What if the Arabs win the siege of Constantinople

We'd all be Muslims now, I guess.

Alright, let's actually look at this REALISTICALLY. The world is basically gonna be shattered. Within a century, these "barbarians" have just taken over two of the world's most powerful countries (next to China). The Arabs will advance into Anatolia, which butterflies away that regions Turkification, possibly resulting in an Arabization instead. Charles Martel may have less confidence in his ability to fight the Arabs when they invade Gaul historically (if they still do, which, lets be honest, they probably will), possibly resulting in an Arab victory at Tours or an equivalent battle, the conquest of Gaul, and so on, the rest of Europe. Of course, there are still the Germans and Italians, but pressed up against the Arabs from both sides, it seems hard to fight back.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Of course, there are still the Germans and Italians, but pressed up against the Arabs from both sides, it seems hard to fight back.
They probably wouldn't be able to hold out against the Muslims forever, though.

Also, I wonder if the Islamization of Europe would have completely butterflied away the Industrial Revolution; indeed, any thoughts on this?
 
What would happen if the Arabs had successfully won the siege of Constantinople in 717-718 AD?
The siege of Constantinople in 717 was more or less unwinnable for Arabs : they managed to gather an impressive army, but never really broke the Roman logistical lines while the Arab army was badly supplied itself.
Simply said, Romans were (while in the misdt of political infighting and civil war) well prepared to the incoming Arab assault, and their naval superiority eventually prevented Arabs to have a real go at the siege.

At best, I could see Maslama giving it up and leaving enough men around the walls to prevent a sortie, and beggining to ravage Anatolian lowlands.

You'd have a better (if not evident) chances with the Siege of 676, IMO, if Constantine IV was defeated before the walls.
 
Charles Martel may have less confidence in his ability to fight the Arabs when they invade Gaul historically
Giving that you had little occurences in contemporary chronicles about what happened in the eastern basin of Mediterranean Sea, I doubt it to be honest : not that the fall of Constantinople wouldn't be known and debated, of course, but it wouldn't be that of a political low point, as the fall of Carthage went largely (politically-wise) unnoticed in the West.

As for the invasion of Gaul, remember that the Islamic West (roughly Ifriiqya-Maghrib-Andalus) could be seen as a rough equivalent of a vice-royalty : while acknowledging caliphal authority and general directives (altough not always, as Yazid's decrees tended to be ignored), they were largely autonomous in political, fiscal and military matters. As such, Arabo-Berbers always had a problem with military resources and numbers, and eventually never made more than big raids north of Pyrennes (with three garrisons at best in Gaul in mid-730's : Narbonne, Carcassonne, Avignon; keeping in mind that they were forced to give a lot of autonomy to Christian lords in these regions).

See, Tours itself wasn't an epic battle between two immense armies that decided the fate of Gaul, Europe, the Universe and suburbs; but rather a battle to be understood as part of an ensemble of battles (Toulouse/Tours/La Berre) (even if it was inflated by Carolingian hagiographs in order to point out Peppinids were truly the defeders of religion and Fracia)

The successful raids of 725/726 that plundered all the Rhone valley and reached up to Sens (which is more North and actually part of Francia proper, than Tours was) are barely mentioned because they obviously not led to an occupation, and that Charles Martel didn't cared much about it (being busy in Bavaria).
Arabo-Berbers campaigns, rather than invasions and trying to occupy territories (altough I could see southern Aquitaine being occupied for a time) they couldn't hold because of few troops; were generalized raids (in the case of 732, doubled with a political point, as Eudon tried to ally himself with Berbers, something that Abd al-Rahman wouldn't let slide)

It doesn't mean Charles would have won the battle in any configuration, but Frankish ressources would have been untouched, and the military problems of Arabo-Berbers wouldn't go away.
Which is more interesting IMO, is what would give Arabs doing better at Constantinople (without taking the city, tough, see above) with let's say the conquest of the entiere Asia Minor : IOTL, Romans managed to keep the naval edge even in the nadir of the VIIIth century. But the threat to Constantinople would be very real with a probable third siege incoming.
My guess is that you'd end up with a relocation in Sicily or western Balkans, and the loss and peripherisation of Agean Sea and Thracia would probably weaken this naval strength for awhile (altough it could certainly contain Arabo-Berbers from Ifriqiya, at least in middle term).

A rump Roman Empire in southern and eastern Italy and western Balkans would not be able to assert its authority (except maybe as formal overlord of southern Lombard duchies in time), and is going trough worse decades than the VIIIth century had for them, but wouldn't disappear overnight and would be able IMO, to withstand the troubles (especially as the Caliphate is going to have its own inner troubles, with the Berber revolt in West, and the still likely Third Fitna in the East).
It would still make Islam particularily strong ITTL, probably leading to an Islamization of Volga trade roads.

With such an early PoD, there's no saying if an Islamic empire wouldn't pull an Ottoman and swallow at least a significant part of Europe from a better position, of course : but for the forseeable future, I wouldn't see an Islamic-Borg timeline.
 
Well to start off, I don't think the siege you're talking about can succeed. I personally think a Battle of the Masts PoD is the best way to get what you want. The specifics of what happens will depend on which PoD you choose but I'll write out some generalities below.

I've heard people say that the Arabs would be too stretched to deal with the Balkan barbarians and Western Europe. I don't agree with that at all. The state that conquered Iran and East Rome will have no problem crushing people leagues less developed. Remember that a tiny minority of Arabs with a bunch of recently Islamicized Berbers was able to conquer almost all of Spain and hold it for centuries with no help from the rest of the Caliphate. It's not comparable to a place like India wherein the "pagan" polities were rich, populous, and sophisticated.

While conquering Anatolia and the Balkans does stretch the Arabs further, it also gives them access to more pagans like the Bulgarians that can be used in the same way the Berbers were. Western Europe will be facing the full might of the Caliphate without the major drain of the Romans. At the very least, I think Italy, North Africa, Spain, and France would be conquered. What happens after is less certain but Al-Andalus was able to hold out for a long time on its own. Arabs being in Constantinople means that they're in a natural position to rule the territory of the Roman Empire (contrast to trying to rule Spain from Damascus). Northern Europe will naturally take on Islam for the same reason it took on Christianity OTL-it's part of the "civilisational package".

@LSCatilina What do think of the argument made in the article The First Arab Siege of Constantinople by Marek Jankowiak? It argues that the first siege was actually in the 660's, not the 670's. I've heard it said that this is generally the view of most modern scholarship as well (for example, In God's Path by Robert G. Holland).
 
I've heard people say that the Arabs would be too stretched to deal with the Balkan barbarians and Western Europe. I don't agree with that at all. The state that conquered Iran and East Rome will have no problem crushing people leagues less developed.
Thing is, Arabo-Berber record is relatively mixed in Europe, mostly because of aformentioned military (as well as political troubles with Berbers and among Arabs, namely between Kalbids and Kaysits) : it's because the Caliphate was stretched that the whole of Islamic West turned to be largely independent even in the VIIIth century.
Now, does that means it would be too stretched to deal with local powers? Not as such, but more the Caliphate expends, more autonomy to the periphery, and more local issues to deal with.

Remember that a tiny minority of Arabs with a bunch of recently Islamicized Berbers was able to conquer almost all of Spain and hold it for centuries
They more or less did to count on local Gothic subservience, tough : it mostly worked for the richer parts of Spain (where Arab settlement was focused), not so much for the places where Berbers were settled (partially due to the Great Berber Revolt) or none was. Eventually Arabo-Berbers managed to hold on on the "worthwile" Spain (or so they rationalized, because Lower Languedoc was a regional powerhouse), but failed the numbers and ressources (or political will, truth to be said) to hold on the rest, let alone continue the expansion.

The situation would be different for what matter Balkans, tough, would it be only because it's far much closer to Arabo-Islamic cores and to Arab reinforcements : but the fronts began to multiply, and swallowing up Asia Minor isn't going to be a piece of cake (logistically-wise). It's not so much going in Europe would be impossible or doomed to fail, but it would take time giving that Roman naval power would be still there : eventually, the repercussion of quick conquest will happen (as pointed above, Berber revolt and Muladi revolts) which would be a distraction there.

If you allow me an aside there : striking huge victories against big empires or even conquering them doesn't mean that everyone is going to fail. Conquistadors managed to takedown the Triple Alliance and Tawantinsuyu, but never to really vainquish "Barbarians" peoples at their periphery. The compaison is ill-fitting of course, but you see my point I think.

@LSCatilina What do think of the argument made in the article The First Arab Siege of Constantinople by Marek Jankowiak? It argues that the first siege was actually in the 660's, not the 670's. I've heard it said that this is generally the view of most modern scholarship as well (for example, In God's Path by Robert G. Holland).
I don't think anything, because I didn't know this argument as such, altough I looked (a tiny bit) on the argument about the sheer inexistence of the First Arab Siege, but I'm wary about discarding all Byzantine sources for the sake of it, personally.
Now this argument is interesting, and he's right that it's a muddy ground for Byzantine history (the VIIth century was really a low point for the empire, and its records), and considering the First Arab Siege as sort of a "meta-siege" (as Athens knew against Spartans in the Peloponesian War) seems plausible to me (I know it's not exactly his argument, as he rather point to a short failed siege with armies roaming the region, tough)

I entierly agree with giving more credence to Syriac sources, tough (I mean, if we consider the chronicle of 754 usable, I don't see why we shouldn't there) and to give a lesser importance to "History-Battle" and a miraculous aura to the Sieges, and more to the capacities of the Empire (especially remembering people that the western regions of the Empire were still there and a strength).
 
Top