Muslim World: The True Faith Timeline

[EnvarKadri]

Just coming here to say that this isn't dead at all! And the chapter that was promised is coming, i've lost my cellphone so production got really rough (especially due to a finger injury that made me lose like 3 weeks of classes that i've had to catch up on), and well, still no cellphone but i'm actually time-plenty so i can go back on writing, due to the possibility of disaster, no timetable shall be given from me, and sorry for the (quite literal) disappearance!

Glad to hear, that the timeline is still on I mean. Shame for the bad luck.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

And if i said that the chapter is done...?

 

[Ursogulos]

And if i said that the chapter is done...?

waiting with eagerness.......

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Muslim World – The Age of Collapse
Rising but Frictious: The Establishment of the Abbasid Caliphate (II)

al-Mansur's Way (761-766) ​

Once Abū Jaʿfar ʿAbdallāh ibn Muhammad al-Mansur was confirmed as the second Abbasid Caliph in al-Kūfah, things quickly got doubtful, as it was quite known of his distrust of the powerful Khurasani faction, and his less-than-cordial relations with Abu Muslim, the faction’s leader. At the heart of the Caliphate, he was also opposed by his uncle, ʿAbdallāh ibn Ali, who held governorship of the rebellious Wilāyah of al-Jazira [1] at the time of as-Saffāh’s death, whom beyond trying to get influence at al-Mansur's expense, had hopes of taking the title of Caliph for himself, and for that, an alliance with the Khurasanis was pretty much a given. The newly-installed Caliph quickly tried to secure his position, appointing his nephew ʿĪsā ibn Mūsā, the Governor of al-Kūfah, as his heir-apparent, and soon summoned all provincial governors to the capital awaiting to receive the Bayʿah [2] from them. Abu Muslim and all of his eastern provincials arrived as expected, together with Emir Sulaymān from Arminiyah and the Kathīrī governor of Ḥaḍramūt, all of them swearing allegiance to the new Caliph. With that, the only missing was ʿAbdallāh ibn Ali, what already raised some concern in the court, as gossip spread about an incoming revolt. Some days after, as the governors started to return to their posts, leaving the capital, al-Mansur received report that indeed it was a revolt, but ʿAbdallāh already was with an army of ‘’considerable’’ strength going down the Euphrates, with the governor of al-Mawṣil [3], ʾIsmāʿīl ibn Ali revolting in support, probably sending an army down the Tigris soon.

This resulted in al-Mansur entering a complicated situation, although he did prepare himself in advance after ibn Ali didn’t show up, making the local troops ready for battle while pushing for the eventual help of the governor of al-Baṣrah - Muhammad ibn Sulaymān [4] - against the Sons of Ali, he had Abu Muslim nearing in the east, whom allegiance remained in serious doubt, and the Emir of Arminiyah was still incognita, his loyalty to the Abbasids wasn’t in doubt, but his loyalty to al-Mansur pretty much. His first action after revolt was made obvious was to march the now-amassed army up the rivers and co-opt the Banu Ali into open battle, while sending assistance requests to Emir Sulaymān, this was pretty much a success due to ʿAbdallāh ibn Ali already rushing over in to Kūfah. At the same time, Abu Muslim was returning from Kermanshah with an army of 24,600 soldiers drawn from his puppet-governors in Persia, marching through Jisn al-Nahrawan in the direction of Mesopotamia, this worried al-Mansur to an extent but he kept focused on the battle against the main pretender.

The two armies met at the outskirts of al-Rūmīya [5], Caliph al-Mansur possessed 13,500 soldiers in his army: 5,600 levies from the Iraqi tribes, 5,200 Khurasani Abnāʾ al-Dawla and 2,800 mesopotamian infantrymen from Basra; while the Banu Ali had 15,200 soldiers: 9,200 levies from the Jaziran tribes, 4,300 assyrian infantrymen and 2,700 Khurasani Abnāʾ al-Dawla deserters. The battle occurred at Rabi al-Thani 21, 145 AH [6], and started with both armies lining up in the plain terrain, al-Mansur assembled a primary line with the Abnāʾ al-Dawla and the mesopotamian infantrymen at the center (working in a kinda chess formation) with the tribal levies covering the flanks, while ʿAbdallāh ibn Ali made up his formation with the deserters at the nucleum, the assyrians at the border of the center and the Jaziran tribals distributed on the flanks. Al-Mansur moved first, advancing his primary line against the opposing army, but not doing much otherwise, ibn Ali reacted by ordering his assyrian archers to shot at the advancing army, this caused marginal damage, as their shields were readily raised. The next movement was ibn Ali sending the jaziran levies against their opposing flanks, the iraqi levies showed up only to lure them into a chase away from the main battle, as ordered by al-Mansur, with that, only the infantry core of the armies remained, and thus al-Mansur tried to work up an advantage as fast as possible, ordering his primary line to attack directly the enemy. As the melee started raging on, it was made clear the superiority of the Abnāʾ al-Dawla over their mesopotamian and assyrian counterparts, this ended up playing heavily on al-Mansur's side, as he had the numerical superiority, and with the lighter mesopotamian infantry to exploit the breaches opened as his army gained advantage, ibn Ali saw himself forced to retreat from battle before the cavalry could come back, giving al-Mansur the victory.

Due to over-agressiveness trying to take out ibn Ali as soon as possible, al-Mansur suffered considerable losses (not even taking into count the cavalry losses during the chase), but as the Jaziran levies ended up being surrendered after the battle, this victory heavily strained the position of the Banu Ali, and permitted al-Mansur to quickly turn the tide of the conflict, even if ʾIsmāʿīl from al-Mawṣil already had a better army coming to cover up the pretender, avoiding any chance of immediate collapse as they meet up at Tikrīt. Some days after the battle, Abu Muslim showed up with his army in al-Rūmīya, quickly finding out the winner of the battle and paying the expected respects to al-Mansur, during the meeting, Abu Muslim agreed to join the Caliph’s forces against the revolt, resulting in the peaceful surrender from both ʿAbdallāh and ʾIsmāʿīl as the now thirty-thousand-men army was joined by the forces of Emir Sulaymān coming from the north, making obviously impossible to proceed. Both were pardoned by al-Mansur and sent to political exile in Yemen, where they would later die under mysterious circumstances.

This pratically granted al-Mansur's consolidation as Caliph, but for him Abu Muslim still was a problem with his entire control of the iranian lands [7], a problem that had to be very carefully solved. At first he just slowly decreased the power of the eastern faction in the court, while initiating his modelling of the abbasid administration, with the expansion of the wazirate established by as-Saffāh and the increasing introduction of people from the western provinces into the bureaucracy, mainly egyptians and greek christians from Syria and al-Anadul as leverage from the persians (who were increasingly seen as Abu Muslim’s allies in Kūfah). But in the early months of 765, an opportunity came, as the Gurjara Kingdom attacked the mainly neglected caliphal territories in India (of which control wasn’t really that established on much of it) supporting a revolt from the nomadic tribes of Rajasthan, this was made an excuse for the Caliph to join Abu Muslim in campaign, with 15,500 soldiers marching together with al-Mansur through the persian provinces, until meeting with Abu Muslim in Zaranj. The campaign was pretty much not made to succeed, as Abu Muslim ended up dead (on al-Mansur's orders, obviously) during a minor skirmish against the tribal forces, after a battle funeral and some further confrontations, al-Mansur very quickly left back to Persia, where he would announce Abu Muslim’s death in battle and then reassert his power over the provinces, of course, it was not as smooth as it was planned to be.

The Eastern Problem and Roman Ambitions (765-771) ​

As Caliph al-Mansur announced the proud death of Abu Muslim in the battles against the invading infidels (and the new governors of his provinces), not everyone swallowed it as fact. And although no direct challenge came to his claim, doubts were raised among the persian populace, where Abu Muslim had been most popular, and after the Caliph quickly left to Kūfah, gossip spread like wildfire. And some minor uprisings and riots sparked, all of them quickly put down by al-Mansur's new governors. It was nothing too serious, with the Caliph settling down on his capital back to business, soon discovering that the persian faction of the court wasn’t taking it lightly, as he would suffer a number of assassination attempts in the first five months after his arrival. It stopped after al-Mansur proved so well guarded that any attempts were just catastrophical failures, but the scheming wasn’t really over yet.

In early 767, a bigger scale confrontation happened in Khurasan, as ʿAbbās ibn Abu Muslim (al-Khurasani's eldest) denounced the Abbasid Caliph as an “Ungrateful treasonous brute, a liar and an assassin of good men, great in sin and weak in piety, as uncaliphal as one can be.” and rose in rebellion, defeating swiftly the governor of Khurasan in battle and capturing Merv, Sarakhs and Nishapur, but being forcibly stopped by the relentless reaction of Khwarazmshah Abdallah, who had just recently taken up Islam. He joined with the governor of Mā Warāʾ an-Nahr [8] at Āmul and then marched down on the rebel’s rear, investing Merv with a considerable army.

ʿAbbās’ revolt was met with enthusiasm in the northern parts of what could be called Persia, and many rose in his support, even with the governors ready to put it all down, it succeeded in Adhrābagan [9] and in the rest of Khurasan, with the Daylamites happening to lend their support to the struggle. It seemed like a real threat, and al-Mansur acted accordingly, with all officials related in some way to Abu Muslim in the capital being immediately imprisoned and “persians” [10] in the city being put under constant surveillance. The governors in Persia were given free hand in the matter of fighting immediately the rebels, while Emir Sulaymān in the northern marches was tasked with supressing the revolt in Adhrābagan, and also assure that the Khazars wouldn’t offer their support to them neither. An army to be sent east started to be raised at the same time, time couldn’t be lost.

Back in Khurasan, ʿAbbās’ descended on Merv with his host, around twelve-thousand men, all of them in great moral, some actually believing their commander to be son of some kind of prophet while others just had a firm confidence in the blood of the competent. Whatever the matter, the army already in Merv was around the same size, and a parley preceded the battle, it didn’t do much at all, with the Khwarezmi’s intentions still not clear in this intervention. Battle it was, as his younger brother was tasked with organizing the uprising nearing central Persia, defending his rear against the abbasid governors.

The battle in Merv wasn’t lopsided or decisive or nothing like that, unless one saw the greater scheme of things, the son of Abu Muslim was victorious that day, as it ended with Abdallah retreating to nearby Kushmahan. But the abbasid army went out without major losses, and would prove to still be a threat, as ʿAbbās’ turned his attentions to his brother’s work. That wasn’t much, sure, the abbasid governors suspiciously didn’t do nothing as of yet, but it gave the time he needed, so he was most grateful for the chance, and joining in Nishapur, marched towards Damghan. It was folly, the abbasid governors were concentrating forces in nearby Qumis, and decisively attacked the lesser rebel force once it arrived in Damghan, being alerted of this by his scouts, ʿAbbās’ retreated in hurry, it worked, as the abbasid army was considerably greater and thus slower, but he was soon to recognize that the Khwarezmian had just ignored Merv and Sarakhs and just rushed towards his march, and now he was bottled in Nishapur, then, he smuggled out his immediate family already there into the desert north of the city, and martyred himself under the walls of Nishapur, as two armies converged onto the city.

Afterwards, Merv and Sarakhs surrendered quickly, while the descendants of Abu Muslim who were still around got effectively hunted down by the Caliph. The Daylamites returned to their, non-interference, as the armies raided their lands in punishment for the revolt’s support, but any attempt at conquering Daylam was shrugged off by the Caliph anyway, it just wasn’t worth it. Abu Muslim and his son ʿAbbās’ would remain alive in the people’s mind for a long time, with the more nativist persians holding both of them as images of persian resistance against the greater arab rule (even though the abbasids were everything but arab-supporting).
In the next years, al-Mansur's attentions were turned to the ongoing civil war in the Eastern Roman Empire, seeing it as a source of potential opportunity. The return in force of the Kosmian faction securing Thessaloniki and Crete proved that the war wasn’t near its end, and now with this in mind, the Abbasid Caliph prepared for a jihad of his own, ordering the raising of forces in Syria, al-Jazira and al-Anadul, for an attack deep at Anatolia. While ordering the preparation of the egyptian fleet, and calling Ifriqiya and al-Andalus for an simultaneous strike at Sicily and Italy, Faransa would be useful on this, but al-Mansur had no intention of thinking deep into its internal problems, so he just left it around all the same. He would strike, and he would strike hard.

Spoiler: Footnotes

[1]: Upper Mesopotamia, roughly
[2]: I may just leave the wikipedia link to it here, it’s basically allegiance
[3]: Mosul, Iraq
[4]: Although his name and post is the same in comparison with OTL, butterflies make him a necessarily different person
[5]: You may know this place as “Khosrow’s Better-than-Antioch", or Wēh Antīōk Khosrow, sadly, such an incredible name didn’t survive the test of unglorious popular simplification, and by the time of the Muslim Conquest was already just called ‘’Roman (city)”, what translated to al-Rumiya for the arabs
[6]: July 19th, 762
[7]: In the OTL context al-Mansur would pretty much try to kill Abu Muslim here, but as showed before, his bigger rate of success simply doesn’t allow the abbasids to sustain the general outcry (who IOTL was already big) that would result from publicly just killing Abu Muslim
[8]: Transoxiana
[9]: Azerbaijan proper
[10]: Yeah some of those were actually persians, but mostly what defined it was Zoroastrianism, so you may know as well that non-persians were taken under it, yikes

And just sorry for the long wait, it hasn't been a lucky year for me and mine.

 

[Nivek]

And just sorry for the long wait, it hasn't been a lucky year for me and mine.

It hadn't been a good year for a lot of people too, but very nice seeing you back.

but al-Mansur had no intention of thinking deep into its internal problems

So omnious.

. He would strike, and he would strike hard.

This gonna be good....

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

For all the bloodshed going into this chapter, it sure sounds like just the beginning after we see that last line.

IIRC Caliphs are expected to be victorious and it factors into them keeping their position more than Roman Emperors. Could someone confirm or deny this for me?

 

[Ursogulos]

Wow, but for all the efforts and goals Al Mansur has against Romans, I doubt him to be marginally successful in Anatolia. Sicily meanwhile, is a greater opportunity if Ifriqiya and Andalus plays right.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

It hadn't been a good year for a lot of people too, but very nice seeing you back.

And it's very nice to see that y'all didn't desert me yet!

So omnious.

Take a look back at the Faransa chapter if you may.

For all the bloodshed going into this chapter, it sure sounds like just the beginning after we see that last line.

IIRC Caliphs are expected to be victorious and it factors into them keeping their position more than Roman Emperors. Could someone confirm or deny this for me?

You're saying that because we haven't gone into China just yet! The next chapter will be about it and no restraint of bloodshed will be shown, in that concern, the world is bleeding, that is all. Now, about the Caliph thing, pretty much yeah, successful jihads factor very much in a Caliph's legitimacy, and any player in the political game's legitimacy as well for that matter. But i wouldn't say that it factors more compared to the Romans, actually, if you take it too on-the-word, it actually factors less, because a Caliph is pretty secure against major legitimatic consequences of defeat, you won't get one overthrown because he was defeated by a foreign army, for once, while you have many roman emperors who were overthrown exactly because of that.

Wow, but for all the efforts and goals Al Mansur is has against Romans, I doubt him to be marginally successful in Anatolia. Sicily meanwhile, is a greater opportunity if Ifriqiya and Andalus plays right.

Don't forget that al-Mansur is ordering them into the invasion plans, they aren't actually going into it on their own terms at all. But it is indeed a safer opportunity than Anatolia. Also, i must note that Wasatbahr doesn't feel happy at all about being encircled by a caliphal grip in Sicily and Ifriqiya, so they may make of themselves a problem in this regard, what can be specially tricky if Ifriqiya and/or al-Andalus prove not-too-eager to sacrifice more than they find reasonable.

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

You're saying that because we haven't gone into China just yet! The next chapter will be about it and no restraint of bloodshed will be shown, in that concern, the world is bleeding, that is all.

Ah. For the record, if the An Lushan Rebellion is still going ahead as planned, he has OTL a primarily ethnic Han army.

al-Andalus prove not-too-eager to sacrifice more than they find reasonable.

If the caliph insists on pushing them, I could see al-Andalus deciding "hey we need a more reasonable caliph" and rally under another guy's banner - someone indeed preferably of the Banu Quraysh...

 

[Nivek]

Take a look back at the Faransa chapter if you may.

I remember that, but seems they are in big troubles if can't even participated in the anti Roman jihad.

Amazing update buddy

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

Speaking of a major Caliphal campaign against Rome, what would the primarily Miaphysite Copts, Syrians and Armenians think? Would their hate of the Chalcedonians be enough to make them support the war, or would a common Christian identity hamper al-Mansur?
Please don't go down the "it's over a century already they're mostly Muslims" path. It took the OTL Mamelukes over two centuries of mismanagement and intentional starvation to wither Copts down to ~30% of Egypt's total population, and those two ruling traits are not really that prominent for the Abbasids....

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Speaking of a major Caliphal campaign against Rome, what would the primarily Miaphysite Copts, Syrians and Armenians think? Would their hate of the Chalcedonians be enough to make them support the war, or would a common Christian identity hamper al-Mansur?
Please don't go down the "it's over a century already they're mostly Muslims" path. It took the OTL Mamelukes over two centuries of mismanagement and intentional starvation to wither Copts down to ~30% of Egypt's total population, and those two ruling traits are not really that prominent for the Abbasids....

First adressing the latter, because i think it's actually important! We just passed the first great wave of conversions to Islam in Syria/Egypt, they aren't nearing half the population (and i'd say less than 1/4 in most places), to be honest, and even less for the armenians (who IOTL didn't even get to have a first wave in the first place), although our guy Sulayman is working on that with more interest than most would have. The Muslim had just gotten to half the population in the Levant by the time of the crusades, and as you said, Egypt just consolidated a muslim-majority with the Mamlukes (although IIRC it got to 50% during the Fatimids).

That said, the Syrians (together with the Syrio-Greeks, although admittely, they are more influent than the proper Syrians, not less) are quite supportive of al-Mansur due to their elevation in the state apparatus during his relentless pushing out of Abu Muslim's faction in Kufa, and after the traditional mesopotamian abbasid supporters, they (or recent converts belonging from these communities) are the next most powerful group in the administration, what's a quite ironic (and smart move as well) result since Syria was the original Umayyad stronghold, event though the actual arabs/old muslims there still resent abbasid rule (vide the rebellions in al-Jazira), the Armenians are mostly apathetic to the whole thing although the subtle-and-not-mentioned over-reliance in armenians to patrol the shaky territories in Anatolia during the recent uprisings might have to be brought up later, they probably aren't gonna do much anyway, al-Mansur needs them (under Sulayman in this case) overlooking if the Khazars try any funny business after seeing the revolts in Azerbaijan (who al-Mansur did not concern to check if it went all swiftly, as far as he is concerned Sulayman just put it down and nothing ever happened after that), it doesn't help that the Emir of Armenia would most probably want something in return if he is expected to join yet another venture for his Caliph.

 

[Ursogulos]

Emir of Armenia would most probably want something in return if he is expected to join yet another venture for his Caliph.

Hmm, makes me want to think a bit far, what about more land holdings in Anatolia (since they are responsible for its protection anyway)? Will we see a sultanate of Rum-esque Armenian entity in Anatolia pushing the Byzantines later in time?

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

First adressing the latter, because i think it's actually important! We just passed the first great wave of conversions to Islam in Syria/Egypt, they aren't nearing half the population (and i'd say less than 1/4 in most places), to be honest, and even less for the armenians (who IOTL didn't even get to have a first wave in the first place), although our guy Sulayman is working on that with more interest than most would have.

Interesting, so we do have the potential for a more reliable navy at this point compared to 717. Based on al-Mansur's war goal, it could be built, then used variably to harass a Roman counter-attack into Anatolia and Syria, siege Constantinople, or if the Caliph is thinking wild, support a Danube crossing of some bribed tribes. With the Khazars sitting in the north though, that last one would probably remain a wild idea ...
Then considering that the Abbasid model of Armenian governance is quite similar to the Iranian one, Sulayman's actions do not bode well for a secure rear when fighting against Rome ... nothing like a Bagrevand to disrupt a venture that has the Queen of Cities in its crosshairs.

That said, the Syrians (together with the Syrio-Greeks, although admittely, they are more influent than the proper Syrians, not less) are quite supportive of al-Mansur due to their elevation in the state apparatus during his relentless pushing out of Abu Muslim's faction in Kufa, and after the traditional mesopotamian abbasid supporters, they (or recent converts belonging from these communities) are the next most powerful group in the administration, which is a quite ironic (and smart move as well) result since Syria was the original Umayyad stronghold,

Surprisingly little divergence from OTL, if any at all.

the Armenians are mostly apathetic to the whole thing although the subtle-and-not-mentioned over-reliance in armenians to patrol the shaky territories in Anatolia during the recent uprisings might have to be brought up later, they probably aren't gonna do much anyway,

Fighting Rome in the eighth century with your best source of heavy cavalry apathetic to the whole thing. Ok Caliph al-Mansur, I sure hope you have some backup plan...

al-Mansur needs them (under Sulayman in this case) overlooking if the Khazars try any funny business after seeing the revolts in Azerbaijan

If the Abbasids attack Rome, I'm sure Constantinople will buy them into trying something funny. As for al-Mansur's precautions, reasonable troop placement, if not ideal choice of troops.

it doesn't help that the Emir of Armenia would most probably want something in return if he is expected to join yet another venture for his Caliph.

This is another interesting point of the whole war.
From al-Mansur's point of view, we have Sulayman, who has just put down a revolt and has the potential to become another Abu Muslim. If al-Mansur leaves him be in Arminiya and the jihad against the Romans go poorly, Sulayman might be able to become just that. If al-Mansur summons him and his Arab retainers to war, Arminiya might erupt into a pro-Roman revolt headed by the naxarars. If al-Mansur summons everything Sulayman has for the war...assuming Sulayman does manage to coerce the naxarars into war against Rome, this leaves Arminiya open for the Khazars. And letting Sulayman lead the naxarars to war while his Arab retainers sit in Dwin won't work either, he'd probably die on the way to the rendevous. Most likely from an unfortunate cup of wine.
From Sulayman's POV, we have al-Mansur, who seems to be quite happy to cut down "rukn al-dawla"s with flimsy excuses and he is close to becoming one too. If his Caliph does not call him to war, he would bear the brunt of the Khazar incursion which is almost certain to come. If his Caliph calls him to war and he answers, he would either bring his entire treasury and families of his men on the move or risk losing them to the Khazar incursion which is almost certain to come. If his Caliph calls him to war and he does not answer... then he'd probably have to survive his own men trying to murder him and somehow make contact with Rome.
And does Sulayman have those hypothetical Arab retainers? His position would be a lot more tricky if he's a diplomat and not a commander...

Hmm, makes me want to think a bit far, what about more land holdings in Anatolia (since they are responsible for its protection anyway)? Will we see a sultanate of Rum-esque Armenian entity in Anatolia pushing the Byzantines later in time?

Though I think it remains unlikely for some two hundred years, OTL Bagratid Armenia makes me believe any Armenia is bound to be pro-Roman. Even if the Bagratids eclipsed the Mamikonians by siding with the Arabs, I am still inclined to believe it would side with the Romans once it calls itself "Armenia". Even Cilician Armenia was pro-Roman, and despite their superficial religious differences I think this is a good reflection of Greek influence in the Armenian Miaphysite Church.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Hmm, makes me want to think a bit far, what about more land holdings in Anatolia (since they are responsible for its protection anyway)? Will we see a sultanate of Rum-esque Armenian entity in Anatolia pushing the Byzantines later in time?

About the first, the unruly nature of the territories make it not worth it in the eyes of Sulayman, be granted Anatolia is the ultimate Abbasid source for kicking people upstairs, you just got to manage the costlier and more fucked up frontier of Islam, yey?! With that said, it could be seen as a worthy gift for any of his descendants if they end up more ruthlessly ambitious, but for now it won't do well. Concerning the latter, We Shall See.

Interesting, so we do have the potential for a more reliable navy at this point compared to 717. Based on al-Mansur's war goal, it could be built, then used variably to harass a Roman counter-attack into Anatolia and Syria, siege Constantinople, or if the Caliph is thinking wild, support a Danube crossing of some bribed tribes. With the Khazars sitting in the north though, that last one would probably remain a wild idea ...
Then considering that the Abbasid model of Armenian governance is quite similar to the Iranian one, Sulayman's actions do not bode well for a secure rear when fighting against Rome ... nothing like a Bagrevand to disrupt a venture that has the Queen of Cities in its crosshairs.

Very perceptive of you about the navy, although the Danube Crossing thing is probably a big stretch, and would potentially force the bulgarians to help Byzantium regardless of their original intentions. But yeah. the Khazars make such a thing a little too wild even if we take Bulgaria out of the equation anyhow. You may see Sulayman as a potential backstabbing threat, but (at least for now) he doesn't have quite the reason for it, but if al-Mansur fucks something up and thins go south in a way, he isn't the one to keep fighting in a sinking ship, if you may understand.

Surprisingly little divergence from OTL, if any at all.

The biggest divergence is not actually what it is but rather what it is not, IOTL beyond these mentioned you had persians in the top of the pyramid, while here they are, at least in the more central matter of things, submitted for more..."loyal people" (al-Mansur's words, not mine), it may be as dangerous as the influence exerced by persians IOTL, We Shall See.

Fighting Rome in the eighth century with your best source of heavy cavalry apathetic to the whole thing. Ok Caliph al-Mansur, I sure hope you have some backup plan...

We may take solace in the fact they're used to not having that source of heavy cavalry in the first place

If the Abbasids attack Rome, I'm sure Constantinople will buy them into trying something funny. As for al-Mansur's precautions, reasonable troop placement, if not ideal choice of troops.

Don't forget that it would end up befalling nearly totally in Sulayman's hands to deal with it!

From al-Mansur's point of view, we have Sulayman, who has just put down a revolt and has the potential to become another Abu Muslim. If al-Mansur leaves him be in Arminiya and the jihad against the Romans go poorly, Sulayman might be able to become just that. If al-Mansur summons him and his Arab retainers to war, Arminiya might erupt into a pro-Roman revolt headed by the naxarars. If al-Mansur summons everything Sulayman has for the war...assuming Sulayman does manage to coerce the naxarars into war against Rome, this leaves Arminiya open for the Khazars. And letting Sulayman lead the naxarars to war while his Arab retainers sit in Dwin won't work either, he'd probably die on the way to the rendevous. Most likely from an unfortunate cup of wine.
From Sulayman's POV, we have al-Mansur, who seems to be quite happy to cut down "rukn al-dawla"s with flimsy excuses and he is close to becoming one too. If his Caliph does not call him to war, he would bear the brunt of the Khazar incursion which is almost certain to come. If his Caliph calls him to war and he answers, he would either bring his entire treasury and families of his men on the move or risk losing them to the Khazar incursion which is almost certain to come. If his Caliph calls him to war and he does not answer... then he'd probably have to survive his own men trying to murder him and somehow make contact with Rome.
And does Sulayman have those hypothetical Arab retainers? His position would be a lot more tricky if he's a diplomat and not a commander...

This is the exact dynamic being set up! For Sulayman's luck, he's quite the capable commander, although not without certain dealing acumen, he arguably set up the Umayyad downfall, after all. The thing is, how he takes the events to come will be based on how the Khazar thing will go. Usually he can deal with it fairly easily, protect the border forts, try to make the Alans revolt, the usual thing. But if the romans manage to get the Khazars in for a wholesale invasion, then it is an entire different matter. Another way to view it is that, if Sulayman defeats a wholesale Khazar invasion (the hard thing) but al-Mansur fails (the "easy" thing), you could hit the sirens for Sulayman being himself again, since it would be the exact context of the Antioch clusterfuck that gave rise for the Abbasids. That said, Sulayman is old (going towards sixty years), and already has quite the lot of grandsons, he may see one or some of his younger sons/older grandsons being called up as "honored wards" for the Caliph during the jihad, but in the end being fairly knowledgeable that al-Mansur is simply taking them as hostages in case Sulayman thinks in doing any funny stuff, he wouldn't be pleased about it at all, of course.

Though I think it remains unlikely for some two hundred years, OTL Bagratid Armenia makes me believe any Armenia is bound to be pro-Roman. Even if the Bagratids eclipsed the Mamikonians by siding with the Arabs, I am still inclined to believe it would side with the Romans once it calls itself "Armenia". Even Cilician Armenia was pro-Roman, and despite their superficial religious differences I think this is a good reflection of Greek influence in the Armenian Miaphysite Church.

I have my doubts, it usually comes more from how it comes to be rather than necessarily being pro-Roman. Bagratid Armenia was mostly in its own (the Caliph recognized it as independent, even) until the muslim side of the border collapsed into multiple lesser states, then it wasn't so useful as a buffer state, so it was being pro-Roman or being...dead, and even that didn't suffice, it was the same romans that ended the Bagratids by force. And IIRC, Cicilian Armenia was very much not pro-Roman, it was pro-Crusaders, and often fighting against the romans over its own independence, until usually one particularly strong emperor put them down and they complied begrudginly for a time, even, it was very much why they had so good relations with the crusading states, if it all returned to the Byzantines they would been very much surrounded and forced by circumstance to submit rather than resist. That said, it could end up being pro-Roman anyway due to circumstances of geopolitical nature (aka breaking off the Caliphate usually gets a very non-friendly behavior from it).

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

You may see Sulayman as a potential backstabbing threat, but (at least for now) he doesn't have quite the reason for it, but if al-Mansur fucks something up and thins go south in a way, he isn't the one to keep fighting in a sinking ship, if you may understand.

I was referring to Sulayman's conversion efforts actually. Even trying to convert Armenians to communism in the 20th century went up the wrong way, trying to convert them to Islam would almost certainly spark another Avarayr or Bagrevand.

We may take solace in the fact they're used to not having that source of heavy cavalry in the first place

And it would be really tricky to fight an opponent who has home turf and heavy cavalry advantages. Well, at least compared to the underground cities in Cappadocia, Roman heavy cavalry would be less of an issue because there are just so many of them. OTOH, even al-Mansur could field an army near one hundred thousand, and even if the number is less than Harun al-Rashid's one hundred and forty thousand, it'd still be a mouthful for Romans.

And IIRC, Cicilian Armenia was very much not pro-Roman, it was pro-Crusaders, and often fighting against the romans over its own independence, until usually one particularly strong emperor put them down and they complied begrudginly for a time, even, it was very much why they had so good relations with the crusading states, if it all returned to the Byzantines they would been very much surrounded and forced by circumstance to submit rather than resist. That said, it could end up being pro-Roman anyway due to circumstances of geopolitical nature (aka breaking off the Caliphate usually gets a very non-friendly behavior from it).

My bad, I confused "has common aim against Saljuqs" with "friendly". Good point, though the Armenian emigrations that led to Cicilliian Armenia haven't happened yet. OTL Bagrevand in 775 led to emigrations into the Roman Empire's Armenian Satrapies, but if another dice roll goes wrong a larger scale emigration from Armenia sure has the potential to spill everywhere.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

I was referring to Sulayman's conversion efforts actually. Even trying to convert Armenians to communism in the 20th century went up the wrong way, trying to convert them to Islam would almost certainly spark another Avarayr or Bagrevand.

Oh, he's not going out of his way to bother the armenians, it's that in many cases, muslim rulers didn't want their population to convert because of jizya issues, so they putted up some barriers to dispromote conversion. Sulayman is just...not doing this, and making sure everyone sees converting to Islam as a big opportunity. How succesful he ends up being in the long run is a incognita, though.

My bad, I confused "has common aim against Saljuqs" with "friendly". Good point, though the Armenian emigrations that led to Cicilliian Armenia haven't happened yet. OTL Bagrevand in 775 led to emigrations into the Roman Empire's Armenian Satrapies, but if another dice roll goes wrong a larger scale emigration from Armenia sure has the potential to spill everywhere.

I do think you messed up a bit Armenia with Georgia! Who will for certain make an appearance soon or later, but indeed, the OTL revolt might be entirely butterflied with the Sulayman shenanigans, although the armenians might end up spreading due to a few different reasons.

 

[Nivek]

Sulayman is just...not doing this, and making sure everyone sees converting to Islam as a big opportunity. How succesful he ends up being in the long run is a incognita, though.

Nice very nice idea from Sulayman poart

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

Oh, he's not going out of his way to bother the armenians, it's that in many cases, muslim rulers didn't want their population to convert because of jizya issues, so they putted up some barriers to dispromote conversion. Sulayman is just...not doing this, and making sure everyone sees converting to Islam as a big opportunity. How succesful he ends up being in the long run is a incognita, though.

Nice very nice idea from Sulayman part

Reasonable, and I guess that puts Sulayman amongst more pragmatic/religiously cool warlords instead of the more zealous ones. If genocide could not be stomached his aloofness would change little of Armenia's religious composition.

I do think you messed up a bit Armenia with Georgia! Who will for certain make an appearance soon or later, but indeed, the OTL revolt might be entirely butterflied with the Sulayman shenanigans, although the armenians might end up spreading due to a few different reasons.

Armenian and Georgian (not the USA Georgia) naxarars have close ties, which is why you have Mamikonians and Bagratids popping up at Bagrevand together. So no, I am very sure I did not mess anything up.

 

[Nivek]

easonable, and I guess that puts Sulayman amongst more pragmatic/religiously cool warlords instead of the more zealous ones. If genocide could not be stomached his aloofness would change little of Armenia's religious composition.

He might want to push it as the Prophet(SAWS) wanted and maybe is a way to get a loyal base too, hope he success a lot