WI Ali defeats and kills Muawaiyah

For those of you who don't know, Muawaiyah was the first of the Umayyad caliphs, having took power after politically out-manouvering Ali Ibn Talib (who actually came out better in the battle of Siffin). His rise to powers ending the semi-republican system of the Rashidun caliphs and instituted an hereditary dynasty.

So simply put, what if the battle of Siffin was much more decisive then in real life. Say Ali captures or kills Muawaiyah and routs his army. Does he manage to keep control of the Caliphate? And does the succession stay within his family, or does someone else take power after he dies?
 
So simply put, what if the battle of Siffin was much more decisive then in real life. Say Ali captures or kills Muawaiyah and routs his army. Does he manage to keep control of the Caliphate? And does the succession stay within his family, or does someone else take power after he dies?

I'm no expert, but I believe that at the time of the Umayyad succession, the Caliphate was starting to run into some problems, especially in Egypt, with collecting tax revenues from the still pretty much entirely Christian populace, with the Arabs point blank refusing to interact with the local Christian bigwigs. No Umayyad revolution might mean this situation could get worse. The ERE is still in a very bad way, of course, so this isn't going to mean the Caliphate crumbles, but it could well drastically slow down or even avert the conquest of the Exarchate of Africa and the Visigothic state. Wikipedia talks about these campaigns taking place in the reign of 'Ali, but it is talking bullshit- they're up for butterflying.

Continuing rule by 'Ali and his descendants might have interesting long term implications for the Islamic world when it splinters- perhaps only those who are related to the Prophet will be able to hold supreme political power, and others will be marginalised?
 
Alid Caliphate. Descendants of Ali are known as Alids.

ED: I suppose a minor possibility would be the Alawite/Alawid Caliphate.
 
Alid Caliphate. Descendants of Ali are known as Alids.
Works better then the Caliphate of Shia-wank (im sure this has to be a first here).

Well, if BG is right and no Ummayad revolution stops (or slows) the expansion of the Caliphate, then could this have an effect on the later cultural achievements that happened OTL? I've always been under the impression that some of these achievements were helped by cultural exchange with Tang China, but if you take away that exchange, as well as transform the political situation, would that effect the development of Muslim intellectual culture? Or even butterfly the golden age of Islamic science?
 
Why not just Rashidun Caliphate?
Because Rashidun was a term invented during the Abbasid Period. Before that they were just Khalifa. But once the Abbasids came around, they thought the Umayyads were barely Muslim scum and so less legitimate than the first four and themselves. Thus Rashidun for the pre-Umayyads began. In a legitimate succession, Ali's descendants would just be Kahlifa al-Khalifat (successor of the successor) eventually ending with al-Rasool Allah (...of the Messenger of God) with a new one tacked on for each new ruler.

ED: And also why the Abbasids called themselves Amir Al-Mu'minin instead.
 
Last edited:
I do wonder how the ERE would take advantage of a crumbeling Caliphate.

Crumbling probably isn't quite the term for no Umayyads- the Caliphate won't collapse precisely because the ERE isn't strong enough to mount a sustained offensive. Best case scenario for the Romans is to push the Arabs out of all of their bases on the Taurus and to retake the strongpoints, and to re-establish naval hegemony and domination over the Caucasus. Much further than that, even expansion in Cilicia and northern Syria, is, I think, beyond the scope of Constantinople at this low ebb.

The ERE is more likely to benefit passively from a prolonged period of uncertainty in the Caliphate, which I see as likely in a world without Umayyads. There won't be a siege of Constantinople to distract the competent Constantine IV from properly getting a hand on the Balkan situation, for example, and the wealthy Exarchate of Africa could well remain within the Imperial orbit, which will certainly help in the long run.

But this is a discussion on the nature of the Caliphate, not on the prospects of the Roman Empire. So, here's one for those who know more than me (I'm looking at you, MNP). Does a continued Caliphal reign by Ali and his heirs avert the "Persianization" of the Caliphate?
 
But this is a discussion on the nature of the Caliphate, not on the prospects of the Roman Empire. So, here's one for those who know more than me (I'm looking at you, MNP). Does a continued Caliphal reign by Ali and his heirs avert the "Persianization" of the Caliphate?
That's a tough one.

If I may think out loud.... The growing size and complexity of the empire demands a deeper administration than the Rashidun. Ali's power bases were the Hijaz and Iraq (regional Iraq, not the Jazira) with a small core in Egypt. Iraq was one of the major Sassanid lands and Ali will not oppress Persians just because they're not Arabs. Ali will support anyone who expands the empire, or performs their duties well (that's how he formed the Shia). Ah, but I forgot 'Amr ibn al-'As who would probably be killed at Siffin were it a crushing victory for Ali. He'd probably be able to conciliate Egypt after that.

Hmm, I think in the end, Persian influences would predominate in a Caliphate that Ali established. Egypt would be an influence the other way, but I think a restive Levant discontented against Ali would suck up Egyptian resources and influence. I think we'd see a merging of the Rashidun administration with the Sassanid instead of the more wholesale adoption of the Sassanid in the immediate future. That means one that's less extensive and more decentralized. Also that the army will probably remain organized around Rashidun lines since the Umayyads changed quite a bit about army and armed and armored them in the style of the eastern empire. I think that will mean they'll fight in the Persian style (spearmen protecting archers, with cavalry as decisive wings).
 
Last edited:
At this time, actually it is doubtful that the Shi'a was entirely committed to Ali's rule on a dynastic basis. So, the election system may indeed endure longer. A victorious Shi'a could never come to see the House of Ali as the only legitimate rulers. After his death, his "party" could splinter and the supporters of his sons are not sure to be the majority. I wonder who his successors, other than either Hasan or Husayn, may be (butterflies!). Abdallah ibn al-Abbas could have a chance, and so does Ibn al-Zubayr.
 
And Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya is also a possible successor later.
I think it would be interesting if Muhammad the Pure Soul took over.

Also even if his followers weren't committed to Ali's rule on a dynastic basis, Ali seemed committed to Ali's rule on a dynastic basis. So he'll attempt to hand it over intact before he dies.
 
Top