficult campaigns, such as Khazaria, Central Asia, Afghanistan. And rich frontiers like India being given only 15,000 men....
In Hisham's reign there were significant loses on almost every frontier: the Khazars took Ardabil the Azerbaijani capital, the Turgesh Turks defeated the Muslims on day of thirst and day of the defile Battle of Poitiers was lost, Byzantines defeated the Muslims at Akroinon and All of Gujarat, Punjab and even Sindh was lost etc. Overall this resulting in at least 106,000 troops dying just 2 decades after failure at Constaninople. (End of the Jihad state table 4)
All these losses resulted in the Syrian army, the backbone of the Umayyads being sent to reinforce the provinces. This scattered them throughout the Caliphate, making Syria vulnerable. It also increased provincial tensions who didn't like the Syrian troops.
Worst of all was the Great Berber Revolt, wherein almost the entire Maghreb was lost and tens of thousands of Syrian troops died.
By Hisham's death, the Syrians were too weak to continue their forced hegemony over the Caliphate. Meanwhile, Walid ii pivoted too much towards the Jazirans, resulting in the Syrians assassinating him. Leading to an Umayyad civil war in which Marwan ii and the Jazirans won, afterwhich the Syrians no longer played an important role.
But during the Umayyad civil war, the rest of the Caliphate revolted. Marwan spent the rest of his reign desperately putting down Alid and Kharijite revolts (some anti Marwan Umayyad princes even joined forces with the Kharijites and acknowledged a Kharijite, non Qurayshi Caliph). Until the Abbasids reared their head at the end. Though the Abbasids were almost defeated at the Battle of the Zab....
ITTL, 100,000 troops aren't lost, neither is the costly Umayyad navy. Instead immense wealth is gained via the conquest of the imperial capital of the Romans.
Beyond that, Umayyad prestige and legitimacy would skyrocket. Since there are Hadeeth about the conquest of Constantinople which they could use as propaganda.
Umar II in particular would receive even greater acclaim than OTL [only Umayyad not totally despised by Shi'ites or Khawarij]. With the populace seeing his personal piety as having pleased God, thereby allowing the successful conquest of Constantinople.
(Perhaps he could even marrying into the Alids....)
Ideally this would prevent his assassination. Perhaps allowing him to rule over 20 years longer into his 60s (740s) this alone would prevent the Abbasid revolution, due to his popularity and favourable policies towards the non-Arab converts.
Consolidating Anatolia
Even despite the victory at Constaninople, Ideally Umar II would still end the policy of expansion on every frontier simultaneously.
- Particularly making the Caucasian frontier defensive. Moving the garrison to Derbent and Tbilisi/Darial instead of distant Ardabil. No longer attempting to campaign into the Khazar steppes.
- Similar for Transoxiana. Consolidating control over easier to control Chaghaniyan/Tukharistan and Khwarezm. But not attempting to cross the Oxus into Soghdia or Ferghana, where the local princes called upon the Turgesh or Chinese to help them against the Arabs.
- Completely stopping all campaigns Zabulistan and Kabul, since little is gained.
Beyond that, Umar ii's comparative popularity among the Shi'ites and Khawarij should allow him to remilitarise the 100,000 or so Iraqis who Hajjaj demilitarised in 701 in wake of the revolt of the Ibn al Ashath. Integrating the Iraqis, making the Umayyad powerbase more broad based. Instead of being Syrian supremacist to the exclusion of the Iraqis.
.
Most importantly trying to integrate the Berbers far more effectively, thereby reducing manpower problems as hundreds of thousands of Berbers are included in the army. (OTL 300,000 may have partaken in the great Berber revolt)
As OTL, Umar would remove the Jizya from the Berber Muslims. But going even further by perhaps appointing some Berber governors of Maghreb Aqsa and Awsat (Morocco and Algeria) and perhaps even Ifriqiyah and Andalus. Making them much less hostile to the Umayyad regime.
Similarly sending scholars and theologians to curtail the spread of anti Umayyad Kharijite ideology among the Berbers.
Providing important manpower for the invasion of Italy and western Mediterranean navies.
The capital wouldn't be moved to Constaninople. At least for quite a few decades.
The main reason for this is that Iraq is the Bankroller of the Caliphate, producing around a fifth of total revenues and 4x more than Egypt. The conquest of Constantinople wouldn't change that too drastically.
But Constaninople is too distant from Iraq to control it effectively. And the move would encourage the anti Umayyad Iraqis to revolt. Cutting off the whole east from the Caliphate.
Instead, the capital could be moved to Antioch, which can use its Mediterranean navy to better control Constaninople. But also being in Syria, the home of the Umayyad armies, able to control Iraq and the east.
So Constaninople would be governed by Maslama ibn AbdalMalik, leader of the 2nd siege and Umar ii's cousin till his death in 738.
The most immediate concern for the Caliphate is to strengthen its control over Anatolia, allowing land connection to Constaninople.
The Anatolian plateau is difficult to control, and is a difficult climate for the Arabs. On the otherhand, the coastal regions are much more familiar climates to the Arabs, which is one of the reasons why Cilicia was able to be settled so effectively by the Arabs.
So the centres of Umayyad control would be on the coast:
- Control of Silfke allows control of the Servatul pass, which allows control of Karaman/Iconium - a central location on the Plateau.
- While the Antalya and the Pamphylian valley would serve as a second Cilicia and major centre of Arab settlement to control Phrygia.
- And the wealthy west Anatolian/Lydian coastal river valleys and Bithynian/Mysian coast would similarly be major sites of Arab settlement.
Potentially pastoralist Arab nomads, could be settled in the steppes of central Anatolia to increase arabisation and Umayyad control. Though Anatolia's different climate would require them to use cold tolerant Bactrians or Hybrid camels instead of dromedaries. So this might not be effective....
Much of the flat regions of Thrace near Constaninople would fall relatively easily. Taking a defensive approach against the Bulgarians by defending the passes of the Hameaus/Balkan mountains.
While Thessaloniki and Athens would be vulnerable to Umayyad Aegean fleets. But beyond the coast and plains, the Arabs would have little to no control.
Conquest of Italy
(OTL, the Muslims managed to reach Tours and Sens. Take Balearics and Sardinia and besiege Syracuse. All Without Constaninople.In a TL with Constaninople they should be able to achieve far more....)
Leaving the Byzantine remnants in Italy. But they only control Ravenna, Rome, Calabria, Apulia and Sicily. With the rest being in the hands of the Lombards.
The first few years of the Byzantines in Italy would probably be incredibly divided with various candidates for emperor all fighting one another for the small resources remaining. In which some candidates would make pacts and alkiances with the Lombards.
Since Liutprand is the strongest force in the peninsula, I see his chosen Byzantine candidate as winning with his support. Unifying all Italy under a Lombard-Byzantine alliance.
The shift of the Byzantines to Italy would make Iberia and Maghreb far more strategically important to the Umayyads. So unlike OTL, they wouldn't be neglected, anarchic backwaters.
Instead, Umayyad princes themselves would move to the Maghreb and Andalus to take charge of the new theatre of the Byzantine wars. Along with tens of thousands more troops.
These Umayyad princes would become the governors, ending the chaos of Andalus, where governors were constantly being switched. Bringing stability to the province.
While their personal leading of campaigns side-by-side the Berbers should develop a sort of esprit de corps with them. Making the Berbers more loyal to the Umayyad house, instead of seeing them as distant and foreign occupiers.
The most important thing is to develop the Umayyad navy of the western Mediterranean, to challenge the Byzantines.
Ifriqiyah already had sizeable fleets. Beginning its annual attacks on Sardinia, Sicily or Balearics from 704 onwards.
But the central and western Maghreb (Algeria and Morocco) as well as Iberia didn't have a navy at all (Tangier only had ferrying ships, not warships). While the eastern Mediterranean has largely been pacified with the conquest of Constaninople. Allowing much of the Levantine and Egyptian fleets to be shifted westwards.
Founding Bejaia, Algiers, Oran, Rabat, Casablanca as new naval bases. In the process increasing the development and integration/consolidation of the western Maghreb. Helping to prevent revolts.
While in Iberia, revitalising all ports of the peninsula: Heulva, Cadiz, Malaga, Cartegana, Valencia, Tortosa, Barcelona and Narbonne. And to a much lesser extent the Atlantic ports too: Lisbon, Coimbra, Porto, Coruña, Gijon, Santander and Bilbao. These naval bases on the Asturias coast, would be very difficult for the Asturians to attempt to conquer, due to their lack of a navy. Largely hemming them in the mountains, preventing the reoconquista.
This Atlantic navy would be able to raid western France. Making the invasion of Aquitaine much more successful than OTL, taking Bordeaux and going up the Garronne to assist in the 721 siege of Toulouse.
(Perhaps allying with anti Frankish Basques in the process, for the added manpower....???)
Then up the Loire to at least Angers and perhaps Orleans? Coming dangerously close to Paris....
Allying with the Bretons and even Saxons against the Franks.
While from Constaninople supporting the Avars to attack the Franks from the east, as well as attack the Bulgars.
A large navy at Narbonne better control Septimania and push to Marseille and the Provence coast. Perhaps as far as Genoa... It would also allow for raids up the Rhone in tandem with the land forces for much more effective campaigning.
But most of this naval expansion would be for the purpose of attacking the Byzantines of Italy.
Back in 707, Musa ibn Nusayr defeated the Byzantines governors of Balearics, exacting a tribute out of the islands.
Then in 708, he seems to have conquered most of Sardinia in 708. Much of it was lost a few years later, but Cagliari was in Muslim hands until 732, since Luitprand negotiated with Muslims of Sardinia to buy Saint Augustine's bones. ('Sea of the Caliphs' pg 202).
Raids were sent against Sicily also. Between 704 and 740 there were at least 11 raids on the island. In 740 tribute was exacted from Syracuse but the Berber revolt forced them to leave before anything permanent could be achieved.
So in 719 and 720 the new ports and navies of the Maghreb and Andalus would strengthen their holds on the Balearics and Sardinia, directly controlling them and settling a few thousand Muslims.
As well as taking Malta, Pantelleria and perhaps the Aegadian and Aeolian islands too. In preparation of an invasion of Sicily.
At the beginning of 721's campaigning season, landing at Mazara of the Island, with at least 25,000 men (Aghlabids had less than 10k). But the difficult topography would make conquest slow.
From Mazara, marching on Palermo, besieging it for about a year, until it falls in 722. Then moving on Enna, a centrally located fortress in 723, falling after a few months towards the end of the year. Before in 724 moving on Syracuse. Falling after almost 2 years siege in early 726.
Only Messina would remain, falling in late 727. By 728, after 7 years, the entire island would've fallen.
The loss of the wealth and resources of Sicily would be a major blow to the ever dwindling Byzantines. And would open up the mainland to attack.
Meanwhile, by this time, the entire Aegean would've been conquered. As well as all Aquitaine and the Rhone valley up to Lyon.
From there, being the invasion of the mainland. The Aegean navies establishing coastal bases in along the Dalmatian coast, to assist the Sicilian navies in invading the Adriatic coast (perhaps enticing some Slavs to convert to join in on the lucrative raids...). Apulia being quite flat, making it not that difficult to conquer.
In contrast Calabria is very mountainous, so Muslim control would only be over a few fortified coastal cities. The main push would be towards Naples.
Taking Salerno after a few months siege in 733. Then moving on Naples the following year, falling after a year long siege in late 735. Leaving the road to Rome open.
Meanwhile in France, the much larger Muslim forces aided by the Mediterranean and Atlantic navies would win a decisive victory against Charles Martel in 732 Poitiers, sending him fleeing to Austrasia.
In 734 establishing Orleans as their northern base of operations, and beginning forays deep into Neustria. Particularly nearby Paris...
In 739, the Siege of Rome would begin falling a year later in 740. And with it the Roman empire.
Liutprand would retreat to his Capital Pavia, to protect the Po valley from further Muslim incursions and Po river raids.
But after his death in 744 and the weaker rule of Hildeprand and Ratchis, much of the Po valley would fall.
Meanwhile, in France, Paris would fall in 738. Pushing into Austrasia in 739. Besieging it's capital, Metz in 740. With the siege finishing shortly after the death of Charles Martel in 741.
So by the massive naval build up in the western Mediterranean, more effective integration and recruitment of the Berbers, converting unrewarding active frontiers to defensive and the popular Umar II ruling an extra 20 years, Europe would fall.
In 744, at the age of 63, Umar II would pass away, being the Caliph who not only conquered Constaninople, but Rome too.
As to whom his successor would be is unknown. Since Yazid ibn Abdulmalik, Hisham and Maslama had already passed. Some minor sons of Abdulmalik still live, so they could be chosen.
Or perhaps Umar's son himself.
Throughout these decades of campaigning, the Berbers would've heavily integrated themselves into the Umayyads regime. And would make up the majority of the navy and land army of all these western conquests.
So this new Caliph couldn't try to change Umar ii's entrenched policies even if he tried.
Similarly, the Iraqis would be remilitarised and engaging in some of the Westerly campaigns, being far more integrated also. The defensive approach on the Transoxianan campaign would mean the Khurasanis aren't devastated by the Turgesh. So they are happier with the regime.
Perhaps Jafar asSadiq could be a chief judge of Umar II, since he taught both Malik and Abu Hanifa. This would appease the Alids too....
By that Umar II would've created a much more broadly based regime, replacing the previous Syrian supremacist model.
This would allow the Umayyad Caliphate to continue, as long as it remains broadly based.
Last edited:
That is overstating it. The Arabs captured Bordeaux a decade later and held Narbonne until 759.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Fine, but to the extent it did slow muslim expansion into Europe it was still a lot more important than the oft-more-cited Battle of Tours (732).
I really liked your scenario a lot, up until the point where, like most such scenarios, it unfortunately became a Umayyad-wank with all of Europe being steamrolled.
As I've already stated, the Arabs were in no possible shape to go conquer all of France and Italy in the early 8th century; their empire was dangerously overstretched and needed urgent consolidation. Southern France was already the limit of Arab conquests, and their empire was so overstretched that the Umayyads considered abandoning Hispania just years after conquering the Visigoths.
No offence, but I really wish people would stop thinking "Umayyads take Constantinople = Arabs conquer the full totality of Europe with no difficulty or resistance, winning every battle, being perfectly undefeatable, and constantly feeding land to a perpetually-expanding empire".
I understand they are overstretched.
That's why Khazaria, Transoxiana, Afghanistan are all made defensive instead of offensive.
Providing additional manpower for the west. Which OTL managed to push to Tours, Sens and Syracuse with relatively few men compared to the much larger eastern campaigns.
Beyond that, the huge number Iraqis are remilitarised, and the Berbers are recruited even more and treated fairly.
Stable rule is brought to Andalus, unlike OTL where after the death of Musa ibn Nusayr the peninsula was incredibly chaotic and infighting. (Yet they still pushed to Tours). This stability, increased manpower and Atlantic navy would make the Frankish campaigns far more successful.
The last and most decisive factor is the Naval hegemony.
Byzantium is the only Christian naval power in the Mediterranean until the rise of the Italians in the mid 900s.
The loss of Constaninople and the Aegean would cripple it's naval capabilities. It was already struggling before hand with Ibn Nusayr taking Sardinia and Balearics, and raiding Sicily without much of a Byzantine response.
Now without the fleets of the Aegean to support it, it only has Sicily, and a few Italian ports...
Meanwhile the Muslims capture of Constaninople and Aegean would give them many highly developed dockyards, which would greatly expand its naval resources. While it also has a complete monopoly on the eastern Med. Allowing it to send it's more developed Egyptian and Levantine navies to develop the Western Maghreb and Iberian navies, giving even more of a naval hegemony. (OTL Andalus made a proper navy after 844. Algeria/Morocco founded Tenes in 874 Oran in 902. Ceuta developed after 931 but Rabat was only founded in 1150... This is just speeding up the process.)
[The development of the navy would also help in consolidation and reducing overstretching. Since the much quicker naval transport would allow Antioch to have quicker and more effective communications with the Maghreb and Iberia.. Allowing them to address revolts and disturbances quicker.
Beyond that, the shift towards naval fleets instead of land armies would also make the region more dependent on the central government. Since fleets and ports are expensive to build and maintain, making them more reliant on the central government and less likely to rebel.
The main reason for the cessation of western expansion was the great Berber revolt. After which Andalus became utter Anarchy for the next few decades, never campaigning beyond the Pyrenees again. And the campaigns against Sicily stopped for 80 years]
This overwhelming naval hegemony would make the Island of Sicily and Italian peninsula especially vulnerable.
But the mountainous terrain and determined Roman resistance would still make it difficult fighting. Taking 7 years to take Sicily and another decade to reach Rome.
Throughout all this there would be reverses, defeats, ambushes in a mountain passes etc.
But overall, the tide would be in favour of the Muslims.
Since the Byzantines don't have enough resources for a proper resistance. Especially after the fall of Sicily which would basically result in the Mediterranean becoming a Muslim lake. Only a few, relatively small, ports left in Italy, making defeat inevitable.
(If the Byzantines can somehow unifying the Lombards and Merovingians into an empire covering France, Germany and Italy, they would be able to hold on to the non Mediterranean regions of their empire much more effectively. Perhaps moving the Roman capital to Pavia or Metz.
But I find this to be incredibly unlikely since the Byzantines would probably be busy fighting between themselves for who will be emperor....)
(Under a Caliph like Yazid ii and Hisham, who reimposed the Jizya and stubbornly pushed unrewarding frontiers. Much of this wouldn't be possible even with Constaninople.
Since the great Berber revolt would reverse a lot of the gains ....)
Last edited:
Yeah, no. This is still an Arab-wank that borders on ASB.
Also:
For this reason, the Arabs "marching to Tours" is completely unimpressive as well. If it was an occupying army, sure. But there's nothing terribly hard about assembling a group of bandits, marching through land while doing minimal battle, and then robbing people before turning back.
You seem to seriously underestimate the Romans and the Franks, and highly overestimate the Arabs. The existence of a powerful navy does not magically allow them to conquer Europe, nor does it make consolidation any easier.
I rest my case that after the fall of Constantinople, the Arabs will be conquering exactly nothing. The most they could get is maybe Greece, but anything beyond that is implausible. The Umayyads are not an unstoppable conquest machine that expands indefinitely.
Also:
Contrary to popular belief, the Battle of Tours is actually completely meaningless. The force that Martel fought there was a raiding party. Their sole objective was to plunder Tours for loot and then run all the way back to al-Andalus, and NOT, in any possible way, to conquer. The only way that the Battle of Tours could've had an impact is if Martel died. Otherwise it's totally irrelevant.
For this reason, the Arabs "marching to Tours" is completely unimpressive as well. If it was an occupying army, sure. But there's nothing terribly hard about assembling a group of bandits, marching through land while doing minimal battle, and then robbing people before turning back.
Note that IOTL, that was the exact state that the Eastern Roman Empire was in, until Leo III took power and fought off the Arab attack on Constantinople.
You seem to seriously underestimate the Romans and the Franks, and highly overestimate the Arabs. The existence of a powerful navy does not magically allow them to conquer Europe, nor does it make consolidation any easier.
I rest my case that after the fall of Constantinople, the Arabs will be conquering exactly nothing. The most they could get is maybe Greece, but anything beyond that is implausible. The Umayyads are not an unstoppable conquest machine that expands indefinitely.
I understand this. I was just highlighting how far the OTL forces reached despite the low manpower and resources due to the Umayyad neglect of the west in favour of the east.
ITTL the Umayyads would actually care, due to the Byzantines in nearby Italy. Making the east defensive, sending resources, troops and capable governors, ending the chaos.
Enabling the conquest of at least Toulouse and thereby Aquitaine.
My scenario is quite optimistic.
But at minimum i could see the Muslims taking Toulouse and Sicily.
OTL the Muslims almost took Syracuse in 740.
So ITTL without the loss of almost 100,000 men at Constaninople and with a larger navy and more resources dedicated to the west, couldn't they at least take that??? And thereby Sicily, threatening Italy as the Aghlabids did.
Could you explain your contentions in detail, What resources do the Byzantines have to fight this off. Despite not even controlling most of Italy?