Discussion: Fall of the Abbasid Hegemony.

Whilst thinking of the Abbasid period (as usual), I had an interesting thought. This thought had to do with the peculiar and particularly bloody fall of the Abbasid power. I then decided to write this, to get people's opinions on the overarching collapse.

In the late 9th and early 10th century, the Abbasid fought endless rebellions and wars was engaged on nearly all fronts. Amazingly, the Abbasid essentially neutralized all foes one after another. A testament to their incredible base power within Iraq (central) and having some of the most skilled military generals in Islamic history. I will give a short list of all the wars and enemies in which the Abbasid faced in this period and wars between the opposition against other forces. (==== signifies wars with Abbasids)

Abbasid Caliphate \Active entire time\
Allies: Assyrian Christians, Militias of Iraq, Kurdish chiefs, Syrian Bedouin, Paulicians, varied, etc...

Enemies: All listed below and at various times.

Outcome: Close Victory
===============
Imamiyyah of Yahya bin Umar \864-865\

Allies: Shi'i villages, local guards of Karabala, etc....

Enemies: None

Shi'i militant rebellion based out of Karbala. Yahya bin Umar gained the support of a Shi'i followers who hailed him as the Imam of Islam and the savior of the world. He claimed to bring the sword of fire unto the decadent tongue of the Abbasid for their transgressions. The fear Yahya bin Umar inspired in such a short time inspired further insurrection in the Islamic World as immediately, his poems were spread throughout the land. His ambitious rebellion and failure at the hands of subversion (likely by the Abbasids), became a rallying call for the most rebellious in the Islamic world.

Outcome: Decisive Abbasid victory
==============
Byzantine Empire of the East \828-???\

Allies: Armenian militia

Enemies: Tulunids (inconclusive)

The Byzantine reawakening under Basil I, led to a rapid change in the frontier of the Islamic world. Since the ascendance of the Abbasid throne, the Abbasid hegemony had bloodied the Byzantines all across the frontier. Abbasid clients, Arab emirs with armies of loot starved warriors traversed the lands to seek battle against the Byzantines. The system was the same as the Umayyad and worked well against the Byzantines. Further, Paulicians, dualist heretics of the Byzantine holdings fled persecution of the Romans entered under the service of Abbasid masters. One which, they would serve well. Paulician-Arab armies became famed for their ferocity and were the scourge of the Anatolians and Armenians.

However, the power of the Abbasids rapidly declined in the region when the Byzantines defeated the army of Umar al-Aqta and Karbeas at Poson/Lalakan. Umar al-Aqta the principle emir of the Abbasid armies in the north, was slayed as well as the highest command in the Paulician forces. The result was devastating. Then, 9 years later, Byzantine forces utterly decimated the Paulicians at Bythas Ryax. The Abbasid from then on, had zero control over Armenia and Anatolia and only defense from the Byzantines was mutual enemies.

Outcome: Decisive Byzantine victory and unspoken peace (conquest of vast tracts of Islamic held lands/disbanding of most Abbasid clients)
===============
Khawarij Armies of Musawir/Claimed the Khalifah of Islam (866-896)

Allies: Zanj armies, Muslim Kurdish chiefdoms, Shi'i villages

Enemies: Yazidi (Khawarij victory, massacred Yazidi), Assyrians (Decisive Khawarij victory, sack of Mosul and Assur), Saffarids (Saffarid small victory), Arab tribes of Anbar (decisive Arab tribal victory)

The Northern Khawarij revolt was a fantastic event started by a petty crime and bloodlust of a father, that led to a rapid and escalating war. War in the north rapidly turned when due to crime, the mob that was now hunted by Abbasid authorities, joined the faction of the Khawarij and rose the flag of victory. Within days, their armies went upon a vicious rampage across the north of Iraq. Abbasid forces were unable to keep up with the fast moving marauders who specialized in subverting towns and cities and then sacking them with the highest disregard for life.

However, the Abbasids in the 890s took the offensive after being eluded for decades by the seemingly teleporting Khawarij. Abbasid forces utilized smaller forces but spread out over wider distances to catch the Khawarij at river crossings. Finally, Al-Hasan ibn Ali Qurah engaged the forces of Harun ibn Abdallah al-Bajali, the warlord of the Khawarij and chief mastermind of the revolt, at the Zab canal and defeated him after a vicious battle. From then on, Harun al-Bajali was broken and subsequently unable to loot and unable to defend his holdings. He was after, captured and executed brutally.

Outcome: Decisive Abbasid victory, desolation of Northern Iraq
===========
Saffard Empire \867-880\

Allies: Ayyars of Afghanistan

Enemies: Zanj (decisive Zanj victory), Khawarij rebels (Saffarid victory), Zayydids (white peace)

The Saffarid Empire under Ya'qub ibn Layth al-Safar was an enigma. Claiming in 867 the crown of Shahanshah, he directly opposed the order of the Islamic World more than any other. His rebellion was further perplexed by his title as the Lion of Islam and Pillar of Faith, that he gained as a general for the Abbasid Caliphate. His armies were feared across the land as the terror of the East and for their former Zabuli Pashtuns, the most zealous of all warriors on the fringes of Islam. As well, all quaked in fear of the fantastic warlord and his army of stone warriors.

However, Ya'qub ibn Layth's invasion of Iraq was met with a vast and sprawling defense. Abbasid forces flooding vast regions to stop the movement of cavalry and also emplaced troops north to force the Saffarids to the south where the Zanj were fresh off massive gains. Saffarid armies thus, in an attempt to maneuver the Abbasid armies and gain notoriety amongst Iraqi, engaged the Zanj. Zanj welcomed the new foe, claiming he a heretic. In a fantastic turn of events, the Zanj effectively defeated the Safarids across the swamplands and pushed the armies out of the entire region. In defiance, Ya'qub moved directly west to immediately remedy his defeat by taking Baghdad. Here though, Ya'qub, was defeated decisively and his army was torn to shreds by the armies of Iraq. The world shook at his defeat and he later fled and died supposedly of sorrow. His life was one ended terribly for such a promising general. A true shame.

Outcome: Decisive Abbasid victory, discrediting of Saffarid powers in Iran.
==========
Zanj rebels/Connection \869-883\

Allies: Qarmatians, Khawarij, runaway slaves, Bedouin Shi'i villages

Enemies: Saffarids (Zanj victory), plantation owners (Zanj victory), Arab tribes (Zanj victory), Ilami peasants (Zanj victory)

The most famous of all rebellions in the Abbasid period. The most organized slave army in history, the Zanj were a force of feared fighters that fought with amazing morale and organization. Using the swamps they defeated early Abbasid armies and shocked the world with the sack of Basra. Zanj rebels then amazingly defeated Abbasid armies in clear fronts, as they gathered weapons from fallen soldiers. Their numbers were covered by slaves, criminals, revolutionary, zealots, alike. Zanj seemed unstoppable after their constant victories.

Yet, the Abbasid began to counter the Zanj by flooding the swamp lands then launching strikes of decentralized groups to pick off the Zanj command unit. A curious situation whereby the established government turned the tables by using the enemies' tactics. Part of this too, was luring Zanj armies into ambushes or simply feigned attacks with heavy armored cataphract like knights. This war in and of itself, is fascinating both for the period and for the Abbasids. Regardless, the Abbasid targeting of Zanj command, was extremely effective and by 882, the Zanj were a powerful force with weak command and thus the revolt ended soon after. Zanj forces without command, evaporated into small autonomous enclaves of rebel activity which would last until the Saljuq period.

Outcome: Abbasid victory, desolation of Southern Iraq. Creation of vast tracts of land ruled by criminal groups running rackets and pirate tolls. This would become the height of piracy and banditry in the Iraqi River valley.
=========
Tulunids \877-906\

Allies: None

Enemies: Qarmatians (inconclusive)

Ahmad ibn Tulun, a famed warrior of Turkic descent (his father is said to have been born in Tocharia), gained favor with al-Musta'in by protecting an attacked caravan from Bedouin. This act, made him famous and with great glee, was given governorship of Egypt by al-Mu'Tazz (cousin of al-Musta'in). Here, he built a powerful vassal state that rapidly devolved into an independent nation at the height of the Saffarid wars. Khumarawayh ibn Ahmad al-Tulun, became famed after his father for leading the height of Egypt-Iraqi/Tulunid-Abbasid conflicts in the 880s.

Khumarawayh was an interesting case, for he was a decadent prince who enjoyed leisure and relaxation. However, he was also a general with natural leadership and courage. Defeating the Abbasid at Tawahin in 885, the Tulunid reigned supreme in Syria. Their army of professional warriors was famed, especially for its eccentric use of Greek, European and Sub Saharan warriors. As well, Khumarawayh created unique divisions to his liking and covered his bodyguard with 'Sudanese' warriors.

Despite all this, Khumarawayh was brutally murdered by one of his slaves after his 'decadence' became too much. His successors were then unable to control his unruly and diverse standing army. Taking advantage, Abbasid armies plowed through the Tulunid divided command and broke the Tulunid powers in Jordan. By the time Harun al-Tulun could react, the Abbasids assaulted Egypt and captured Fustat.

Outcome: Decisive Abbasid victory/ set the stage for the future Fatimid Caliphate.
==========
Qarmatians \899-975\

Allies: Fatimids, Zanj, Khawarij, al-Batihah

Enemies: Byzantines (inconclusive), Oman(Qarmatians victory), Nejd tribes (Qarmatian crushing victory), Makkah and Madinah (Qarmatian victory)


It's origins in the Shumaytiyyah movement of the early 9th century, the Qarmatians sprang forth from radical Shi'ism of the period. Ghulat of the greatest calibre, they rejected but offered support from Bahrain to a young al-Dibaj (Imam of the Zanj rebels) in the 870s. However, by 898, the da'i Qarmat sent from the new Fatimid caliph in Tunisia, subverted the ancient Shi'i community in Bahrain. From there, he began his work of leading the group into a worthy state to serve the bidding of the lords in Tunisia. Though, rapidly, the group adopted extreme ideas, one of which included fanatical millenialism and hatred for Islam.

By 900, the Qarmatians had began an ambitious war against the Abbasids. Taking advantage of the Zanj revolt, they conquered Eastern Arabia and began sending fidayeen ( those who sacrifice) to Iraq to launch attacks and terrorize denizens of the Abbasid throne. As well, they preached the end of the world to onlooking citizens, demanding the time was now for the Shi'i to reveal themselves and unleash their hatred upon the murderers of Husayn ibn Ali. Their rampage knew no end, once powerful enough, they invaded all of Arabia, ravaging across the land and putting anyone they could find to the sword. Massacring pilgrims on hajj and massacring the population of Masqat. Then they invaded Iraq in 925, ripping across the land by gaining an alliance with the former Zanj.

Then in the height of the calamity, they conquered Makkah and Madinah, defacing the entire cities. Stuffing bodies in the Zamzam wells, peeing along the holy sites, burning prayer rugs, destroying the minarets and finally, dismantling and mocking the Kaaba before taking it to their capital in Qatar. The Muslim world was shocked, the Abbasids were forced to pay ransom for the Kaaba while the Qarmatians had become the most powerful nation in the Middle East, only surpassed by the Byzantines.

Despite this, a sense of urgency came over the weakened caliphate. The ascendente Qarmatians further, were now at conflict with their Fatimid patrons. Also, Qarmatian inner conflict, opened the door and the Abbasids led an all-out assault with its allies from Iran, into Arabia and Syria. The effect was a crushing Abbasid victory. By 976, the Qarmatians back was broke and it would cease to be a threat again.

Outcome: Phyrric Abbasid victory/ end of Abbasid hegemony, nearly the entire last gasp of life was given to defeat the Qarmatians. From then on, the Abbasid throne relied upon subversion and schemes to gain power.
========


Hope this interested the site. It is with gladness, that I create things such as these for the education of the site on an intriguing and dramatic period of history, the death of an empire. One no less dramatic than the fall of Rome or Tang.

Perhaps this will lead to some interest that capitalizes on a tl. If there is any questions, please ask and I or another, will gladly answer.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
'Tis a nice little PoD list.
Say, do you have any idea on how to make the Hamdanids of Syria stronger?
And what about the Samanids?
And... what's the best PoD for preserving Abbasid control over Egypt before the Fatimids come?
 
'Tis a nice little PoD list.
Say, do you have any idea on how to make the Hamdanids of Syria stronger?
And what about the Samanids?
And... what's the best PoD for preserving Abbasid control over Egypt before the Fatimids come?

I expanded the list since you posted, so check out the new editions.

Hamanids were the product of a massively weakened Abbasid state in the 930s. Unfortunately, they are doomed due to this situation. Byzantines are simply too strong for a power only ruling Syria to contest with. Ali ibn Abu'l Hurayj al-Hamidin or Sayf al-Dawla was a phenomenal warrior against the Byzantines, but one ruler is not enough.

Samanids were never in open conflict with the Abbasid throne in the manner I discuss for others. They infact, were lauded by the Abbasids for warring against the Saffarids. Samanid power became a dominant force in the Intermezzo, but was centered primarily in eastern Fars and Khursan. Thus, no threat to Iraq.

I would say 907. Abbasids must repel the initial Qarmatians invasion. The Abbasids were nearly out of the clear after the Tulunids were defeated. However, the Qarmatians launched arguably an equally vicious and dangerous onslaught than all previous. Their effect would crush Abbasid power for centuries. If the Abbasids could have found a way to subvert the Qarmatians or limit the success of the Qarmatians early in 899, then the Abbasids might have the power to defend Egypt from the Fatimids without giving up power to the Ikhshids (who were conquered by the Fatimids and their southern end nibbled by Nubian Christians).
 
Was there any particular reason why there were so many internal wars. I mean the fact that the Abbasids gained so many victories seems to prove they were still quite strong yet thet were unable to prevent revolts. It seems that a POD that allows them to internally stabilize the empire could be useful. Obviously they can't prevent internal threats but many of the revolts seem like the sort of thing that a different policy might have prevented.
 
Was there any particular reason why there were so many internal wars. I mean the fact that the Abbasids gained so many victories seems to prove they were still quite strong yet thet were unable to prevent revolts. It seems that a POD that allows them to internally stabilize the empire could be useful. Obviously they can't prevent internal threats but many of the revolts seem like the sort of thing that a different policy might have prevented.

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that policies or decisions by state institutions decide the course of history. Instead, at some point, events occur that no government can account for or prepare for. It is almost a primordial chaos that can overtake a state or collective at some point.

However, certain things may be remedied. One, would be to somehow avoid both the move from Baghdad to Samarra as well as the political violence in the Abbasid court. It would also necessitate that the Mihna (inquisition) would be stopped.

Though, these things are ASB to change without a POD in the 780s. Abbasid political violence was tied to competing court officials and Mamluk slaves. All of which will exist as long as they are there.
 
Last edited:
I have a question more related to the Khawarij of the period, firstly how unified was the theology behind the various Khawarij groups that existed both under the Abbasids and earlier periods. Secondly, what was that caused the Khawarij to die off as a religious movement and would it be possible for groups of them to survive throughout the period and perhaps expand their influence in more peripheral areas of the Caliphate and wider Muslim world.
 
I have a question more related to the Khawarij of the period, firstly how unified was the theology behind the various Khawarij groups that existed both under the Abbasids and earlier periods. Secondly, what was that caused the Khawarij to die off as a religious movement and would it be possible for groups of them to survive throughout the period and perhaps expand their influence in more peripheral areas of the Caliphate and wider Muslim world.

While the Khawarij or Shurha where divided to an extent in groups such as the Ibadi, Azariqa, Najdati and Sufri, the forms are united under the simplest of issues.

That issue, is twofold, one; Allah alone is the arbiter of all things. This is different than hukm, which is rule, in that Allah is the source of treaties or discussion. Thus, one cannot truly make truces outside of the preview of Allah or scripture, instead, one must allow Allah to decide which meant, through war. Two, Islam is negated by kufr asghar (lesser sin), this is because, the Shurha did not differentiate between sins in terms of lesser or greater (kufr akbar). This then, leads Khawarij to make takfir (making one a disbeliever) on people for minor sins, such as drinking; traditionally, Sunni Islam makes takfir for only major sins that abrogate your Islam (submission to Allah/ thus a sin that makes Allah reject your submission).

However, as a whole, the Khawarij were not united by anything but their hatred of stately authority. Which is why Kharijism is called such, those whom separation is constantly incumbent. It is frankly, a very unique movement that is tied irreversibly to the rebellion against Muhammad and authority explicit in the Arab mindset prior to the 14th century. Shurha unlike the common trope in Islamic circles, typically did not surface as religious fanatics of an austere nature, but as outlaws, pirates, revolutionary and other seeking massive societal change or simply a breakdown of order. This created in it, a rich tapestry of excuberant spirit unique to the movement and its cause.

In terms of their survival; it depends. It is my opinion, that Kharijism was a primordial Arab movement and mindset that was specific reaction to the true caliphates (Umayyad and Abbasid). It declined due to the arrival of the Saljuq and a change in the spirit of the people, away from the Abbasid Caliphate and to that of a polarized Islamic world no longer dependent upon a single power structure.

It should be noted, that Kharijism exists in Oman and Africa in large numbers. However, Shurha ideas permeate Islam. What I mean by this, is that one can be a Khawarij without knowing it, since you can come to the same conclusions on takfir, authority, kufr, etc... as they did with only the Quran. Which is why, you see reports every now and then of Khawarij being executed by Taliban and ISIS or such, as a certain member through intense study will come to so called Khawarij views and be executed. An example of this, was when ISIS executed several dozens of so called Khawarij cadres that they claimed were spreading subversive ideas.
 
ah ok, but weren't the ealry shi'a movements also based around revolt to the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, and yet sects of shiism were able to consolidate themselves into state structures, although I guess this took a long time. Although, given the extreme view the Khawarij took on Takfir I could see it be much more difficult to build a society. Also it's interesting that while this extreme view of takfir is a central theme to the Khawarij movements, you describe many of them being pirates and outlaws, and thus living a criminal lifestyle?

Yeah I guess with what you have outlined int he change in the Muslim world with the Saljuqs the Khawarij would die off, but I guess in the more peripheral areas where a nomadic lifestyle and rejection of central authority exist the sects could continue. I'm thinking perhaps the Arab/Arabised/Berber/Tueregs of the Sahara/Sahel where this rebellious attitude to the state could survive.

Also interesting about the execution of people by ISIS and Taliban for Khawarij views, I haven't heard of this.
 
ah ok, but weren't the ealry shi'a movements also based around revolt to the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, and yet sects of shiism were able to consolidate themselves into state structures, although I guess this took a long time. Although, given the extreme view the Khawarij took on Takfir I could see it be much more difficult to build a society. Also it's interesting that while this extreme view of takfir is a central theme to the Khawarij movements, you describe many of them being pirates and outlaws, and thus living a criminal lifestyle?

Yeah I guess with what you have outlined int he change in the Muslim world with the Saljuqs the Khawarij would die off, but I guess in the more peripheral areas where a nomadic lifestyle and rejection of central authority exist the sects could continue. I'm thinking perhaps the Arab/Arabised/Berber/Tueregs of the Sahara/Sahel where this rebellious attitude to the state could survive.

Also interesting about the execution of people by ISIS and Taliban for Khawarij views, I haven't heard of this.

Well, one reason for continued Shi'i influence post the 9th century is the creation of the Fatimid caliphate. Fatimid powers actively sought to subvert the Islamic world or otherwise spread their power by strengthening existing Shi'i movements, contributing to its extreme diversity. Then later, you had the Safavids who similar to the Fatimids, advocated a radical and upfront Shi'ism which saw its expansion to the loss of Sunni. During most of the Abbasid period, aside from rebellions, Shi'i were almost entirely within taqqiyyah. In fact, it was a matter of fanaticism and an action of a change of the millennia for the Shi'i to openly speak against their masters.

Shi'i even went so far as to murder or exile Shi'i who left taqqiyyah. It is today, even done to an extent. See examples of this such as Yasr al-Habib who espouses a lack of taqqiyyah and is chastised for brazenness. Shi'i also are unique from Khawarij despite both have an origin in that they are a rebellion or protest against the structure of Islamic society.

While Khawarij represent the mindset of the Arab rebel prior to Islam, Shi'ism represents the survival and application of gnosis, mysticism, millennialism, etc of Greek, Mesopotamian, Jewish, Iranian, etc... spiritualism to a new world. That does not mean that Shi'i are directly from these pre-Islamic religions, but that the ideas present before were exported to a new religion.

Yes, by the 9th century, Khawarij were two types in terms of operation.

One, was the Khawarij who rebelled in that he separated from society at large to a good degree. This would include a wondering tribe of Khawarij who claimed to live autonomous of the unjust caliph and followed true Islam or a criminal group who through mutual benefits, claims the mantle of Khawarij setting up small proto states and rackets in the countryside or city.

Two, was the Khawarij who sought to subvert the existing system of society. These were of those who found themselves in courts of rulers or bureaucrats and through various forms of deception (this is a school of thought and stylistic practice found in Islamic societies that does not exist to the same in the west). The most common was the famous kitman or deception by intentional omission with the intent to harm or gain advantage. Stories abound from this period of time extolling the skill of these Khawarij and constantly put officials and emirs in fear for the subversive Khawarij who carried the poisonous blade. Entire rebellions and collapses likely occurred locally through these Khawarij and the Abbasid courts actively launched inquisitions to root out these types of people and a set of courtly rules and social cohesion was organically created to negate subversion.

Khawarij were simply seen as simultaneously criminals without compassion yet also religious zealots who lacked understanding of Islam. That is not to say Islam of the period was liberal, but the view that takfir is free for all and not incumbent upon the ulema or that takfir is for asghar, has always been radical even in the 9th century.

Indeed, the murder and purging of so called Khawarij was something ISIS reported with the utmost glee. ISIS was clear typically in their disagreement with Khawarij principles of rebellion as well as takfir. I completely thus, disagree with all Islamic thinkers or laymen who say that ISIS is Khawarij, people such as Abu Khadeejah for instance says this often and is his topic for discussion usually. However, this is a topic for another discussion.
 
Top