AHC: Damascus is the Seat of the Caliph

Onyx

Banned
lenge is to have Damascus become a prosperous city under the Islamic Rulers and become the new capital for the Abbasid Caliph or a sucessor to it

Would a different versiobn of a Sacking of Baghdad be the preferred way to have this happen?
 
lenge is to have Damascus become a prosperous city under the Islamic Rulers and become the new capital for the Abbasid Caliph or a sucessor to it

Would a different versiobn of a Sacking of Baghdad be the preferred way to have this happen?

Um, Damascus did do pretty well under Muslim rule. And while it wasn't a capital under the Abbasids, it had been one earlier.
 

Onyx

Banned
Um, Damascus did do pretty well under Muslim rule. And while it wasn't a capital under the Abbasids, it had been one earlier.

Really? Was it a Caliphate?

When I meant better, I meant as prosperous as Baghad
 
Really? Was it a Caliphate?

When I meant better, I meant as prosperous as Baghad
Indeed, it was capital under the Umayyad Caliphate. As for the question of prosperity, Baghdad has the advantage of being on a river, which allows river trade as well as land based trade, so it lacks one advantage that made Baghdad rich.
 
Damascus was the capital of the Umayyads. The Abbasids moved the capital to Baghdad but Damascus did remain an important center of wealth and education. It seems unlikely that the Abbasids would keep Damascus as a capital because it was the capital of their enemies, and Syria was the Umayyads home turf. Baghdad, on the other hand, was well situated to integrate wealthy and newly-Muslim Persia. The Umayyad capital at Damascus was seen as being too Arab since Persians were becoming an increasingly influential part of the Islamic world.
 
Indeed, it was capital under the Umayyad Caliphate. As for the question of prosperity, Baghdad has the advantage of being on a river, which allows river trade as well as land based trade, so it lacks one advantage that made Baghdad rich.

Could trade be directed to go through Damascus more to compensate?
 
Could trade be directed to go through Damascus more to compensate?

What would be the reason traders go to Damascus more than OTL?

Short of forcible interference, traders go where they see an advantage, not where the state wants them.
 
Plain destroying Baghdad would help.

Well, not building it in the first place would help even more.
Of course, an early Abbasid defeat at the hands of the Umayyads would do. I don't think the Umayyad state could last very long anyway, not without very major reform at least, but whatever alternative force emerges to overthrow it might still choose Damascus as the capital.
It's not terribly likely I'm afraid, as the later Umayyads were not so focused on Damascus themselves, though Syria remained their stronghold.
 
What would be the reason traders go to Damascus more than OTL?

Short of forcible interference, traders go where they see an advantage, not where the state wants them.

Well, being a pretty major trade hub is the very reason Damascus is there to begin with. I think it always remained such until the end of the Ottoman Empire. However, Iraq sits on the Silk Road, Damascus usually does not. There are not so many ways to get around this.
 
Top