[DISCUSSION] The Umayyad Caliphate wins the siege of Constantinople (717-718)
why would there necessarily be a clear definitive line with Europe and Asia altogether?
@John7755 how do you explain the Volga Bulgars, and the Samanid Oghuz conversions?
Sure, the Caliph won't promote it much, but missionaries of Islam are there since the very start, and if the Ahlussunnah won't bite, the other sects... Would.
Sure, the Caliph won't promote it much, but missionaries of Islam are there since the very start, and if the Ahlussunnah won't bite, the other sects... Would.
The Volga Bulgars were the northern branch and remnant of the Bulgar horde branches off the Celestial Turk collapse. These Bulgars were the first to push west and were followed by their former liege masters, the Ashinid Khazar and their Pecheneg subordinates. These northern Bulgars, were made unwilling subordinates to the Khazars during the 8th and 9th century.
As the Khazar realm, still enemies with the Abbasid faltered and moved toward its Jewish ruling class phase more steadily, the Bulgars went their own way, if you will. Seeking protection from the Abbasid caliphs against the Pecheneg and a way to break the Khazar realm lieges. So, it came not by dawah, but by the caliphal aura extending outward.
I have a question it might be a stupid question but I want to know. why do people think the greeks will convert to Islam if Constantinople fell? because you all seem so certain that they will and what to say when the Umayyads collapse that the greek Christians get back to power. if I am not wrong to convert Iran there were large rebellions against Islamic rule could the caliph tame both the Persian lion and the greek Pheonix and continue to expand?
Like Persia, Greece is on the heartland of Ummayddas and when doing business and other thing Islam become very attractive, plus you think the whole grecco anatolian peninsula was fully christian...did was not and was very diverse, here Islam will be see as the religion of the establishment and attract those would be orthodox OTL. Meaning the orthodox loss adepts in the time.
I think the problem with a lot of these replies is that they seem to posit the Umayyad Caliphate as an almost exclusively expansionist polity, rather than one based around conquest, consolidation and control. Earlier in the thread we had users suggesting a 'reconquista' in northern Italy, and the Umayyads pushing their way into the Balkans.
The problem with this is that it doesn't really take into account the reasons behind the 717 campaign anyway. The Umayyads, as far as the historical sources suggest, don't seem to have had much intention of annexing Constantinople, all of Anatolia and then conquering the Balkans. Rather, it is far more logical to point out that the campaign was indeed launched as a result of the two powers competing over domination over Anatolia, and the Umayyads winning the siege would allow them to solve this problem in a single fell swoop. The question of them invading the Balkans, conquering all of Sicily and some of Italy would require its own logistical needs and an entirely different timeline to this. There is little evidence to suggest that the Umayyads would immediately seek to accomplish this afterwards.
Furthermore, a lot of the replies also seem to posit the collapse of the Umayyad state as some sort of inevitable event as a result of the oppression of non-arab muslims. Whilst this may have played somewhat of a role, there is little evidence to suggest that it was some kind of central policy of the Umayyads to do this, and the issue was far more multi-faceted. There is also little evidence to suggest that the abbasid revolution and the collapse of the umayyads were inevitable either.
I think that in regard to the immediate consequences, the subsequent power vacuum would lead to the Umayyads being established as the dominant force in Anatolia and would most probably conquer significantly more of it than they did in OT. A successful siege of Constantinople probably wouldn't immediately lead to them moving their capital there even if they were able to successfully annex the city. Their primary power base was still situated in Damascus, which provided a significant portion of their standing army and supporting tribes, as well as being close to the muslim heartlands.
One of the first users that replied raised an interesting point, the subsequent Umayyad wrestle for control over the Mediterranean. I would imagine that there may well eventually be a muslim conquest of the Island like in OT but it's hard to say whether it would be done by the Umayyads themselves or by a breakaway state in NA or a vassal.
The problem with this is that it doesn't really take into account the reasons behind the 717 campaign anyway. The Umayyads, as far as the historical sources suggest, don't seem to have had much intention of annexing Constantinople, all of Anatolia and then conquering the Balkans. Rather, it is far more logical to point out that the campaign was indeed launched as a result of the two powers competing over domination over Anatolia, and the Umayyads winning the siege would allow them to solve this problem in a single fell swoop. The question of them invading the Balkans, conquering all of Sicily and some of Italy would require its own logistical needs and an entirely different timeline to this. There is little evidence to suggest that the Umayyads would immediately seek to accomplish this afterwards.
Furthermore, a lot of the replies also seem to posit the collapse of the Umayyad state as some sort of inevitable event as a result of the oppression of non-arab muslims. Whilst this may have played somewhat of a role, there is little evidence to suggest that it was some kind of central policy of the Umayyads to do this, and the issue was far more multi-faceted. There is also little evidence to suggest that the abbasid revolution and the collapse of the umayyads were inevitable either.
I think that in regard to the immediate consequences, the subsequent power vacuum would lead to the Umayyads being established as the dominant force in Anatolia and would most probably conquer significantly more of it than they did in OT. A successful siege of Constantinople probably wouldn't immediately lead to them moving their capital there even if they were able to successfully annex the city. Their primary power base was still situated in Damascus, which provided a significant portion of their standing army and supporting tribes, as well as being close to the muslim heartlands.
One of the first users that replied raised an interesting point, the subsequent Umayyad wrestle for control over the Mediterranean. I would imagine that there may well eventually be a muslim conquest of the Island like in OT but it's hard to say whether it would be done by the Umayyads themselves or by a breakaway state in NA or a vassal.
still, don't answer how the Umayyads would maintain control over the territories and I would point out that thou the Armenians were under Islamic occupation far longer they are still Christian to this day. personally, i don't think the Arabs would have as much success in Anatolia as the Turks because they are 2 different beasts. and by your logic, you use that Islam is the religion of the establishment and thus people would convert shouldn't the greeks start speaking Arabic as well.
interesting point. I guess it comes down to Umayyad policy following a successful siege.