In 647, outside the temporary capital of the exarchate of Africa, Sufetula, the Muslims crushed the Roman army, killing the exarch Gregory. Leaving the rest of the Roman Maghreb defenceless.
Commanded by some of the most senior of companions of the prophet:
But instead of pressing on, they opted to merely loot and take tribute, returning to Egypt.
It was only in 670, when Qayrawan was founded, that a permenant Arab conquest of the region began. Though completely ousted in 682, they managed to return, and conquer the whole region up to the Atlantic by 707, 60 years after Sufetula.
So instead straight after the battle, they use take over Sufetula and use it as a base of operations in the region.
(Qayrawan could be founded as a new Misr but its more eastern than Sufetula, making governance over the regions in the far west much more difficult...)
From Sufetula, establishing direct rule over most of Tunisia by the end of 647. Except for Carthage, which is probably too difficult for the Muslims to take right now. Focusing on controling the interior instead.
While this is happening, the Caliphate would send reinforcements after hearing about the success and potential riches of the region. Including many Bedouin to attack from the southern deserts, perhaps Banu Hilal and Sulaym who historically would go on to ravage the region 400 years later...
Conquering the Libyan Garamantes on the way to Ifriqiyyah, just as Uqba ibn Nafi did historically.
Along with this land force a small naval detachment and shipbuilders and some sailors from Egypt/Levant would be sent also.
These would begin the creation of the Maghrebi Muslim navy, at Tripoli, Sfax and other southern Tunisian ports.
With these reinforcements they would begin the push westwards, mainly against Berber tribes. The Bedouin would attack via the desert, the Navy would take the largely abandoned Roman ports revitalising their shipyards, while the rest of the army takes the plains jutted with mountains between the two.
Ideally they would follow in the way of Abul Muhajir ibn Dinar or Musa ibn Nusayr, treating the Berbers without contempt, encouraging conversion and incorporating them into the army. Instead of what Uqba ibn Nafi did. Making conquest of the region easier and swifter.
But the navy would be the most important aspect of the campaign. The Byzantine navy was busy fighting the first initial naval raids of Muawiyah. And beyond Tunisia almost all former Roman ports were abandoned, and the Berber tribes dont seem to have much of a maritime history.
This would make the Muslims unchallenged on the coasts, using ports as bases, which the Berbers would have no chance of taking.
For this reason, as well as a larger navy and more amicable relations with the berbers, the Maghreb would be conquered much faster than Uqba ibn Nafi or Musa ibn Nusayr's attempts.
By 650 a central Misr would be founded probably at abandoned Icosium (Algiers) due to its central location, fertile hinterland and strategic location on the Mediterranean. If Arabs are still scared of the sea, despite the early Maghrebi naval build up, Tiaret could be chosen instead (historical capital of Rustamids).
In mid-late 651, the Navy and land army would take Tangiers. Establishing trade relations with Visigoths.
Then army continues southwards into the Arable, though underutilized, plains of Morocco. The largest region of fertile land in the Maghreb.
Establishing a large Misr at Casablanca due to its central location in the fertile plains and it's port, starting the creation of an Atlantic navy.
Giving the Maghreb 3 major cities: Sufetula, Casablanca and slightly smaller Icosium in the centre. This would make control over the western regions much easier, as historically only Qayrawan in the far east was a major misr, with a small one at Tangier.
And it would encourage more westerly Arab settlement, instead of just in Ifriqiyah.
By mid-late 652, Agadir and most of the Sus valley is taken. Starting the trans-Saharan gold trade and the beginnings of Muslim influence in west Africa. Perhaps some Arab Bedouin going with the Berbers, establishing a slight Arab presence?
The navy might also take the Canaries for timber and other resources.
Around this time in the east, Yazdegerd had just died. Ending the Persian Campaigns. This would allow over perhaps a dozen thousand additional reinforcements in the west.
Accompanied by a larger naval force due to a more developed navy after Muawiyah's raids on Cyprus.
En route they would probably take the city of Carthage. Garrisoning it, and revitalising it's Cothon, avoiding Byzantine reconquest. The ancient city soon surpassing Sufetula as the Ifriqiyan capital.
They would be accompanied by some Iranian Qanat builders along with them, to develop agriculture in the region.
And perhaps some Persian Asawira Cavalry, as they are in a completely foreign land with no local ties. Thus making them more loyal.
Thus by around mid-late 652 the majority of the Maghreb would be secured, save for some difficult to access Berber mountain tribes.
Now their attentions are drawn across the straits...
In 653, Chindaswinth, king of the Visigoths, died. Replaced by his son Reeceswinth, his ascension was contested by a rebellion by Froia in the Upper Ebro.
The Arabs would use this to invade. Rallying 20,000 men. A quarter to third of which being newly converted Berbers. Giving a larger army that what Tariq bin Ziyad + Musa ibn Nusayr had (18,000).
This would be accompanied by a large fleet, which would've been built up as the Arabs conquered the Maghrebi coast. Since the Visigoths had almost no navy, they would be unchallenged on the seas, allowing attacks on coastal cities all over the Iberian peninsula, with minimal resistance. Potentially even landing troops on the Asturias coast, avoiding the much more difficult mountainous land route.
In fact, the navy could go up the Navigable rivers. Primarily the Guadalquivir to besiege Seville and the Ebro to Zaragoza or potentially as far as Logroño.
Tariq managed to take the majority of Iberia in only 4-5 years.
With a larger army, but especially the navy this could be drastically sped up. But in Tariq's time Iberia was far more fractured and the civil war much more severe. Whereas Froia's rebellion was much smaller affair making the conquest more difficult...
Overall, it would probably still take a similar amount the same time, completing the conquest of the entirety of the Visigothic kingdom by 657.
With much stronger control over Asturias and Galicia due to the navy. Building a large shipyard at Gijon for raiding the Frankish and potentially British coasts.
Due to the larger and more accessible timber resources of Iberia, moreso than any other Muslim territory on the Mediterranean, it would become the main shipyard of the Caliphate, exporting it's ships to the timber sparse east.
All this would drastically increase the Muslim control over the Mediterranean. The large navy and trade between Iberia and the Muslim east would make control and communications with the far west easier, as naval transport is faster and more efficient. Allowing more central control.
Especially after the battle of the masts in 655, decimating the Roman navy. The Levantine, Egyptian, Maghrebi and Iberian Navies put together, would almost result in a Muslim Mediterranean...
Personally Cordoba seems a little too southerly as an Iberian Capital. While the Guadalquivir valley was the richest on the peninsula, it is too distant to properly control the second richest, the Ebro valley, especially with the many mountains in the way. Not to mention the rebellious regions in the north west. Which is why the Umayyad Emirate had such severe rebellions for close to 150 years. Even under Abdurahmaan iii the frontier lords still had significant amounts of independence...
Toledo seems like a more centrally controlled capital. This would also provide continuity with the previous regime, however this may be unwanted, and generally goes against Rashidun policy of building new capitals. Perhaps Madrid?
But in 656 the first Muslim civil war took place. This would take a few months to reach Iberia, so the Muslims would've already conquered the peninsula when news reaches them.
Assuming the generals in the battle of Sufetula are the same as those conquering Iberia, a sizeable number would move east. Such as: Hassan and Husain in support of their father Ali, as well as Abdullah ibn Jafar, Ali's nephew. Perhaps Abdullah and Ma'bad ibn Abbas in support of their Cousin Ali. Abdullah ibn Zubayr in support of his father Zubayr. Marwan ibn al Hakam in support of Muawiyah, Abdullah ibn Amr, to assist his father.
These notables might take a fairly significant portions of the army with them. Which would lead to significant manpower shortages. For this reason all offensive conquests would cease, and the Muslims would go on the defensive to hold onto the new western annexations until the fitnah ends, Some regions may have to be withdrawn from, such as northern Iberia, Sus valley, mountainous interior of Algeria. With Muslim control strongest on the coasts.
The Berbers would also start to be converted and recruited in much greater numbers to replace the Arabs.
Assuming the fitnah ends in the same manner, reinforcements would return to the Maghreb in 661. Now coupled with a large Berber component of the army.
Any territories lost would be retaken, and offensive campaigns would restart.
Campaigns would be aimed at 2 regions: Iberia and Atlantic Morocco attacking Frankia, while the rest of the Maghreb and some of Mediterranean Iberia attacks Sicily/Italy.
Contrary to the centralising Frankia under the Carolingian Mayor's of the Palace, Merovingian Frankia in the 660s was a mess. Neustria, Austrasia, Burgundy and Aquitaine were all divided. Their kings were often powerless to their respective mayor's of the palace. Coups and revolts were frequent.
Such a divided environment would be quite easy for the Muslims to invade. Encouraging revolts, coups and infighting. Then invading, ostensibly to support one faction. But in reality for conquest.
The main regions of conquest would be Aquitaine and Burgundy, both of which under nominal control of the Neustrian king Chlothar, though he was only 9 years old in 661, with his mother Balthild his regent. Aquitaine seems to have been de facto independent under Felix, it also seems to have been dominated by semi pagan Basques.
Having already taken Septimania, half of the Iberian Army and navy would take the rest of the Provencal coast without too much difficulty. Perhaps following the coast all the way to Genoa and beyond, since the Lombards were currently engaged in a civil war after Grimoald murdered the king of the Lombards.
After securing Provence going up the Rhone river, eventually taking Lyon by around 667.
Meanwhile, the remaining half of the Iberian Army would attack Aquitaine via the western Pyrenees coastal pass. Assisted by the Gijon/Atlantic Navy.
Taking Bayonne and then Bordeaux. From Bordeaux going up the Garonne river to Toulouse. Besieging the city, being assisted by a Septimanian force. Taking it by 664.
Then continuing North taking Limoges and Poitiers by 667.
The navy taking Nantes in 668, establishing relations with Alain II Hir, the Breton king, perhaps using Galician Britons to win some favour... In any case, supporting the Bretons against the Franks.
Using Nantes to go up the Loire river, attacking Angers, Tours and Orleans - a former Frankish capital. By 670.
Ideally the navy would take Brest too. Using it to begin raids on the heavily divided British Isles.
While the Lyon Army continues to Dijon, taking it by 668. Then continuing to the Austrasian capital Metz. Taking it by 671.
While a smaller force would move east from Dijon taking Basel. Using it to send raiding parties down the Rhine, dominating the Rhine valley.
While the force that took Orleans would move on nearby Paris, taking it by 672.
By 675, the entire Frankish realm would be firmly under Muslim control. Through playing the many factions of the Franks against each other.
Around 100,000 Berbers and some Arabs would be settled in garrisons throughout the region, mainly along the waterways.
From there campaigns would continue. With a major one to the east, into Bavaria, ruled by the Agilofing duke, Theodo. It was almost entirely outside Frankish control and still largely Pagan.
Taking his capital of Regensburg would give access to the Danube. Sending riverine fleets down the river against the Avars and south Slavs, as well as the Bulgarians, who had just moved into the region.
Establishing fortifications all along the river, to ensure control and as points of domination in the region.
From here, the Byzantines could also be attacked, although they had already lost the majority of the Balkans to the south Slavs. So the Pagan Slavs would be supported against the Byzantines, they would also be called to Islam, with the Byzantines as their enemy, many would be receptive to the call.
The Danubian fleets would also give significant influence in the Black sea. A joint campaign on Georgia would strengthen this Influence. The land army attacking from Armenia and Azerbaijan, While the navy attacks the coast, particularly around Abkhazia.
Using the Georgian coast to build a significant Black sea fleet, when added to the Danubian fleet, making the Muslims the dominant power of the Black sea.
Taking Byzantine Crimea, going up the Dnieper and Don rivers. Using these to attack the Khazars from the north as well as the south.
While also attacking the northern Anatolian coast.
Meanwhile, in the west, after taking France, Landing an army 20,000 or so strong in England.
The British Isles were much more divided than Frankia, and so by playing factions against one another, could be conquered easier.
The flatter terrain of England compared to Iberia or southern France, would also make campaigns and logistics easier.
But the region doesn't have that much strategic importance, and so not much focus would be placed on its campaigns...
While all this was going on, the Maghrebi fleet would be conquering the Mediterranean.
The Balerics would've already been taken by a small naval force during the invasion of Iberia, with little resistance.
After the first fitnah, the Iberian and Maghrebi navies would take Sardinia and the Corsican coast, these too would fall fairly easily, but the Corsican mountains wouldn't be worth the effort.
After this comes Sicily. The Muslims would already take Malta and Pantelleria by beginning of 662. This would mean Constans ii would not move the Capital to Syracuse.
Sicily hadn't been attacked in centuries, and the Byzantines wouldn't have been able to fortify it quick enough, especially with Muslim dominance of the Mediterranean following Battle of the masts. So its defences would be fairly weak.
Landing on the western coast besieging Palermo, falling around 663.
Then moving southwards down the fairly flat plains to Syracuse, capital of the island. This would require a much longer siege, perhaps falling after 3 years in 666. Then northwards to the mountains with Messina falling around 668. By 670, most Byzantines holdouts on the island would fall.
Then moving onto the mainland. Taking a few ports on the Calabrian coast, not bothering too much over the mountainous interior. The main aim would be Apulia. Which was flat, fertile and within striking distance of the Balkans. The navy taking Taranto in 671 and Bari in 673.
From Bari beginning to attack the Dalmatian coast allying with the local pagan south Slavs against the Byzantines. and dominating the entire Adriatic sea with a newly built Apulian navy. With even a few forays up the Po river into the Lombard heartland.
Also pushing eastwards taking the Ionian Islands and some of coastal Peloponnese. Crete had been taken in 674 and Rhodes and Smyrna in 672. The Italian and Maghrebi navies would help on further conquering the Aegean, taking Athens, Thessaloniki in 675, bringing local south Slavs on their side.
A few small ships going up some of the Maritsa, beginning the ravaging of Thrace, the hinterland of Constantinople.
While the Black sea navy attacks from the north.
At that, the main army would arrive in 678. A large portion of western troops landing on Thrace, while Eastern troops traverse Anatolia to Chalcedon, or they could also be transported via Eastern Mediterranean or perhaps even the black sea navy.
The city is completely surrounded. Muslim domination of the Mediterranean and Black sea is complete, and the Byzantines have no allies.
Thus, Constantinople falls after 2 years of siege on the eve of Muawiyah's death in early 680.
And so the Byzantine empire falls.
Though a few holdouts would remain, mainly throughout most of Anatolia and some of central Italy. Perhaps slightly in the Balkan interior not overrun by Slavs, and for the time being in Crimea.
But the Muslims are unable to deal with these immediately, as soon after the city falls and is extremely heavily garrisoned, Muawiyah would die.
Thus the 2nd fitnah would begin.
However things are different now.
The main reason the battle of Sufetula was won was due to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. Assuming he, as well as Hassan, Hussain etc stayed in the Maghreb after the battle, and participated in the conquest of the rest of the Maghreb and Iberia, then those regions would be extremely loyal to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Hussain.
Especially the now large Berber component of the Muslim army, which converted mostly at their hands.
After the first fitnah, assuming Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and perhaps Hussain went back to the Muslim west to continue campaigns into Italy or Frankia, then those places would also be loyal to them, they might've even gotten involved in the actual seige of Constantinople.
Even if they weren't there directly, the armies who conquer them and especially the Berbers would be loyal to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Hussain. Giving them dominance over the Western Muslim world, as well as Hejaz and for Hussain Iraq.
But assuming Muawiya put Yazid in charge of the main army which took Constantinople, then Yazid would have huge popularity even among non Syrian Junds.
So Hussain wouldn't have to risk allying with the potentially treacherous Iraqis, rather, he along with Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr could seek much stronger support from the Muslim west.
Rebelling from Carthage instead of untenable Makkah.
This would give control over the western navies, far larger than their eastern counterparts. And so, Egypt could be taken fairly easily by a Zubayrid naval invasion.
Then taking the Levantine coast with the ports of Acre, Tyre, Sidon and Beirut all being within striking distance of Damascus.
While the Levantine coast is being assaulted, Iraqi and Hejazi armies would march on Damascus, from the East and South respectively. With the Levantine ports march from the west.
Besieging Damascus and ending the Umayyads.
The Byzantine elements in Anatolia and Italy would attempt to use the Chaos to win back territory.
But the Muslims have taken their entire coastline and completely dominate the seas.
They don't have any land Holding in the Balkans due to the South Slav invasions and subsequent Muslim coastal invasion.
And Constantinople would remaim extremely heavily garrisoned, after the huge expense in attaining it. So it would be almost impossible for Byzantines to retake it.
Though they would probably be able to oust some of the Muslims from some of southern Italy. As well as retake some regions in Anatolia, perhaps even invading Cilicia or Upper Syria...
Crimean Byzantines would probably make an alliance with the Khazars and Bulgars.
But as soon as the fitnah is over, much of this would be reversed, and the Muslims would set about ending these last remnants.
By that Hussain or ibn al-Zubayr becomes Caliph, hereditary Caliphate never occurs.
The Capital is a tricky one, due to the now huge western focus of the Caliphate. Probably Fustat, since it's Navigable both to the Mediterranean and the red sea via the Pharaohs canal.
The focus of troops on western campaigns would mean less effective eastern campaigns. Probably staying behind the Oxus river, and not attempting to invade Kabul in the 660s.
But once the western campaigns are complete, focus can be shifted east. Especially the unfathomable riches of India.
The Berber conversions would also increase the total number of Muslim fighters available.
But I'll end this timeline here.
Overall, I think this is a fairly realistic timeline.
The main part which is slightly unlikely is the speed at which a Maghrebi navy could be made. But Muawiyah first made his navy and assaulted Cyprus in 645. A few ships could be sent west with alongside land reinforcements, and the shipyards of Tripolitania, Southern Tunisia, potentially Cyrenaica and later the rest of the Maghreb would be able to quickly make a significant Maghrebi navy.
Another area which may be unlikely is the speed at which Tangier can be reached. But as long as they do so before 653, 6 years after Sufetula, they can get involved in Froia's rebellion. So in the worst case, they could just purely focus on capturing the abandoned coast, which should be quite easy.
Also the Muslims taking Regensburg after Frankia, using it to send fleets down the Danube into the black sea is probably highly unlikely. But as long as they take the Georgian coast, they can build a black sea fleet to attack Anatolia and Thrace from the north. Since they already had Armenia and some of eastern modern day Georgia this shouldn't be too difficult...
Otherwise, another timeline where Umar and the early Muslims have no qualms against building a navy, and do so as soon as they reach the Mediterranean, Which is 2 years after the prophet died, in 634 with the conquest of Gaza. This would make all this much more feasible.
Commanded by some of the most senior of companions of the prophet:
But instead of pressing on, they opted to merely loot and take tribute, returning to Egypt.
It was only in 670, when Qayrawan was founded, that a permenant Arab conquest of the region began. Though completely ousted in 682, they managed to return, and conquer the whole region up to the Atlantic by 707, 60 years after Sufetula.
So instead straight after the battle, they use take over Sufetula and use it as a base of operations in the region.
(Qayrawan could be founded as a new Misr but its more eastern than Sufetula, making governance over the regions in the far west much more difficult...)
From Sufetula, establishing direct rule over most of Tunisia by the end of 647. Except for Carthage, which is probably too difficult for the Muslims to take right now. Focusing on controling the interior instead.
While this is happening, the Caliphate would send reinforcements after hearing about the success and potential riches of the region. Including many Bedouin to attack from the southern deserts, perhaps Banu Hilal and Sulaym who historically would go on to ravage the region 400 years later...
Conquering the Libyan Garamantes on the way to Ifriqiyyah, just as Uqba ibn Nafi did historically.
Along with this land force a small naval detachment and shipbuilders and some sailors from Egypt/Levant would be sent also.
These would begin the creation of the Maghrebi Muslim navy, at Tripoli, Sfax and other southern Tunisian ports.
With these reinforcements they would begin the push westwards, mainly against Berber tribes. The Bedouin would attack via the desert, the Navy would take the largely abandoned Roman ports revitalising their shipyards, while the rest of the army takes the plains jutted with mountains between the two.
Ideally they would follow in the way of Abul Muhajir ibn Dinar or Musa ibn Nusayr, treating the Berbers without contempt, encouraging conversion and incorporating them into the army. Instead of what Uqba ibn Nafi did. Making conquest of the region easier and swifter.
But the navy would be the most important aspect of the campaign. The Byzantine navy was busy fighting the first initial naval raids of Muawiyah. And beyond Tunisia almost all former Roman ports were abandoned, and the Berber tribes dont seem to have much of a maritime history.
This would make the Muslims unchallenged on the coasts, using ports as bases, which the Berbers would have no chance of taking.
For this reason, as well as a larger navy and more amicable relations with the berbers, the Maghreb would be conquered much faster than Uqba ibn Nafi or Musa ibn Nusayr's attempts.
By 650 a central Misr would be founded probably at abandoned Icosium (Algiers) due to its central location, fertile hinterland and strategic location on the Mediterranean. If Arabs are still scared of the sea, despite the early Maghrebi naval build up, Tiaret could be chosen instead (historical capital of Rustamids).
In mid-late 651, the Navy and land army would take Tangiers. Establishing trade relations with Visigoths.
Then army continues southwards into the Arable, though underutilized, plains of Morocco. The largest region of fertile land in the Maghreb.
Establishing a large Misr at Casablanca due to its central location in the fertile plains and it's port, starting the creation of an Atlantic navy.
Giving the Maghreb 3 major cities: Sufetula, Casablanca and slightly smaller Icosium in the centre. This would make control over the western regions much easier, as historically only Qayrawan in the far east was a major misr, with a small one at Tangier.
And it would encourage more westerly Arab settlement, instead of just in Ifriqiyah.
By mid-late 652, Agadir and most of the Sus valley is taken. Starting the trans-Saharan gold trade and the beginnings of Muslim influence in west Africa. Perhaps some Arab Bedouin going with the Berbers, establishing a slight Arab presence?
The navy might also take the Canaries for timber and other resources.
Around this time in the east, Yazdegerd had just died. Ending the Persian Campaigns. This would allow over perhaps a dozen thousand additional reinforcements in the west.
Accompanied by a larger naval force due to a more developed navy after Muawiyah's raids on Cyprus.
En route they would probably take the city of Carthage. Garrisoning it, and revitalising it's Cothon, avoiding Byzantine reconquest. The ancient city soon surpassing Sufetula as the Ifriqiyan capital.
They would be accompanied by some Iranian Qanat builders along with them, to develop agriculture in the region.
And perhaps some Persian Asawira Cavalry, as they are in a completely foreign land with no local ties. Thus making them more loyal.
Thus by around mid-late 652 the majority of the Maghreb would be secured, save for some difficult to access Berber mountain tribes.
Now their attentions are drawn across the straits...
In 653, Chindaswinth, king of the Visigoths, died. Replaced by his son Reeceswinth, his ascension was contested by a rebellion by Froia in the Upper Ebro.
The Arabs would use this to invade. Rallying 20,000 men. A quarter to third of which being newly converted Berbers. Giving a larger army that what Tariq bin Ziyad + Musa ibn Nusayr had (18,000).
This would be accompanied by a large fleet, which would've been built up as the Arabs conquered the Maghrebi coast. Since the Visigoths had almost no navy, they would be unchallenged on the seas, allowing attacks on coastal cities all over the Iberian peninsula, with minimal resistance. Potentially even landing troops on the Asturias coast, avoiding the much more difficult mountainous land route.
In fact, the navy could go up the Navigable rivers. Primarily the Guadalquivir to besiege Seville and the Ebro to Zaragoza or potentially as far as Logroño.
Tariq managed to take the majority of Iberia in only 4-5 years.
With a larger army, but especially the navy this could be drastically sped up. But in Tariq's time Iberia was far more fractured and the civil war much more severe. Whereas Froia's rebellion was much smaller affair making the conquest more difficult...
Overall, it would probably still take a similar amount the same time, completing the conquest of the entirety of the Visigothic kingdom by 657.
With much stronger control over Asturias and Galicia due to the navy. Building a large shipyard at Gijon for raiding the Frankish and potentially British coasts.
Due to the larger and more accessible timber resources of Iberia, moreso than any other Muslim territory on the Mediterranean, it would become the main shipyard of the Caliphate, exporting it's ships to the timber sparse east.
All this would drastically increase the Muslim control over the Mediterranean. The large navy and trade between Iberia and the Muslim east would make control and communications with the far west easier, as naval transport is faster and more efficient. Allowing more central control.
Especially after the battle of the masts in 655, decimating the Roman navy. The Levantine, Egyptian, Maghrebi and Iberian Navies put together, would almost result in a Muslim Mediterranean...
Personally Cordoba seems a little too southerly as an Iberian Capital. While the Guadalquivir valley was the richest on the peninsula, it is too distant to properly control the second richest, the Ebro valley, especially with the many mountains in the way. Not to mention the rebellious regions in the north west. Which is why the Umayyad Emirate had such severe rebellions for close to 150 years. Even under Abdurahmaan iii the frontier lords still had significant amounts of independence...
Toledo seems like a more centrally controlled capital. This would also provide continuity with the previous regime, however this may be unwanted, and generally goes against Rashidun policy of building new capitals. Perhaps Madrid?
But in 656 the first Muslim civil war took place. This would take a few months to reach Iberia, so the Muslims would've already conquered the peninsula when news reaches them.
Assuming the generals in the battle of Sufetula are the same as those conquering Iberia, a sizeable number would move east. Such as: Hassan and Husain in support of their father Ali, as well as Abdullah ibn Jafar, Ali's nephew. Perhaps Abdullah and Ma'bad ibn Abbas in support of their Cousin Ali. Abdullah ibn Zubayr in support of his father Zubayr. Marwan ibn al Hakam in support of Muawiyah, Abdullah ibn Amr, to assist his father.
These notables might take a fairly significant portions of the army with them. Which would lead to significant manpower shortages. For this reason all offensive conquests would cease, and the Muslims would go on the defensive to hold onto the new western annexations until the fitnah ends, Some regions may have to be withdrawn from, such as northern Iberia, Sus valley, mountainous interior of Algeria. With Muslim control strongest on the coasts.
The Berbers would also start to be converted and recruited in much greater numbers to replace the Arabs.
Assuming the fitnah ends in the same manner, reinforcements would return to the Maghreb in 661. Now coupled with a large Berber component of the army.
Any territories lost would be retaken, and offensive campaigns would restart.
Campaigns would be aimed at 2 regions: Iberia and Atlantic Morocco attacking Frankia, while the rest of the Maghreb and some of Mediterranean Iberia attacks Sicily/Italy.
Contrary to the centralising Frankia under the Carolingian Mayor's of the Palace, Merovingian Frankia in the 660s was a mess. Neustria, Austrasia, Burgundy and Aquitaine were all divided. Their kings were often powerless to their respective mayor's of the palace. Coups and revolts were frequent.
Such a divided environment would be quite easy for the Muslims to invade. Encouraging revolts, coups and infighting. Then invading, ostensibly to support one faction. But in reality for conquest.
The main regions of conquest would be Aquitaine and Burgundy, both of which under nominal control of the Neustrian king Chlothar, though he was only 9 years old in 661, with his mother Balthild his regent. Aquitaine seems to have been de facto independent under Felix, it also seems to have been dominated by semi pagan Basques.
Having already taken Septimania, half of the Iberian Army and navy would take the rest of the Provencal coast without too much difficulty. Perhaps following the coast all the way to Genoa and beyond, since the Lombards were currently engaged in a civil war after Grimoald murdered the king of the Lombards.
After securing Provence going up the Rhone river, eventually taking Lyon by around 667.
Meanwhile, the remaining half of the Iberian Army would attack Aquitaine via the western Pyrenees coastal pass. Assisted by the Gijon/Atlantic Navy.
Taking Bayonne and then Bordeaux. From Bordeaux going up the Garonne river to Toulouse. Besieging the city, being assisted by a Septimanian force. Taking it by 664.
Then continuing North taking Limoges and Poitiers by 667.
The navy taking Nantes in 668, establishing relations with Alain II Hir, the Breton king, perhaps using Galician Britons to win some favour... In any case, supporting the Bretons against the Franks.
Using Nantes to go up the Loire river, attacking Angers, Tours and Orleans - a former Frankish capital. By 670.
Ideally the navy would take Brest too. Using it to begin raids on the heavily divided British Isles.
While the Lyon Army continues to Dijon, taking it by 668. Then continuing to the Austrasian capital Metz. Taking it by 671.
While a smaller force would move east from Dijon taking Basel. Using it to send raiding parties down the Rhine, dominating the Rhine valley.
While the force that took Orleans would move on nearby Paris, taking it by 672.
By 675, the entire Frankish realm would be firmly under Muslim control. Through playing the many factions of the Franks against each other.
Around 100,000 Berbers and some Arabs would be settled in garrisons throughout the region, mainly along the waterways.
From there campaigns would continue. With a major one to the east, into Bavaria, ruled by the Agilofing duke, Theodo. It was almost entirely outside Frankish control and still largely Pagan.
Taking his capital of Regensburg would give access to the Danube. Sending riverine fleets down the river against the Avars and south Slavs, as well as the Bulgarians, who had just moved into the region.
Establishing fortifications all along the river, to ensure control and as points of domination in the region.
From here, the Byzantines could also be attacked, although they had already lost the majority of the Balkans to the south Slavs. So the Pagan Slavs would be supported against the Byzantines, they would also be called to Islam, with the Byzantines as their enemy, many would be receptive to the call.
The Danubian fleets would also give significant influence in the Black sea. A joint campaign on Georgia would strengthen this Influence. The land army attacking from Armenia and Azerbaijan, While the navy attacks the coast, particularly around Abkhazia.
Using the Georgian coast to build a significant Black sea fleet, when added to the Danubian fleet, making the Muslims the dominant power of the Black sea.
Taking Byzantine Crimea, going up the Dnieper and Don rivers. Using these to attack the Khazars from the north as well as the south.
While also attacking the northern Anatolian coast.
Meanwhile, in the west, after taking France, Landing an army 20,000 or so strong in England.
The British Isles were much more divided than Frankia, and so by playing factions against one another, could be conquered easier.
The flatter terrain of England compared to Iberia or southern France, would also make campaigns and logistics easier.
But the region doesn't have that much strategic importance, and so not much focus would be placed on its campaigns...
While all this was going on, the Maghrebi fleet would be conquering the Mediterranean.
The Balerics would've already been taken by a small naval force during the invasion of Iberia, with little resistance.
After the first fitnah, the Iberian and Maghrebi navies would take Sardinia and the Corsican coast, these too would fall fairly easily, but the Corsican mountains wouldn't be worth the effort.
After this comes Sicily. The Muslims would already take Malta and Pantelleria by beginning of 662. This would mean Constans ii would not move the Capital to Syracuse.
Sicily hadn't been attacked in centuries, and the Byzantines wouldn't have been able to fortify it quick enough, especially with Muslim dominance of the Mediterranean following Battle of the masts. So its defences would be fairly weak.
Landing on the western coast besieging Palermo, falling around 663.
Then moving southwards down the fairly flat plains to Syracuse, capital of the island. This would require a much longer siege, perhaps falling after 3 years in 666. Then northwards to the mountains with Messina falling around 668. By 670, most Byzantines holdouts on the island would fall.
Then moving onto the mainland. Taking a few ports on the Calabrian coast, not bothering too much over the mountainous interior. The main aim would be Apulia. Which was flat, fertile and within striking distance of the Balkans. The navy taking Taranto in 671 and Bari in 673.
From Bari beginning to attack the Dalmatian coast allying with the local pagan south Slavs against the Byzantines. and dominating the entire Adriatic sea with a newly built Apulian navy. With even a few forays up the Po river into the Lombard heartland.
Also pushing eastwards taking the Ionian Islands and some of coastal Peloponnese. Crete had been taken in 674 and Rhodes and Smyrna in 672. The Italian and Maghrebi navies would help on further conquering the Aegean, taking Athens, Thessaloniki in 675, bringing local south Slavs on their side.
A few small ships going up some of the Maritsa, beginning the ravaging of Thrace, the hinterland of Constantinople.
While the Black sea navy attacks from the north.
At that, the main army would arrive in 678. A large portion of western troops landing on Thrace, while Eastern troops traverse Anatolia to Chalcedon, or they could also be transported via Eastern Mediterranean or perhaps even the black sea navy.
The city is completely surrounded. Muslim domination of the Mediterranean and Black sea is complete, and the Byzantines have no allies.
Thus, Constantinople falls after 2 years of siege on the eve of Muawiyah's death in early 680.
And so the Byzantine empire falls.
Though a few holdouts would remain, mainly throughout most of Anatolia and some of central Italy. Perhaps slightly in the Balkan interior not overrun by Slavs, and for the time being in Crimea.
But the Muslims are unable to deal with these immediately, as soon after the city falls and is extremely heavily garrisoned, Muawiyah would die.
Thus the 2nd fitnah would begin.
However things are different now.
The main reason the battle of Sufetula was won was due to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. Assuming he, as well as Hassan, Hussain etc stayed in the Maghreb after the battle, and participated in the conquest of the rest of the Maghreb and Iberia, then those regions would be extremely loyal to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Hussain.
Especially the now large Berber component of the Muslim army, which converted mostly at their hands.
After the first fitnah, assuming Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and perhaps Hussain went back to the Muslim west to continue campaigns into Italy or Frankia, then those places would also be loyal to them, they might've even gotten involved in the actual seige of Constantinople.
Even if they weren't there directly, the armies who conquer them and especially the Berbers would be loyal to Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Hussain. Giving them dominance over the Western Muslim world, as well as Hejaz and for Hussain Iraq.
But assuming Muawiya put Yazid in charge of the main army which took Constantinople, then Yazid would have huge popularity even among non Syrian Junds.
So Hussain wouldn't have to risk allying with the potentially treacherous Iraqis, rather, he along with Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr could seek much stronger support from the Muslim west.
Rebelling from Carthage instead of untenable Makkah.
This would give control over the western navies, far larger than their eastern counterparts. And so, Egypt could be taken fairly easily by a Zubayrid naval invasion.
Then taking the Levantine coast with the ports of Acre, Tyre, Sidon and Beirut all being within striking distance of Damascus.
While the Levantine coast is being assaulted, Iraqi and Hejazi armies would march on Damascus, from the East and South respectively. With the Levantine ports march from the west.
Besieging Damascus and ending the Umayyads.
The Byzantine elements in Anatolia and Italy would attempt to use the Chaos to win back territory.
But the Muslims have taken their entire coastline and completely dominate the seas.
They don't have any land Holding in the Balkans due to the South Slav invasions and subsequent Muslim coastal invasion.
And Constantinople would remaim extremely heavily garrisoned, after the huge expense in attaining it. So it would be almost impossible for Byzantines to retake it.
Though they would probably be able to oust some of the Muslims from some of southern Italy. As well as retake some regions in Anatolia, perhaps even invading Cilicia or Upper Syria...
Crimean Byzantines would probably make an alliance with the Khazars and Bulgars.
But as soon as the fitnah is over, much of this would be reversed, and the Muslims would set about ending these last remnants.
By that Hussain or ibn al-Zubayr becomes Caliph, hereditary Caliphate never occurs.
The Capital is a tricky one, due to the now huge western focus of the Caliphate. Probably Fustat, since it's Navigable both to the Mediterranean and the red sea via the Pharaohs canal.
The focus of troops on western campaigns would mean less effective eastern campaigns. Probably staying behind the Oxus river, and not attempting to invade Kabul in the 660s.
But once the western campaigns are complete, focus can be shifted east. Especially the unfathomable riches of India.
The Berber conversions would also increase the total number of Muslim fighters available.
But I'll end this timeline here.
Overall, I think this is a fairly realistic timeline.
The main part which is slightly unlikely is the speed at which a Maghrebi navy could be made. But Muawiyah first made his navy and assaulted Cyprus in 645. A few ships could be sent west with alongside land reinforcements, and the shipyards of Tripolitania, Southern Tunisia, potentially Cyrenaica and later the rest of the Maghreb would be able to quickly make a significant Maghrebi navy.
Another area which may be unlikely is the speed at which Tangier can be reached. But as long as they do so before 653, 6 years after Sufetula, they can get involved in Froia's rebellion. So in the worst case, they could just purely focus on capturing the abandoned coast, which should be quite easy.
Also the Muslims taking Regensburg after Frankia, using it to send fleets down the Danube into the black sea is probably highly unlikely. But as long as they take the Georgian coast, they can build a black sea fleet to attack Anatolia and Thrace from the north. Since they already had Armenia and some of eastern modern day Georgia this shouldn't be too difficult...
Otherwise, another timeline where Umar and the early Muslims have no qualms against building a navy, and do so as soon as they reach the Mediterranean, Which is 2 years after the prophet died, in 634 with the conquest of Gaza. This would make all this much more feasible.
Last edited:
