alternatehistory.com

In this poll, I wanted to write some options as to the decline/fall of the Abbasid that was different from otl. Then, have a poll to see which ones interested people most and get reasons why each person chose a particular outcome. The only option not included is otl, obviously, but if you favor that outcome (quite boring), then say why. Also, it would make it enjoyable for everyone who made a choice, to give a reason why they chose that. I will respond to any questions and try to respond to even your reasons for choice.

Option 1: POD 847... Abbasid avoidance of the Anarchy of Samarra.

Caliph al-Mu'tawakkil, a famous and powerful caliph was one whose strength gave himself to rule by iron grips. He had built Samarra into a grand city, defeated the Khurramiyyah, commanded a vicious war effort against the Byzantines as well as entertained them. However, he also was a staunch Mu'Tazalite and thus, persecuted the Shi'i within the realm harshly. Further, his moves against the Turkic Mamluks, despite their power, led to his assassination by his son, al-Muntasir and the Mamluk faction. This set in motion a series of events known as the Anarchy of Samarra and a period of massive political upheaval in the Abbasid realm. The conflict and events would prove to end the period of classical Islamic states as had been known since the death of Muhammad.

This option is thus, have al-Mu'tawakkil to do three things in his reign:

- Begin to consolidate the Turkic Mamluks into supporting his designated successor and qualified successor, al-Mu'Tazz, as opposed to the Mamluk choice of the sadistic al-Muntasir. This can be done either by subverting their ranks or by granting more power and rights to them, usually that refers to lending estates to them. Mamluk support of the caliph's designated successor is perhaps the most important move he can make and guarantees a safer transfer of power. If the subversion of the Mamluks becomes possible, then that makes the Abbasid position even better. While, it would come at the cost of losing military prowess, the fracturing of Mamluk camps and then eventually destroying them with other slave castes, could internally save the Abbasid state.

-Avoid al-Mu'tawakkil's extreme anti Shi'i policy. While Shi'i were always brutally repressed to an extent, the Mihna and especially al-Mu'tawakkil were harsh. The destruction of the shrine of Husayn ibn Ali and the arresting of Imam Ali ad-Hadi started a course of events that made the Zanj revolt possible and ended the pretense of any possible Shi'i support of the Abbasid institutions, Do realize, no group has to agree to the Abbasid Caliphal title, only that they live within the greater economic, cultural and power sphere that we call the Abbasid realm, which includes a bureaucracy, army and infrastructure. As a result of his policies, Shi'i actively assisted the rise of the Qarmatians, Zanj, Khawarij, Saffarids, Fatimids and Hashashin, even when most Shi'i had no loyalty to these radical groups and states.

-Find a compromise with traditional circles of the Arab elite and the Mu'Tazilah who have ruled the Abbasid powers from the 820s onward. This would entail that the Mu'Tazilah become more and more loyal to the throne of the Abbasid and less interested in the conversion of orthodox Sunni scholars across the realm. I would argue, this began to happen by the 850s, but was impeded by the Anarchy of Samarra. Essentially, with the removal of the Anarchy of Samarra, the Mu'Tazilah would continue in a trajectory to being the arms, eyes and ears of the Abbasid throne and would form a ever evolving bureaucracy that covertly promotes Abbasid transgression and subversion of the rights of the various subjects that trouble the Abbasid throne. This occurred otl by the 1100s, but by this time, the damage had been done and no bureaucracy could save the Abbasid.

So, in this purposed option, the Abbasid would stabilize roughly prior to the Anarchy of Samarra. This leads to a continuation of Abbasid hegemony over the Islamic world by the 920s and a possible Abbasid reaction to events such as the Fatimids, Ghazanvids, etc... But instead, from a position of power as opposed to a declined empire.


===========================================================

Option 2: POD 873.... Saffarid Ascendency.

From his humble birth, Ya'qub ibn Layth al-Safar had been a true talent in a hostile world. A youngster of Iran, he likely was only a generation or two removed from his Zoroastrian roots and grew up amongst Zoroastrians as child and likely had heard of the famous warrior general al-Afshin who was executed for being a crypto Zoroastrian. Despite all of his raisings, Ya'qub al-Safar quickly rose through the ranks of the Abbasid army of the east (which was decentralized, the Abbasid did not control its own armies).

Ya'qub al-Safar began his rise to fame by waging wars against Caliphal enemies in the East, especially in Afghanistan. Here, the Zunbils or followers of Zun, a sun god from the Dharmic tradition had resisted the Islamic conquest for almost two centuries. These Zunbil warriors centered themselves in southern Afghanistan and likely would form the nucleus of the Pashtun of later times. Not long prior to the rise of Ya'qub al-Safar, the Zunbil had defeated the Umayyad Peacock army and numerous Abbasid Turkic armies whom the Zunbils ambushed or simply amassed and defeated in field battles before fleeing into the hills to prepare for another Islamic attack. These Zunbils also had the effect of inhibiting Abbasid expansion into Hindustan, as the Zunbils raided Islamic supply lines going into the Sindh and actively supported the Rajput and other Hindu princes who resisted Abbasid expansionism. So, for nearly a century the Abbasids offered the title of 'Pillar and Lion of the Faith' to the general who could conquer the Zunbils. Rising to the challenge, Ya'qub al-Safar invaded the land of Zun in 864. Despite the odds, Ya'qub al-Safar gained an immense victory and famously killed little of the enemy, instead, as if with a greater ambition, spared the Zunbil forces and instead preached Islam to the masses and crushed their idols showing the futility of their religion. As a result, instead of massacre, he gained an army of fearsome and fanatically loyal Pashtun warriors. These would come in handy for when he the next year moved against the Khawarij rebels plaguing Balochistan and Sistan. With his new army, Ya'qub al-Safar defeated Ammar ibn Yasser and killed the old Khawarij fanatic.

Having completed three enormous tasks, Ya'qub al-Safar was the envy and most famous person in the Islamic world. This led him on a path to ascendency, claiming the mantle of Shahanshah, an affront to Islam and the Abbasid throne and eventually ruin. Ya'qub al-Safar would later lead a disastrous campaign into Iraq to crush the Abbasid throne and secure his new role of Shahhanshah. However, all he faced was ruin in Iraq. Defeated by both the Abbasid at Dayr al'Aqul and then defeated in Ahvaz by the Zanj, his Pashtun loyal warriors fell to the Zanj rebels and to the heavily armored horses of the Abbasid throne. Forever, his fame would diminish both as a failure and as a betrayal of the Abbasid throne.

However, this option proposes a scenario where Ya'qub al-Safar defeats the Abbasid army at Dayr al'Aqul. A victory here would be monumental... The vast majority of Abbasid disposable troops were at the battle as the rest were in other fronts. Saffarid victory here leads to a rapid Saffarid push of unrelenting power into Baghdad, which likely surrenders with knowledge of the Abbasid failure. The result is the Abbasid are faced with immediate death and trapped in Samarra with its armies scattered and the Saffarid power threatening to overtake the entirety of Iraq.

Ya'qub al-Safar will only be in his thirties and thus can prosecute a long drawn war in Iraq. This will include a war with Abbasid loyalists, Zanj, Khawarij, Tulunids, Shi'i rebels, Armenians, Kurds and Byzantium. Regardless, this might interest Iranophiles and or anyone like me who enjoys the concept of an even more complex war for supremacy in Iraq.

==============================================================

Option 3: POD 878..... Ever victorious Zanj.

By the year of 877, the Zanj had surprisingly pushed the Abbasid back on nearly every front. Even when Abbasid forces stumbled upon Ali al-Dibaj exposed without a formal army, the Zanj had been able to take the initiative and push them backwards. As well, the effectiveness of Zanj tactics and logistical maneuvering were extremely sophisticated and organized. Zanj armies operated not as a rebel mass by the late 870s, but as a competing government with a vast network of spies and incredible generals. Feigned retreats, ambushes and well timed strikes allowed the Zanj to neutralize the Turkic cavalry of their enemies. As well, the Zanj utilized canal building and galley warfare more than any other army of the period, constantly flooding the Abbasid forces, descending from canal drains, troop transports, galley gunboats of sorts, etc...

All of this culminated in the campaign of Sulayman ibn Jami' the greatest of all Zanj generals. The leading commander of the Zanj armies broke through the marshlands and captured al-Wasit in 879. Sulayman ibn Jami' began construction of a canal to increase his supply lines, but was stopped by the Abbasid forces who invaded led by Caliphal regent Abu Ahmad. Abu Ahmad led the Abbasid into battle and using a feigned retreat (a tactic the Zanj taught them) turned around and routed the Zanj at the battle of Fam al-Silh. The Zanj from this point on began to collapse under the weight of this loss. Losing massive amounts of troops to the Abbasid force, the Zanj were forced into the posture of total retreat, ambush and defense. Further, the complex Zanj logistical network began to deteriorate and break down as the Abbasid barged through the Zanj postions.

However, if the Zanj who outnumbered their foe at Fam al-Silh, defeated and gained another victory even killing Abu Ahmad, this would spell the end of the Abbasid Hegemony. Zanj forces would surge within a few weeks into the Shi'i strongholds of Najaf-Kufa-Karbala gaining a vast amount of allies for the continued war. Zanj armies would then be on the cusp of a siege of Baghdad by the year 880-881... The effects of this are incredible in my opinion.

=======================================================

Option 4: POD Varied.... The Unholy Alliance.

This is one that I explored in another thread regarding the Buyyids. This essentially a scenario where the Abbasids due to its enormous collapse and dependency on the Buyyids, seek out help from the Byzantines both against the Buyyids and against the Fatimid rising power. The Byzantines would, to me, be acceptable to such an offer where the gains could be enormous and an alliance with the Abbasids could be almost as lucrative as any other. Abbasids likewise, would also be equally appreciable to the Byzantines. Already, the Abbasids regarded the Byzantines as an honorable empire and was highly respected by the Mu'Tazilah clique who dreamed of such bureaucratic power. The Abbasid throne would also not be unwilling to use the help of the kuffar, since the Fatimids are already kuffar and the Buyyids are not much better in their opinion.

==========================================

Some other options that I have had that will be put into 'other' category is Ghaznavid-Buyyid war over the protector of the Abbasid throne, Tulunid Sultan Khumarawayh avoids his assassination and the Tulunids remain powerful in Egypt, etc....

The other category however, could be anything that you'd like to see or find interesting PODS or atls for the Abbasid between 829-1000.
Top