I mean they favored Muslim Arabs (i.e from the Arabian Peninsula) over other Muslim groups (Persians, Berbers etc.). Yes I understand the whole "Apple of the World" thing, but I just find it unlikely that they would just place themselves way to far from the center of gravity in the Muslim world at the time.
Constantinople falls in 675- A mini brainstorming timeline
- Thread starter Basileus Giorgios
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
That seems unlikely to me. They will most likely convert to Islam. The armies of the Caliphate quickly became rather more sophisticated than I think you're giving them credit for, and their overwhelmingly superior organization and strategic ability will quickly tell.
I wonder about that. Muslims originally opposed priesthood, and still generally does (especially the Sunnis). Though like we can see it today we got Iranian Mullahs though, so yeah I think it's maybe possible. How likely is it to get Shia Byzantines ?
I have to say, I don't understand this. You've just annihilated the true defenders of European civilization and the apparatus of their centralized state. Every Byzantine governor is going to declare himself baesilus.
It's not clear to me how Ravenna can get the resources to beat the Lombards, when OTL the Byzantines couldn't.
I begin to smell it that for some people, it is the norm that if muslims managed to conquer Byzantine then Islam and Christianity will fuse there, and while not outrightly mentioned, does seem to have this vibe as if it'll be a lasting relatively major religion, at least in that region.
Why people just like to bring out with that idea ?
While I won't deny the possibility though, I would question about how likely that will be.
Islam managed to spread to Persia, Egypt, Levant, India and Indonesia, and generally only produced relatively little differences of understanding about Islamic tenets between muslims for those respective regions, at least among the Sunnis(so granted, today's Persia isn't included anymore), let alone some sort of inter-faith hybrid heterodoxy appearing in any meaningful scale. For the last part though, yeah that happened in India and especially Indonesia, and I wonder whether it was the distance that caused that. However Persia didn't, to my knowledge, and Levant and Egypt didn't either. Why would Anatolia and Balkans be any different ?
More likely we will see muslim greeks that are like Acehnese muslims, with some pretty localized Islamic practices but still Sunni Orthodox (while they still are) Muslims.(it's an ULTRA for the Acehnese case, and considering the history of religious-zealotry in Byzantinum, I don't see why not for the muslim greeks either)
Last edited:
This would likely greatly alter the spread of islam across the Black Sea and onto the Steppe. If the centers of the greek world is islamified the Black Sea coast would eventually be thus aswell. Perhaps the Bulgars or Avars would be converted? Or would they, sensing weakness in Byazantium, begin their migrations earlier hoping to take over the Balkan regions.
And how would the Khazars react to a Muslim Byzantium?
And how would the Khazars react to a Muslim Byzantium?
1) Perhaps they would migrate earlier. But ITTL they will face a power with overall resources as large as like.... 20 Byzantine Empires ?.....
So yeah they will convert.
2) Now I'm curious about this as well. Though if Greek World and Persian World would be under separate polity then the Khazars would likely to try playing them against one another.
Jaded_Railman
Banned
Hm, why are we assuming that history will unfold so similarly to OTL when such a major thing as Constantinople falling happens so early in history?
The 7th-9th century was a period of great flux in the world. Will the Muslim Caliphate do as well as the Byzantines did against the threats along (and beyond, by this point) the Danube? Especially when it has to concentrate its attention at points as far away as India and Central Asia? The Byzantines struggled to maintain Africa and a bit of Spain, why should the Caliphate do much better? These are, after all, things driven by technological limitations, they're not necessarily a cultural thing.
Also, why are we thinking Anatolia and the Balkans will be 'Islamified' so quickly? Let's remember there's a significant Christian minority in Egypt today and anyone who's paid even the least bit attention knows that the rest of the Middle East is a virtual patchwork of religious faiths (with Islam as an ever-present majority) as well. It took centuries for areas that started majority Christian to become Muslim. There are some exceptions, of course, but usually for exceptionally good reasons, like the Berber conversion in Africa or the other Semites in the Levant and Mesopotamia. In the case of the latter two there was still an extended, multi-generational conversion period.
I don't know if I trust the centralized Caliphate to be able to hold onto much in the Balkans for that truly an extended period of time. The constant outside threat from all directions (5 at my count -- Central Asia, India, the Caucasus, all along the Black Sea coast, the Balkans) will eventually do it in, whether by conquest from outside or internal fractures. Now, whether a Muslim dynasty ends up holding Constantinople, Anatolia, and the Balkans is another question that can't be so certainly answered. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's so circumstantial that it's entirely up to the author as to which way it goes. Success in converting at least some Slavs would be an excellent way to start towards an Islamic stronghold in Europe.
However, in the very long run there's still going to be a backwards push as the North European Plain is settled and developed as the centuries progress. I don't think Muslim conquest in the short term (the initial push outward from Arabia, basically, the period that ended IOTL in the 9th century) can be pushed incredibly much further in any one direction because that would require to spread a limited number of Arab Muslims over an increasing number of heretics. There needs to be some settlement so that large scale conversion can begin. There also, of course, needs to be a dynasty change, because as long as the Ummayads are in charge, conversion will proceed at a snail's pace anywhere outside the Levant and Mesopotamia.
When it arrives, as long as the push back into the Balkans can draw on even a comparable fraction of the resources of that Plain as it did IOTL, I expect at least some to fall back into Christian hands. However, if some areas of the Balkans remain under Muslim dynasties then the spread of Islam may be amplified enough that greater portions of Europe than just Istanbul and it's surrounding area remain part of the House of Submission. How much is another one of those loose, vague, and in-determinate things that is entirely in the control of the author.
Of course, since the time period I'm talking about is as much as a thousand years after the PoD, perhaps I'm not respecting the butterflies. You can certainly imagine ways to completely butterfly a North European Plain mostly controlled by Christian powers who are on good enough terms with each other to occasionally unite against the heathen. Hm, with an Italy in that's in the hands of a remaining Roman Empire, one that's on life-support right now but still has some decent potential, the evolution of the Frankish state could end up going differently. The decay of the power of the Merovingian kings in favor of their mayors might be reversed by some assertive king that wasn't born IOTL because ITTL a previous king had married a Roman woman in an *political marriage.
Anyway, very interesting, I look forward to more.
The 7th-9th century was a period of great flux in the world. Will the Muslim Caliphate do as well as the Byzantines did against the threats along (and beyond, by this point) the Danube? Especially when it has to concentrate its attention at points as far away as India and Central Asia? The Byzantines struggled to maintain Africa and a bit of Spain, why should the Caliphate do much better? These are, after all, things driven by technological limitations, they're not necessarily a cultural thing.
Also, why are we thinking Anatolia and the Balkans will be 'Islamified' so quickly? Let's remember there's a significant Christian minority in Egypt today and anyone who's paid even the least bit attention knows that the rest of the Middle East is a virtual patchwork of religious faiths (with Islam as an ever-present majority) as well. It took centuries for areas that started majority Christian to become Muslim. There are some exceptions, of course, but usually for exceptionally good reasons, like the Berber conversion in Africa or the other Semites in the Levant and Mesopotamia. In the case of the latter two there was still an extended, multi-generational conversion period.
I don't know if I trust the centralized Caliphate to be able to hold onto much in the Balkans for that truly an extended period of time. The constant outside threat from all directions (5 at my count -- Central Asia, India, the Caucasus, all along the Black Sea coast, the Balkans) will eventually do it in, whether by conquest from outside or internal fractures. Now, whether a Muslim dynasty ends up holding Constantinople, Anatolia, and the Balkans is another question that can't be so certainly answered. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's so circumstantial that it's entirely up to the author as to which way it goes. Success in converting at least some Slavs would be an excellent way to start towards an Islamic stronghold in Europe.
However, in the very long run there's still going to be a backwards push as the North European Plain is settled and developed as the centuries progress. I don't think Muslim conquest in the short term (the initial push outward from Arabia, basically, the period that ended IOTL in the 9th century) can be pushed incredibly much further in any one direction because that would require to spread a limited number of Arab Muslims over an increasing number of heretics. There needs to be some settlement so that large scale conversion can begin. There also, of course, needs to be a dynasty change, because as long as the Ummayads are in charge, conversion will proceed at a snail's pace anywhere outside the Levant and Mesopotamia.
When it arrives, as long as the push back into the Balkans can draw on even a comparable fraction of the resources of that Plain as it did IOTL, I expect at least some to fall back into Christian hands. However, if some areas of the Balkans remain under Muslim dynasties then the spread of Islam may be amplified enough that greater portions of Europe than just Istanbul and it's surrounding area remain part of the House of Submission. How much is another one of those loose, vague, and in-determinate things that is entirely in the control of the author.
Of course, since the time period I'm talking about is as much as a thousand years after the PoD, perhaps I'm not respecting the butterflies. You can certainly imagine ways to completely butterfly a North European Plain mostly controlled by Christian powers who are on good enough terms with each other to occasionally unite against the heathen. Hm, with an Italy in that's in the hands of a remaining Roman Empire, one that's on life-support right now but still has some decent potential, the evolution of the Frankish state could end up going differently. The decay of the power of the Merovingian kings in favor of their mayors might be reversed by some assertive king that wasn't born IOTL because ITTL a previous king had married a Roman woman in an *political marriage.
Anyway, very interesting, I look forward to more.
Valdemar II
Banned
Quite likely it's no coinfdence that the Persians which had a strong Priesthood evolved the Mullahs. The early conquest gave them the oppotunity to keep the strong Priesthood, before the resistance toward it was a integrated part of Islam. Through they will likely not be Shias.
Some very interesting ideas, and an excellent debate so far...
Personally, I think if Constantinople falls to the Muslims we have a total deal-breaker there: the entire Mediterranean zone will be hard-pressed to stay out of their hands. Europe north and west of the Alps staying Christian? Maybe...
If the Caliphate had taken Constantinople, I agree that the capital would have been transferred there. Although it's in a cooler, more temperate zone, far away from the arid lands familiar to Arabs, the glory of taking over the capital of the Rum - the greatest city in the world - would mean the political and military elite would move there pronto, and the consequences of that act would play out gradually thereafter.
What happens next depends a good deal on what happens in the Syrian/Mesopotamian heartlands of the Caliphate. How far east do the victorious armies go? What sort of theology of Islam emerges? Who controls political power, and what is its basis?
I think Anatolia and the Balkans would quickly see the attractions of Islam. Sure, the underlying populace will (as in Syria, Palestine and Egypt) remain Christian for centuries - but men of ambition will quickly want to be a part of this New Order, and economic players in the cities will soon be wanting to be rid of the poll-tax on their 'protected' status, so the very best of Armenians, Thracians and Greco-Romans will soon be converting to the New Faith.
If nothing else, large numbers will be powerfully persuaded by the speed and decisiveness of the conquests: God is angry; Christians have sinned and fallen away from true Faith; it was wrong to believe in the divinity of Jesus; Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets etc - and the fall of Jerusalem and Constantinople would be the proof. From this sort of teleological thinking a powerful impetus is likely to emerge from within this all-conquering Islam: New Rome is down, now to take out the Old Rome and complete Allah's victory. That's why I think a Battle Royal will rage over Italy. The Caliphate's ideological directors will become consumed with capturing Rome - possibly (probably even) to the exclusion of properly thinking about the proper organisation, administration and (crucially) the coalition-building needed in the Eastern provinces.
I predict that the rough Arabs will soon be left behind by the new ex-Roman, Muslim, elite, who will advocate more elaborate, bureaucractic, government and vast, lavishly decorated mosques (probably with figural images) - unlike what happened in our timeline (relatively 'egalitarian' and Arab government - until the Abbasids emerged - and austere imagery in mosques).
I think the Romans would influence Islam to absorb more Aristotelian, philosophic and rational elements - encouraging a more 'Western' mode of interpreting Sharia, Hadith and other sources of the Law. The influence of secular Roman Law will also be enormous. It would encourage Islam to develop a distinction between the secular and the divine very early on.
Meanwhile, it would be inevitable that a Husayn ibn Ali-type figure would emerge: advocating that religious-political authority should descend through the bloodline of the Prophet instead of residing with the generals and the collectivity of the "scholar-imams" (the Romans would also influence this institution, and I agree a 'priesthood' is likely to be the template adopted - and the tribal, egalitarian, Arab model overriden). It would then be logical for the Eastern Caliphate to secede under its charismatic, tribal, blood-line supporting figure. There would be a powerful pressure for the Old World of West v East, Rome v Persia to be reborn in a new guise.
What would happen to Christianity in this scenario would be very interesting. I can see the Church reorganising in Italy if the Byzantines fall. But if Italy falls too, there will be a huge crisis of confidence. Rival Churches or Patriarchates may emerge north of the Alps, in Frankia or Spain (until that falls) but the prestige of Islam would be almost unstoppable. I quite like the idea of Britain becoming the bastion of surviving Christianity, personally, with a Pope of Canterbury etc-- but this could only happen if Frankia, Germania and the rest of the north stay Christian - and come to view Britain as their 'Holy Isle' (not a warring, barbarous, mess as in OTL 7th century). And this 'rump Christian' area would come under severe pressure to convert in the centuries which follow.
I think it follows that peoples like the Bulgars, Avars and Khazars would convert to Islam if Constantinople is the centre of the Caliphate (so there goes Eastern Europe and the Slavic realm), although, if Eastern Islam splits off from Western Islam, the area north and west of the Black and Caspian Seas could become an ideological fault-line between the two strains of Islam.
Anyway, this has turned into a much lengthier piece than I anticipated!
Look forward to watching the discussion unfold further...
Personally, I think if Constantinople falls to the Muslims we have a total deal-breaker there: the entire Mediterranean zone will be hard-pressed to stay out of their hands. Europe north and west of the Alps staying Christian? Maybe...
If the Caliphate had taken Constantinople, I agree that the capital would have been transferred there. Although it's in a cooler, more temperate zone, far away from the arid lands familiar to Arabs, the glory of taking over the capital of the Rum - the greatest city in the world - would mean the political and military elite would move there pronto, and the consequences of that act would play out gradually thereafter.
What happens next depends a good deal on what happens in the Syrian/Mesopotamian heartlands of the Caliphate. How far east do the victorious armies go? What sort of theology of Islam emerges? Who controls political power, and what is its basis?
I think Anatolia and the Balkans would quickly see the attractions of Islam. Sure, the underlying populace will (as in Syria, Palestine and Egypt) remain Christian for centuries - but men of ambition will quickly want to be a part of this New Order, and economic players in the cities will soon be wanting to be rid of the poll-tax on their 'protected' status, so the very best of Armenians, Thracians and Greco-Romans will soon be converting to the New Faith.
If nothing else, large numbers will be powerfully persuaded by the speed and decisiveness of the conquests: God is angry; Christians have sinned and fallen away from true Faith; it was wrong to believe in the divinity of Jesus; Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets etc - and the fall of Jerusalem and Constantinople would be the proof. From this sort of teleological thinking a powerful impetus is likely to emerge from within this all-conquering Islam: New Rome is down, now to take out the Old Rome and complete Allah's victory. That's why I think a Battle Royal will rage over Italy. The Caliphate's ideological directors will become consumed with capturing Rome - possibly (probably even) to the exclusion of properly thinking about the proper organisation, administration and (crucially) the coalition-building needed in the Eastern provinces.
I predict that the rough Arabs will soon be left behind by the new ex-Roman, Muslim, elite, who will advocate more elaborate, bureaucractic, government and vast, lavishly decorated mosques (probably with figural images) - unlike what happened in our timeline (relatively 'egalitarian' and Arab government - until the Abbasids emerged - and austere imagery in mosques).
I think the Romans would influence Islam to absorb more Aristotelian, philosophic and rational elements - encouraging a more 'Western' mode of interpreting Sharia, Hadith and other sources of the Law. The influence of secular Roman Law will also be enormous. It would encourage Islam to develop a distinction between the secular and the divine very early on.
Meanwhile, it would be inevitable that a Husayn ibn Ali-type figure would emerge: advocating that religious-political authority should descend through the bloodline of the Prophet instead of residing with the generals and the collectivity of the "scholar-imams" (the Romans would also influence this institution, and I agree a 'priesthood' is likely to be the template adopted - and the tribal, egalitarian, Arab model overriden). It would then be logical for the Eastern Caliphate to secede under its charismatic, tribal, blood-line supporting figure. There would be a powerful pressure for the Old World of West v East, Rome v Persia to be reborn in a new guise.
What would happen to Christianity in this scenario would be very interesting. I can see the Church reorganising in Italy if the Byzantines fall. But if Italy falls too, there will be a huge crisis of confidence. Rival Churches or Patriarchates may emerge north of the Alps, in Frankia or Spain (until that falls) but the prestige of Islam would be almost unstoppable. I quite like the idea of Britain becoming the bastion of surviving Christianity, personally, with a Pope of Canterbury etc-
- but this could only happen if Frankia, Germania and the rest of the north stay Christian - and come to view Britain as their 'Holy Isle' (not a warring, barbarous, mess as in OTL 7th century). And this 'rump Christian' area would come under severe pressure to convert in the centuries which follow.I think it follows that peoples like the Bulgars, Avars and Khazars would convert to Islam if Constantinople is the centre of the Caliphate (so there goes Eastern Europe and the Slavic realm), although, if Eastern Islam splits off from Western Islam, the area north and west of the Black and Caspian Seas could become an ideological fault-line between the two strains of Islam.
Anyway, this has turned into a much lengthier piece than I anticipated!
Look forward to watching the discussion unfold further...
Last edited:
Sorry I posted a duplicate post by mistake here, so I've got rid of that so as not to offend your eyes too much...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I agree. It will make some differences to local custom, for instance the Ottomans adopted some elements of the Byzantine land-tenure system. But it could very well make a difference to the development of the Sharia as this is a formative period, by which I mean it could affect interpretation of the Hadiths, etc It's certainly not going to result in an Islamic-Christian fusion religion. How would that even work? Islam already incorporates a lot of Christianity. But for the latter, you either accept Christ as God or not, and in Islam, that would be a "not".
Interesting points from one and all. Just to keep my own thoughts rolling on here... The timeline is becoming increasingly detailed, I must warn you...
795-800: Sultan Hurayth dies in Alexandria. His death is taken by the Muslims of Egypt as proof of his sacrilege. He is replaced by one Mikhail, his son in law, who was born a Coptic Christian by the name of Michael. Mikhail immediately restores all relics to Mecca, but continues the Egyptian occupation of the Holy City. Also in this period, the Roman rebels, led by the pretender Emperor Octavius of Carthage defeat an Imperial fleet, and sieze Corsica.
800-805: Octavius of Carthage is subdued by Constantine V, though Africa will remain a constant thorn in the side of the Roman government for several decades yet. Constantine devotes the remainder of his reign to stirring up trouble between the pagan Khan Sevar of the Bulgars, and Caliph Mawsil of Constantinople. Corcyra is restored definitively to the Roman Empire, and the Romans continue to evacuate large numbers of Greek Christians and settle them in Sicily and Africa. Unfortunately for the Romans, this has the side affect of consolidating the Islamic hold on Greece by removing the Christian "third column".
805-810: King Charles II of Francia is killed by Edward of Wessex in an attempted invasion of England. Following this, Edward unifies the Saxons in a dramatic series of campaigns, ending with the subjugation of much of old Roman Britain, and the semi-annexation of Brittany. The Danes begin to launch invasions at both Britain and Francia. Caliph Mawsil dies in Constantinople after a long and relatively successful reign. He is succeeded by his son Rafiq, but Rafiq does not claim the title of Caliph.
810-815: Rafiq begins his reign well, by leading an expedition into Bulgaria, and sacking Adrianople, dragging away the youngest daughter of Khan Seval, and forcing her conversion to Islam. In retaliation, Seval converts to Christianity, but by now the Bulgarian state is in danger of internal collapse, and will not present much of a threat to Rafiq again. The Franks found the city of Constantinople on the Elbe, as a new frontier against the hordes of barbarians that press around Christendom.
795-800: Sultan Hurayth dies in Alexandria. His death is taken by the Muslims of Egypt as proof of his sacrilege. He is replaced by one Mikhail, his son in law, who was born a Coptic Christian by the name of Michael. Mikhail immediately restores all relics to Mecca, but continues the Egyptian occupation of the Holy City. Also in this period, the Roman rebels, led by the pretender Emperor Octavius of Carthage defeat an Imperial fleet, and sieze Corsica.
800-805: Octavius of Carthage is subdued by Constantine V, though Africa will remain a constant thorn in the side of the Roman government for several decades yet. Constantine devotes the remainder of his reign to stirring up trouble between the pagan Khan Sevar of the Bulgars, and Caliph Mawsil of Constantinople. Corcyra is restored definitively to the Roman Empire, and the Romans continue to evacuate large numbers of Greek Christians and settle them in Sicily and Africa. Unfortunately for the Romans, this has the side affect of consolidating the Islamic hold on Greece by removing the Christian "third column".
805-810: King Charles II of Francia is killed by Edward of Wessex in an attempted invasion of England. Following this, Edward unifies the Saxons in a dramatic series of campaigns, ending with the subjugation of much of old Roman Britain, and the semi-annexation of Brittany. The Danes begin to launch invasions at both Britain and Francia. Caliph Mawsil dies in Constantinople after a long and relatively successful reign. He is succeeded by his son Rafiq, but Rafiq does not claim the title of Caliph.
810-815: Rafiq begins his reign well, by leading an expedition into Bulgaria, and sacking Adrianople, dragging away the youngest daughter of Khan Seval, and forcing her conversion to Islam. In retaliation, Seval converts to Christianity, but by now the Bulgarian state is in danger of internal collapse, and will not present much of a threat to Rafiq again. The Franks found the city of Constantinople on the Elbe, as a new frontier against the hordes of barbarians that press around Christendom.
DusanUros
Banned
Wait a minute......could you evacuate people back then? Even more, could you evacuate an entire population from a place? Considering that the gross majority are christians, and the last remaining who accept islam, dont identify as Romans anymore......you gonna....empty out the Balkans?
Valdemar II
Banned
I agree, through much of the mechant middleclass could likely be evacuated, crating a three tier class system, with Muslims on the top, Jews in the middle as a urban middle class and Christians as the vast rural majority.
Beside that it's unlikely that Denmark will start large scale raiding, if the Franks focus on the England rather than Saxony and Frisia, and if the Franks has conquered those two, the Danes is more likely to allies with the Anglo-Saxons against the Franks.
Last edited:
Ok So you're talking about not only conquering Constantinople but also the Balkan lands of the Byzantines as well. If the Caliphate is really making a claim on Europe, then this would likely reduce the amount of men available for an Invasion of Sindh, Baluchistan and their attempts on the Rajputs. I mean I don't think the are enough Arabs for both a conquest of the Balkans and for the Indus Valley.
It depends on what the Arabs are after. Would they really care to take the trouble to conquer into the poorer Balkan lands. or would they be fine if the Avars and Bulgars move into them.
If the Avars and Bulgars view the Muslims as not willing to go any farther than the richer parts of the Byzantium Empire, they might not convert. If they don't feel pressured or at least safe enough the Avars might take up
the Christian banner. This would make their rule over the ex-Byzantine lands much easier.
Not really full evacuation, but I think it's certainly plausible for Imperial raids to steadily remove Christian peasants from the coastal regions of the Balkans and resettle them in Italy and North Africa, while pagan, Islamic and Jewish peasants would simply be enslaved. Like I say though, this is a brainstorm designed to provoke discussion rather than a "proper" piece of AH, so please feel free to shoot down any of the suggestions I've made.