Fall of Constantinople 718

Guys, there's something that's been puzzling me for a while.

As you may have been aware, Romans in the Roman army have been on the numerical decline since the time of Augustus, but the entire process accelerated in the Constantinian era, leading to the barbarian Roman army of the 5th-7th centuries we are all familiar with. I have read much on the subject so this isn't the part that puzzles me.

What is puzzling me is this: who manned the Roman navy, and why on earth do they keep fighting even when the army was broken, imperial finances were broken and imperial morale could only afford hiding behind walls? Were they barbarians of a different mental caliber compared to their cousins in the army?

Or were they Roman?

If we can't answer this question, we would be going nowhere on the subject of the OP - which is, how could New Rome fall in 718? It isn't something that could be butterflied away by saying "no Greek Fire", since the Roman Navy itself (as much as Battle of the Masts is brought up, it was not a decapitating blow to the Roman Navy), Coptic sailors' spiritual unity with the Christian Romans, sickness, supply troubles and of course good old fashioned infighting all factored in the OTL failure of the 718 campaign. Understanding the demographics of one of the most important participating forces is crucial to understanding where to place the POD.
We know that the Aegean islands formed a maritime theme later on where most of the sailors were recruited from and the Greeks, in general, had been a primary source of sailors for the Roman Empire since the very beginning. I see no reason why this would change.

In the context of this discussion, I am not sure if it's actually possible to completely destroy all potential for a navy, in what was basically a thalassocratic empire. Even Andronikos III freaking Palaiologos was able to build up a navy of 70 ships. The best one could hope for is to have the imperial fleet destroyed, with regional ones too far or too weak to make a difference.
 
We know that the Aegean islands formed a maritime theme later on where most of the sailors were recruited from and the Greeks, in general, had been a primary source of sailors for the Roman Empire since the very beginning. I see no reason why this would change.

In the context of this discussion, I am not sure if it's actually possible to completely destroy all potential for a navy, in what was basically a thalassocratic empire. Even Andronikos III freaking Palaiologos was able to build up a navy of 70 ships. The best one could hope for is to have the imperial fleet destroyed, with regional ones too far or too weak to make a difference.
That still won't fix the problem of
  1. Arabs relying on Copts for sailors
  2. and there are 2 imperial fleets though.
All in all, this is a very difficult POD to implement, much more so than guessing what would happen next. Let us not forget at the time, the Arab world stretched from the Atlantic to Tibet. Brashly hurling a hundred thousand troops at 'ple does not spell good news for such an empire...
 
Wouldn't that also sooner or later lead to the Slavs converting to Islam? A big reason they converted to Christianity was the trade with the byzantine empire.
 
Wouldn't that also sooner or later lead to the Slavs converting to Islam? A big reason they converted to Christianity was the trade with the byzantine empire.
Not necessarily. For example, if one of the Roman imperial fleets go on exile and found a colony in Crimea, as the natural trading partner of the Slavs they would still Christianize eastern Europe. The Bolghars would be Islamicized due to proximity to Muslim-conquered Constantinople, if they weren't before.

As I have said, demographics factor a lot into how things would play out.
 
Crimea was a wild land at the time and without Rome now way to keep up that navy anyway
Nobody is saying that fleet could survive as a proper imperial fleet for any extended period of time. Five years tops, really.

And saying Crimea was wild land means what exactly? The eastern seaboard of the Americas was wild land. South Africa was wild land. Hell, even sections of the Yangtze delta were wild lands. Of course people colonize wild lands.
 
Nobody is saying that fleet could survive as a proper imperial fleet for any extended period of time. Five years tops, really.

And saying Crimea was wild land means what exactly? The eastern seaboard of the Americas was wild land. South Africa was wild land. Hell, even sections of the Yangtze delta were wild lands. Of course people colonize wild lands.
In all those examples they have an imperial state projecting power, here they are on their own with enemies are not as weak as in the Americas
 
In all those examples they have an imperial state projecting power, here they are on their own with enemies are not as weak as in the Americas
I especially picked the Yangtze because in that case, there is no imperial state projecting power at the beginning. Depending of course on Umayyad policy, we may even see a Texas situation ITTL Crimea, where the migrants effectively complete the groundwork of colonization before any imperial power does something.
 
we may even see a Texas
Bad example too, Texas was always a filibuster, but I doubt they goes to nowhere were there still money to be made in Constantinople, you're doing is what we call a narrative railroading, that doesn't work both in fiction and history. If anything they might just goes west or stay put, they're dhimmi after all
 
Bad example too, Texas was always a filibuster,
Care to elaborate on why it was a filibuster and why it is a bad example?
but I doubt they goes to nowhere were there still money to be made in Constantinople,
Yes, there is always money to be made in Constantinople. But there is also money to be made in Itil, and Crimea provides nice transit ports for the Constantinople-Itil line.
you're doing is what we call a narrative railroading, that doesn't work both in fiction and history.
And how exactly is me, the one who repeatedly stresses the importance of demographic analysis, guilty of narrative railroading? Should I say "everyone lived happily under the rule of the Umayyad conquerors" to avoid that?
If anything they might just goes west or stay put, they're dhimmi after all
Now, why, or how, is just accepting second-rate citizen status a better course of action than going to Crimea?
 
stresses the importance of demographic analysis, guilty of narrative railroading? Should I say "everyone lived happily under the rule o
That if they are going to run,the only remainder ere territory is Ravenna, that makes more sense than the middle of nowhere Crimea just to railroad Orthodox Eastern Europe
 
Excellent thread about a really important turning point in history.

Thinking about it, I think you have to look at the capture of Constantinople in 1204 and in 1453. And I think the situation is more similar to 1204, that you have a decapitation strike at the empire, and its still possible for the Byzantines to regroup in Anatolia and outer territories. The Ottomans conquered most of both Anatolia and the Balkans before taking Constantinople.

So while this is an Arab and Islamic wank, and a Christian and particularly eastern Christian screw, its hard to tell how much. There is potential for the situation to develop into an Arab overshoot, the Byzantines recover Constantinople, and the main effect is on morale and the mystique of the city. Or you could see some sort of a domino effect where lots of people convert to Islam, because everyone loves a winner, and you wind up with an Islamic Europe scenario. Plus we don't know much about that period.

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. But the Abbasids are likely butterflied away, which has a huge impact on Islam. Byzantine enclaves in Italy become independent, as places like Venice and Amalfi effectively were IOTL, but since they were maintained mostly by local forces, they survive and and able to project power into Greece and Dalmatia. They may set up a new Emperor, or acknowledge the the Frankish Emperors as overlords later. The Crusaders didn't expand into the Balkans after the Fourth Crusade, despite a promising start, and the Ottoman Turks conquered most of the area long before taking Constantinople, which implies that the Arabs would not be able to just take Constantinople by sea and then keep going west, though the Bulgarians converting to Islam is a huge wild card. This also has hard to predict effects on the early development of Russia, hard to predict because not much is known about the early development of Russia.
 
its still possible for the Byzantines to regroup in Anatolia and outer territories.
Ten times this! Anatolia being conquered by the Arabs is not a foregone conclusion even if Constantinople falls. Paying a huge tribute sure, nominal subservience why not, but Anatolia was the heart of what was left of the empire and its armies and unless your POD includes the roman military being catastrophically and completely shattered on the field, then there is no way that the Arabs simply walk in and just say "Mine". It didn't work like that in 1204 either.
 
Guys, there's something that's been puzzling me for a while.

As you may have been aware, Romans in the Roman army have been on the numerical decline since the time of Augustus, but the entire process accelerated in the Constantinian era, leading to the barbarian Roman army of the 5th-7th centuries we are all familiar with. I have read much on the subject so this isn't the part that puzzles me.

What is puzzling me is this: who manned the Roman navy, and why on earth do they keep fighting even when the army was broken, imperial finances were broken and imperial morale could only afford hiding behind walls? Were they barbarians of a different mental caliber compared to their cousins in the army?

Or were they Roman?

If we can't answer this question, we would be going nowhere on the subject of the OP - which is, how could New Rome fall in 718? It isn't something that could be butterflied away by saying "no Greek Fire", since the Roman Navy itself (as much as Battle of the Masts is brought up, it was not a decapitating blow to the Roman Navy), Coptic sailors' spiritual unity with the Christian Romans, sickness, supply troubles and of course good old fashioned infighting all factored in the OTL failure of the 718 campaign. Understanding the demographics of one of the most important participating forces is crucial to understanding where to place the POD.
the roman army was less barbarian by the time of Justinian and continued to be so most of Heraclius forces were not mercenary barbarians
there was the fleet of Constantinople , and 3 major naval ports in anatolia and one in greece , naples and sicily would be the only major ports left

greece due to its navy and sicily could hold out for a while
 
Last edited:
Excellent thread about a really important turning point in history.

Thinking about it, I think you have to look at the capture of Constantinople in 1204 and in 1453. And I think the situation is more similar to 1204, that you have a decapitation strike at the empire, and its still possible for the Byzantines to regroup in Anatolia and outer territories. The Ottomans conquered most of both Anatolia and the Balkans before taking Constantinople.

So while this is an Arab and Islamic wank, and a Christian and particularly eastern Christian screw, its hard to tell how much. There is potential for the situation to develop into an Arab overshoot, the Byzantines recover Constantinople, and the main effect is on morale and the mystique of the city. Or you could see some sort of a domino effect where lots of people convert to Islam, because everyone loves a winner, and you wind up with an Islamic Europe scenario. Plus we don't know much about that period.

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. But the Abbasids are likely butterflied away, which has a huge impact on Islam. Byzantine enclaves in Italy become independent, as places like Venice and Amalfi effectively were IOTL, but since they were maintained mostly by local forces, they survive and and able to project power into Greece and Dalmatia. They may set up a new Emperor, or acknowledge the the Frankish Emperors as overlords later. The Crusaders didn't expand into the Balkans after the Fourth Crusade, despite a promising start, and the Ottoman Turks conquered most of the area long before taking Constantinople, which implies that the Arabs would not be able to just take Constantinople by sea and then keep going west, though the Bulgarians converting to Islam is a huge wild card. This also has hard to predict effects on the early development of Russia, hard to predict because not much is known about the early development of Russia.
Ten times this! Anatolia being conquered by the Arabs is not a foregone conclusion even if Constantinople falls. Paying a huge tribute sure, nominal subservience why not, but Anatolia was the heart of what was left of the empire and its armies and unless your POD includes the roman military being catastrophically and completely shattered on the field, then there is no way that the Arabs simply walk in and just say "Mine". It didn't work like that in 1204 either.
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
 
Ten times this! Anatolia being conquered by the Arabs is not a foregone conclusion even if Constantinople falls. Paying a huge tribute sure, nominal subservience why not, but Anatolia was the heart of what was left of the empire and its armies and unless your POD includes the roman military being catastrophically and completely shattered on the field, then there is no way that the Arabs simply walk in and just say "Mine". It didn't work like that in 1204 either.
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
 
That if they are going to run,the only remainder ere territory is Ravenna, that makes more sense than the middle of nowhere Crimea just to railroad Orthodox Eastern Europe
How about Ravenna is too far away compared to Crimea? They're going by ship, not airplane. Maps help.
notitia_dignitatum_imperium_romanum-map.jpg

the roman army was less barbarian by the time of Justinian and continued to be so most of Heraclius forces were not mercenary barbarians
Sources please. My primary sources are Roman Power (specifically chapter 6) and the Theodosian Codex itself. These both suggest otherwise.
And I think the situation is more similar to 1204, that you have a decapitation strike at the empire, and its still possible for the Byzantines to regroup in Anatolia and outer territories.
Though more similar than compared to 1453, 1204 is still very different from 718. If the Arabs could even make it to Constantinople, there wouldn't be many places in Anatolia left for an imperial regroup.
 
How about Ravenna is too far away compared to Crimea? They're going by ship, not airplane. Maps help.
That is the thing, the black sea is far difficult than the Aegean plus Ravenna is a city and not a place in the middle of nowhere to railroad something
 
That is the thing, the black sea is far difficult than the Aegean plus Ravenna is a city and not a place in the middle of nowhere to railroad something
You're making me look like I didn't post a map of the area. But I did, so why don't you drop this "railroading" chant?

Besides, wars between Muslim Serbs and Christian Magyars in the west Balkans is more interesting than Muslim Serbs and Magyars from my POV. This is just my opinion though, mainly because I like speculating on what a Christian nomadic horde will be like. Unfortunately, the Magyars settled before converting in OTL.
 
Even if the Umayyads take Constantinople I anticipate they will have lots of trouble subduing the Roman population in Anatolia. Not to mention the Abbasids, or some pro-Hashimiyya, Iranian focused Abbasid-analogue, are nigh inevitable by this point.

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. The Umayyads then develop into a Mediterranean Caliphate based in Syria (and probably later, once they get a better handle on things, Constantinople) whose version of Islam borrows heavily from Gnosticism and Platonism. The Abbasids probably develop a version of Islam that is more closely related to Shi'ism than OTL Sunnism because of how much more important Alid supporters would be to their regime ITTL.

Politically this is interesting because two Muslim dynasties essentially take up the same dance performed by the Greeks and Persians for centuries. It also means that the Umayyads don't get the chance to steam roll Eastern Europe and Italy because they have to deal with the Abbasids on their Eastern border.

Culturally you have less of an Islamic Golden Age (as the scholars who are by the Mediterranean don't get have as much exchange of ideas with the scholars in Khorasan). On the other hand a divided Islam probably means much more freedom for the Dhimmis and less Arabization which means entire languages and cultures snuffed out in the wake of the Islamic conquests will survive. You also get an entirely novel Arabo-Greek culture ITTL which rivals the Persianate culture that so many people associate with Islam in OTL.
 
Top