Bulgarians are undoubtedly strongest if Byzantium is taken out of picture and with upcoming slavicization of their elites no one has real reason to oppose them.
WI: Second Arab Siege of Constantinople (717-718) succeeds
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
Bulgarians are undoubtedly strongest if Byzantium is taken out of picture and with upcoming slavicization of their elites no one has real reason to oppose them.
I don't buy the black-and-white doom scenario that Muslims will overrun Europe and stamp out Christianity. In fact, they probably won't even expand beyond Greece. Bulgaria is a powerful neighbouring state that pretty much stops their northward expansion, Anatolia will probably host a set of rebellious warlords and strategoi who need to be mopped up, and all of the conquests need to be digested by the already very-overstretched Umayyad caliphate (mind you that abandoning Spain as a whole was genuinely considered by them). The expansion of the caliphate is almost certainly going to come to a complete, screeching halt after Greece, with no further territory taken.
The Romans/Byzantines are absolutely boned but they aren't dead. Much of mainland Italy, along with Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, the Balearic Islands, and the Dalmatian coast, are still under imperial control. Most likely, Basil Onomagoulos or another guy declares himself emperor in Sicily or mainland Italy, depending on the exact timing of Constantinople's fall. With some respite from the Arab threat, the Romans (in essence a second Western Roman Empire) will likely have sufficient breathing room to consolidate their possessions and rebuild their state. The capital would probably be moved back to Rome.
The Greeks are not going to Arabize. If anything, they'd likely be a second Persia; one that maintains its own language, culture and identity even after adopting Islam. The Romans couldn't assimilate the Greeks and I doubt the Arabs will succeed either. Greek had, after all, being the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean since the time of Alexander the Great. An interesting knock-on effect of this is that African Romance and Coptic might also survive, considering that the whole Greek-speaking world is under Arab dominance (the same thing happening to the Iranian-speaking world was thought to be a major factor in allowing Persian to sustain itself); Arabization might actually be much more restricted ITTL.
Constantinople would almost certainly become the Umayyad capital, if they can hold the city. Making it their capital was a long-term goal of the Arabs. Whether they'll keep it is another question; perhaps the Greek part of the caliphate might split off in much of the same way that Persia did, going its own way. It's a pretty interesting scenario to think about.
The Romans/Byzantines are absolutely boned but they aren't dead. Much of mainland Italy, along with Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, the Balearic Islands, and the Dalmatian coast, are still under imperial control. Most likely, Basil Onomagoulos or another guy declares himself emperor in Sicily or mainland Italy, depending on the exact timing of Constantinople's fall. With some respite from the Arab threat, the Romans (in essence a second Western Roman Empire) will likely have sufficient breathing room to consolidate their possessions and rebuild their state. The capital would probably be moved back to Rome.
The Greeks are not going to Arabize. If anything, they'd likely be a second Persia; one that maintains its own language, culture and identity even after adopting Islam. The Romans couldn't assimilate the Greeks and I doubt the Arabs will succeed either. Greek had, after all, being the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean since the time of Alexander the Great. An interesting knock-on effect of this is that African Romance and Coptic might also survive, considering that the whole Greek-speaking world is under Arab dominance (the same thing happening to the Iranian-speaking world was thought to be a major factor in allowing Persian to sustain itself); Arabization might actually be much more restricted ITTL.
Constantinople would almost certainly become the Umayyad capital, if they can hold the city. Making it their capital was a long-term goal of the Arabs. Whether they'll keep it is another question; perhaps the Greek part of the caliphate might split off in much of the same way that Persia did, going its own way. It's a pretty interesting scenario to think about.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I think the fate of the Ummayad Dynasty, and the if/who of their successors, is absolutely something worth talking about here. One thing I think we’re overlooking is that the conquest of so much of the ERE is going to be adding so many more formerly-Roman Christians to the Caliphate’s population that the context certain factions (like those promoting first-class status for Malawi, or those promoting the Alid view of rule) appeal to is very different from OTL.
That's an excellent question but once again we need to know the scenario and how it could unfold.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
PoD I imagine is in 717 or 718; if Constantinople falls, I would think the Umayyads would see some of their financial concerns at least temporarily ameliorated; my guess, if this means the militarists continue to get support for aggressive action on Byzantine remnants, the most likely targets are the eastern themes of Anatolia, which were being heavily raided around the time of the PoD anyway. Western Anatolia might be subject to further raids (e.g. the muslims could march on Nicomedia after the fall Constantinople), and would probably at the very least be under the indirect rule of the Caliph in fairly short order. The remaining Byzantine Empire likely regroups in Sicily and Italy (with the fates of Thessalonica, Morea, and Crete TBD).
Whether Umar ibn And Al-Aziz still attempts to reform the caliphate in favor of the Malawi in this scenario, or how the Ummayads rule in general for the next quarter century or so is a different matter, and one that kind of gets into the whole question of whether and how they come under stress.
Bomster
Gone Fishin'
Another interesting question is what becomes of Al-Andalus? It’s just been conquered in the previous years.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Even crazier, just a few years after our PoD is the Battle of Toulouse, which checked muslim expansion into Europe.
I think people take it too for granted that if the Arabs took Constantinople this would lead to an Muslim conquest of Europe. Do remember that the Caliphate was absolutely massive at this point, stretching from the Atlantic to the West and the Indus in the East. The basic entropy of empire by itself would make further conquest of any substance difficult, though I could see some eastern European pagans (maybe) converting to Islam.
Also, there's also the rise of the Abbasids to keep in mind, which I don't think a successful conquest of Constantinople will prevent, but I could see some changes. It's possible that with the rise of the Abbasids the Ummayads might decide to make Constantinople their capital and use Anatolia as their power base instead of Hispania.
As for the Romans, I don't see them guaranteed to collapse. Of course, the early decades following the fall of Constantinople will naturally be severely rough for them with collapse always potentially around every corner. But firstly, there will be someone who will declare themselves Emperor once news of Constantinople's fall arrived in Italy. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone already had even before the city had fallen (indeed, I think this was one of the things Leo III had to deal with first after surviving the siege). Whether or not this declared emperor would last very long or not, someone will try to take over what remained of the Empire.
From there the main focus will be on securing Italy, either by conquering the Lombards (over the course of decades) or coming to terms with them. The reason why this wasn't done OTL was because Italy was almost always last on the Imperial Priorities list. That list being:
1) Surviving the Arab onslaught and holding on to Anatolia and Constantinople.
2) Deal with the Balkans.
3) Secure Italy.
Obviously, the Romans failed the first one and are now in Italy. So now the priorities would be:
1) Secure Italy at all costs as it's now the Imperial Core, for better or worse.
2) Survive the Arab Onslaught 2: Camel Boogaloo.
3) Secure the Balkans.
As you can see, Italy and the Balkans switched places and I do see the Romans holding on to the Empire's Greek holding, including Thessaloniki at least in the short term. The Arabs are going to be busy securing Anatolia, especially due to the remaining Roman Military in the region.
In fact, I can see the Bulgars suddenly becoming the Romans' new best friend in the Balkans, since they can be used to hinder the Arabs' progress in the region (just as they had to the Romans not so long ago). Ultimately though the Balkans will be the last in line of imperial priorities for a good long while.
As for where the Imperial court would reside? Probably in Syracuse since Sicily would be the last remaining somewhat secure province in the Empire.
So what happens? Will the Empire rebound from this low ebb? Dunno, maybe? It would certainly be an uphill struggle and it would really depend on how the Romans handle the Lombards.
Also, there's also the rise of the Abbasids to keep in mind, which I don't think a successful conquest of Constantinople will prevent, but I could see some changes. It's possible that with the rise of the Abbasids the Ummayads might decide to make Constantinople their capital and use Anatolia as their power base instead of Hispania.
As for the Romans, I don't see them guaranteed to collapse. Of course, the early decades following the fall of Constantinople will naturally be severely rough for them with collapse always potentially around every corner. But firstly, there will be someone who will declare themselves Emperor once news of Constantinople's fall arrived in Italy. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone already had even before the city had fallen (indeed, I think this was one of the things Leo III had to deal with first after surviving the siege). Whether or not this declared emperor would last very long or not, someone will try to take over what remained of the Empire.
From there the main focus will be on securing Italy, either by conquering the Lombards (over the course of decades) or coming to terms with them. The reason why this wasn't done OTL was because Italy was almost always last on the Imperial Priorities list. That list being:
1) Surviving the Arab onslaught and holding on to Anatolia and Constantinople.
2) Deal with the Balkans.
3) Secure Italy.
Obviously, the Romans failed the first one and are now in Italy. So now the priorities would be:
1) Secure Italy at all costs as it's now the Imperial Core, for better or worse.
2) Survive the Arab Onslaught 2: Camel Boogaloo.
3) Secure the Balkans.
As you can see, Italy and the Balkans switched places and I do see the Romans holding on to the Empire's Greek holding, including Thessaloniki at least in the short term. The Arabs are going to be busy securing Anatolia, especially due to the remaining Roman Military in the region.
In fact, I can see the Bulgars suddenly becoming the Romans' new best friend in the Balkans, since they can be used to hinder the Arabs' progress in the region (just as they had to the Romans not so long ago). Ultimately though the Balkans will be the last in line of imperial priorities for a good long while.
As for where the Imperial court would reside? Probably in Syracuse since Sicily would be the last remaining somewhat secure province in the Empire.
So what happens? Will the Empire rebound from this low ebb? Dunno, maybe? It would certainly be an uphill struggle and it would really depend on how the Romans handle the Lombards.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
How realistic do you think this much is:
- the Ummayads take Constantinople in the 717-18 Siege
- the Ummayads win the Battle of Toulouse in 721
- in the following years, the Ummayads launch further campaigns in Anatolia, at minimum outright conquering the eastern themes
Your post overall makes really good points, and I can see a lot of it happening, especially with the Balkans and the "Romans" looking to reconstitute themselves in Italy; are we so sure that this empire would more or less hold together under a radically different regime? After all, the Abbasids couldn't hold on to Spain OTL, and here there's a lot more for any new regime to hold onto; with the Caliphate now being so much more "Roman", is something like the Abbasid Revolution (for the Islamic world as a whole) even possible TTL?
CONSOLIDATE: Something else that comes to mind -- would the Ummayad Caliph make the claim of being "Emperor of the Romans" TTL (as the Ottomans Sultans did OTL)? And seeing as we're predating the Frankish domain being rebranded as the "Holy Roman Empire", would this claim carry more weight in the Christian world?
Last edited:
1) Since everything in this thread flows from the Arab conquest of Constantinople, it would be kind of silly to assume that it was unrealistic.
2) The Battle of Toulouse would, I believe, be largely unaffected by the fall of Constantinople.
3) In order for the Arabs to be able to hold on to Constantinople they would need to secure at least most of Anatolia.
With the chaos inevitably brought on by the Fall of Constantinople, nothing is certain beyond the fact that there would be an attempt. This being reinforced by the fact that there was an attempt to raise a new emperor even before the fall of the city in OTL.
Much of the Caliphate was already former Roman provinces, so I don't see them gaining Anatolia and Constantinople as making them significantly more Roman than before. Heck, the Ummayad Caliphate's capital was in Damascus, a former Roman city in a former Roman province!
Considering that the Abbasid Revolution was caused by non-Arabs getting fed up with the Arab dominance in the Caliphate, I don't see the Caliphate's annexation of the last remnants of the Roman East preventing this, in fact, it may escalate it and make it happen sooner if anything, with more non-Arabs in the Caliphate.
I doubt it. From what I've read, the Arab Caliphate didn't really make much of an effort to connect themselves with the Romans, beyond using their administrative structure for tax collection. If anything, they did the opposite.
And with the Abbasids they did more to connect with the Persian Empire of old than the Romans.
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
This does make me think -- what would the Arabs do with "Roman" institutions they find in the Imperial capital? I imagine the episcopate, at the very least, are going to be left alone for the most part -- people of the book and all that --but what about, say, the Senate?
I would have to think this much at least would be a source of conflict with the "Roman" parts of the Caliphate, especially if their capital is in Constantinople of all places.
Dude butterflies the crusades are butterflied away
And the opposite, with the collapse of ere,the orthodox branch is very weakened so the Pope might used to Increase his power.
Depends the ummayd on charge.
Lombards would now do short work of them
Are they? Is all of Europe conquered by muslims? I dont think so. Do the OTL reasons for them still exist? They are amplified. Will they be different? Very.
They might be later or earlier but I think they are very likely to happen.
There is no orthodox branch yet and with the Empire either fallen or very weak they wont be in a position to question the Pope's supremacy. So yes, the Pope's power will be increased and the ortodox branch is unlikely to come to exist in this period.
Butterflies,the french and Brits might have to deal different enemies from nords and Italy would be a mess so everything changes
So how does the fall of Constantinople make the Nords significantly more of a problem than OTL? I dont see too much direct effect in northern and western Europe compared to OTL. Italy maybe but while I can see the muslims taking more ground in Italy compared to OTL I dont think they can take it all. And if Rome falls - or even threatened - thats more reason to crusade, not less. The arabic hold on the Balkans is going to be tenous for a good while and taking Constantinople will also not stabilize the Caliphate - it will still fragment.
A big long term difference could be if some or all of the slavs go muslim instead of christian. But even that is not a forgone conclusion I think.
It didn't cause much problems historically. Also, why would the capital be in Constantinople? While the Ummayads ruled a united Caliphate there would be little reason to move the capital from Damascus and the Abbasids would rule from Baghdad.
Some jundist might move but besides using Constantinople as a vacational palace, Damascus is still when they held the divan
1) The hell is a jundist?
2) That still wouldn't affect things. The capital would still be in Damascus. Though this might be why the Ummayads go to Constantinople when the Abbasids rise. Their vacations there really affected them.