would it be more plausible for Muslims in Islam's first few centuries to conquer up to the Seine river in France, the Arno river in Italy, north of Rome, or the Marisa river in Thrace, past Constantinople?
why?
why?
I'm not sure how the fleet was "invincible" when it was crushed to smithereens by the Arabs just twelve years after their conquest of Egypt. Emperor Constans II would almost have certainly died in that battle had he not been as lucky as OTL, and no storm after the Battle of Phoenix + dissension in Constantinople probably delays the First Fitna. If Uthman besieges Constantinople in 655, the city would only have its Walls to save it.I've heard of the Byzantine walls and fleet being invincible
The Volga Bulghars formally converted in 922, while the Karakhanids formally did in 934.in the early Caliph the Muslims didn't convert nomadic barbarians, they conquered them. See John(arabic letters) the lightweight faqih's posts on this latter aspect.
I've heard of the Byzantine walls and fleet being invincible,
Read up on the Fourth Crusade.It tells you how it could be done without the use of gunpowder,and with the city being fully garrisoned.really? I've heard of the Byzantine walls and fleet being invincible, and also that in the early Caliph the Muslims didn't convert nomadic barbarians, they conquered them. See John(arabic letters) the lightweight faqih's posts on this latter aspect.
It does seem though that Constantinople falling to the Muslims before 1000 CE is the clear favorite (10 votes) in comparison to greater conquests France (2 votes) or Italy(1 vote), at the moment.