Fall of Constantinople 718

[AtreusHashim]

There is another major consequence to this besides the Muslim world likely being quite a bit larger. The Umayyad dynasty would have its legitimacy basically secure for generations to come, which means that total political unity lasts longer as well.

I am pretty sure conquering Constantinople puts the Umayyads in an even worse place than OTL.

1. The Persians are still going to be resentful of Arab overlords
2. Pro-Alid missionaries are having massive success across their empire, especially among malcontents
3. Speaking of malcontents they've just added millions of angry Greeks to their list of problems to deal with
4. Many of those Greeks are going to be joining up with Byzantine successor states to launch insurrections in the mountains of Anatolia with the terrain and supplies to keep fighting for decades
5. Also on that list of problems are the Bulgar and Khazar raiders who will surely be taking advantage of the chaos in Greece and Anatolia
6. To cap it all off, at the time of the POD the 'Plague of the Honorable' (716-718ish) is raging in Iraq and Syria

 

[fraa Jad]

My guess is that the Arabs and Muslims are able to conquer and convert Anatolia, but it takes awhile because the themes are left intact.

The themata were a relatively new development, though. How much of "a while" would you think it would take for them to be simply be appropriated by the new regime? They were -- at that point in time -- proto-feudal, I think? The "conquering", not the converting.

 

[Nivek]

An interesting scenario I have speculated on in the past is where ITTL the 'Abbasid' revolution only manages to wrest Greater Iran and Iraq out of Umayyad hands.

If there even an Abbas at all, with the butterflies the ummayds have much more power or respect, or we could see a Reverse from otl, when the Abbasid come from Andalus or rhomai

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

The themata were a relatively new development, though. How much of "a while" would you think it would take for them to be simply be appropriated by the new regime? They were -- at that point in time -- proto-feudal, I think? The "conquering", not the converting.

Ironically, the theme system and its successor, the pronoia system, share more similarities with the iqta system than the feudal system - the previous three are all more impersonal and lack the defining trait of the feudal system: the element of personal interdependency.

 

[fraa Jad]

That's why described it as proto-feudal, not actually feudal. That would make it easier, not more difficult to "conquer", although the intent for creating it was the opposite. Once central authority changes, they can go on as before.

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

That's why described it as proto-feudal, not actually feudal. That would make it easier, not more difficult to "conquer", although the intent for creating it was the opposite. Once central authority changes, they can go on as before.

But the theme system is not "proto-feudal". As I said, the lacking element was interpersonal dependency, which stemmed from the tribal relationships of the Germanic tribes such as the Franks. The Romans, and the Arabs who had the luxury of adopting Syrian and Persian institutions, are not on the same trajectory.

Though I am not well-read on the legal implications of the theme system, the pronoia system relied heavily on the Emperor recognizing the pronoiars' charters, and thus is reliant on a stable central authority. Unless the invaders promise to recognize the charters, pronoiars will protect their benefactor.

I don't know if the same could be said of the theme system, however.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Ummayds were more organized and stronger the late Seljuk and the early ottomans were, this ain't 1204, this is 718 his own scenario itself, plus Ummayds already have massive plans for the region itself too

And the empire itself is also multiple times stronger here. In 1204 it was essentially a strip of land around the Aegean, defending itself against Turks, Franks and Komnenians. Even assuming Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and everything else is lost post fall of Constantinople ( a fair assumption I admit), Anatolia here is to the Romans what the Balkans was for the Ottomans after the battle of Ancyra, a strong powerbase in its own right. Having plans for the region means little as long as the locals have a say about their own future.

this is possible but then again they are diferent the fourth crusade was a non planned ventured that turn out to be to successful but was stopped by the successor states and Bulgaria while the umayeds have a base of power in syria so can push to anatolia the fall of the capital would mean that they would need to be stopped by one of the strong successor states If they are lucky

For most of the history of the period it was Anatolia, not Constantinople, that repeatedly faced assaults from the Arabs until the Romans could finally switch to an offensive approach. I don't have any hope for Thessalonika & Co to do much against the Arabs (or the Slavs or the Bulgarians or whoever gets there first), but the remaining Anatolian themes bound together by a decent leadership should be able to survive the worst here, like they did in out timeline despite suffering terrible defeats again and again

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

My understanding is that the impetus for the development themes and exarchate was that they would NOT be dependent on the central government based in Constantinople, since the Byzantine central government, like all the others in the area at that time, had a problem maintaining cash flow. The themes relied heavily on local militia. The main problems with the system, from the perspective of Constantinople, is that the themes and exarchates could be too independent, and revolts were a problem, and the secondary problem was that the system was too defensive oriented when the empire later expanded.

This system did not exist in 1204, nevertheless the Byzantines managed another rebound from the much smaller section of Anatolia they still controlled.

There is no question that attempting the siege for the Arabs was a high risk, high reward play for the Arabs. A successful siege would put the Ummayyads in a better position and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in a worse position. What is hard to tell is how much this is the case. This could either start an avalanche of events that makes Europe Muslim, and reduces Christianity to a weird minority sect. Or the Byzantines could come back, retake the city, and things continue much as before. Or something in between, with unpredictable butterflies. But the Byzantines still have the capacity to come back.

Another interesting question is whether the Ummayyads are stronger if they never attempt the siege in the first place. They fell to a rebellion thirty-four years later and maybe with no siege at all that doesn't happen.

 

[Hannibal The Bannable]

What is hard to tell is how much this is the case. This could either start an avalanche of events that makes Europe Muslim, and reduces Christianity to a weird minority sect

Unlikely The British isles convert to Islam at the very least. The Franks were quite strong but divided under Charles and Odo at the time so I think they’ll hold atleast Austrasia and Neustria too Probably . I doubt Saxons and their neighbors convert Islam since Pork and Alcohol are Haram and they aren’t going to give up those , especially given how much they resisted Christianity . The Russians might and the South Slavs and Bulgars probably will. Maybe they drag some of the Other Slavs into the fold . Lombards actually might convert to Islam later on if the Pope and The Franks became a thorn in their side and out of diplomatic convenience if they face invasions from the Arabs .somewhat unlikely Though.

Or the Byzantines could come back, retake the city, and things continue much as before. Or something in between, with unpredictable butterflies. But the Byzantines still have the capacity to come back

No the Empire is dead with Constantinople gone . The Caliphate will take care of Anatolia quickly and thus the Empire loses one advantage it had during the Fourth Crusade .Not to mention the Balkans being overrun by Slavs and Bulgars , Italy by The Lombards . Maybe Venice comes early and dies earlier. Maybe other rump states rise up in Italy i guess . They wont last for long unless as vassals of the Lombards .

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

My understanding is that the impetus for the development themes and exarchate was that they would NOT be dependent on the central government based in Constantinople, since the Byzantine central government, like all the others in the area at that time, had a problem maintaining cash flow. The themes relied heavily on local militia. The main problems with the system, from the perspective of Constantinople, is that the themes and exarchates could be too independent, and revolts were a problem, and the secondary problem was that the system was too defensive oriented when the empire later expanded.

Fits with what I know of them. I never understood why Justinian established glorified military governorships instead of making Italy and Africa provinces until I read about the collapse of Roman cash-flow. With that knowledge in mind, establishing the Exarchates made a lot of sense.

There is no question that attempting the siege for the Arabs was a high risk, high reward play for the Arabs. A successful siege would put the Ummayyads in a better position and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in a worse position. What is hard to tell is how much this is the case. This could either start an avalanche of events that makes Europe Muslim, and reduces Christianity to a weird minority sect. Or the Byzantines could come back, retake the city, and things continue much as before. Or something in between, with unpredictable butterflies. But the Byzantines still have the capacity to come back.

Another interesting question is whether the Ummayyads are stronger if they never attempt the siege in the first place. They fell to a rebellion thirty-four years later and maybe with no siege at all that doesn't happen.

From a personal standpoint, how exactly would things play out may depend on affairs in the distant eastern Iranian plateau. I do like reading about examples of global interconnectivity, such as Spain joining the Thirty Year's War hastened the collapse of the Ming dynasty by severely depleting the Ming's silver supply, crippling its reformed silver-based taxation system.

Back to OP, the thing going on in the eastern Iranian plateau was the integration of the Khorasani. Historically, the Khorasani supported the Abbasid revolution because the Umayyads failed to win them over. But let us say somehow, Damascus has succeeded in bringing the Khorasanis to march. This would simultaneously accomplish three strategic objectives:

1. Take a rebellious force away from their homeland, reducing the risks of them joining a rebellion in far-flung areas hard to monitor and check.
2. Bring a powerful fighting force to the fore. An unfortunate phenomenon throughout history is, armies could rarely maintain their prowess over the centuries. By 716, Arabs are knee-deep in north-south rivalry (there is a special term for this but I can't recall), greatly weakening their effectiveness as an army. Unlike the Arabs, while the Khorasanis have yet to become what they are a generation later, less infighting means they are better as an army.
3. Like the Arabs nearly a century ago, Khorasani tribal ties will translate into emigrations and settlers once the fighting ends.

It is indeed interesting to explore what comes next...

 

[AtreusHashim]

If there even an Abbas at all, with the butterflies the ummayds have much more power or respect, or we could see a Reverse from otl, when the Abbasid come from Andalus or rhomai

I'm pretty confident the Umayyads would be on their way out regardless, subduing the remnants of the Byzantine Empire will not be an easy task. Anatolia is rough terrain and Greek insurrectionists will have home ground advantage.

Furthermore pro-Alid uprisings were pretty much constant all the way from the First Fitna to the fall of the Umayyad dynasty. The Hashimiyya movement which was inherited by the Abbasids began preaching/recruiting in Khorasan about a year after the POD. That will not be butterflied by the conquest of Constantinople, and it was that highly effective propaganda movement that caused the Abbasid revolution to succeed where dozens of other Alid uprisings had failed.

Of course it's possible that the Ummah rallies behind some other Hashemite claimant (Zayd ibn Ali is perhaps the most interesting) but the support base is almost certainly going to come from Iran and (especially) Iraq because of longstanding grievances the inhabitants of those regions had with the Syria-based Umayyads.

 

[Nivek]

I'm pretty confident the Umayyads would be on their way out regardless, subduing the remnants of the Byzantine Empire will not be an easy task. Anatolia is rough terrain and Greek insurrectionists will have home ground advantage.

Ummayds took get the anger of Western North African Muslims and later on the Eastern one first, again depends the butterflies, if anything we could see a more developed fitna become both a race who take over damascus or Mecca and Medina first, but depends a lot of butterflies

 

[AdamNeuser]

And the empire itself is also multiple times stronger here. In 1204 it was essentially a strip of land around the Aegean, defending itself against Turks, Franks and Komnenians. Even assuming Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and everything else is lost post fall of Constantinople ( a fair assumption I admit), Anatolia here is to the Romans what the Balkans was for the Ottomans after the battle of Ancyra, a strong powerbase in its own right. Having plans for the region means little as long as the locals have a say about their own future.

For most of the history of the period it was Anatolia, not Constantinople, that repeatedly faced assaults from the Arabs until the Romans could finally switch to an offensive approach. I don't have any hope for Thessalonika & Co to do much against the Arabs (or the Slavs or the Bulgarians or whoever gets there first), but the remaining Anatolian themes bound together by a decent leadership should be able to survive the worst here, like they did in out timeline despite suffering terrible defeats again and again

I think there is some truth to this however at the same time I'm not sure the two situations are analogous. The Crusader army in 1204 was essentially combination of professional and peasant armies originating primarily from Western and Central Europe, financially backed by Italian merchant states. They were attempting to land in Egypt but ended up in Constantinople due to the Roman Empire not paying what Crusaders claimed that they were owed. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that by comparison, the Umayyad Caliphate was at this stage a comparatively far better organised, logistically supported and financed professional army-albeit still flawed in some areas (the plan to take Constantinople via the Aegean was a massive doctrinal misalignment).

The Crusaders weren't initially planning on conquering all of Anatolia or even Thrace itself, nor did they have the capability to do so. The Umayyads on the other hand and the Caliphate itself had proven to be more than willing and capable of conquering large swathes of territory and incorporating it into its domains either through vassalization or direct provincial administration. This included geographically mountainous and uneven swathes of land as well, such as most of (though not all of) the Iranian plateau. It's also important to bear in mind that Anatolia was, despite being mountainous like Iran, logistically much closer to the Umayyad base of power in Syria.

Whilst it is true that the Roman Empire was far stronger at this stage than in 1204, they were still undergoing major political issues. The Twenty Years' Anarchy coming to mind, and in fact being the period of instability that the Umayyads sought to take advantage of in their strategic gamble for Anatolia. It is quite plausible that with the loss of Constantinople, local rulers and nobles in Anatolia may simply see it as more beneficial to nominally submit to Umayyad rule and pay taxes to Damascus instead. A similar state of affairs occurred in the Iberian Peninsula, where following the destruction of the Visigoth army at Guadalete and capture of Cordoba, many other cities simply submitted to Tariq's terms with little resistance.

I do agree with you that there would likely be a great deal of resistance from some militias and local governors which inevitably gain more autonomy were Constantinople to fall to the Umayyads, however I find it unlikely that they would be able to launch a co-ordinated campaign of prolonged resistance, with anything resembling a unified Roman army similar to what Constantinople was able to launch in our time. I agree with you as well that that overtime, were the Umayyads to take Constantinople, they would eventually become the dominant power in Anatolia with most of the region coming under their vassalization at the very least, though it likely wouldn't be an easy task.

 

[Nivek]

coming under their vassalization at the very least, though it likely wouldn't be an easy task.

They still have a direct land route via Damascus and with Constantinople they hold the sea lines too, yeah it will not be easy and there might be some rebellion but long term Islamic and later turco-islamic migration would focus there too

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I think there is some truth to this however at the same time I'm not sure the two situations are analogous. The Crusader army in 1204 was essentially combination of professional and peasant armies originating primarily from Western and Central Europe, financially backed by Italian merchant states. They were attempting to land in Egypt but ended up in Constantinople due to the Roman Empire not paying what Crusaders claimed that they were owed. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that by comparison, the Umayyad Caliphate was at this stage a comparatively far better organised, logistically supported and financed professional army-albeit still flawed in some areas (the plan to take Constantinople via the Aegean was a massive doctrinal misalignment).

The Crusaders weren't initially planning on conquering all of Anatolia or even Thrace itself, nor did they have the capability to do so. The Umayyads on the other hand and the Caliphate itself had proven to be more than willing and capable of conquering large swathes of territory and incorporating it into its domains either through vassalization or direct provincial administration. This included geographically mountainous and uneven swathes of land as well, such as most of (though not all of) the Iranian plateau. It's also important to bear in mind that Anatolia was, despite being mountainous like Iran, logistically much closer to the Umayyad base of power in Syria.

Whilst it is true that the Roman Empire was far stronger at this stage than in 1204, they were still undergoing major political issues. The Twenty Years' Anarchy coming to mind, and in fact being the period of instability that the Umayyads sought to take advantage of in their strategic gamble for Anatolia. It is quite plausible that with the loss of Constantinople, local rulers and nobles in Anatolia may simply see it as more beneficial to nominally submit to Umayyad rule and pay taxes to Damascus instead. A similar state of affairs occurred in the Iberian Peninsula, where following the destruction of the Visigoth army at Guadalete and capture of Cordoba, many other cities simply submitted to Tariq's terms with little resistance.

I do agree with you that there would likely be a great deal of resistance from some militias and local governors which inevitably gain more autonomy were Constantinople to fall to the Umayyads, however I find it unlikely that they would be able to launch a co-ordinated campaign of prolonged resistance, with anything resembling a unified Roman army similar to what Constantinople was able to launch in our time. I agree with you as well that that overtime, were the Umayyads to take Constantinople, they would eventually become the dominant power in Anatolia with most of the region coming under their vassalization at the very least, though it likely wouldn't be an easy task.

In the end I think it just boils down to how much of the roman army effectively survive(meaning is not there during the siege) the fall of Constantinople and whether they manage to gather around a somewhat competent leadership. Not a given, not impossible either. The Balkan-Romans would probably fare the worst in this scenario, with very little available to save them from the many threats around.
I am actually quite interested in seeing how well the Italo-Romans would do much further in the West. Here the issue is not that they have to face the Caliphate (I think we all agree that they can't immediately jump on Italy while they are still busy in Anatolia, Thrace and the rest of the Balkans), rather old known enemies. There might be a power struggle between the Exarch and whoever sits in Syracuse, the winner then having to take matters in his own hand instead of answering to Constantinople. The empire being reduced to just Italy again would be a fun and ironic turn of events.

 

[Nivek]

truggle between the Exarch and whoever sits in Syracuse, the winner then having to take matters in his own hand instead of answering to Constantinople. The empire being reduced to just Italy again would be a fun and ironic turn of events.

The opposite, they're very Vulnerable to the Lombard and Later on the franks to Finish the Job and took Italy and the pope would be very happy to bless their cause too

 

[Lady Visenya]

I mean, given that the Griko are being culturally genocided by Italian nationalism and schooling a timeline where a Greek/Roman state maintains a solid hold in southern Italy would be really fun.

And far less depressing than real life. Kinda like timelines where the Comanche don't get assfucked by the US.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

The opposite, they're very Vulnerable to the Lombard and Later on the franks to Finish the Job and took Italy and the pope would be very happy to bless their cause too

Their situation was not pretty IOTL, but ironically the fall of Constantinople might also have some positive effects for Italy. First of all now decisions would be taken by people closer to the theater and possibly much more knowledgeable of the political/diplomatic situation at hand. Also they would have first and foremost the interests of Ravenna in mind rather that those of the East. Granted, with the empire mostly dead, the diplomatic clout of Constantinople would no longer be there to occasionally shield Ravenna from attacks. On the bright side Sicily and mainland Italy would be joined together into one single polity (assuming the power struggle goes smoothly and ends quickly). Historically Sicily answered directly to Constantinople, not providing directly to the defense of the exarchate in Italy. The island was the richest Roman possession left in the West, squeezed by Constantinople for money. If the guy in charge of Italy is also in charge of the island, that would be a nice boost to his power and income. With some luck you might also be able to lump together Sardinia, what is left of the Dalmatian cities and tiny bits of the Western Balkans/Epirus (none of them historically answered to Ravenna), but I am not sure those would help as much as Sicily. Still I think that would be enough to provide a credible check against the Lombards.

 

[Nivek]

Sicily answered directly to Constantinople, not providing directly to the defense of the exarchate in Italy. The island was the richest Roman possession left in the West, squeezed by Constantinople for money. If the guy in charge of Italy is also in charge of the island, that would be a nice boost to his power and income. With some luck you might also be able to lump together Sardinia,

I got the opposite Idea, why would the Sicilian even listen to the Ravenna guys? they have the riches and being an island, getting a navy is a more pressing matter than helping the guys north with their issue(they're still surrounded by the Lombards, franks and even the ILLYRIAN) so we could see the opposite, both Sicily and Ravenna going their own or Ravenna trying something against Sicily

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I got the opposite Idea, why would the Sicilian even listen to the Ravenna guys? they have the riches and being an island, getting a navy is a more pressing matter than helping the guys north with their issue(they're still surrounded by the Lombards, franks and even the ILLYRIAN) so we could see the opposite, both Sicily and Ravenna going their own or Ravenna trying something against Sicily

I admit it is a possibility, not a certainty. As I said a power struggle may ensue. They might decide to part ways. Or it may even not be the case of Syracuse listening to Ravenna. The opposite might be true if the governor of the island decides to claim the purple for himself. Around this time one guy tried to do so. It would make sense for him to claim as much as possible in the mainland once he knows no one from Constantinople is coming to punish him. Whether Rome, Naples and Ravenna subject willingly to him is another matter. Also what do you mean with Illyrians?