Not going to last that long though discrimination against non arabs was really high sooner or later major revolts were going to happen and the empire splinter apart
Fall of Constantinople 718
- Thread starter el t
- Start date
Taking Constantinople is huge. It is an achievement singularly big enough to have a decisive impact all by itself for decades to come.
The prophet (pbuh) prophetized that one day Muslim armies would take Constantinople. OTL this didn't happen for some 800 years after his death, but here it takes less than 90 years. Propoganda coups of this sort are inevitably milked for all they were worth.
The Umayyad were famous for discriminating against non Arabs. Arabs dominated the military and civil service . Arabs were segregated away from non arabs, living in fortress citites. The non-Arabs were not allowed to work for the government nor could they hold officer positions in the Umayyad military and they still had to pay the jizya tax for non-Muslims
This is blatantly false. There were Zoroastrian Administrators in Persia and Christian Administrators in Syria, Coptic Administrators in Egypt and Christian Administrators in North America. Other than the position of Governor, all governmental positions were opened to the locals, (mostly; dependent on ruling Caliph) regardless of religion
Not particularly true
Reading the article's Rationale section would be good no? In return for Jizya, they were granted exemption from conscription and from luxury tax's. Until the Ottomans, Caliphates on most occasions returned the taxes to the Christians and Jews when they were forced to backtrack on the exemptions towards Christians. Until after Al-Walid II, the taxation policies of the Jizya were called, even by western historians such as Fred McGraw, Daniel Clement etc as one of the most humane in the ancient world.
Your point on Ummayad's discriminating non-Arabs and non-Muslims happened in 741 AD, far after the date in which this thread is wedded in and out of context as such.
Frankly, i am tired of old stereotypes all over the internet at times when i read things such as these.
Last edited:
The irony was that one reason ummayds were overthrow is that they keep charging jyzia to convert, something you can't do and another was that the future Abbasid critize them for not keeping expanding Islam, the whole discrimination is an European myth
I think Oda meant that in the long run that discrimination would happen not immediately.
Also I strongly doubt Bulgaria's submission to the Caliph. More than likely Bulgaria would be the new border for Islam until they "core" Anatolia and the Aegean. The Bulgars were quite capable of defending against the Romans so I think they would pounce on the Arabs so they get Greece proper without major resistance. More than likely the Arabs after a long siege to get the City they would settle for a border on Catalca for now. Then a new Arab offensive would more than likely gain major part of Greece till they get ambushed and totally defeated and a return to status quo. I think that would happen for some time till the Umayyads fall and the Bulgars attack Constantinople. Now if they get is up for debate but more than likely Anatolia gets free for a while from Arab control and a local Islamic ruler creates a state there.
The major point here is how long would the Umayyads keep power or how chaotic is their collapse. If they keep it together for a century maybe a minority of Muslims would be created in Anatolia and the Aegean a wealthy one and a ruling one. If they keep power long-term then maybe Greece becomes Islamic if they get countered by the Bulgars then Greece becomes something like Catholic. Why Catholic? Cause the Bulgarians are more likely going to be Christian due to the many Greeks inside their new realm as well as to spite the Muslims on the border (also the lack of alcohol as a Muslin could play a role really).
Well really any prediction longer than a decade is up for debate here but for that first decade I don't see the Arabs going into Europe in force and the Roman nobles in Greece would fall under Bulgarian "protection" which really could lead to a Bulgarian dynasty in Constantinople or an Arab Greece. The Aegean is 100% going to the Umayyads due to their navy though and from there maybe they get a foothold in Greece, or maybe not who knows?
Without a doubt this is a major victory for Islam getting them Anatolia a lot earlier and more than likely keeping it and staging attacks into Europe from there.
If that happens at all, as they are enemy we could see another Bulgarian slaying early here
Another thing is like you left Constantinople to be left as a secondary place, knowing a lot of jundist used to be Romans, if anything Constantinople could become the co capital or the new capital of the caliphate ling term
Last edited:
Bulgarian slaying this early? IOTL it took an obsessed and very capable emperor more than a decade of war to take that name and conquer Bulgaria. A war that means way less to the Umayyads themselves because this is a new land for them not their lost land. Also the Umayyads would fall, everyone falls sooner rather than later. Maybe a surviving prince wouldn't go to Al'Andalus but to Anatolia-Constantinople who knows?
Constantinople is a majority Christian city in the edge of the Arab control, sorry not the edge but beyond that edge, and unlike Damascus it had a huge population. Making the City a co-capital is possible only after integrating Anatolia and defeated any revolts there, which would happen but not a real threat just an economic setback. What I'm saying is that it needs time and security and we don't know how much time the Umayyads had and security is only on the Theodosian Walls, which could be enough.
I would also like to add something: the Bulgars historically were close enough to Constantinople and under the constant watch of the emperors, yet it was only during the IX century that they converted to Christianity and only during the reign of the latter Macedonians, that the fight turned in favour of the empire. All of this despite the disparity in resources between the two powers. Here Thrace would be a peripheral borderland of an already overstretched Caliphate. Plus, the Arabs would at least for a while be busy subduing Anatolia, which was the real core of the empire, its armies being the ones that made and unmade several emperors. Constantinople here would be what Narbona was for the Franks, A Muslim enclave in an otherwise entirely Christian/Pagan theatre. And while this would no doubt be a terrible blow for the empire, it would not necessarily mean its end: first you have the Anatolian Strategoi who would most likely appoint one of their own as emperor in the East. In the West you would also see a breakaway roman state based in Syracuse or Ravenna (which almost happened in OTL). Such empire would be in control of the Western Mediterranean islands (Sicily would likely be its new core), Rome, Ravenna, bits of Southern Italy and Dalmatia and with some luck some coastal fortress in the Balkans (pushing roman luck a bit we could also include maybe Crete and Thessalonika as an enclave). Of course, this empire would have way less resources than its OTL counterpart, but its not like Constantinople spent a good deal of them protecting its western holdings in OTL. And yet it took more than a century for the Muslims to take Sicily. Benefitting from renewed imperial focus and commitment in the region, Italy would be a tougher nut to crack for both the Lombards and the Arabs. But history could really go either way, from the Romans being entirely wiped out before the end of the century, to both empires making progress in restoring imperial authority in Italy and the Balkans.
The umayeds were also really discriminatory to non arab Muslim to the point we're the Berbers revolted due to unfair treatment
This , they are alone in hostile (they never forget Justinian) land and Lombard are coming... That will be fun
Bulgaria was very entrenched by 718 and it's not going to be like alright we conquered Constantinople let's march in Bulgaria depending how they won in 718 that means it will take time to recover And take Anatolia
if any expedition of moderate size goes to Bulgaria tervel could deal with it he has defeated larger roman forces as seen by 704 but i do not see tervel wanting to attack Constantinople maybe he expands south but that's mostly it
also just to show how Bulgaria would not likely fall Constantine V after the reforms of his father after peace with the caliphate and with him been a great commander could not subdue Bulgaria despite his attempts of nearly 3 decades even when Bulgaria was in the midst of a civil war due to the collapse of the dulos clan
It happened way earlier it just took until that time for the Berbers to revolt we see in other areas other revolts Constantine IV Landing troops in Syria caused a revolt by the local christians
The copts in 718 only betrayed the arabs in the siege but also started a series and in 720 started a revolt due to overtaxion and treatment of the arabs
And it goes with out saying why the beeber revolt happened
Again, the later Roman restoration was mostly propelled by Anatolia and its armies. With no certainty of them being also completely defeated, there is no way we can be sure of roman influence being wiped out from Asia. As for Italy, it took 3 more centuries for the Romans to be booted out of the peninsula. 3 centuries where the Romans were mostly concerned fighting over Crete and Cyprus, reconquering Armenia and Antioch and securing their Northern border. The way resources moved was more often than not from Italy to Constantinople, not the other way around (well you got the occasional expedition party sent to prop up defences here and there but that’s it). An empire based in Syracuse or Ravenna is an empire that is going to prioritize Italy over the Balkans. And one that is likely going to retain naval superiority against the Lombars (note that I said Lombards not Arabs) in the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas (especially if some vessels of the imperial fleet manages to find their way to the West). Again there is room for both development so I wouldn’t really discount the possibility of the Romans surviving this hard blow.
Not really. Umar II gave the berbers their fair share. It was after the 730s that the Ummayads turned to become a more Vapid Arab proto-nationalist force that led to the revolt of the berbers in 739 AD as a prelude to the 741 Edict of discrimination. The Berbers also revolted based on religious differences, as most had become Ibadis and Kharjiite's who were opposed to the Sunnism of the Caliphate on principle. It was also really al-Habbab's massacres in trying to get the taxes he wanted that saw the Berbers finally pushed over the edge for revolt.
The majority of Christians of Syria, the Monothelites, remained pro-Ummayad and was also instrumental in beating the Byzantine forces back. They were given exemption from Jizya for a few years after they joined the Ummayad Army to defeat the Byzantine incursion in 670s and 80s. Most famously there were Syrian Copts who formed the vanguard of the Ummayad forces against the Byzantines during the wars of the 670s as well opposing Constantin IV. The revolt you mention happened under a border town, near modern day Aleppo and Turkish Iskenderun today where they were subject to wartime taxes due to the frequent war with the ERE. Muslims also revolted when Constantine IV came due to the exuberant wartime taxes. It wasn't an only Christian thing.
Now that I think about it, a timeline from the POV of the Romans about the fall of Constantinople at the beginning of the VIII century and their subsequent attempts at piecing together what is left of the old Roman world would make for an interesting story. This could also be mixed together with another POD of mine I have had in mind for a while set during the same period to create a single story. If someone is interested I could start doing some researches on the period with the aim of starting a new timeline (of course once I am done with the other story).
Last edited:
It certainly is possible. With the victory at Constantinople, Umar II's prestige would be unmatched and i doubt the nobles would try to poison him like otl. But there is also the chance he continues to be a little too reformist for the traditional elite leading to his assassination later. Umar II's death was the beginning of the end for the Ummayads otl. Really it could go both ways i would say.