Just how big *could* the Early Caliphates have gotten

As others have noted, the Umayyads were damn lucky to have managed as much IOTL, especially when one considers that the rapidity of the Muslim conquests left large areas (Sistan, Tabaristan, Armenia) nominally subjected but in reality away from Muslim control until well into the Abbasid period. With hindsight, the Umayyads could have done a few things differently. First is not try to expand in all directions at once, but prioritize. This would definitely have made all the difference under Hisham, when the Syrian army, the pillar of Umayyad rule, found itself parcelled out to support literally all the buckling frontiers. However, as jihad was built-in in the system, and as the Umayyad system required the booty from expansion to keep the Arab soldiery quiescent, it is difficult to see what could have been changed, without the hindsight we have. Second, and possibly the most important, is not to try and create an Arab apartheid, but actually accept the mawali (especially the Berbers) as equal partners in the "Caliphate" enterprise. This would have increased the regime's stability, and provided more manpower. It is arguable though that, as others have pointed out, for logistical reasons in many areas the Umayyads had reached the maximum limit. Beyond lay lands that could be conquered, but were unprofitable to do so-like the Romans and Germania in the 1st century. This was the case in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and probably Iberia-Gaul as well. Byzantium could have been destroyed with a more focused approach to wear down its defences in Anatolia, but the terrain there favoured the defender. A more naval approach IMO holds more promise, focusing on Sicily and Crete, and the soft underbelly of Europe, but this requires a major shift in the strategic outlook of the Umayyads.
 
Its maximum in the east, I think, is that it conquers Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, and Kashmir. In the west, I'd say its maximum is a conquest of northern Spain. Anything beyond that is ASB.
 
So not even independent Muslim rulers would try to conquer Europe without a push to do so?
The Ifriqiyan, Maghribian and Andalusian walis in the VIIIth were virtually autonomous from Dimashq, historically. They had the initiative to campaigning, and (long story short) raiding was profitable, not attempting to take on structured polities (the tripartite defeat* of Arabo-Berbers in Franko-Aquitain Gaul should be a good exemple why)

*Toulouse-Tours-La Berre
 
So not even independent Muslim rulers would try to conquer Europe without a push to do so?
Which independent Muslim ruler is going to conquer Europe? Al-Andalus? It's got other things to do and doesn't have a native-strength army to draw on. Franks can throw Frankish armies into the field; Arabo-Andalusians have a weird mix of the settled Syrian junds who showed up in the 740s, a small number of Arabo-Andalusians and Arabized Berbers, a whole lot of Berber tribesmen who care more about their clan than about the emir, Christian mercenaries, and later on some use of Saqaliba. Especially early on, they can't just go draft the peasants, since it took centuries to get more of Andalusia following Islam than not. (At one point just before the Fitna, someone actually did try to draft the peasants into sort of a people's militia; the Berber faction just sort of laughed and curbstomped the undertrained, poorly-equipped army of burghers and tradespeople.)

They'll definitely raid, though, and maybe sometimes take a couple of cities. The yearly raid cycle was one of the ways the Andalusian rulers legitimized themselves.
 
Last edited:
The Arabs were already very lucky to get as far as they did, it's hard to see them doing any better than they historically did.
 
Top