WI Succesful Caliphate invasion of Constantinople?

[Silver01]

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.

I still think a third fitna still occurs even prior to 717 tensions were rising taking the eastern roman empire doesn't fix any of the issues in fact it adds another group who would hate the Umayyad supremacist group unless you mean there is third fitna because the second one will already split the caliphate

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

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.

I am not discounting the possibility that North Africa gets conquered in this alternate scenario (I mean if it happened IOTL, in can also happen again ATL), though I don't think it is certainty either.

My issues with your scenario are the following:

1) The Anatolian armies needs to be beaten on land, not at sea and even then even IOTL despite numerous defeats the eastern armies were always able to preserve Anatolia for the empire. More ships do not help here, except by isolating Anatolia from the rest of the Roman world (or what is left of it). Conquering the region would be no small feat since it practically was the heart of the empire.

2) Pretty much agree that the Balkans are doomed in the long term. Though I think it is more likely for Thessalonika to fall to the Bulgars;

3) It took a century after the fall of Africa for the Muslim to show up in Sicily and almost another century for them to conquer the island, while Syracuse received very little support from the East. Why is the Caliphate able in your scenario to blitzkrieg Sicily, considering they would have their hands full with pacification efforts in Spain, North Africa and, assuming they conquered it, Anatolia (plus assuming whatever is going on in the rest of the Caliphate).

4) You mention the Balkans and Northern Italy being part of the Caliphate, but there is a reason it took centuries for the Romans to subdue the Bulgarians (and no it was not because the Romans were incompetent) and never managed to finish off the Lombards. During the VIII century the Lombards were under the competent rule of kings like Liutprand, and the Bulgarians managed to humiliate many imperial armies. Slavs are still roaming around and since it took over a century for the empire to restore some degree of control over Greece (beyond Thrace/Thessalonika), I assume it is going to be a similar situation for the Caliphate. Also, since the POD is before the Isaurians, the Papacy still has considerable properties in Sicily (therefore an interest on the island), meaning they would very likely be pissed off and start actively looking for options (be it Lombards, Franks or the exarchate) around them once they lose them to the invaders.

5) You are just assuming the Caliphate will remain united long enough to accomplish all of this, but the truth is there is no way it accomplishes all of this plus Francia in mere decades, fleet or no fleet. The Caliphate is stretched thin, trying to move armies and resources at the other end of the Mediterranean while sitting in Syria/Mesopotamia and fragmentation is beyond the corner. After that point there would be no overwhelming advantage against Christian kingdoms but even before that the Caliph would have a hard time juggling around his forces between this many theaters of war. It is not just a matter of having more resources than everyone around you, after a while even successful ancient of medieval states reach a point where it is no longer possible (or worth it) to further expand.

 

[wakobear]

The Anatolian armies needs to be beaten on land, not at sea and even then even IOTL despite numerous defeats the eastern armies were always able to preserve Anatolia for the empire. More ships do not help here, except by isolating Anatolia from the rest of the Roman world (or what is left of it). Conquering the region would be no small feat since it practically was the heart of the empire.

Yes, they do need to be defeated on land.
But Constaninople and the navy would give control give beachheads from which western Anatolia can be attcked from both the west and the east.
Smyrna, Antalya and Marmara provide beachhead for land armies to march directly to western Anatolia. And greatly improves the logistics and supply of said armies.
A much easier route than from Syria, through the narrow Cilician gates, then through the sparse Anatolian steppe until reaching the Easterly cities of western Anatolia like Amorion (which the Caliphate did take raid and even capture several times. Despite the great logistical difficultly.

Beyond that, after 717, the Caliphate gave up on attempting to conquer any of Anatolia, opting for yearly raids instead for the next 20 years....
(I don't understand why the Umayyads and Abbasids wouldn't attempt a gradual approach. Taking city by city. Instead they raided Anatolia for 150 years, sometimes reaching extremely deep, such as 782 at Chalcedon.
Instead of annexing Kayseri, providing a better base of operations than Melitene or Tarsus and allowing annexing of other central Anatolian cities......)

ITTL, they would have a strong reason to conquer and not merely raid.
Attacking from the western beachheads and from the east simultaneously. Gradually annexing the cities closest to them. Until after a few decades comparing it all.

2) Pretty much agree that the Balkans are doomed in the long term. Though I think it is more likely for Thessalonika to fall to the Bulgars;

Bulgars are around the Danube delta in 678. 700km from Thessaloniki.
Even if they take Thessaloniki after 680 Battle of Ongal, the city is quite vulnerable to naval attack, as shown by 906. So the Caliphate could just take it a few years later.

It took a century after the fall of Africa for the Muslim to show up in Sicily and almost another century for them to conquer the island, while Syracuse received very little support from the East. Why is the Caliphate able in your scenario to blitzkrieg Sicily, considering they would have their hands full with pacification efforts in Spain, North Africa and, assuming they conquered it, Anatolia (plus assuming whatever is going on in the rest of the Caliphate

The first raid on Sicily was in the 650s, well before north Africa.
In 702 Tunis was founded using it to begin attacks on Sicily in 704. Only 6 years after conquering Carthage.......
Sardinia was in 705 and Balerics in 707.

From 720 to 740, constant almost yearly raids attacked Sicily. With a large, sucessful raid in 722. Though in 725, a large number of slaves were taken, though a significant number of troops died. In 728, the environs of Syracuse were raided by Ubayda alFihri by only 700 troops. In 729 180 ships were lost in a storm, an extremely costly loss. In 736 there was a defeat.


For some unknown reason, as Blankinship states in end of the Jihad state, they didn't attempt to permanently conquer or settle Sicily like they did other regions. They wouldve been raiding the same regions, each time with less loot and more defences......

But in 740 there was an attempt at conquest. Syracuse was besieged and taken. But the army had to retreat due to the Great Berber revolt.


ITTL they might be able to take Carthage a few years before 698, due to greater attention than OTL and participation of most of the eastern navy. Exactly when depends on this TL's 2nd fitnah.
Carthage would probably not be destroyed, since the Caliphal navy would probably be strong enough to prevent Byzantine reconquest, which resulted in a second seige, afterwhich it was razed.

6 years after taking Africa, beginning attacks on Sicily. If Carthage falls in 698, this would be in 704.
But ITTL aiming for conquest right away instead of mere raiding - like the Aghlabids did. Starting by taking the Egadi islands, then Marsala on the western edge of the island, furthest from Syracuse and closest to Carthage.
From Marsala slowly taking the rest of the island.
Unlike the Aghlabids, Sicily wouldn't receive outside support with Constaninople gone, and the Caliphate would have near naval monopoly over the Med, as well as more resources in general.
In any case, Sicily is a mountainous and well defended island, so may take decades. But probably less than 2.




As for Spain, then that won't be invaded until 711 as OTL, since the civil war makes things so much easier. So the southwestern half of Sicily would've already be taken by this point.

The Caliphal navy would enable near unchallenged annexation of the entire Iberian coast, since the Visigoths had no navy. Which would improve logistics of inland campaigns.
So that the Iberia falls entirely by 714 and Septimania in 716 - since Narbonne can be taken by the navy.
(An Atlantic navy at Gijon, bolstering it's land garrison, would largely prevent the formation of Asturias, since Oviedo is right next door, and Asturias wouldn't be able to take Gijon without a significant naval build up).

4) You mention the Balkans and Northern Italy being part of the Caliphate, but there is a reason it took centuries for the Romans to subdue the Bulgarians (and no it was not because the Romans were incompetent) and never managed to finish off the Lombards. During the VIII century the Lombards were under the competent rule of kings like Liutprand, and the Bulgarians managed to humiliate many imperial armies. Slavs are still roaming around and since it took over a century for the empire to restore some degree of control over Greece (beyond Thrace/Thessalonika), I assume it is going to be a similar situation for the Caliphate. Also, since the POD is before the Isaurians, the Papacy still has considerable properties in Sicily (therefore an interest on the island), meaning they would very likely be pissed off and start actively looking for options (be it Lombards, Franks or the exarchate) around them once they lose them to the invaders.

Your right.
The inner Balkans would just be a drain to conquer and maintain, offering little in return. Only the coastal Balkans is sustainable.

As for the Lombards, they would still continue to dominate the interior of northern Italy. But the Caliphal navy would be able to take Apulia, after/during Sicilian conquest as the Aghlabids did - but with naval assistance from the Balkan coast.
Apulia+Balkan coast would dominate the Adriatic sea. Since the Lombards don't have much of a navy, Ravenna and Venice would probably be able to be taken, even with Luitprand ruling.
Raiding parties could be sent up the Po. But until after Luitprand's death conquest of the Po is out of bounds.

As for the pope, he would probably ask for assistance from the Lombards, with them annexing the Byzantine holdouts of the peninsula. The Muslims generally restricted to the south. And the coasts.
Frankia was too divided. Pepin II had begun to unify the realm, but on his death in 714, the realm went into civil war, due to the age old rivalry of Neustria and Austrasia.
After 4 years Charles Martel managed to defeat Neustria in 718. But then had to contend with revolt of Germanic tribes in the north and east.

Then in 732 he had to deal with OTL battle of tours.
ITTL, the Muslim invasion of Frankia would've begun earlier, due to teh quicker invasion of Iberia.
The navy, would be able to take Marsille and the rest of the Provence coast, beginning raids up the Rhone.
While.in the west, the Gijon navy would be able to take Bordeaux, going up to Toulouse.

Coupled with much more manpower due to 100,000 troops not dying in 717, Toulouse would fall in 721.
Giving a Frankish capital from which the Caliphate can consolidate its conquests in southern France before Charles Martel is done with his northern and eastern campaigns.

Ideally the Caliphate would actually send aid to the Frisians, Bavarians, Alemanni and Saxons. Perhaps, from Constaninople, inciting the Avars to push west.

After 11 years of consolidation and greater manpower due to 717 not happening, the 732 battle of tours or equivalent would be a Muslim victory.
Ending the Franks.
The Caliphate would probably just annex Aquitaine up to Loire and the Rhone valley to Dijon. As these are fairly sustainable via the Mediterranean.
Perhaps Paris?, or giving it to Frisians/Saxons, while the east would be left to Saxons, Germanic and Slavic tribes plus some Avar and Lombard expansion.

) You are just assuming the Caliphate will remain united long enough to accomplish all of this, but the truth is there is no way it accomplishes all of this plus Francia in mere decades, fleet or no fleet. The Caliphate is stretched thin, trying to move armies and resources at the other end of the Mediterranean while sitting in Syria/Mesopotamia and fragmentation is beyond the corner. After that point there would be no overwhelming advantage against Christian kingdoms but even before that the Caliph would have a hard time juggling around his forces between this many theaters of war. It is not just a matter of having more resources than everyone around you, after a while even successful ancient of medieval states reach a point where it is no longer possible (or worth it) to further expand.

Most of this was all done with the OTL Caliphate. Raiding Sicily, taking iberia, pushing as far as Sens and Tours in France.
But with Constaninople, troops are no longer being used in Anatolian campaigns. Especially the 100k in 717.

Allowing their use throughout the Mediterranean, particularly Frankia and Sicily/southern Italy.

When combined with the naval expansion afford by Constaninople and Aegean ports, and no longer having a Mediterranean rival, the navy would be unchallenged.
Helping in conquests and logistics.




Beyond that, the conquest of Constaninople would create huge butterflies with regard to a revolution.
Namely they would be seen to have god's favour, since they conquered the capital of the Romans. Not to mention their later conquests.

Unlike OTL where the 730s were beset with losses on a lot of fronts.
- with the greater manpower afforded by not having 717, more troops could be sent to these frontiers.
The most important of which being Khurasan, to prevent them losing against the Turgesh (though that should've been a defensive frontier anyway).
Since after that, they felt sidelined and abandoned by the Umayyad regime and revolts started.
If this doesn't happen Umayyads should be able to maintain control over Khurasan, thereby preventing an Abbasid Caliphate.


Unless the Abbasids focus their propaganda on teh Berbers, who might be able to do better if Abbasids convince them to allow Arabs to join them.
Potentially the entire west of the Caliphate seceding......

 

[Nivek]

Abbasid Caliphate.

There is endless possibilities

 

[wakobear]

I still think a third fitna still occurs even prior to 717 tensions were rising taking the eastern roman empire doesn't fix any of the issues in fact it adds another group who would hate the Umayyad supremacist group unless you mean there is third fitna because the second one will already split the caliphate

Personally I follow Blankinships position that it was defeated due to no longer being able to maintain a monopoly on the military of the state due to the military reversals in the 730s.
And especially the immense losses in the great Berber revolt.

These broke and dispersed the Syrian army. The largest and best equipped regional army in the Caliphate. Khurasan, had only a third of the troops.
Without the Syrians, the military monopoly ended.

Marwan, attempted to replace the Syrians with Jazirans. He successfully defeated the Syrians of Yazid iii. Then the Alid revolt of Iraq and western Persia under Abdullah ibn Muawiyah. Then further revolts in Yemen and elsewhere.

Finally, he almost defeated the Abbasids at the Zab. But his cavalry charge failed.




With Constantinople falling in 678.
Then a likely shorter fitnah, due to Umayyad the prestige/heavens mandate attained through the conquest of Constaninople.
- Though the Umayyad barbarity of the 2nd fitnah would greatly tarnish this image, it would still be higher than OTL.

With Walid's conquests in the early 700s, this heavens mandate image would be somewhat restored.
Ideally Khazars, Turgesh and Afghanistan would bbe defensive, not attempting useless and costly offences.
Particularly ibn alAshath's 701 revolt of perhaps over 100k - which could probably be avoided if Hajjaj sent them to Sindh instead wherein they'd probably be able to conquer most of northern India (Muhammad alQasim only and 12,000 men... Yet pushed into Punjab, Gujarat, even to Ujjain. 10x that number would be able to accomplish much more.......)
Or at minimum conquer what Muhammad alQasim did, bringing in 600,000,000 dirhams.

But assuming OTL, the 100k soldiers of 717 would be able to make these more successful. Reducing the animosity in the provinces. And maintaining the idea of the heavenly mandate.

Or at minimum manage to put down the Berber revolt - which alone should keep the Syrian army intact enough to defeat the Abbasids. Which was quite close OTL




With regard to Greeks of Constantinople, they wouldn't be of any importantance since they weren't being Militarised by the Caliphate.
But in Khurasan, Persians and Transoxianans were actively being militarised, ever since Qutayba bin Muslims. While the Khurasani Arabs took local wives, so that their children were persianate.
Despite their militarisation by the Caliphate they were discriminated against. Like the Berbers - though Berbers had their Muslim women enslaved......

I don't see how Greeks would be significantly Militarised. And i don't see them converting in significant numbers either.
So they'd have no effect in the revolution, just like Copts or Armenians or Assyrians or Zoroastrians or any other non-muslim minorities played zero role.

Finally, Constaninople would be garrisoned solely by Syrian troops, the backbone of the Umayyads. Their Umayyad loyalties would spread to the populace
It was because Khurasan was garrisoned by Kufans and Basrans. The Kufans spreading anti Umayyad propaganda which began to catch on in later times.




Also the Umayyads weren't wholly against change as shown by Yazid iii had some incredibly radical reforms, which he promised to implement if he took office.:

1. Not to build any buildings of stone or brick, nor to dig any canals. (Referring to palaces and private gardens)
2. Not to hoard wealth.
3. Not to give wealth to wives or children.
4. To transfer wealth from one province to another only after adquately paying the first province's troops and taking care of its needy.
5. To send any surplus to the nearest province and divide it among those most in need of it.
6. Not to keep troops in the field more than one year, because that would tempt both the troops and their families to immorality.
7. Not to lock out petitioners, which would allow the powerful to eat up the weak.
8. Not to put such high taxes on the non-Muslims that would caus them to flee their lands and not to reproduce.
9. To give all Muslim troops in all provinces equal annual stipends and monthly provisions.
10. To acknowledge the right of the Muslims to reproach the caliph if he fails to carry out this program and to remove him from office if he does not heed the reproach.
11. To acknowledge the fight of the Muslims to replace the caliph with another who will carry out the same program.

(The Abbasids used the Shia concept of divinely appointed/messianic imam, preventing any limitations on Caliphal power)

So if the third fitnah does happen, but Umayyads manage to win by the skin of their teeth, there would be massive reforms.

 

[Nivek]

if the third fitnah does happen, but Umayyads manage to win by the skin of their teeth, there would be massive reforms.

And another massive butterfly.

Also depends who ends up in the Constantinople/Anatolia are as Wali/Governor, he could try to militarize the greeks in the long term

 

[Silver01]

Personally I follow Blankinships position that it was defeated due to no longer being able to maintain a monopoly on the military of the state due to the military reversals in the 730s.
And especially the immense losses in the great Berber revolt.

I would disagree by 715 qutayba death and chaos that followed, Muhammed ibn al qasin execution or how yazid and waki rivalry the powerful governors and resentment towards the Umayyad policies was already there even prior to 717

Then a likely shorter fitnah, due to Umayyad the prestige/heavens mandate attained through the conquest of Constaninople.

I don't think the second fitna would be that shorter

Particularly ibn alAshath's 701 revolt of perhaps over 100k - which could probably be avoided if Hajjaj sent them to Sindh instead wherein they'd probably be able to conquer most of northern India (Muhammad alQasim only and 12,000 men... Yet pushed into Punjab, Gujarat, even to Ujjain. 10x that number would be able to accomplish much more.......

The problem here is logistic the 100 k army of against Constantinople was a multi year long preparation using the massive navy to make sure such a large number didn't starve these men mostly came from Syria and near by regions there is no way this army is going to India a smaller fraction yes 100k no, they would starve to death or take all the supplies before they reach it

So they'd have no effect in the revolution, just like Copts or Armenians or Assyrians or Zoroastrians or any other non-muslim minorities played zero role.

Muslims of non-Arab descent would be also played zero real isn't true the Abbasids got support from the non Muslims of merv in fact the Abbasids were good at exploiting the non Arab Muslims and non Muslim hatred of the Umayyads or how the Abbasids solved the 749 Bashmurians revolt which if the Copts could revolt with such intensity to reach the border of the levant even with a stronger caliphate if the Anatolians revolted they would make the otl 749 Bashmurian revolt look tiny in comparison

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

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.

Tho this is 200 years before Rus (not Russia) even became a thing, it's almost impossible to tell how it'll develop, and tho Arabs won't be able to hold Balkans for long, any TL when Arabs destroy Byzantine hold on Anatolia=Bulgaria-wank, because it'd be cakewalk for Bulgars to take over most of Balkans, and maybe OTL's "Ukraine" could even end up as part of that mega-Bulgaria and have nothing to do with lands in the north, which may stay pagan with weakened position of Christianity? Maybe Avar khaganate will survive? There is just too many variables.

 

[wakobear]

The problem here is logistic the 100 k army of against Constantinople was a multi year long preparation using the massive navy to make sure such a large number didn't starve these men mostly came from Syria and near by regions there is no way this army is going to India a smaller fraction yes 100k no, they would starve to death or take all the supplies before they reach it

Here i wasn't referring to the 717 siege.
But to Ibn alashath's army in 701. Hajjaj gave him an expensively equipped and large army to go and invade Afghanistan.

Midway through he decided to turn on Hajjaj, so made peace with the Zunbil, and marches with his army back to Iraq. Where ibn alashath's already large army swelled in size with iraqis.
Perhaps reaching 100k

Hajjaj and Ibn alAshath met at Dayr alJamajim.
Hajjaj managed to defeat him. And with that Kufa and Basra were permanently demilitarised, and not able to take part in any campaigns ever again.


What i was saying is to send to the peacock army to Sindh instead of Afghanistan.
The two are just as desolate, except Sindh can be assisted by the Gulf navy - which happened OTL as they took Deybal (near Karachi) first.

Especially since the course of the Indus seems to have recently just shifted, devastating most of the cities and agriculture of the region.

The peacock army should be able to accomplish more than Muhammad alQasim's small force.
Perhaps eventually close to 100k troops could be in India in total, for the Gangetic invasion - which would be gradually transported to Lahore and Punjabi cities. The great agricultural fertility of India would be more than enough to support them

Muslims of non-Arab descent would be also played zero real isn't true the Abbasids got support from the non Muslims of merv in fact the Abbasids were good at exploiting the non Arab Muslims and non Muslim hatred of the Umayyads or how the Abbasids solved the 749 Bashmurians revolt which if the Copts could revolt with such intensity to reach the border of the levant even with a stronger caliphate if the Anatolians revolted they would make the otl 749 Bashmurian revolt look tiny in comparison

Ye, your right.
Overall, if the Abbasids ITTL focus more of their propaganda on the Amazigh who dominate the Mediterranean - richer than Khurasan and persia - they would be far more successful than OTL.

Fighting the Umayyads on two fronts.
And uniting the entirety of the Muslim world. Amazigh dominating the west, Khurasani in the east.