You just destroyed the guy, nice
Another interesting set of butterflies
WI Succesful Caliphate invasion of Constantinople?
- Thread starter Maburo
- Start date
Would it be possible for Mu'awiya to take both titles? Like, claim to be Emperor of the Romans and be Caliph at the same time?
I see it going similarly to the OTL Abbasid ME-Umayyad Iberia split, now with Yazid in Greece and Asia Minor, and either Husayn (Hashemite Caliphate?) or Abdullah ibn Zubayr in the rest of the Caliphate. Not sure if Yazid could maintain Syria—however much that happens to be the Umayyad power base, it is still rather close to Iraq, where a great many Husayn supporters are, probably increasing in number with Yazid, who might adopt some Byzantine trappings, even if not declaring himself Emperor outright, governing from Constantinople rather than Damascus.
Well just by living in the imperial palaces in Constantinople you’re kinda claiming to be Roman emperor
Plus for the ummayds the title is just as good compliment to the caliphal one too
I don't think it's very plausible, but one must admit there would be a great irony to the Byzantines winding up in exile in Italy, Empire of the Romans in exile in Rome and all that.
Oddly the thing I'm most confident of is the long term effects: Instead of a unified Orthodox Russia, we would have a northern Christian kingdom (probably with strong Scandinavian influence) and a southern Muslim (probably with strong Islamicized Greek influence). This is the one thing I'm relatively confident in. I'm also strongly inclined to think the Reconquista will be seriously hampered. I'm open to the Caliphate getting into France, but I think at some point something would go wrong. I feel the relative Muslim population of the Caliphate could only shrink by conquering Christians, Zoroastrians, etc. so far before things got messy. I'm open to the idea of the Romans winding up at Carthage, but I'm inclined to agree that the Carthaginian Romans would get overtaken by the Caliphate.
A lot depends on the exact details of what happens.
Oddly the thing I'm most confident of is the long term effects: Instead of a unified Orthodox Russia, we would have a northern Christian kingdom (probably with strong Scandinavian influence) and a southern Muslim (probably with strong Islamicized Greek influence). This is the one thing I'm relatively confident in. I'm also strongly inclined to think the Reconquista will be seriously hampered. I'm open to the Caliphate getting into France, but I think at some point something would go wrong. I feel the relative Muslim population of the Caliphate could only shrink by conquering Christians, Zoroastrians, etc. so far before things got messy. I'm open to the idea of the Romans winding up at Carthage, but I'm inclined to agree that the Carthaginian Romans would get overtaken by the Caliphate.
A lot depends on the exact details of what happens.
Are you serious? Do you honestly think the point of having any kind of discussion in this forum is to 'destroy the guy' (which by 'guy' I assume you mean anyone who doesn't accept your view that the empire is hopelessly doomed against the Caliphate, considering how you occasionally use the term byzaboos in a derogatory way to refer to those people)? Seems to me a very immature way to approach alternate history (or any topic on the internet for that matter).
Anyway, safe to say nothing or no one has been 'destroyed' here since he failed to convince me in the first place that the scenario he described would be the most likely one to take place. Every time someone on AH brings up the scenario of an empire being ever more successful than OTL, issues like logistics, overextension and internal conflicts are brought up. But that of course should not apply to the Caliphate. The resources available will just keep multiplying, new armies recruited with said resources can just keep steamrolling anyone and anything and soon the entire Mediterranean world will be painted under one single colour. One wonder why the Ottomans simply did not do that...
he is a caliphaboo/islamoboo, every group has its cheerleaders in this site. We have germaboos, frenchboos, russianboos, uk/usaboos (this a very large group).
What will happen if the conquest of Contantinople occurs (which is not viable until the creation of mega artillery cannons+ the most competent Islamic empire in history). The caliphate is imploding faster and more aggressively. Abd al-Aziz, the son of Taria, may rebel and create a kingdom in Iberia (taking into account that he was adopting several Iberian customs, it will be an interesting kingdom), The Bulgars probably conquer Contantinople in this confusion (we have a new Roman-Bulgarian empire). With the core of the Islamic world remaining (Egypt+Arabia+Persia) if everything goes well. If it goes wrong we could have one kingdom in Egypt and another in Persia.
I do agree but it would be a multi year campaing taking the entirety of anatolia
much more than that
talked about this in legth in other chats related to the 717 siege not the 678 but bulgaria is not converting any time soon the caliphate did not encourage any place outside of its domain to become muslim to become a muslim mean to submission to the caliphate and bulgaria resisted chirstianity so fiercly over the it MIGTH be used a weapon for the romans to conquer them.
if it were 717 i could see that but i 678 bulgaria is just been established but its intresting that somethig was brough up the issues of the second fitna has not been resolved that assuming the city falls i 678 would mean a breathing room for the anatolian themes but the empire as whole is doomed i could see Constantinople and the areas captured revolting during the fitna but i do not think they would be sucessfull
Almost no groups significantly converted in the 7th and early-mid 8th centuries en masse. Except the Berbers and perhaps Buddhists of Sindh.
Iran only started significantly in the late 8th and 9th becoming majority by late 10th/early 11th centuries. And shown by Richard Bulliet's work.
Egypt took longer, perhaps only becoming Muslim majority in the Ayyubid or Mamluk era, 600 years after conquest, despite its proximity to Arabia.
But without Byzantines existing at all in the Balkans, Perhaps Franks being carved between Andalus, Saxons and Avars and maybe even Rome falling. Then Christianity would be seen as a failed religion.
So the Bulgars and Slavs would have no incentive to convert to Christianity, and would be in the sphere of influence of Muslim Constaninople. Thus after centuries, perhaps in the 9th or 10th centuries, a ruler may convert, causing the rest to begin convert. As occuring with Sultan Satuq Bughra Khan of the karakhanids in 934, as well as other Turkics.
Though, potentially, the Slavs could receive similar treatment to the Umayyad policy of the Berbers. Who were actively trained and militarised by the maghreb's governors, quickly outnumbering the Arabs (proving disastrous in the Berber revolt).
As well as sent scholars by Umar ii to teach them. Perhaps having wholly converted by late 730s, when the governor reported that there was no Jizya left in the Berber occupied maghreb (at which point it was enforced regardless of their islam.)
But the particular circumstances of why the Umayyads singled out the Berbers for this, and why they converted so blisteringly fast is unknown.
As for the Buddhists of Sindh, unfortunately Arab Sindh is woefully information sparse. But it seems that the Buddhists were urban mercantile elite while Hindus were rural farmers.
With Arab conquest, Buddhists were challenged in their mercantile monopoly by the Arabs who built new urban centres, depriving previous Buddhist urban centres of trade.
So for mostly economic reasons they seem to have converted. By the end of the Arab period when alBiruni is writing, 300 years later, no Buddhists remain within Sindh
As mentioned in https://www.jstor.org/stable/26609161
Though this doesn't relate to Slavs/Bulgars at all....
But if the Zubayrids do manage to win (incredibly unlikely) then their religious policy would likely be quite different than the Umayyads. Since many of Ibn Abbas or ibn Umar's top students were non Arab Muslims (usually freed slaves). And ibn Zubayr spoke many foreign languages, not being an Arab supremacist.
Just wondering, which part of my AH failed to convince you.
Its basically the OTL conquest of the Maghreb, but more effective due to the assistance of the larger eastern Caliphal fleets. And potentially more men, due to a weaker Byzantine frontier
As for the ottomans, then they were facing formidable states.
With the Caliphate, once Byzantium falls, Europe only had Visigoths, Lombards and Merovingians. Who weren't interanally that stable. The rest are all disparate tribes.
Even then they didn't do much to covert the natives
That would entail like the what occured to the amazigh ie subduing them and even with Constantinople I don't think the caliphate would be reaching the Danube any time soon
This is possible if the caliphate fragments like it did in our otl by this period the Abbasid caliphate has broken up into many pieces
@Goldensilver81
Basically, unless they stay pagan forever, they'd eventually (perhaps 500 years later) choose Islam, since it's the only dominant organised religion in western Eurasia after the fall of Christianity.
And they would be economically dominated by and probably culturally influenced by the Caliphate/Islamicate world.
Unless a new religion is made, perhaps Judaism like Khazars (though they did that to be neutral between Byzantium and Baghdad, the former wouldn't exist....) Or Manichaeism due to influence from the eastern steppes? or convert to Christianity of their own volition from some Italian/Frankish missionaries?
Or stay pagan.
Basically, unless they stay pagan forever, they'd eventually (perhaps 500 years later) choose Islam, since it's the only dominant organised religion in western Eurasia after the fall of Christianity.
And they would be economically dominated by and probably culturally influenced by the Caliphate/Islamicate world.
Unless a new religion is made, perhaps Judaism like Khazars (though they did that to be neutral between Byzantium and Baghdad, the former wouldn't exist....) Or Manichaeism due to influence from the eastern steppes? or convert to Christianity of their own volition from some Italian/Frankish missionaries?
Or stay pagan.
I was more referring to the Slavs of the southern Balkans in relation to the Amazigh's militarisation. The Arabs would have no reason to campaign as far as the danube unless Bulgars attack first. But even then would prob just defeat them and not actually annex Transdanubia until centuries later....
I do agree with this in fact I find likely
Speaking of the khazars I assume the Arabs don't attempt to attack them not to the intensity they did
I find it as likely that tervel kills an Arab army seeing just how one sided was the bulgar victories against the Romans until Constantine V and he had advantages the caliphate didn't
Personally i have no idea why they did so OTL.
As Blankinship mentions in End of the Jihad state, the Khazar frontier should've been wholly defensive. With garrisons at Darial pass and Darband (not Ardabil - which was the OTL misr for Transcaucasia until after the massive Khazar invasion of 730, afterwhich Derbent became capital)
Since fighting the Khazars gains nothing. If you win, you gain nothing, since they are poor nomads, with little loot. And they are a very difficult to fight, especially on their hometurf of the pontic steppe.
Even after Marwan's 737 campaign which potentially reached Atil (modern Astrakhan) achieve little in the end.
The Turgesh/central Asian Turkish frontier and Afghanistan frontiers were similarly unrewarding in loot but extremely costly in men. (Even Byzantine/Anatolian to an extent)
The only reason the Umayyads pushed these unrewarding fronts, is due to their offensive policy at all costs. Wherein they pushed Every Single Frontier Simultaneously.
Blankinship states that the Umayyads may have been the only state in the history of the world to have this bizzare approach...
Instead of being defensive on unrewarding frontiers. And pushing rewarding ones. Namely India which Muhammad alQasim and Junayd alMurri brought in 600 million and 400 million dirhams respectively. Phenomenonal amounts.
Yet Sindh was neglected by the Caliphate, given few troops in spite of its immense riches.
If the 100,000 sent to Constaninople 717 were used in India, the post Harsha chaotic Gangetic would fall incredibly easily. With most of the Deccan following.
Instantly giving 30+% of world GDP to the Caliphate, more than all Europe+Middle east combined....
The first and only one who had a defensive policy was Umar ii, who gave the former king of Sindh half his kingdom back and even considered abandoning Iberia....
But he only ruled for 3 years, immediately after, all fronts were active once more....
TLDR; all early Muslim timelines shouldn't be offensive on Khazars. Defend at Darial and Derbent. Use Capsian navy to dominate Volga and thereby gradually dominate Khazars.
Last edited:
Yes but a large empire doesn't always expand into a fragmented area and incorporate it successfully. Remember Justinian's invasion of Italy? I'm inclined to think that the Caliphate, with the Byzantines out of the way, could establish rule over the Mediterranean for a generation, but I see it collapsing and not returning after that. In our world the Abbassids never got Spain back; so the probability of the successor-regime of this Caliphate getting back Italy seems pretty low.
A lot also depends on how long the Caliphate's central authority holds together for. When the Caliphate goes to pieces (this might take a few centuries, but it will happen) how Islamicized is what used to be the Byzantine Empire?
Some drawings of contemplation
I think this depends on what happens to Frankia.
Merovingians were incredibly divided and unstable. More like 4 seperate states, than a unified empire. With Neustria and Austrasia endlessly infighting.
The Caliphate itself doesn't need to annex Frankia. Just split it between Saxons, Avars and potentially western Slavs. Ending Europes only remaining major power.
Their ardent paganism would give them no religious incentive for a reconquista. Actually relations with the Caliphate would probably be cordial, since they helped them in expanding their territory.
Without Frankia, there would be no major force to push back against the later divided Muslims. Since Europe would be just as divided as the Muslims.
Firstly, the Caliphate wouldn't lose 100k men in 717. And wouldn't lose 740 Akroinon. (Battle of Ardabil could also be butterflied away?)
This means the Syrian army, the powerbase of the Umayyads, would have a much larger manpower advantage over the rest of the provincial armies.
This would mean the Yaman tribes would retain a massive advantage over the Qays. Making the 3rd fitnah unlikely to happen. With Yazid iii becoming Caliph largely uncontested after Walid ii's assassination, preventing the civil war.
Without the 3rd fitnah, Khurasan would be far more stable with alHarith ibn Surayj being defeated soon after beginning in the 730s. Allowing Nasr ibn Sayyar to retain complete control of Khurasan.
Easily preventing Abbasid propaganda from swallowing the region.
Beyond that, one of the main reasons why the Khurasanis revolted, is since they were forced to endlessly fight incredibly difficult battles with the Turgesh Turks, with major losses in the 730s, getting little booty even in victory.
Syrians had a much easier lifestyle, with a relatively easier foe (Byzantines) and dramatically more loot.
The Khurasani felt sidelined by the regime.
But 50 years after the conquest of Constaninople, the Caliphate would have much more manpower which it can send to bolster the Khurasanis, preventing Turgesh victories. Thereby reducing Khurasani grievances.
But even if the climate is suitable for revolt, why would the Abbasids focus their propaganda on Khurasan only, and not also the Mediterranean?
OTL, the Berbers had already become independent from the Caliphate, 4 years before Abbasid propaganda began. But compared to Khurasan the Maghreb and even Iberia were blackwater.
ITTL, the Mediterranean would be the heartland of the Caliphate, not greater Persia.
So it would be stupid not to propagandise this region also. The Berbers would likely be very receptive to this, since the Umayyads were enslaving their womenfolk as sex slaves, despite being Muslims....
Given that the Berbers dominated iberia and the maghreb. ITTL they would probably also dominate all Italy and southern Frankia. Basically the entire western med.
Thus Berbers from the east and Khurasani from the west, should be able to Reunify the entirety of the Caliphate...
But this TL's Berber revolt could be more successful. Establishing an independent western med by 740 (though they'd need to include the Arab garrison's far more than OTL, or else they'd put up a life or death defence at all costs)
But the greater manpower without the 717 loss, might allow the Berber revolt to be crushed in its entirety. And the region overall would receive more focus with a capital at Constaninople and a larger Mediterranean navy.
The collapse of the Caliphate was mainly due to Mamun's idiocy.
The Amin-Mamun civil war, ended the brightest era of the Abbasid golden age.
With Baghdad being devastated by a year long siege, as well as Iraq and much of the Caliphate in general m as well as various revolts all over the empire.
But after winning, Mamun tried to rule the Caliphate from Merv. In modern day Turkmenistan. This is one of the stupidest descions in the history of the Abbasids. With Iraq and everything west of that being in anarchy.
After 6 years at Merv he finally moved back to Baghdad. But first, he appointed Ali Ridha, the Shia imam as his successor alienating most of his powerbase. Then he killed him, alienating most of the Shia.
He proactively decided to give his governors Hereditary Governorships with more independence like the Samanids and especially the Tahirids - who now controlled his own powerbase of Khurasan.
Why you would want to set up semi autonomous monarchies within your own state baffles me.....
Tahir didn't actually even listen to Mamun, not wanting to march against Babak Khorramdin a Zoroastrian revivalist who had taken Azerbaijan....
Mamun was powerless to force his governor and army chief to actually do anything, so he needed to rely on his brother Mutasim.
Mutasim had built up a professional slave army of Turks. And was a military man. Mamun was heavily reliant upon him for the rest of his reign. With Mutasim succeeding him.
The Turkish troops were highly effective, but unloyal. If a Caliph went against their wishes, then unlike other local armies, this would be an existential threat. Since other than the army, they have no relatives to help them or a trade to support themselves. Most of them didn't even know Arabic, and were hated by the general populace - which was why Samarra was built.
Hugh Kennedy describes them as acting in desperation for their livelihoods, which is why they took such drastic measures as murdering a Caliph.
Beginning the Anarchy at Samarra which lead to complete disintegration of the Caliphate.
This occuring is contingent on so many different things, that could be easily butterflied away.
In the lead up to disintegration, the Caliphal administration was gradually improving and becoming far more professional and developed. With bureaucrats beginning to gain more influence than the military aristocracy.
Without the anarchy, the Abbasids would become far more of a bureaucratic. Being dominated by scholar officials like Song Dynasty China. Which would improve taxation efficiency and central control
Unlike the song, the only major external threat the Abbasids have are fairly distant central Asian Turks. Who would have to cross perilous deserts and the mountains of the Zagros to reach the Abbasid heartland. (Byzantines were only able to go on offensive after complete disintegration in 960s)
Beyond that, non Arabs were beginning to convert to Islam en masse - giving a potential massive manpower surge, if slave armies never emerge.
But assuming it still collapses, the islamification of the Byzantine domain depends on when it occurs. But generally, the great urban metropolises would be dominate Muslims. Smaller cities would have Muslim minorities, while rural regions would be entirely Christian.
Though this depends on the Greek social cohesion. Copts were an incredibly tight knit community after facing discrimination from the many foreign empires which had ruled them for thousands of years. Such as when they chose Monophysite Christianity and were persecuted by Romans, but held fast.
I don't know if the Greeks of Anatolia would have the same cohesion allowing them to withhold assimilation.
Inlstead they could be more similar to the Andalusi Christians, who culturally assimilated into Arab high culture, speaking a form of Mozarabic.