AHC/WI: Caliphate collapses in the late 7th/early 8th century?

How plausible would it be for the Umayyad Caliphate to collapse sometime in the late 600s or early 700s into utter anarchy?

How plausible are the following as a result of this:

1. Independent Coptic Egypt or
2. Byzantine reconquest of Egypt
3. Independent Christian Assyria
4. New Zoroastrian Persia (or many Persian kingdoms?)
5. Jewish/pagan/Christian or even Muslim Berber kingdoms?

What would be the fate of Arabia?

What would be the overall outcome for both the Muslims and Arabs living in Arabia and in the lands of the former Caliphate, as well as the Christians, Zoroastrians and others who would still be the vast majority in their own lands?

Would Islamic powers ever be able to expand again if Christians and Zoroastrians did manage to take back control of their lands?
 
The fall of the Umayyad state is likely very difficult without it being immediately replaced by a powerful Islamic state. Non Muslim were disarmed and not martial in general and slowly allowing themselves to become aloof to politics and letting political issues be a Muslim issue. This was seen in the Abbasid rebellion in which the Christians and Jews sides with the Abbasid not out of necessity but because they had no idea how a state is ran.

1. Very very unlikely, the Copts were disarmed beyond belief and submissive near entirely.

2. Possible, but likely requires conquest of the Levant which is implausible if they don't retake Anatolia from the Umayyad proxies.

3. Basically impossible at this point, independent Assyria has been by this point dead since the 300s BC, at least from what I've read.

4. The most possible, but a tough road ahead, I suppose the Karenid might be able to pull it off. That being said Muslim nobles still rule Iran unless they just disappear and they will do anything to keep power and the majority of the population of Iran is likely not strong enough to eject them.

5. Basically occurred otl with the Berber revolt. Have that be successful and voila, a major Berber dominated state and likely Arabic remains confined Libya eastward. Jewish Berber state or Jewish any state, less possible than Assyria unless we stop Islam. Pagan is possible if we go back to the Ridda wars but after Ridda wars not possible in Arabia. In Aghanistan, the Zunbil would still be there and the Yazidi might could have a tiny statelet, but unlikely as they will quickly get swallowed by surrounding Islamic states.

Depends on the area, Iran and Maghreb, perhaps not. But Assyria, Levant, Iraq, etc almost definitely unless Islam is completely destroyed and put into Makkah or something.


Arabia would have little change, it would be a hotbed of revolution and piety with its main export being faith, Red Sea trade and Revolution.
 
Last edited:
The fall of the Umayyad state is likely very difficult without it being immediately replaced by a powerful Islamic state. Non Muslim were disarmed and not martial in general and slowly allowing themselves to become aloof to politics and letting political issues be a Muslim issue. This was seen in the Abbasid rebellion in which the Christians and Jews sides with the Abbasid not out of necessity but because they had no idea how a state is ran.

1. Very very unlikely, the Copts were disarmed beyond belief and submissive near entirely.

2. Possible, but likely requires conquest of the Levant which is implausible if they don't retake Anatolia from the Umayyad proxies.

3. Basically impossible at this point, independent Assyria has been by this point dead since the 300s BC, at least from what I've read.

4. The most possible, but a tough road ahead, I suppose the Karenid might be able to pull it off. That being said Muslim nobles still rule Iran unless they just disappear and they will do anything to keep power and the majority of the population of Iran is likely not strong enough to eject them.

5. Basically occurred otl with the Berber revolt. Have that be successful and voila, a major Berber dominated state and likely Arabic remains confined Libya eastward. Jewish Berber state or Jewish any state, less possible than Assyria unless we stop Islam. Pagan is possible if we go back to the Ridda wars but after Ridda wars not possible in Arabia. In Aghanistan, the Zunbil would still be there and the Yazidi might could have a tiny statelet, but unlikely as they will quickly get swallowed by surrounding Islamic states.

Depends on the area, Iran and Maghreb, perhaps not. But Assyria, Levant, Iraq, etc almost definitely unless Islam is completely destroyed and put into Makkah or something.


Arabia would have little change, it would be a hotbed of revolution and piety with its main export being faith, Red Sea trade and Revolution.

Why is it difficult to have it fall without replacement immediately by another Islamic state? Why is it more unlikely than say, the collapse of the Mongolic successor states like the Ilkhanate?

I don't think like of armament would be a problem, on the basis that the Khorramdin Revolution and multiple other rebellions began at this time without trouble (obviously they were crushed by the much stronger states they were rebelling against; but this wouldn't necessarily be the same outcome against an already collapsing state, if we assumed the Umayyads are weak).

There'd likely also be outside influence from another empire such as the Byzantines who would like to see the fall of the Caliphate. I'd imagine they'd support dissidents such as former noble houses of Armenia and Iran, or perhaps even rebels in Egypt or the Levant, though the latter seems less likely.

1. The Copts had a large rebellion 725 and that was after several smaller rebellions, and would be followed by more rebellions all the way until the 1200s. I'd hardly call them submissive. Armament would be an issue, though I can't see it preventing a determined people if they play their cards right at a time when rebellions are occurring across the Caliphate.

2. Anatolia was consistently in the hands of the Byzantines - do you mean the Taurus Mountains/Cilicia? If so, the Byzantines eventually retook those lands anyway, along with Antioch in the Levant; so I don't see why it'd be implausible for them to do so earlier if the right opportunity was taken.

3. Well Jewish Israel also had a long history of non-existence for the past 2 millenia but, it didn't stop it coming back :p I don't think Assyria being dominated since the Persian conquest would stop a revival, though I don't think that means it'll definitely happen either.

4. I feel the Dabuyids were also in a good position that if they played their cards right could retake some of the Persian lands. Maybe you'd even see a stand off between several Zoroastrian noble houses.

5. The Yazidi weren't really a solid identity until centuries later from the time in question; Kurdish Paganism would have still been the dominant religion among the Kurds. I can't really see them forming an independent state either; much as was the case for the Lurs, they were entirely within the Persian sphere of influence until much, much later - heck, they weren't even a solidly separate identity until the 10th century onward.

I can't see little change in Arabia with a complete collapse of the Caliphate; for a start, you'd have the Byzantines, or whoever had control of Egypt, looking towards the Hejaz with prying eyes.

What are your thoughts?
 
I don't see how attempts by the ERE to retake Egypt might be impossible without the taking of Levant.There were a number of serious attempts after they lost Egypt.If there's complete anarchy,they might be able to do it if they played their cards right.
 
I don't see how attempts by the ERE to retake Egypt might be impossible without the taking of Levant.There were a number of serious attempts after they lost Egypt.If there's complete anarchy,they might be able to do it if they played their cards right.


Yes they did try but got repelled quite easily despite the Abbasid fighting on multiple fronts. Further, it is difficult to just land in Egypt and conquer the whole area via just the Nile, as they would try, they have to completely move up and down while Arab armies scramble where they are not at, and due to the submissiveness of the Copts, the defense of any city is hard pressed.

Now we are talking about a collapse during the Umayyad, which means Byzantium is having the war fought on their turf, they would first have to recover quite considerably before attempting such a feat, even with a collapsed Arab state. A native Arab Egyptian state would likely defend itself well from Byzantium unless the Levant was already taken.
 
Last edited:
Yes they did try but got repelled quite easily despite the Abbasid fighting on multiple fronts. Further, it is difficult to just land in Egypt and conquer the whole area via just the Nile, as they would try, they have to completely move up and down while Arab armies scramble where they are not at, and due to the submissiveness of the Copts, the defense of any city is hard pressed.

Now we are talking about a collapse during the Umayyad, which means Byzantium is having the war fought on their turf, they would first have to recover quite considerably before attempting such a feat, even with a collapsed Arab state. A native Arab Egyptian state would like defend itself well from Byzantium unless the Levant was already taken.

Egypt would have been under Arab rule for less than a century by this point (in fact, just under or over 50 years). Why would an Arab Egyptian state be so much more likely than a Coptic or even Greek one? Armenia, Georgia and many other states that were at one point or another subject to the Caliphate ended up with independent native dynasties again after more than a century of Islamic rule - why is this so much less likely for the Copts? (The Armenians and Georgians had also not been independent people for a long while by the time of the Islamic conquest).

Also my other questions in my post above?
 
I don't see how attempts by the ERE to retake Egypt might be impossible without the taking of Levant.There were a number of serious attempts after they lost Egypt.If there's complete anarchy,they might be able to do it if they played their cards right.

These were my thoughts. That said, I do think the Byzantines would probably want to focus on securing their eastern borders before taking Egypt; but I have no doubt they'd try and take advantage.
 
Egypt would have been under Arab rule for less than a century by this point (in fact, just under or over 50 years). Why would an Arab Egyptian state be so much more likely than a Coptic or even Greek one? Armenia, Georgia and many other states that were at one point or another subject to the Caliphate ended up with independent native dynasties again after more than a century of Islamic rule - why is this so much less likely for the Copts? (The Armenians and Georgians had also not been independent people for a long while by the time of the Islamic conquest).

Also my other questions in my post above?


The Copts are disarmed and never mustered an effective revolt despite population majority during the Abbasid period and submissively obeyed the Tulunid. They simply went with the flow of whichever Muslim ruler ruled them and acted nice so to get favors in court and in the public market. They knew well that despite numbers they had not fought a real battle in years, as Byzantium had oppressed and treated them terribly and under the Arabs they were simply Jizya sponges, scouts and sailors. A people must be equipped in a collective to be an effective force in order for them to hold on.

Greek Egypt is possible if Byzantium defeats the Uqaylids and other buffer zones and secured its position and then takes the Mid East. Still this is assuming Byzantium is not still on the defensive from the tribes and buffers created by the Umayyad which had the entire empire paralyzed unable to respond, this is a clear issue.
 
The Copts are disarmed and never mustered an effective revolt despite population majority during the Abbasid period and submissively obeyed the Tulunid. They simply went with the flow of whichever Muslim ruler ruled them and acted nice so to get favors in court and in the public market. They knew well that despite numbers they had not fought a real battle in years, as Byzantium had oppressed and treated them terribly and under the Arabs they were simply Jizya sponges, scouts and sailors. A people must be equipped in a collective to be an effective force in order for them to hold on.

Greek Egypt is possible if Byzantium defeats the Uqaylids and other buffer zones and secured its position and then takes the Mid East. Still this is assuming Byzantium is not still on the defensive from the tribes and buffers created by the Umayyad which had the entire empire paralyzed unable to respond, this is a clear issue.

Well just because the Copts didn't doesn't mean they couldn't - after all, that is what AH is all about. I don't really think citizens being disarmed means they can't start an effective revolt, since they can become armed. Why is this any more unlikely than any major peasant revolt in European history? Or the uprising of the Ming Dynasty in the face of the Mongols?

Let alone the fact that the Arabs did make use of Copts in their military - what would be to stop these armed Copts taking the side of their fellow Copts? This happened a lot in medieval times, after all.

The next part is not really true at all - under the Arabs, the Copts faced kidnappings and forced marriage-conversions, massacres numbering in the thousands at a time and the jizya was pretty heavy on a lot of the congregations to the point of the Bashmurian Revolt, among many others prior to it. I don't think the Copts were any more content or submissive to the Arabs than they were to the Byzantines - in fact, I think they were less, since they at least had some level of religious and cultural ties to the Byzantines.

Please also my questions in the post above darthfanta's?
 
Why is it difficult to have it fall without replacement immediately by another Islamic state? Why is it more unlikely than say, the collapse of the Mongolic successor states like the Ilkhanate?

I don't think like of armament would be a problem, on the basis that the Khorramdin Revolution and multiple other rebellions began at this time without trouble (obviously they were crushed by the much stronger states they were rebelling against; but this wouldn't necessarily be the same outcome against an already collapsing state, if we assumed the Umayyads are weak).

There'd likely also be outside influence from another empire such as the Byzantines who would like to see the fall of the Caliphate. I'd imagine they'd support dissidents such as former noble houses of Armenia and Iran, or perhaps even rebels in Egypt or the Levant, though the latter seems less likely.

1. The Copts had a large rebellion 725 and that was after several smaller rebellions, and would be followed by more rebellions all the way until the 1200s. I'd hardly call them submissive. Armament would be an issue, though I can't see it preventing a determined people if they play their cards right at a time when rebellions are occurring across the Caliphate.

2. Anatolia was consistently in the hands of the Byzantines - do you mean the Taurus Mountains/Cilicia? If so, the Byzantines eventually retook those lands anyway, along with Antioch in the Levant; so I don't see why it'd be implausible for them to do so earlier if the right opportunity was taken.

3. Well Jewish Israel also had a long history of non-existence for the past 2 millenia but, it didn't stop it coming back :p I don't think Assyria being dominated since the Persian conquest would stop a revival, though I don't think that means it'll definitely happen either.

4. I feel the Dabuyids were also in a good position that if they played their cards right could retake some of the Persian lands. Maybe you'd even see a stand off between several Zoroastrian noble houses.

5. The Yazidi weren't really a solid identity until centuries later from the time in question; Kurdish Paganism would have still been the dominant religion among the Kurds. I can't really see them forming an independent state either; much as was the case for the Lurs, they were entirely within the Persian sphere of influence until much, much later - heck, they weren't even a solidly separate identity until the 10th century onward.

I can't see little change in Arabia with a complete collapse of the Caliphate; for a start, you'd have the Byzantines, or whoever had control of Egypt, looking towards the Hejaz with prying eyes.

What are your thoughts?



It is implausible in the timeline in question for the Assyrians to gain independence of any sort. I cannot think of a Assyrian general of merit during the Umayyad or Abbasid period, they were literally a completely agrarian society with no real warriors and depended on Arab defense constantly. They had been this way since the Sassanid period so we have to go back to the Achaemenid or Parthian to change these developments.

The Copts rebelled due to taxation at times but these rarely were more than massed peasants refusing taxation and then brutally squashed by Abbasid troops. A rebellion in Khilafah history is not a riot, a rebellion in these terms is instances like the Zanj, Yahya Ibn Umar, Qarmatians, Khurramiyah, Berber revolt, etc... If you mean sailor minting then yea, the Copts rebelled a lot, but what did that do? The Copts as far as an economic and social standpoint had all the cards, yet they squandered it? The reason for it again is the fact they had no real military sense within them, ask yourself when was the last time a native Egyptian state fought a war from among its people without Greek, Roman, etc assistance.... Since around the Achaemenid period at least.


There is a difference, the Khurramiyah were a radical and martial culture that developed off a mix of Shi'i, Khawarij and Zoroastrian elements, it was not some sort of perpetual Dhimmi culture who had likely been inner fighting amongst their tribes in Zanjan and unlike the Copts had resisted direct Arab rule via guerrilla warfare long before the Babak Khorram. Iran had been in wars in the last 900 years without other entities defending them, aka the Sassanid period, which honed their skills. The Copts were economic and agriculture support for Rome and Byzantium not a militaristic state who was swallowed completely by desert nomads, who obviously are bitter.

This is assuming Byzantium awakens from its paralyzed state in time and comes flooding into the Mid East. Arabia changed little from Abbasid to Fatimid-Saljuk standoff so....

EDIT: It is mainly from precedence, the only state with potential to do this would be resurgent Iran. The others had no will to as evident by their staunch support of the Abbasid revolution and immediate cozying up to the Mu'Tazila court.
 
Last edited:
Well just because the Copts didn't doesn't mean they couldn't - after all, that is what AH is all about. I don't really think citizens being disarmed means they can't start an effective revolt, since they can become armed. Why is this any more unlikely than any major peasant revolt in European history? Or the uprising of the Ming Dynasty in the face of the Mongols?

Let alone the fact that the Arabs did make use of Copts in their military - what would be to stop these armed Copts taking the side of their fellow Copts? This happened a lot in medieval times, after all.

The next part is not really true at all - under the Arabs, the Copts faced kidnappings and forced marriage-conversions, massacres numbering in the thousands at a time and the jizya was pretty heavy on a lot of the congregations to the point of the Bashmurian Revolt, among many others prior to it. I don't think the Copts were any more content or submissive to the Arabs than they were to the Byzantines - in fact, I think they were less, since they at least had some level of religious and cultural ties to the Byzantines.

Please also my questions in the post above darthfanta's?


Patience. I do not move at light speed, Akhi.

China had a history of armed revolts against their state and there was precedence. In the case of the Copts we do not have such a rebellious nature nor concept as that of China, it is a non sequitur. Perhaps you can create a similar ideal to this in Egypt as it was in China , who had seriously militant peasant populations, Egypt did not have that whatsoever.

Let's not get into an argument of who was worse than who, the fact is still clear cut, the Copts failed to mass large scale rebellions against oppressive regimes (which I wouldn't say the Abbasid was oppressive to them at all, if anything the Abbasid was oppressive to Arabs). Again, the reasons for this, you seem to admit.

EDIT: there was no large Coptic contingents in the Umayyad armies, they were purposefully kept weak and disarmed.... The only exception being sailors on the Nile and in the invasions of Byzantium in which Coptic captains betrayed their Arab masters once in Byzantine water, but a massed sailor rebellion would be inconsequential to Arab rule, it would only hamper movement across the Nile. This is not Andalus which used elite Christian foot soldiers therefore giving them martial skills or Ottomans recruiting from its Europeab territories. Umayyad and Abvasid followed the Islamic model in which a Kafr only joins if it is by his own will, as in do not levy from non Muslim populations.
 
Last edited:
As I recall, the Coptic establishment was also relatively pleased with the Arab conquest, as it meant independence from the oppressive power of Rome. I don't think they were terribly opposed to the status quo. As John has said, they also by and large lacked the military capacity as well. The Assyrians were a similar case - I don't see the Asori rising up any time soon, especially given their general lack of major rebellion against the Sasanians. John has covered both of these pretty well I think.

I know the Assyrians and Copts and whatnot are popular (perhaps because of their role as Christian powers in the middle east) but both of these peoples historically had a very difficult time gaining independence.

Of these suggestions, a new Zoroastrian Persia is perhaps the most plausible. Among the common people, Zoroastrianism endured for a very long time, and unlike the Copts or the Assyrians (both of whom, for geographic reasons as well as social ones were very easily controlled) the various Persian rebels tended to have difficult terrain which could prolong any rebellion, and also some elite supporters on the Caliphate's periphery. However, whatever Zoroastrianism emerged would hardly resemble the state Zoroastrianism of the Sasanians. A lot of the folk movements of the time took on elements of Islamic preaching and even the rest didn't look much like state orthodoxy.

If the Ummayads for some unspecified reason fall into anarchy, it seems to me that there are numerous Arab groups waiting in the wings to replace them, and one of these groups would do so with haste. The resulting state might be weaker than what preceded it, but it would certainly not crumble entirely. If you want to get rid of Islamic power in the middle east for some reason, the best move is to simply nip Islam in the bud as a religion. The arrival of Islam was one of those moments in history which quite simply changes everything. With a PoD after the massive victories of the early Caliphate, I think most timelines are going to have to accept the eventual rise of Islam as a world religion.
 

Deleted member 67076

ERE reconquest of Egypt very likely wouldn't happen. The empire doesn't have the neither the troops nor the economic base for large scale reconquest.

And the army dogma was for defensive warfare by militia troops, not offensive warfare.
 
Perhaps during the Battle of Marj Rahit Ibn al-Zubayr wins a Pyrrhic victory. Though they destabilize the Umayyad position in Syria (maybe Marwan I retreats to Aleppo), but leave Zubayr unable to push forward onto Damascus. Maybe Emperor Constantine IV doesn't get ill and lives another decade or two and keeps pressing the Umayyads out of Anatolia. With the weakened position of the Umayyads, maybe you'll get an uprising in Persia.
 
1. Egypt will probably end under some sort of Greek rule, but at some point Copts will gain power in the state assuming the Arabs/Byzantines don't return. The demographics are simply in favour of the Copts versus the Greeks.

2. A Byzantine reconquest seems a good way to incite a sort of proto-nationalism in Egypt, especially if this happens in the early 8th century. It might succeed, it might not.

3. Assyrians could get independence through a combined revolt of Assyrian peasants and their church. But I'm not sure how plausible that is. For one, this hypothetical revolt immediately faces the problem of being on Byzantine borders and being led by a bunch of heretics. And being a peasant revolt, which is always a way to make enemies with your neighbours. So if that happened it would get crushed.

4. Persia will be fragmented, but at some point it'll reform under a Zoroastrian state. Nestorian Christianity might be a possibility depending on who reunifies Persia.

5. North Africa would probably be divided between a Berber state in Mauretania and a Romanised Berber state(s) in Algeria/Tunisia. If Egypt falls as well, they could get all the Cyrenaica. Religiously, the Mauretania/Moroccan Berber state would probably be its own mix of things. Probably it would stabilise at Christianity with bits of Judaism and indigenous religions and possibly Islam. It might have to embrace orthodox Christianity at some point, however, which would probably accompany a Romanisation of the territory.

The state in the Tunisia area will be more obviously part of the European world, but I'm not sure whether it would be oriented more toward Rome or Constantinople in terms of Christianity. I'm not sure how long any semblance of the Roman ruling class survived after the Arabs--more likely a Berber dynasty will take over and quickly Romanise like the Franks.

Other notes:

Islam is barely two or three generations old in these places. Islam is basically a minority and tenuous. However, it could still be strengthened by further waves of immigration from Arabia, which were bound to happen. Whether these groups are Muslims depends on what happens in Arabia. Most likely the Arabs/Muslims in these regions would end up a distinct ethnic group of largely nomads/peasants.
 
One important thing we are all forgetting.The Exarchate of Africa doesn't fall until 698,so it might mean that Africa remains with the ERE.
 
1. Egypt will probably end under some sort of Greek rule, but at some point Copts will gain power in the state assuming the Arabs/Byzantines don't return. The demographics are simply in favour of the Copts versus the Greeks.

2. A Byzantine reconquest seems a good way to incite a sort of proto-nationalism in Egypt, especially if this happens in the early 8th century. It might succeed, it might not.

3. Assyrians could get independence through a combined revolt of Assyrian peasants and their church. But I'm not sure how plausible that is. For one, this hypothetical revolt immediately faces the problem of being on Byzantine borders and being led by a bunch of heretics. And being a peasant revolt, which is always a way to make enemies with your neighbours. So if that happened it would get crushed.

4. Persia will be fragmented, but at some point it'll reform under a Zoroastrian state. Nestorian Christianity might be a possibility depending on who reunifies Persia.

5. North Africa would probably be divided between a Berber state in Mauretania and a Romanised Berber state(s) in Algeria/Tunisia. If Egypt falls as well, they could get all the Cyrenaica. Religiously, the Mauretania/Moroccan Berber state would probably be its own mix of things. Probably it would stabilise at Christianity with bits of Judaism and indigenous religions and possibly Islam. It might have to embrace orthodox Christianity at some point, however, which would probably accompany a Romanisation of the territory.

The state in the Tunisia area will be more obviously part of the European world, but I'm not sure whether it would be oriented more toward Rome or Constantinople in terms of Christianity. I'm not sure how long any semblance of the Roman ruling class survived after the Arabs--more likely a Berber dynasty will take over and quickly Romanise like the Franks.

Other notes:

Islam is barely two or three generations old in these places. Islam is basically a minority and tenuous. However, it could still be strengthened by further waves of immigration from Arabia, which were bound to happen. Whether these groups are Muslims depends on what happens in Arabia. Most likely the Arabs/Muslims in these regions would end up a distinct ethnic group of largely nomads/peasants.



Responses for this are above in relation to Shahanshah
 
Responses for this are above in relation to Shahanshah

I'm not really sure if native Egyptian and Assyrian states are plausible in that era (peasant revolts never tended to be), but I think removing Caliphate control is a big step in making them plausible in later eras. The Byzantines or the native Greek ruling class (and the Church) are the big players here, but they're all demographically outnumbered by the peasant class, and a ruler favoured by the common people will in the end have their dynasty slowly assimilate amongst them--after all, the ruling class in France and Spain ended up speaking French and Spanish and not Frankish and Gothic. The Copts in particular included a decent amount of the middle class, and both included the clergy amongst their numbers.

But yes, it opens the way to a reconquest of Egypt unless whoever is ruling in Egypt is hellbent against Byzantine reconquest, which goes against most Roman revolters who merely wanted to become Emperor themselves.

I think otherwise I described a plausible enough scenario.
 
Top