WI: Byzantine Emperor converts to Islam?

[AtreusHashim]

No, I'm not talking about Heraclius.

I'm talking about the period leading up to the Umayyad siege of Constantinople in 717. During this time the Byzantines were wracked with internal problems and their morale was reeling. In OTL Leo III forced the abdication of a weaker emperor and managed to keep the empire alive, but it reads like it was touch and go there for a while and the survival of the Byzantines is more of a historical fluke than anything else.

So supposing that a Byzantine Emperor sees he is stuck between a rock and a hard place in the form of the Arabs and Bulgars, and decides to convert to Islam, what happens next?

At this point converting basically means submitting to the authority of the caliph in Damascus so at best he will be a puppet king, but supposing he allows Arab troops to bolster his own, what are the chances he manages to keep his throne? How far into Europe does Islam spread? Does this affect the development of classical Islamic culture to be less Persianate and more Mediterranean?

 

[Maeglin]

Not happening - anyone who tried would see immediate rebellion within Constantinople. Religion mattered to these people, to a degree where the Byzantines saw themselves in the same situation as the Biblical Israelites - God's people, surrounded by enemies.

At a minimum, I think you would need to alter the history of Christianity first - eliminating the ecumenical councils, and having diverse groups running around... at a pinch, you could then perhaps argue that Islam was just another (non-trinitarian) Christian variant. But that would never fly past the fourth century.

 

[NotAMyth]

Not happening - anyone who tried would see immediate rebellion within Constantinople. Religion mattered to these people, to a degree where the Byzantines saw themselves in the same situation as the Biblical Israelites - God's people, surrounded by enemies.

At a minimum, I think you would need to alter the history of Christianity first - eliminating the ecumenical councils, and having diverse groups running around... at a pinch, you could then perhaps argue that Islam was just another (non-trinitarian) Christian variant. But that would never fly past the fourth century.

Even that would be a very hard sell, given Islam viewed itself as being distinct from Christianity. And given the massive difference in doctrine and customs even the early Islam had, this was always apparent to everyone.
Also, we have to remember that at this point Islam was very much still an Arab religion, with new converts having to be sponsored by one of the tribes, and having lesser status than normal Muslims. Promoting conversions was an Abbasid thing, which was basically a rebellion supported by all the groups pissed at the exclusive rights of the Arabs running the caliphate. The Ummayads preferred to retain the status quo if the populace was willing. It is likely given the hostility of the Roman populace they would rather have a compliant Christian roman puppet than have to deal with all the internal ERE shit by themselves.

 

[AtreusHashim]

Not happening - anyone who tried would see immediate rebellion within Constantinople. Religion mattered to these people, to a degree where the Byzantines saw themselves in the same situation as the Biblical Israelites - God's people, surrounded by enemies.

At a minimum, I think you would need to alter the history of Christianity first - eliminating the ecumenical councils, and having diverse groups running around... at a pinch, you could then perhaps argue that Islam was just another (non-trinitarian) Christian variant. But that would never fly past the fourth century.

On the other hand, the Byzantines have been fighting each other viciously for twenty odd years by the time Leo III comes to power. I have seen no indication that any of the major power players thought to ensure they were safe from these existential external threats before they sorted things out among themselves.

Secondly, the religion of the rulers and the religion of the ruled was not in accord for almost 3-4 centuries after the Muslim conquests. Persia still had large numbers of Zoroastrians well into the 900s and Egypt still has a massive amount of Christians in the modern day. The emperor converting doesn't really change anything for your average citizen other than a few Arabs sitting around in garrison towns nearby.

 

[AtreusHashim]

Also, we have to remember that at this point Islam was very much still an Arab religion, with new converts having to be sponsored by one of the tribes, and having lesser status than normal Muslims.

Because the structure of the Umayyad caliphate was to extract resources from conquered populations with an Arab military elite residing in garrison towns and leaving the day to day administration to the locals.

Why would this not be possible in Byzantium? The Emperor converting means their most powerful rival is literally handing them the keys to the Kingdom in order to remain the Governor of Rum, there's no way they turn that down.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Said emperor comes down with a sudden case of the dead and a man who’s smarter about his choice of religion and doesn’t want to come down with a sudden case of the dead takes over.

 

[Maeglin]

On the other hand, the Byzantines have been fighting each other viciously for twenty odd years by the time Leo III comes to power. I have seen no indication that any of the major power players thought to ensure they were safe from these existential external threats before they sorted things out among themselves.

Secondly, the religion of the rulers and the religion of the ruled was not in accord for almost 3-4 centuries after the Muslim conquests. Persia still had large numbers of Zoroastrians well into the 900s and Egypt still has a massive amount of Christians in the modern day. The emperor converting doesn't really change anything for your average citizen other than a few Arabs sitting around in garrison towns nearby.

Problem is, the Emperors considered themselves Roman... and once into the fifth century, that meant Christian. The two identities were inseparable for them. The Empire's religious nature was not derived from its subjects, but rather from what the Empire purported to be - the universal state, under one God and one Emperor, with a capital built by Constantine himself. An Islamic Byzantium isn't Byzantium.

 

[NotAMyth]

Because the structure of the Umayyad caliphate was to extract resources from conquered populations with an Arab military elite residing in garrison towns and leaving the day to day administration to the locals.

Why would this not be possible in Byzantium? The Emperor converting means their most powerful rival is literally handing them the keys to the Kingdom in order to remain the Governor of Rum, there's no way they turn that down.

Because it won't be just one guy converting-It would be ritual subjugation of the entire orthodox populace. Not such an easy sell for any guy to explain to his people.
And anyways the Ummayads didn't want people converting-They didn't like the challenge to them or their cultural supremacy in Islam. The concept of a worldwide ummah, including all the different peoples of the world developed in later centuries.

 

[Vitalian]

That Emperor gets brutally murdered by literally everyone who can get there hands on him. Byzantines double down on orthodoxy or iconoclasm(I personally think iconoclasm stand more of a chance in this kind of scenario) and act aggressively against the Arabs.

 

[AtreusHashim]

Because it won't be just one guy converting-It would be ritual subjugation of the entire orthodox populace. Not such an easy sell for any guy to explain to his people.
And anyways the Ummayads didn't want people converting-They didn't like the challenge to them or their cultural supremacy in Islam. The concept of a worldwide ummah, including all the different peoples of the world developed in later centuries.

You're right the Umayyads did not want subjugated populations converting. In their view converts bad, Jizya good.

But again, why on earth would the Emperor converting be a bad thing for the Umayyads? A Malwai Emperor them a toe in the door of an impregnable fortress they could not hope to penetrate without help from the inside. They're not going to demand the Orhtodox population of the Empire convert, just that the Imperial administration take orders from the Arabs.

The Umayyads can field something like four times the men at that moment and once they are in the city the Greek have no chance in hell of managing to oust them. A Byzantine insurgency will bog down the Caliphates armies for some time, possibly lead to an earlier Abassid-esque revolution, but I can't imagine they lose a prize like Constantinople unless they are going down with the ship.

 

[Maeglin]

That Emperor gets brutally murdered by literally everyone who can get there hands on him. Byzantines double down on orthodoxy or iconoclasm(I personally think iconoclasm stand more of a chance in this kind of scenario) and act aggressively against the Arabs.

Nah, it would be too easy for the Iconophiles to paint the Iconoclasts as Muslims-lite. A short-lived Islamic Emperor might well hamstring Iconoclasm later on.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

My initial thought is that a knife soon gets imbedded in the Emperor's back, but the religious authorities may opt for a more formal and brutal execution of the apostate.

 

[Maeglin]

My initial thought is that a knife soon gets imbedded in the Emperor's back, but the religious authorities may opt for a more formal and brutal execution of the apostate.

If he's willing to return to Christianity, a blinding and exile to a monastery might be permitted. If not, well, it's burning alive time.

 

[Clandango]

If he's willing to return to Christianity, a blinding and exile to a monastery might be permitted. If not, well, it's burning alive time.

Depends who he tells his plans too and how public they are. I expect for the sake of morale the Emperor died falling off a wall, his mangled body breaking the fall of a baby someone dropped.

 

[NotAMyth]

You're right the Umayyads did not want subjugated populations converting. In their view converts bad, Jizya good.

But again, why on earth would the Emperor converting be a bad thing for the Umayyads? A Malwai Emperor them a toe in the door of an impregnable fortress they could not hope to penetrate without help from the inside. They're not going to demand the Orhtodox population of the Empire convert, just that the Imperial administration take orders from the Arabs.

The Umayyads can field something like four times the men at that moment and once they are in the city the Greek have no chance in hell of managing to oust them. A Byzantine insurgency will bog down the Caliphates armies for some time, possibly lead to an earlier Abassid-esque revolution, but I can't imagine they lose a prize like Constantinople unless they are going down with the ship.

I think you are misattributing the resilience of the medieval Roman state to Arab invasions solely to the defense of the City. For example in the siege of 717, even with Constantinople cut-off, the defenses of Eastern Anatolia held relatively well- So much so that raids were continuously being launched against them for the duration of the siege. Add to this you have the Arab army that was ambushed and defeated south of Nicomedia, according to the classical defense-in-depth guerilla warfare in this era of the empire.

Even if they had the men to occupy and take settlements across Asia Minor and Thrace, they probably could not hold these areas without difficulty. The losses the Ummayad suffered during the siege would simply happen over time, as they lose their garrisons to attrition, while some upstart somewhere in Greece or Sicily declares himself emperor. What's the point of having a compliant puppet if it's still going to be a military occupation?

Not to mention with the Abbasid revolution on the horizon, such an occupation was simply not tenable in the long term.

 

[Falecius]

Even that would be a very hard sell, given Islam viewed itself as being distinct from Christianity. And given the massive difference in doctrine and customs even the early Islam had, this was always apparent to everyone.
Also, we have to remember that at this point Islam was very much still an Arab religion, with new converts having to be sponsored by one of the tribes, and having lesser status than normal Muslims. Promoting conversions was an Abbasid thing, which was basically a rebellion supported by all the groups pissed at the exclusive rights of the Arabs running the caliphate. The Ummayads preferred to retain the status quo if the populace was willing. It is likely given the hostility of the Roman populace they would rather have a compliant Christian roman puppet than have to deal with all the internal ERE shit by themselves.

Note that the Umayyads were perfectly happy with prominent positions at court being filled by Christians, at basically every level that did not involve military command directly.

 

[NotAMyth]

Note that the Umayyads were perfectly happy with prominent positions at court being filled by Christians, at basically every level that did not involve military command directly.

You are right, but I'd phrase it a different way-

...prominent positions at court being filled by Non-Arab, Non-muslims, at basically every level that did not involve military command directly.

The Ummayads would not consent to even a Muslim who was a non-Arab to retain governorship/military command of Rûm. And even if they did, absolutely nothing would change in terms of the resources they would have to expend to control the region. And the Pact of Umar required the non-Islamic people to subjugate themselves and their religion, which the Romans of this age are unlikely to do willingly.

 

[ike225]

So supposing that a Byzantine Emperor sees he is stuck between a rock and a hard place in the form of the Arabs and Bulgars, and decides to convert to Islam, what happens next?

The emperor dies violently the moment word of the emperor thinking about converting reaches his court officials and guards, who turn on him the very second they hear it. They might just say the emperor died peacefully in his sleep to keep a general revolt from happening and a smarter relative takes the throne. If they don't immediately kill him, the moment the citizens of Constantinople hear of the emperor's conversion, they revolt and storm the palace. the guard sides with the people and lets them in where they sack the palace and kill everyone suspected of even entertaining the idea of converting or remaining loyal to the now apostate arch-traitor.
If the Patriarch is able to intervene and have the now-deposed emperor arrested/captured, a very nice pyre is build and the idiot dies a firey death.

At this point converting basically means submitting to the authority of the caliph in Damascus so at best he will be a puppet king, but supposing he allows Arab troops to bolster his own, what are the chances he manages to keep his throne? How far into Europe does Islam spread? Does this affect the development of classical Islamic culture to be less Persianate and more Mediterranean?

The Roman Emperor would never submit to the authority of someone else. Allowing Arab troops into the empire would see them slaughtered the moment they enter. He doesn't have a chance to keep his throne, the moment word gets out that he even considered converting, he is dead.

The Umayyads can field something like four times the men at that moment and once they are in the city the Greek have no chance in hell of managing to oust them. A Byzantine insurgency will bog down the Caliphates armies for some time, possibly lead to an earlier Abassid-esque revolution, but I can't imagine they lose a prize like Constantinople unless they are going down with the ship.

Even if there is no reaction to the emperor converting to Islam and subjugating the Empire to the Caliphs, and an Arab army/garrison is able to enter Constantinople, they will now be besieged by both the local population and the entire Empire, with the Caliphs having no ability to resupply to besieged troops, so they die violently.


Oh and the term of religious war and crusade quickly become popular. the Empire goes on the offensive with a fanatical army.

 

[Falecius]

You are right, but I'd phrase it a different way-

The Ummayads would not consent to even a Muslim who was a non-Arab to retain governorship/military command of Rûm. And even if they did, absolutely nothing would change in terms of the resources they would have to expend to control the region. And the Pact of Umar required the non-Islamic people to subjugate themselves and their religion, which the Romans of this age are unlikely to do willingly.

I was actually referring to non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs as well, some of whom were fairly critical supporters of the (early) Umayyads (especially the Banū Kalb).

 

[Falecius]

However, there is precedent for local "governors" who were not Arabs under the Umayyads too. Local agreements between the Arab commanders and some Pahlav houses are an example (though the matter was... complicated to say the least).