Islamic victory in the Siege of Constantinople (674-678)

What if the Umayyads had won the Siege of Constantinople (674-678 AD), defeating the Byzantine navy and looting and completely occupying Constantinople?

Would this pincer movement have spelled the beginning of the end for a free and independent Christendom? Would the Umayyad's have had a chance to not only conquer all the Byzantine Empire after this, but also move into the Balkans like the Ottomans did centuries later?
How far to the north can the Muslim conquest of Europe go?
Could it be that the second Islamic civil war would be ruled out?
 
Let's take this into consideration, the Caliphate only went into Africa once they knew they couldn't conquer Constantinople. So, in short. Goodbye Christianity, or at least Christianity as we know it.

Once Constantinople falls the Caliphate(s) would make it a mission to conquer all of Europe. Then swoop around from Iberia to conquer North Africa. The modern idea of Europe would be nothing like how we think of it.

Because of the events in our timeline we can theorize that the New World (The Americas) will be Muslim, the whole of Africa will likely be Muslim, it's hard to say what will happen to East Asia though.
 
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Happers. Once Constantinople falls the Arabs will be even more overstretched than in OTL. They will hold a vast territory but logistically they will face numerous challenges, not the least of which being they can only ever be a tiny minority in the regions they hold. The idea that they will win the Balkans from the various Slavic and Turkic peoples there is absurd at best.

Sure, the fall of Constantinople doesn't meaningfully impact the spread of Islam through Andalusia and Africa, and expands the Dar-al-Islam substantially. But it certainly doesn't doom Christianity or even a recognizable version of Christianity. Islam has clear limits to how far it can make it in Europe, much as it does in India.
 
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Happers. Once Constantinople falls the Arabs will be even more overstretched than in OTL. They will hold a vast territory but logistically they will face numerous challenges, not the least of which being they can only ever be a tiny minority in the regions they hold. The idea that they will win the Balkans from the various Slavic and Turkic peoples there is absurd at best.

Sure, the fall of Constantinople doesn't meaningfully impact the spread of Islam through Andalusia and Africa, and expands the Dar-al-Islam substantially. But it certainly doesn't doom Christianity or even a recognizable version of Christianity. Islam has clear limits to how far it can make it in Europe, much as it does in India.

See I'd disagree, with Constantinople out of the way and if the Caliphate uses Greek technology like Greek fire, then they will have Anatolia and the Balkans under their control in no time. The Caliphate would then develop their naval technology from Byzantine advancements, as that was one of the Caliphate's big disadvantages. From there, over the next couple hundred years Europe would be swallowed up by the Caliphate. After that, it's not hard to make Islam the major world religion.
 
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Happers. Once Constantinople falls the Arabs will be even more overstretched than in OTL. They will hold a vast territory but logistically they will face numerous challenges, not the least of which being they can only ever be a tiny minority in the regions they hold. The idea that they will win the Balkans from the various Slavic and Turkic peoples there is absurd at best.

Sure, the fall of Constantinople doesn't meaningfully impact the spread of Islam through Andalusia and Africa, and expands the Dar-al-Islam substantially. But it certainly doesn't doom Christianity or even a recognizable version of Christianity. Islam has clear limits to how far it can make it in Europe, much as it does in India.

Andalus was won using only a tiny minority of Arabs with most of the troops being Berbers. Why couldn't the Slavs/Turks be used in the same way to augment Arab forces?
 
See I'd disagree, with Constantinople out of the way and if the Caliphate uses Greek technology like Greek fire, then they will have Anatolia and the Balkans under their control in no time. The Caliphate would then develop their naval technology from Byzantine advancements, as that was one of the Caliphate's big disadvantages. From there, over the next couple hundred years Europe would be swallowed up by the Caliphate. After that, it's not hard to make Islam the major world religion.

Greek fire is not the wonder weapon many think it is. Its primary purpose is as a defensive naval weapon.
 
Constantinople was a kind of fortress that protected Europe from the worst of Islam. Thus, during the following centuries would occur Islamic attacks against Europe. With Greek technology and the Byzantine naval probably all of Europe "Mediterranea" would be Islamized, even Rome could be ransacked. This does not mean that all of Europe was annexed, as the north is hostile to the Islamic warfare mode, so perhaps England and the Nordic countries would maintain independence and Christianity. But it would be a different Christianity, without the Vatican and the patriarchs. It would probably be of the "Slavic" or "Nordic-Irish" type.
 
Europe would be far more muslim, heck i can imagine they might push for italy and would be wide open later on, for 700-800 we could imagine a whole islamic europe from Iberia, all south of france , italy till the balkans, and a far different europe and christianity as we knew.
 
This is not the Roman Empire of the Last Emperor's days; and seeing as this has not been stressed yet; conquering Constantinople does not conquer Rome. Rome the city fell and was sacked many times, Rome the state did not. The same applies to Constantinople. The city may fall, Rome will (and indeed, did) persevere. The rest of the Roman Empire is still there, and presumably now enraged that the Muslim Caliphate just sacked their capital. The Roman Navy isn't going to mass-defect to sworn enemies, the Roman nobility isn't going to stop fighting either. At best they just pissed off a medieval superpower, well done guys, bravo.

They're magically going to conquer Europe now? After this miraculous victory the likes of which people will tell horror stories about for generations? The Merovingians may have more than one thing to say about that, as well as a substantial part of the Christian (and indeed, pagan!) kings and chieftains of Europe. No, it's not the Battle of Tours yet but that could very easily come to a head a generation early. In my opinion; No, you're not going to see Suddenly, Muslim Rome. No, you're not going to see it in Lombardy, either, nor anywhere else really as welcome to logistical woes the likes of which can't really be described because they had this problem with trying to quite literally conquer the entire world all at once and were stretched so thin as for it to be considered downright laughable, if the Muslim Conquests didn't happen because of downright incredible luck more than any sort of political or military savvy, they'd be regarded as fantasy today at best. Is it plausible for the Mohammedans to have won in 678? Perhaps it is. Is it plausible for them to then go on, and conquer most of an entire continent while conveniently ignoring all the already extant problems they faced now compounded by even more? No.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

Andalus was won using only a tiny minority of Arabs with most of the troops being Berbers. Why couldn't the Slavs/Turks be used in the same way to augment Arab forces?
They could, but unlike the Romans, the Visigothic kingdom was already heavily decayed; the Byzantine Empire had strong institutions and was the second richest realm after the Caliphate (who of course became the richest realm after conquering huge swathes of the Byzantine and Persian Empires). It will take a lot of effort for the Caliphate to suppress all of the millions of Greeks at once with a force of only a few ten thousands, compared to suppressing an already declining decentralized Gothic kingdom.

Especially since the Umayyads were explicitly an Arab state rather than state of all Muslims, and were not willing to make the same kind of strategic compromises that the Abbasids were. Meanwhile the Bulgars, Avars, and Khazars will be invading, Berbers, Armenians, and Kurds rebelling against the Caliphate, Slavs migrating, and fringe Kharijites trying to bring everything down.

Also, Constantinople will not be garrisoned by the largest armies in the Caliphate - there are bigger priorities like Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Knocking out Constantinople definitely does not mean that the Caliphate can conquer Europe, but it does create the possibility that down the track a European Islamic nation could Islamify a large proportion of the region, probably the majority as at a certain point the Abrahamic religions reach the critical mass needed to totally dominate a given strategic system. Their propensity towards converting neighbours means that if enough of Europe is conquered it's almost inevitable that the rest will follow, though not necessarily during the domination of the initial conquering state. This would still be a very slow process IMO, if Constantinople falls in the 670's Europe may never become Islamic, or if it does it may take more than half a millennium, but it does create the possibility which did not exist IOTL.
 
This is not the Roman Empire of the Last Emperor's days; and seeing as this has not been stressed yet; conquering Constantinople does not conquer Rome. Rome the city fell and was sacked many times, Rome the state did not. The same applies to Constantinople. The city may fall, Rome will (and indeed, did) persevere. The rest of the Roman Empire is still there, and presumably now enraged that the Mohammedans just sacked their capital. The Roman Navy isn't going to mass-defect to sworn enemies, the Roman nobility isn't going to stop fighting either. At best they just pissed off a medieval superpower, well done guys, bravo.

They're magically going to conquer Europe now? After this miraculous victory the likes of which people will tell horror stories about for generations? The Merovingians may have more than one thing to say about that, as well as a substantial part of the Christian (and indeed, pagan!) kings and chieftains of Europe. No, it's not the Battle of Tours yet but that could very easily come to a head a generation early. In my opinion; No, you're not going to see Suddenly, Mohammedan Rome. No, you're not going to see it in Lombardy, either, nor anywhere else really as welcome to logistical woes the likes of which can't really be described because they had this problem with trying to quite literally conquer the entire world all at once and were stretched so thin as for it to be considered downright laughable, if the Mohammedan Conquests didn't happen because of downright incredible luck more than any sort of political or military savvy, they'd be regarded as fantasy today at best. Is it plausible for the Mohammedans to have won in 678? Perhaps it is. Is it plausible for them to then go on, and conquer most of an entire continent while conveniently ignoring all the already extant problems they faced now compounded by even more? No.



Mohammedan? Thats a insulting term so we can see that your whole argument is bias.
 
This is not the Roman Empire of the Last Emperor's days; and seeing as this has not been stressed yet; conquering Constantinople does not conquer Rome. Rome the city fell and was sacked many times, Rome the state did not. The same applies to Constantinople. The city may fall, Rome will (and indeed, did) persevere. The rest of the Roman Empire is still there, and presumably now enraged that the Mohammedans just sacked their capital. The Roman Navy isn't going to mass-defect to sworn enemies, the Roman nobility isn't going to stop fighting either. At best they just pissed off a medieval superpower, well done guys, bravo.

They're magically going to conquer Europe now? After this miraculous victory the likes of which people will tell horror stories about for generations? The Merovingians may have more than one thing to say about that, as well as a substantial part of the Christian (and indeed, pagan!) kings and chieftains of Europe. No, it's not the Battle of Tours yet but that could very easily come to a head a generation early. In my opinion; No, you're not going to see Suddenly, Mohammedan Rome. No, you're not going to see it in Lombardy, either, nor anywhere else really as welcome to logistical woes the likes of which can't really be described because they had this problem with trying to quite literally conquer the entire world all at once and were stretched so thin as for it to be considered downright laughable, if the Mohammedan Conquests didn't happen because of downright incredible luck more than any sort of political or military savvy, they'd be regarded as fantasy today at best. Is it plausible for the Mohammedans to have won in 678? Perhaps it is. Is it plausible for them to then go on, and conquer most of an entire continent while conveniently ignoring all the already extant problems they faced now compounded by even more? No.
I disagree.
That the muslims conquered as much territory as OTL is impressive. Most of their military might came from gaining the respect of marginalized groups and combining that with a prestigious and socially attractive (for the time) religion. If their victories were based on luck early on in the Rashidun Caliphate, it's closer to true, but by the time they transitioned to the Ummayyads, the stage was already set. Had they conquered Constantinople, they would simply adjust their focus from going to the Gibraltar straits to expanding through the balkans.
Not to mention that, by conquering Constantinople and holding it for a long enough time, they'd also be able to convince the Rus to convert to islam, as, practically, he who controls the straits controls the russian religion.
Also, the concept of "being stretched thin" does not immeidately apply to the Ummayyad caliphate, as its military was comprised of autonomous regional armies.
 
Well, it's... not exactly Constantinople anymore

CUE MUSIC!


Nah but that destroys Southern Christianity. I can only see it surviving in the North in say France, Germany and Britain.
 
Constantinople would no doubtedly be used as a bastion for rival claimants to the Caliphate to use as their power-base. Byzantium's core lands are incorporated and Islamized but much like Persia, retain an identity that is separate from the tribal Arabs. It wouldn't be long before an increasingly power-hungry Islamized Greek elite starts demanding to be treating as equals to the Arabs.
 
Constantinople would no doubtedly be used as a bastion for rival claimants to the Caliphate to use as their power-base. Byzantium's core lands are incorporated and Islamized but much like Persia, retain an identity that is separate from the tribal Arabs. It wouldn't be long before an increasingly power-hungry Islamized Greek elite starts demanding to be treating as equals to the Arabs.

It's possible that you'd see Islamization without Arabization but I wouldn't say it's inevitable. OTL Persia was nearly Arabized and Persian culture and language was really only saved by the sudden collapse of Arab rule in Persia and the Persian Intermezzo. So basically, you can see Byzantium go the route of Persia if you have a Greek ruling class, but if the ruling class stays Arab then it will probably be Arabized no matter what.
 
I am not entirely sure on this one..... One issue the Umayyad will incur is the issue of massive amounts of non Semitic Christians who have previous loyalties covering their newly conquered land and then an extended border to be attacked. The Ottomans succeeded in the conquest of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc, not simply by might but they dominated Anatolia, the most important piece of the entire Byzantine Empire; without its Turcofication following the 900s-1200s, the conquest the Ottomans made, would be very unlikely and or weakly made.

For instance, the Umayyad for all its prowess, is going to be highly pressed on its various fronts, once expanded into Byzantium fully. Most especially, in the north, they will face the Khazar, Slavs and Bulgars. All of which will see this as an opportunity to attack or simply flee northward. Khazars for instance will likely be drawn into their wars with the Umayyad over the Caucus mountains and the Pontic Steppe regardless, increasing further the spread of Umayyad forces. Then, the Umayyad will conquer North Africa and perhaps Iberia shortly after and extend their borders immensely. The further possibility of a Khawarij revolt becomes more possible and prevalent, especially once you consider the vast numbers of people added to the Islamic world.

Frankly, this could lead to Islam being broken down even further. I actually can imagine a scenario whereby, Islamic states rule Iberia, Libya, Egypt, eastern Anatolia, Iraq, Arabia, Shams and possibly Sindh. This has Algiers, Morocco and parts of Tunisia breaking free from Umayyad rule by the Khawarij powers who likely then turn on each other, leading to a return to status quo in the area (likely to be conquered by Islamic states later/ as Indonesia was). Then, it becomes all the more likely for Greece to then transfer back to Christian powers or perhaps, Slavic or Bulgar states. This however, means that Aegean islands remain likely Muslim or Arab ruled, so that would include Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, Corfu, etc... Then Iran could easily break off as was possible before the Abbasid Caliphate arose, whether this is a moderately Islamic state or Zoroastrian, who knows.
 
Constantinople would no doubtedly be used as a bastion for rival claimants to the Caliphate to use as their power-base. Byzantium's core lands are incorporated and Islamized but much like Persia, retain an identity that is separate from the tribal Arabs. It wouldn't be long before an increasingly power-hungry Islamized Greek elite starts demanding to be treating as equals to the Arabs.
And possibly like OTL how iranians contributed to the Islamic golden age, Greeks might in this ATL after being conquered by the arabs. You could see more Islamic Hellenic architecture and Islamic hellenic scientists. And similar to how the Abbasids used Iranian style administration, in the Greek regions and anatolia, you could see an Islamic administration similar to that of the Byzantines.
 
Top