AHC/WI: Muslims win 717 siege of Constantinopole

[JackLumber]

To my understanding one of the main reasons the Bulgars didn't convert to orthodoxy sooner was because they didn't want to look subservient to the emperor, now if I'm not mistaken the caliph downright demanded subservients as part of conversation, so If anything wouldn't this more than anything secure bulgar orthodoxy?
And I don't see the caliphate having the same kind of Balkan success as the ottomans did, they might even ultimately get kicked out of Europe depending on how quickly they come to fight the bulgars and if the bulgars are Christian at that point the city's population could be a security risk for the caliphate.

 

[Abd ar-Rahman II]

To my understanding one of the main reasons the Bulgars didn't convert to orthodoxy sooner was because they didn't want to look subservient to the emperor, now if I'm not mistaken the caliph downright demanded subservients as part of conversation, so If anything wouldn't this more than anything secure bulgar orthodoxy?

Agree there would be no Bulgars conversion with the Umayyad as Calipahte and the earlier conversion of Bulgar might happen but I think that the capture of Constantinople could make Christianity look weak in the eye of the Bulgar slowing down their conversion that a 50/50 . Also extremely small possibility for the fun non Sunni Umayyad opposed Bulgar conversion say a Khawariji branch of Islam

And I don't see the caliphate having the same kind of Balkan success as the ottomans did, they might even ultimately get kicked out of Europe depending on how quickly they come to fight the bulgars and if the bulgars are Christian at that point the city's population could be a security risk for the caliphate.

Agree unless the Umayyad relocate their capital in Constantinople their won’t be successful expansion in the Balkan and the Caliphate would need some time to digest Anatolia . In the Short term I think the pillage of the city would solve the population problem .

 

[Silver01]

Agree there would be no Bulgars conversion with the Umayyad as Calipahte and the earlier conversion of Bulgar might happen but I think that the capture of Constantinople could make Christianity look weak in the eye of the Bulgar slowing down their conversion that a 50/50 . Also extremely small possibility for the fun non Sunni Umayyad opposed Bulgar conversion say a Khawariji branch of Islam

Agree unless the Umayyad relocate their capital in Constantinople their won’t be successful expansion in the Balkan and the Caliphate would need some time to digest Anatolia . In the Short term I think the pillage of the city would solve the population problem .

Agreed if anything the bulgarians might pull a Krum earlier and take more of the Balkans

 

[Nivek]

Agree unless the Umayyad relocate their capital in Constantinople their won’t be successful expansion in the Balkan and the Caliphate would need some time to digest Anatolia . In the Short term I think the pillage of the city would solve the population problem .

They planned that IIRC

 

[Sarufiyyun]

If the Umayyads move the capital to Constantinople, that would alienate the Arabs. As for the security risk, the Umayyads could do the same thing that the Ottomans did. Deport the population and transplant people from other parts of their realm to settle in their place.

 

[Nivek]

If the Umayyads move the capital to Constantinople, that would alienate the Arabs

Nah, The Arabs Wanted Constantinople and more Important, the Jundist would be Happier they've more on a say on Damascus Proper and Bilad Al-Sham as a push for the new City would encourage Arab migration to it and Anatolia, if anything make the city more scure as loyal muslim will be there

 

[Monk78]

The win would cold down rivalries and moved to see who keep damascus as the other move to constantinople

Well expanding of arab kingdom/caliphate did not cool any rivalries down infact made them worse so I'm not sure that is very likely
If happens early enough we may even see a hijaz Zubayri or ALid claim to " emirate of Rum"

 

[Nivek]

ell expanding of arab kingdom/caliphate did not cool any rivalries down infact made them worse so I'm not sure that is very likely

The opposite, when expansion stop and Ummayds start to get military defeats that embolden their rivals, here that might change, again we could see a very different Ummayds and Rivals now

 

[Monk78]

The opposite, when expansion stop and Ummayds start to get military defeats that embolden their rivals, here that might change, again we could see a very different Ummayds and Rivals now

No revolts against ummayyads were happening right from the start and they continued until the very end.

 

[Nivek]

No revolts against ummayyads were happening right from the start and they continued until the very end.

Still was only military defeats (constantinople, berbers) show their weakness, here that is butterflied away, meaning change of plans for rivals

 

[Silver01]

Still was only military defeats (constantinople, berbers) show their weakness, here that is butterflied away, meaning change of plans for rivals

It's not like they wouldn't have another ones the same year the tang would destroy an umayed force near aksu and as mentioned the bulgars cand and most likely might kill a few arab armies if they decide to attack the Balkans

 

[Nivek]

It's not like they wouldn't have another ones the same year the tang would destroy an umayed force near aksu and as mentioned the bulgars cand and most likely might kill a few arab armies if they decide to attack the Balkans

Bulgars are overrated and china was a slideshow

 

[Silver01]

Bulgars are overrated and china was a slideshow

How are they overated ? The first Bulgarian empire proved what even the worst situation and
With great Byzantine leadership the thing could still not only survive but give them a bloody nose and in cases humiliate them so again please do explain how they are overated


And how was transoxiana ( the place the caliphate had spent decades conquering ) a sideshow ? sure you can argue the umayeds didn't see it as importantly as the abbasids but side show is not a good description

 

[Monk78]

Still was only military defeats (constantinople, berbers) show their weakness, here that is butterflied away, meaning change of plans for rivals

in time of moawia arab siege failed however his grip on iraq was so strong that there is no big rebellion
in times of abdul malik despite his huge success everywhere there is a huge rebellion under ibn ashath qays , and under Hisham the rebellion of zayd b ali
so there is no direct correlation between internal strife and foreign conquests