Persia would probably still fall to Arab conquests in this TL. The Arabs however probably wouldn't be able to maintain total control over Persia if they are tied up taking Constantinople and occupying Greece.
Caliph in Constantinople: Hellenized Islamic World ATL
- Thread starter hasdrubal barca
- Start date
Persia would probably still fall to Arab conquests in this TL. The Arabs however probably wouldn't be able to maintain total control over Persia if they are tied up taking Constantinople and occupying Greece.
Caesar Biden
Banned
Just like they weren't able to maintain control over Spain OTL?
If the Arabs do take over Constantinople and the Balkans, they're going to be even stronger than IOTL, and thus even more likely to keep Persia. If they have their administration in Constantinople and gradually become more and more Greek, this definitely fits the challenge here.
Just like they weren't able to maintain control over Spain OTL?
If the Arabs do take over Constantinople and the Balkans, they're going to be even stronger than IOTL, and thus even more likely to keep Persia. If they have their administration in Constantinople and gradually become more and more Greek, this definitely fits the challenge here.
Well sounds go to me. I don't mind the Arabs being as strong as possible in the TL
Caesar Biden
Banned
Well sounds go to me. I don't mind the Arabs being as strong as possible in the TL
Mind you, they would be fairly overextended, which is why they would need to integrate a lot of Hellenism into their culture in the first place.
I added a fun title
. I'm starting to get the ATL together, probably have the first part up tomorrow. Deleted member 67076
How would this happen though? The Sassanids were bankrupt, utterly spent on manpower and undergoing civil war at the same time.
Caesar Biden
Banned
I added a fun title
I look forward to it. As others have said, Khalid ibn al-Walid is your best bet here, and even with the Romans starting to lose Anatolia it's going to be at least a decade after your PoD when Constantinople actually falls. The Roman Empire was not quite the spent force the Sassanids were, although they were not that far from it.
Partial hellenization will help the Arabs a lot, though. Greek has been the lingua franca of the Med for centuries, and it is the primary or secondary language of people in Alexandria, Carthage, Jerusalem and more.
I added a fun title
Good luck!
You should probobly make a new thread for it so that the first post is the start of the story.
Good luck!
You should probobly make a new thread for it so that the first post is the start of the story.
Good idea
guinazacity
Banned
this is like a thousand crusader kings games coming to life!
consider me subscribed!
consider me subscribed!
They never had total control of Persia (I take that you mean the Iranian Plateau) IOTL.
One problem that I see with this TL is that our knowledge base about the big picture in the first century of Islam becomes a (literally) unholy mess as soon as we begin to look critically at the Islamic sources.
It is not clear that "Islam" was what we mean today in the seventh century.
We know a lot of details about the Rashidun/Early Umayyad era, but there is a lack of consensus as to how these details fit together.
Of course, some points are fairly well-established. Almost nobody challenges the historical existence of the Prophet and his companions, and most of the important events after the death of 'Umar can be dated from contemporary documents that broadly agree with islamic historical tradition.
So, the most extreme "revisionist" views, such as the one espoused in Crone and Hinds' (in)famous book, "Hagarism" should be rejected. Milder revisionist views, however, like the one the same authors suggested in "God's Caliph" may hold water better.
So it's hard to chart what would happen to Islam ITTL with an early radical change. Hellenization is not the guaranteed outcome. If you use Crone's approach (to which I do not subscribe) you'd predict that the most likely consequence of a total conquest of the ERE would be a major erasure of the Hellenic culture. That is, when the Muslim scholars would look for Greek book in the ninth century, they won't have a Byzantine Empire to turn to for the search.
This is oversimplistic of course, but was just to exemplify that waters are pretty muddy here.
It is not clear that "Islam" was what we mean today in the seventh century.
We know a lot of details about the Rashidun/Early Umayyad era, but there is a lack of consensus as to how these details fit together.
Of course, some points are fairly well-established. Almost nobody challenges the historical existence of the Prophet and his companions, and most of the important events after the death of 'Umar can be dated from contemporary documents that broadly agree with islamic historical tradition.
So, the most extreme "revisionist" views, such as the one espoused in Crone and Hinds' (in)famous book, "Hagarism" should be rejected. Milder revisionist views, however, like the one the same authors suggested in "God's Caliph" may hold water better.
So it's hard to chart what would happen to Islam ITTL with an early radical change. Hellenization is not the guaranteed outcome. If you use Crone's approach (to which I do not subscribe) you'd predict that the most likely consequence of a total conquest of the ERE would be a major erasure of the Hellenic culture. That is, when the Muslim scholars would look for Greek book in the ninth century, they won't have a Byzantine Empire to turn to for the search.
This is oversimplistic of course, but was just to exemplify that waters are pretty muddy here.
Thanks for the post, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the topic. I'm sure you will be much help going forward with the ATL
Your right It is up in the air whether they would accept Hellenism or simply erase it.
On the plus side if Constantinople falls in 718, Caliph Umar II is in power and by all accounts he seems very tolerant of non-Arabs within the Empire. Also early Mu'tazilites were established during the mid 8th century. If they gain traction within the Empire, Greek culture could become useful.
Speaking of books, Falecius have you by chance read the book "The Closing of the Muslim Mind" I found it informative but a bit too western based.
Last edited:
Thanks. How about this...
I was thinking that his actual survival in and of itself would radically affect politics at home since he was considered a contender for Caliph if he had been alive.
You might still have the Fitna but if Khalid's still around it would introduce a very powerful voice in the line of Umar, since he seemed to be loyal to the caliph even up to death. I'd say just having him beat, avoiding, or delaying whatever sickness he got would change things greatly. Or have him beat the sickness and have a remorseful Umar reinstate him in his position.
Since Khalid was in support of Umar you could then have them grow closer or more in sync or something after the ordeal.
I think another effect this would cause is a reduction in support of Ali at home, forcing him to involve himself in more scholarly pursuits. Ali's constant emphasis over his right over inheritance would probably turn off Khalid, losing him vital support for his claims as caliph if Khalid is present.
Maybe have him get creative in the ways he and his descendants can hold onto as much power as he can?
He did seem interested in various fields of knowledge not emphasized or traditional in Arabian culture back then. Maybe he can get savy enough to train imams and emphasize the Quran's lines on the importance of scholarship over martydom heavily.
It would be a snipe at someone he supported eventually sidelining him as caliph but it might introduce a much more heavy concentration of scholarship and knowledge into Arabic civilization as a whole.
Last edited:
That is what Islam preaches in OTL. It accepts Jesus as the messiah but rejects his divinity.
Thanks for the post, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the topic. I'm sure you will be much help going forward with the ATL
I'm supposed to teach this stuff to some unlucky undergraduates, although at times I am embarassed at how little I know myself about certain relevant topics (for instance, numismatics, which provide a big deal of available evidence for the first-second century AH, is a large blank spot for me).
Actually it's the first time I hear of it. The title alone suggests a Western bias.
I will be glad to help for the TL within the limits of my knowledge and, of course, free time (currently in very short supply, due to the pressing needs of the aforementioned undergraduates).
Upon some reflection, I think that an early conquest of the entire Byzantine Empire (its Asian parts at least, plus some small bits in Greece and Thrace) would likely create a further centre of power in competition with other within the Islamic Empire. There's a chance of an earlier breakdown of the unity in the core areas and/or worse Civil Wars.
Key question: what happens to the Syrian tribal troops? They were in Syria to fight the Rum, so at least some of them would be redeployed (as happened historically, in part, with a group being sent to Spain). Now, where to? Anatolia/Balkans seems a fair bet. Those people were, for the most part, fiercely loyal to the Umayyads.
Assuming an Abbasid Revolution ITTL (requires butterfly trap) would the Khurasani Army follow the Umayyad forces into Syria? Could an Umayyad create a splinter Islamic state in Constantinople like they did in Cordoba historically? That woudl basically recreate the Abbasid/Byzantine polarity (itself somewhat a resurgence of the older Persian/Roman one, with a major shift in the balance) in a fully Islamic frame?
This state would build upon an Imperial tradition, unlike its historical Andalusian counterpart. Could you see a surviving "Uthmani" sect, and more markedly Shii-leaning Abbasid dynasty?
This seems a plausible outline to me, assuming successful Abbasid Revolution similar to OTL, which is far from guaranteed.
Key question: what happens to the Syrian tribal troops? They were in Syria to fight the Rum, so at least some of them would be redeployed (as happened historically, in part, with a group being sent to Spain). Now, where to? Anatolia/Balkans seems a fair bet. Those people were, for the most part, fiercely loyal to the Umayyads.
Assuming an Abbasid Revolution ITTL (requires butterfly trap) would the Khurasani Army follow the Umayyad forces into Syria? Could an Umayyad create a splinter Islamic state in Constantinople like they did in Cordoba historically? That woudl basically recreate the Abbasid/Byzantine polarity (itself somewhat a resurgence of the older Persian/Roman one, with a major shift in the balance) in a fully Islamic frame?
This state would build upon an Imperial tradition, unlike its historical Andalusian counterpart. Could you see a surviving "Uthmani" sect, and more markedly Shii-leaning Abbasid dynasty?
This seems a plausible outline to me, assuming successful Abbasid Revolution similar to OTL, which is far from guaranteed.
Ok, let me point out some things.
As I annoyed my students to no end about, things far more complicated than that.
1) Hellenic culture was mediated by (partly) Persianate and Aramaic milieus historically - it passed more through Iraq than Syria, precisely because in Syria it was more deeply rooted and, therefore, politically suspicious to the conquerors (again, this is oversimplication, but still Iraq was the center of Islamic Hellenizing).
2) Hellenic culture was emphatically viewed as completely detached from present Byzantines. Islamic sources clearly state that "Ionians" (the Ancient Greeks" and "Romans" (the Byzantines) were different peoples. "Ionian" is very frequently referred to as a completely dead language. Indeed, the Abbasids made a point (revamping a late Sassanid tradition, as Dimitri Gutas demonstrated) about THEM being the true inheritors of the old philosophical wisdom, as opposed to those narrow-minded endarkened Christians in Constaninople. There is even argument (although that's controversial) that the Arabic interest in older Greek cultures was the main cause of the renaissance of philology in the Byzantine Empire itself around the time of Photius (I am agnostic on the matter).
3) With a POD under the Early Abbasids at latest, you obviously won't see either al-Ghazali or Averroes.
4) The Abbasid-Mu'tazilite connection never stood a chance. The Mu'tazilites valued rational reasoning over communal consensus (oversimplistic here again). This was politically dangerous and conducive to discord within the community, and was opposed on that basis. Unless the Mu'tazilites were willing to reconsider a LOT of their epistemology, they were bound to remain an intellectual movement without mass following.
5) The Early Abbasid caliphs' views on religion, community, and their own role are a fascinating mess. Crone's reconstruction in God's Rule has the big merit of making sense, but I am not sure I buy it. Short summary: each major caliph had his own view, different from the others and, in a couple of cases at least, evolving dramatically during the reign. This is particularly true of al-Ma'mun. None of these views, as reconstructed by Crone, fit easily in what would become the Islamic consensus (stabilizing at that time or shortly thereafter). No Abbasid was a committed Mu'tazilite either, including al-Ma'mun (who, if anything, appears to have been a very odd sort of Shiite).