Constantinople falls in 675- A mini brainstorming timeline

670s- Constantinople falls to the Muslim invaders. Emperor Constantine IV dies a martyr. The Muslims then swiftly move to subdue Thessalonica and Roman Anatolia. Floods of refugees swarm westwards to what remains of Roman Italy. The capital of the Ummayad Caliphate is transferred to Constantinople.

680s- The Exarch of Ravenna proclaims himself Roman Emperor in Ravenna, and immediately sets about building a fleet to ward off Muslim and Slavic incursions into Italy. Meanwhile, a Syrian arrives at the Imperial court of Ravenna, bearing Greek Fire, which the Romans swiftly make use of to defeat a large Saracen fleet that has attacked Carthage. The Ummayads hunker down and attempt to secure the Balkans. In the east, Husayn ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet, begins to carve out a rival Caliphate in the Indus valley.

690s- The Romans attempt to consolidate their grip on North Africa, but the Berbers in the west and Arabs in the east are increasingly pushing them out. Roman control is effectively restricted to OTL Tunisia. The Arabs meanwhile in a series of succesful campaigns drive the Slavs from the old Roman provinces of the eastern Balkans, and establish the dhimmi tax on the Christian inhabitants, while enslaving the pagan Slavs.

700s- The Arabs attempt another attack on Carthage, but are beaten back by a force led by the Emperor personally. The Romans are then able to temporarily "liberate" Crete, though the inhabitants are less than pleased at the high taxes imposed from Ravenna. Taking advantage in the lull in Arab warfare, the Romans set the seal on a successful decade by defeating the Lombards of Benevento and restoring the region to the Empire.

710s- The Ummayads lose a war with Ali's Caliphate, which takes Persia, and comes close to overunning Mesopotamia. The war between the two Muslim states now settles down into a long conflict in the western Zagros and Persian Gulf, giving the battered Christians time to recover their energies. Carthage falls to the Berbers, and the Visigothic kingdom collapses into civil war.

720s- The Roman Emperor Theodosius V dominates the decade, reconquering Milan, Roman Africa, and Illyria for the Empire, with the support of his Frankish brother-in-law Louis. In Britain, the Christianised Saxons continue to move westward, thanks to subsidies from the Orthodox Christian Franks. The Ummayads begin to come under sustained attacks from the Bulgars on the Danube frontier.

730s- The Bulgars inflict a crushing defeat upon the Ummayads, and sack Thessalonica, before moving onwards to Constantinople. Meanwhile, the Romans consolidate their grip on Corcyra and support a semi-independent Christian kingdom of Epirus. With great efforts, the Ummayads throw back the Bulgars, but their dynasty has been tarnished beyond repair. In 739, another civil war breaks out within the Caliphate.

740s- Spania is reunited under Alderico, who immediately goes to war with the Franks. While this conflict takes place, Theodosius V quietly fortifies Ceuta, knowing that the Spanians may well turn to North Africa next. In 744, the Ummayads are overthrown by the Amanids, who move the capital from Constantinople to Iconium.

750s- The Amanids, eager to legitimise themselves as leaders of western Islam, attack Roman Italy, under the control of Theodosius' incompetent son Constantine VI. The Romans suffer several heavy defeats, and Rome is sacked, with the Patriarch being taken hostage and dragged back to Iconium. Constantine VI is overthrown and replaced by the millitarily minded Justin III, ending the Heraclian dynasty.

760s- Justin retaliates agsinst the Amanids, by sailing into the Aegean and destroying Athens, which has been lavishly restored by the Hellenophile Caliph. The Roman and Amanid fleets meet off eastern Crete, and the Amanids are utterly destroyed. Henceforth, Ravenna holds naval superiority for several years. The Spanians conclude a peace with the Franks, and settle down to consolidate their kingdom.

770s- The Frankish King Charles unites Francia, and invades Kent, which is under the rule of a pretender Queen. In the East, the Amanid Caliphate and Roman Empire wage a war of words in Pannonia, attempting to convert rival tribes to either Islam or Christianity. A Roman army in Illyria is heavily defeated by the Amanids, who devastate the countryside.


Vaguelly plausible for 15 minutes work? Should I go on for a bit?
 
A few quibbles:

the Umayyads would not transfer their capital to Constantinople within a year after their conquest. In fact, I'm not sure they would at all. It just doesn't make sense. Also we need more details about Ali's caliphate.
Remind me when the Franks were converted to Orthodoxy? :confused:
Finally, the Muslims wouldn't really be proselytizing actively in Pannonia. It kind of goes against their beliefs.
 
I don't know, I think they'd keep their capital in Baghdad or Cairo or Damascus, but not move it that far out of Arab lands.
 

DusanUros

Banned
A few quibbles:

the Umayyads would not transfer their capital to Constantinople within a year after their conquest.
Well Mehmet did....why not the Arabs as well? If it doesnt get sacked....they could.

Remind me when the Franks were converted to Orthodoxy? :confused:
Back then there wasnt really any Orthodoxy or Catholicism, they were all "Christians" so yeah.....

Finally, the Muslims wouldn't really be proselytizing actively in Pannonia. It kind of goes against their beliefs.
They would leave the locals remain Christian? Wasnt their wars religious, in order to spread the faith?

WHAT THE.....I just noticed its BG timeline......yeah ok, stanard quality. I endorse it. BG....a map we need.
 
Well Mehmet did....why not the Arabs as well? If it doesnt get sacked....they could.
Sorry. Mehmet rulled an empire in western Antolia and the Balkans. Constantinople was the center of the land he ruled, not a distant periphery. Moreover, the Umayyads were really pro-Arab so are they really going to shift the capital out of Arab lands? Anatolia and I guess the Balkans are still going to be a periphery of the Caliphate, one in which Damascus remains a central point.

I get that it's necessary to have their center of power farther away to launch a proto-shia rebellion but I'm fairly sure the Caliphate armies hadn't reached the Indus by this period--the conquest hadn't taken place until the early part of the 710s. So I guess I'm questionable about the ability of a rival power to emerge there that early. Remember, previous invasions failed because the land was so harsh--could an independent actor like that really pull off the logistics necessary in the face of fierce resistance?
 

DusanUros

Banned
If that is the case, then they shouldnt even try on taking Constantinople. The manpower and resources needed to pull this off would seriously weaken the caliphate, which it actually did as far as i can tell. Now that you mention it, even if they do take Constantinople, can they hold it? Because as far as i know, the conquests of the caliphate were more or less a medieval style of blitzkrieg, could they keep what they got?
 
A few quibbles:

the Umayyads would not transfer their capital to Constantinople within a year after their conquest. In fact, I'm not sure they would at all. It just doesn't make sense. Also we need more details about Ali's caliphate.
At the Time Constantinople was the largest city in Europe/Africa. If the Muslims take The City, whe get Constantinople as a Centre of Muslim Power, overlapped on the Eastern Roman Empire.
 
They would leave the locals remain Christian? Wasnt their wars religious, in order to spread the faith?

If that was the case than I think the Arabs wouldn't be able to grab a hold of their empire as long as the OTL's case, for they wouldn't be different from Romans in the eyes of the Syrian and Egyptian subjects.

By the way, wasn't Pannonnia still Slavic Pagan at this time ? :confused:
 

DusanUros

Banned
If that was the case than I think the Arabs wouldn't be able to grab a hold of their empire as long as the OTL's case, for they wouldn't be different from Romans in the eyes of the Syrian and Egyptian subjects.

By the way, wasn't Pannonnia still Slavic Pagan at this time ? :confused:

Well their conversion is less than a century away.
 
A few quibbles:

the Umayyads would not transfer their capital to Constantinople within a year after their conquest. In fact, I'm not sure they would at all. It just doesn't make sense. Also we need more details about Ali's caliphate.
Remind me when the Franks were converted to Orthodoxy? :confused:
Finally, the Muslims wouldn't really be proselytizing actively in Pannonia. It kind of goes against their beliefs.

The Ummayads were always famously pro-Roman, almost to a scandalous degree amongst the other Arabs. I can see them making Constantinople their capital quite easily, especially if they are making concerted efforts at snuffing out the Roman presence in Italy and Africa.

The Franks were converted to Orthodoxy in 496, if I recall. The date remains subject to some debate though.

I thought the Muslims didn't have any problem with attempting to convert pagans?

Anyway, I shall continue this, now in slightly more detail.

775-780: The Romans continue to recieve a battering from the Amanids on land, and the situation is not helped by the death of Justin III in 778. Justin is suceeded by his son Constantine V, but Constantine is more of a diplomat than a warrior. The Amanids meanwhile, led by the formidable Caliph Uthman, take the opportunity to launch an attack on the Roman Duchy of Cherson. The result is a disastrous defeat for the Muslims, and Uthman is killed.

780-785: Uthman is succeeded by his eldest son Aarif, but Aarif is murdered in 783 by his three brothers, Mawsil, Hurayth and Sulayman. The Amanid Caliphate immediately collapses into civil war. Taking advantage of the chaos, a large army of Bulgars crosses the Danube, and sacks its way across the Balkans, eventually reaching Adrianople, where the Khan declares himself "liberator of the Romans", and claims for himself the title of Roman Emperor.

785-790: The Amanid wars have now reached a point of equilibrium. Mawsil holds Anatolia and the Aegean, with his capital at Constantinople. Hurayth rules Egypt, as well as Cyprus and Rhodes. Sulayman meanwhile takes the Fertile Crescent. Meanwhile, the Romans begin to push back into Epirus, beginning the "Renovatio Imperium". They are aided in this by the Bulgar Khan, who has become hopelessly emeshed in the subtle diplomacy of the Emperor Constantine V.

790-795: Shortly after the Imperial reconquest of Nicopolis and Dyrrachium, North Africa revolts, supported by the Spanians. Constantine is immediately forced to withdraw from Epirus to deal with the rebellion. Meanwhile, Sultan Hurayth invades Mecca, which is notionally under the rule of his brother Sulayman. In an act of shocking sacrilege, he takes the Kaabah, and moves it to his capital at Alexandria.
 
790-795: Shortly after the Imperial reconquest of Nicopolis and Dyrrachium, North Africa revolts, supported by the Spanians. Constantine is immediately forced to withdraw from Epirus to deal with the rebellion. Meanwhile, Sultan Hurayth invades Mecca, which is notionally under the rule of his brother Sulayman. In an act of shocking sacrilege, he takes the Kaabah, and moves it to his capital at Alexandria.
Well we'll just agree to disagree on Constantinople I guess but can the Kaaba actually be moved? I mean, is it physically possible to do so at this time?
 
Well we'll just agree to disagree on Constantinople I guess but can the Kaaba actually be moved? I mean, is it physically possible to do so at this time?

I'm not sure. Like I say, this is a brainstorm of extreme amateur AH, rather than a piece that has been researched in any detail WHATSOEVER! If anyone would like to take this over and clear it up, then please be my guest.
 
Sorry. Mehmet rulled an empire in western Antolia and the Balkans. Constantinople was the center of the land he ruled, not a distant periphery. Moreover, the Umayyads were really pro-Arab so are they really going to shift the capital out of Arab lands? Anatolia and I guess the Balkans are still going to be a periphery of the Caliphate, one in which Damascus remains a central point.

I get that it's necessary to have their center of power farther away to launch a proto-shia rebellion but I'm fairly sure the Caliphate armies hadn't reached the Indus by this period--the conquest hadn't taken place until the early part of the 710s. So I guess I'm questionable about the ability of a rival power to emerge there that early. Remember, previous invasions failed because the land was so harsh--could an independent actor like that really pull off the logistics necessary in the face of fierce resistance?

I'm not sure on what basis you would call the Umayyads "pro-Arab". That is meaningless. The Umayyads were "pro-Islam", and that would drive their policy. Constantinople was capital of the world, and if captured they would make it theirs.
 
I'm not sure. Like I say, this is a brainstorm of extreme amateur AH, rather than a piece that has been researched in any detail WHATSOEVER! If anyone would like to take this over and clear it up, then please be my guest.

You can't move the Kaaba. It's place is fixed. I agree with you, the capital would be moved to Constantinople.

I'm confused by this TL. Islam is doing better than in OTL, Constantinople is in Muslim hands... it's a trap, right?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
You can't move the Kaaba. It's place is fixed. I agree with you, the capital would be moved to Constantinople.

I'm confused by this TL. Islam is doing better than in OTL, Constantinople is in Muslim hands... it's a trap, right?

Looks like one... ...I'll just wait and find out.
 
I'd say Islam's doing approximately equal to OTL- the Balkans are Muslim occupied, but Spain and North Africa west of Tripoli remain in Christian hands, and the Exarchate of Ravenna has become a fairly stable revived WRE. Islamo-wank this ain't!
 
I think that if the Arabs made it big in Eastern Europe in the 7th century then they wouldn't make much headway. The Ottomans advanced so far because of their utilization of artillery, their great manpower and their professional soldiers. Notice how the Ottoman Empire goes on the decline as soon as other powers raise regular, disciplined armies. . .
But anyway, the fact is that the Arabs relied on shock tactics, their zeal and their numbers. Now in 7th century Eastern Europe there are lots of semi-nomadic people like the Bulgars etc. who are still moving around ,sacking cities etc. These people would be much better at fighting the Arabs than the Romans etc.
So my thoughts are even if they could take Constantinople, which I doubt (they needed the world's largest guns in 1453) then they'd probably run out of energy in the Carpathians. It would, however, probably have a massive impact on European culture- I'm thinking instead of Spain being the cultural melting pot of ideas that it was in OTL perhaps Greece- it already has the learning of the ancients (although how much of this survives after the destructionof Athens?). Considering that Christanity is still quite fragmented at this point (they're still stamping out Arianism, or am I too late?) then maybe some sort of Islamic-Christian hybrid faith.

There are my thoughts; I have many more but few of them are relevent.
 
Constantinople falling that early might be very interesting. Could we see an Islam more influenced by the Greeks?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think that if the Arabs made it big in Eastern Europe in the 7th century then they wouldn't make much headway. The Ottomans advanced so far because of their utilization of artillery, their great manpower and their professional soldiers. Notice how the Ottoman Empire goes on the decline as soon as other powers raise regular, disciplined armies. . .
But anyway, the fact is that the Arabs relied on shock tactics, their zeal and their numbers. Now in 7th century Eastern Europe there are lots of semi-nomadic people like the Bulgars etc. who are still moving around ,sacking cities etc. These people would be much better at fighting the Arabs than the Romans etc.

Quite likely through the South Slavs or at least the Bulgarians may convert to Islam, But likely Balkan may end up much as OTL a mix different people.

The West is going to much more interesting with North Africa and South Europe ntegrated into each other, we may end up see a split Between a Roman south and Frankish/Germanic north, with the Franks setting up their own Patriachs.

So my thoughts are even if they could take Constantinople, which I doubt (they needed the world's largest guns in 1453) then they'd probably run out of energy in the Carpathians. It would, however, probably have a massive impact on European culture- I'm thinking instead of Spain being the cultural melting pot of ideas that it was in OTL perhaps Greece- it already has the learning of the ancients (although how much of this survives after the destructionof Athens?). Considering that Christanity is still quite fragmented at this point (they're still stamping out Arianism, or am I too late?) then maybe some sort of Islamic-Christian hybrid faith.

There are my thoughts; I have many more but few of them are relevent.

Yes through southen Balkan and Anatolia may end up a Greek version of Persia (which was much like Muslim Spain), a somewhat unified identity, even if it home to several different languages other than Greek

Constantinople falling that early might be very interesting. Could we see an Islam more influenced by the Greeks?

Likely with Both Persia and Byzans under Islamic rule, we may see Islam evolve much more rigidly with organised priesthood, rather than the much more informal imams of OTL.
 
Top