WI: An Umayyad Victory at Toulouse?

Rebel

Banned
Now originally I was thinking about the later Battle of Tours, but decided upon Toulouse instead. So what would happen with this victory? My first thought is that the Umayyads would control most or all of Aquitaine, at least for the short term. But from there the situation seems a bit muddled. Charles Martel was off campaigning in Bavaria at around this time, and Aquitaine would be just on his southern border. Would he be able to resist an earlier Umayyid invasion without the period of rest granted by the Umayyids defeat. Now an Islamic France may be a bit too much, but could there be some merit? If Martel is unable to resist the almost certain attack, is there anything else that could check the Umayyids, other than them choosing to stop in order to finish off the Asturians?
 
1) Southern Aquitania became the seventh great vali of Hispania, or it's merged with Septimania

2) It's an highway to ommeyads for plunder all Rhone velley, not until Sens (OTL) but much like Paris

3) Provence would be likely the next step for islamics expeditions

4) Assuming that vascons doesn't surrender, Kingdom of Asturias could hardly resist to al-andalus forces, but at a high coast

5)Or, franks or "romans" push off umeyyads in 50 years, region by region, or (in a better case for islamics powers) Gironde became a new border between Califate and Occidental Christianity
 
Don't forget that only the forces of Eudon of Aquitaine are engaged. Neustria and Austrasia have still their armies, and the possibility to make a Poitiers.

I don't think just because Aquitania lost, Francia would be so fragilized that all his territory his threatened.
 
Even if the Umayyad experienced military success in Frankia/Gaul, the Arabic Caliphate is already extended enough as it is. North Africa was very difficult to control, the Transoxiana and Tokharistan regions in Central Asia were not infrequently contested over with Turkic tribes, and there was a growing movement among Mawali Muslims called the Hashimiyya, led by the Arabic Abbasid family that would later supplant the Umayyads. With all these other internal and external problems, the Umayyads would have great difficulty summoning the manpower to capitalize on their victories in France.

One major problem with the Umayyad Caliphate was that they considered Islam to go hand-in-hand with Arabic cultural identity. The rights of the old Arabic aristocratic clans were considered over those of the non-Arab Muslim converts. The Arabs were outnumbered by their Syrian, Egyptian, Persian, Turkic, and Berber subjects, they were employed as civil servants and soldiers, but were generally barred from further social advancement and apparently forced to continue paying the Jizya (non-Islamic poll tax) even after their conversion.
 

Rebel

Banned
Don't forget that only the forces of Eudon of Aquitaine are engaged.
Neustria and Austrasia have still their armies, and the possibility to make a Poitiers.

I don't think just because Aquitania lost, Francia would be so fragilized that all his territory his threatened.


Of course, the Umayyids have to be halted eventually. But Francia still has its attention directed east rather than west. In 721 he would still be in Bavaria, having already subjugated Austrasia, and in OTL made several more forays to secure his dominance over the Christian powers. The Umayyid defeat at Toulouse gave him both a warning about Islamic interests in France and a period in which he began a professional army, which at Tours proved its worth against the Umayyid cavalry. If he attempts to assemble such an army sooner, he'll run out of funds using it in campaigns in the still unsubjugated Christian states, which in OTL he was able to subjugate and loot freely without having to supply and pay a large professional army, and then used the money to assemble such a force to first campaign in Aquitaine and then against the Umayyids.

But now IITL he has the Umayyids on his doorstep, his eastern flank still unsecured, though much better than a decade earlier and lacking the professional army seen at Tours. The idea of "Christian Brotherhood" just isn't there among him and his neighbors for them to unite their armies in the name of the Pope and God against the heathens. Hell, he actually robbed church lands to fund his army. So my thinking that his defeat is almost certain, and in this situation the question remains whether he attempts to wrap up with the other Christians before getting invaded from the West, or if he makes a limited peace and turns West, in which case he has the possibility of bleeding the Umayyids limited recourses dry before they crush him, limiting the probability of further advances. From there the newly liberated Austrasians or some other group merely needs to strike at the soon to be decaying Caliphate.

Even if the Umayyad experienced military success in Frankia/Gaul, the Arabic Caliphate is already extended enough as it is.
North Africa was very difficult to control, the Transoxiana and Tokharistan regions in Central Asia were not infrequently contested over with Turkic tribes, and there was a growing movement among Mawali Muslims called the Hashimiyya, led by the Arabic Abbasid family that would later supplant the Umayyads. With all these other internal and external problems, the Umayyads would have great difficulty summoning the manpower to capitalize on their victories in France.

One major problem with the Umayyad Caliphate was that they considered Islam to go hand-in-hand with Arabic cultural identity. The rights of the old Arabic aristocratic clans were considered over those of the non-Arab Muslim converts. The Arabs were outnumbered by their Syrian, Egyptian, Persian, Turkic, and Berber subjects, they were employed as civil servants and soldiers, but were generally barred from further social advancement and apparently forced to continue paying the Jizya (non-Islamic poll tax) even after their conversion.


That's the simple fact of the matter. It would be impossible for any success even in Spain to be held in the longterm; the manpower and support just wasn't there. Perhaps Spain could turn out slightly more successful, but eventually things have to fall apart.

I didn't know anything about your second paragraph, but it was good to know. But don't take the premise I've thought up wrong, I have no fantasies about major Islamic advances in the long term or even short term.
 
What? None of that is true at all! Muslims didn't pay Jizya after conversion, and the Caliphate had plenty of manpower from conquered areas. Egypt wasn't culturally Arabic, nor any other part of the former Roman Empire. The Muslim parts of Spain were Muslim-majority by the time of the Reconquista. For that matter, most of the Muslims in the initial invasion weren't Arabs at all, but Berbers, who also aren't culturally Arab.

If the Caliphate had won at Toulouse, it might have been hard for Martel to consolidate his authority and be able to resist further inroads. I think it's probably not all that likely that France could be conquered, at least not in the long-term, but the extra time could allow Iberia to be totally subdued and integrated and permanently Muslim.
 
I see a problem with the idea of the Umayyids subduing all Iberia, including the Asturias. Had they some incentive or interest to do that? I mean, nothing was worth to them there. It was a montanous area (Asturias), inhabited by a bunch a "barbarians" and not very productive. Bear in mind that the so-called Reconquista started thanks to the relative "vacuum" of population north to the Duero after the Berbers occuping the zone left. But it followed a dynamic that wasn't new at all. Periodic raids from the northern moutains were known since the roman domination, if not before, probably due also to periodic crisis of demographic sustainability in the Cantabric Chain. The difference is that this time they found land to colonize and no resistence. I think the only interest that the Umeyyids could eventually have in the zone would be related to the control of these raids, if the muslim internal divisions are butterflied and the berbers still stay north of the Duero. But that doesn't imply forcefully the conquest of the Asturias. Punitive expeditions (like the so-called "battle of Covadonga") could be enough.
 
I see a problem with the idea of the Umayyids subduing all Iberia, including the Asturias. Had they some incentive or interest to do that? I mean, nothing was worth to them there. It was a montanous area (Asturias), inhabited by a bunch a "barbarians" and not very productive. Bear in mind that the so-called Reconquista started thanks to the relative "vacuum" of population north to the Duero after the Berbers occuping the zone left. But it followed a dynamic that wasn't new at all. Periodic raids from the northern moutains were known since the roman domination, if not before, probably due also to periodic crisis of demographic sustainability in the Cantabric Chain. The difference is that this time they found land to colonize and no resistence. I think the only interest that the Umeyyids could eventually have in the zone would be related to the control of these raids, if the muslim internal divisions are butterflied and the berbers still stay north of the Duero. But that doesn't imply forcefully the conquest of the Asturias. Punitive expeditions (like the so-called "battle of Covadonga") could be enough.

That's a good point, but victory tends to breed success and unity, and if not faced with a big threat to the north, perhaps the northern Iberia would get more attention than it did in OTL.
 
What? None of that is true at all! Muslims didn't pay Jizya after conversion, and the Caliphate had plenty of manpower from conquered areas. Egypt wasn't culturally Arabic, nor any other part of the former Roman Empire. The Muslim parts of Spain were Muslim-majority by the time of the Reconquista. For that matter, most of the Muslims in the initial invasion weren't Arabs at all, but Berbers, who also aren't culturally Arab.

If the Caliphate had won at Toulouse, it might have been hard for Martel to consolidate his authority and be able to resist further inroads. I think it's probably not all that likely that France could be conquered, at least not in the long-term, but the extra time could allow Iberia to be totally subdued and integrated and permanently Muslim.
Umayyads did indeed like to treat Islam as the religion of aristocracy. Even when subjects converted they did not have the opportunities compared to Arab Muslims. Why on earth did the Abbasids gain any traction? Arabs were placed at the top of hierarchy with other peoples to administer but the top was Arab. This was a major bone of contention during Abd ar-Rahman's success and previously. The Berbers were angry for instance because they did the fighting to gain Al-Andalus but they got screwed over the Arabs. Explain to me why even when the Almoravids first appeared Berber customs and such were mocked? It was only after it became a part of the North African empires that this changed. In Al-Andalus, to be in power or advance was to take on the cultural stylings of the Arabs hence the Mozarabic population.

And when are you dating the Reconquista? It's supposed to start at Covadonga right? Further, Muslims weren't a majority in Al-Andalus until Abd ar-Rahman III + Al-Manzor. The 10th Century glory years are when there was mass conversion before that it was may a third of the populace. But they were organized and had monopoly of force and the mass of the populace was not. If you want to date is starting after the end of the Caliphate of Cordoba, go right ahead but it's not a dating system I have ever seen before.

Now new converts had a great way to advance under the Umayyads by conquering. I'll not quibble with your manpower comment obviously. I do know that there were a few instances of new converts continuing to pay the poll tax. I can't remember if that was common practice or if it was rogue Muslim walis that did that. In the long term it was the exception of course. I know it's happened but I don't know any more than that.

As to the removing the strife from Al-Andalus.... you have to make the rulers of Al-Andalus actually abide by Islam. In Al-Andalus rulers used their particular grouping to keep power. Because under Islam everyone was equal, those Muslims who weren't were disgruntled and rose up to gain powerful for themselves. And because under Islam everyone is equal, anyone who ruled who was a Muslim had the same legitimacy as everyone else theoretically.
 
It seems Muawiyah I, the first Umayyad Caliph once told a regional Wali Zayid ibn Abih in a letter that Persian Muslims weren't to be trusted. They were not allowed to marry Arabic woman and were to be given lesser pensions and jobs.

Abd al-Malik, whom reigned between 685-705 CE, made Arabic the official language of administration across the Empire, as well as adopting a unified currency. Ever since the capital had been relocated to the then Greek-speaking city of Damascus, the pool of civil servants and scribes had been initially drawn from local Greek and Aramaic Christians. But with the large presence of Arab military garrisons, he was probably convinced to retain their loyalty, and his reforms convinced alot of local elite Christian families to adopt Arabic ways and customs in order to advance socially.

His successor, Al-Walid I, furthered the Umayyad program of Arabization of indigenous Muslims, especially as the Coptic and Persian subjects each had long literary traditions, which threatened the Arabic cultural primacy. It was probably thought to enhance the power of admin over the Caliphate's far-flung territories. The conquest of Al-Andalus occured during his reign.
 

Rebel

Banned
I see a problem with the idea of the Umayyids subduing all Iberia, including the Asturias. Had they some incentive or interest to do that? I mean, nothing was worth to them there. It was a montanous area (Asturias), inhabited by a bunch a "barbarians" and not very productive. Bear in mind that the so-called Reconquista started thanks to the relative "vacuum" of population north to the Duero after the Berbers occuping the zone left. But it followed a dynamic that wasn't new at all. Periodic raids from the northern moutains were known since the roman domination, if not before, probably due also to periodic crisis of demographic sustainability in the Cantabric Chain. The difference is that this time they found land to colonize and no resistence. I think the only interest that the Umeyyids could eventually have in the zone would be related to the control of these raids, if the muslim internal divisions are butterflied and the berbers still stay north of the Duero. But that doesn't imply forcefully the conquest of the Asturias. Punitive expeditions (like the so-called "battle of Covadonga") could be enough.

I'm thinking that for at least 20+ years after beating Martel the Umayyids will have little to no opposition from the other Christian nations. Given this, and perhaps a chance to avenge Covadonga, a force will be sent north to at least establish control over the major towns and cities, with the remaining resistance being weeded out over the years. After that rest period, however, one of the nations now unconqeured by Martel (Saxony perhaps?) will assume enough dominance to wage several bloody wars with whatever Caliphate now rules France. The result will likely be a draw in which the Christians gain some land, with this continuing until most of France is reconquered, barring Islamic holdouts in Aquitaine. Spain would become a center of Islamic wealth and power, and a few hundred years down the line becoming a major player in colonization. This is supposing that the Pyraenees serve as a barrier to further Crusades.

But France and Spain aside, what happens to Italy, Sardinia, Corsica, and of course, Sicily?
 
It seems Muawiyah I, the first Umayyad Caliph once told a regional Wali Zayid ibn Abih in a letter that Persian Muslims weren't to be trusted. They were not allowed to marry Arabic woman and were to be given lesser pensions and jobs.

Abd al-Malik, whom reigned between 685-705 CE, made Arabic the official language of administration across the Empire, as well as adopting a unified currency. Ever since the capital had been relocated to the then Greek-speaking city of Damascus, the pool of civil servants and scribes had been initially drawn from local Greek and Aramaic Christians. But with the large presence of Arab military garrisons, he was probably convinced to retain their loyalty, and his reforms convinced alot of local elite Christian families to adopt Arabic ways and customs in order to advance socially.

His successor, Al-Walid I, furthered the Umayyad program of Arabization of indigenous Muslims, especially as the Coptic and Persian subjects each had long literary traditions, which threatened the Arabic cultural primacy. It was probably thought to enhance the power of admin over the Caliphate's far-flung territories. The conquest of Al-Andalus occured during his reign.

The Greek-speaking city of Damascus?!? AHHHHHHHGH!!!!!! It was not Greek-speaking, it was Aramaic, which is related to Arabic.

Also, this whole "Arabic customs" thing is getting out of hand. The Caliphate spread over a huge area and absorbed "customs" from all over the place. It's not unexpected that they wanted to use Arabic as the language of government - much like the Romans used Latin, the Ottomans used Ottoman Turkish, etc. While initially the empire was dominated by its conquerors politically, other than linguistically there wasn't any particular drive to maintain Hijazi culture throughout. If you look at the mosque built by the Caliph you're referring to, it's profoundly Byzantine-looking.
 
That's a good point, but victory tends to breed success and unity, and if not faced with a big threat to the north, perhaps the northern Iberia would get more attention than it did in OTL.

I'm thinking that for at least 20+ years after beating Martel the Umayyids will have little to no opposition from the other Christian nations. Given this, and perhaps a chance to avenge Covadonga, a force will be sent north to at least establish control over the major towns and cities, with the remaining resistance being weeded out over the years. After that rest period, however, one of the nations now unconqeured by Martel (Saxony perhaps?) will assume enough dominance to wage several bloody wars with whatever Caliphate now rules France. The result will likely be a draw in which the Christians gain some land, with this continuing until most of France is reconquered, barring Islamic holdouts in Aquitaine. Spain would become a center of Islamic wealth and power, and a few hundred years down the line becoming a major player in colonization. This is supposing that the Pyraenees serve as a barrier to further Crusades.

But France and Spain aside, what happens to Italy, Sardinia, Corsica, and of course, Sicily?

Of course it's not imposible a muslim conquest of Asturias. But even the romans had a laxe dominance in the zone. Also, they could take the main cities (they were raided several times), but still the mountanous terrain is favorable for ambush etc. A tributary but independent state (well, political entity) would be cheaper (in fact it would provide revenue) and less risky, I think.

and perhaps a chance to avenge Covadonga, a force will be sent north to at least establish control over the major towns and cities

Covadonga is a myth fabricated a posteriori in the Mozarabe Chronicle with political intentions. Also the concept of Reconquista was coined in that chronicle (late IXth century). For the muslims, and probably also for the christian before the aforementioned Mozarabe Chronicle, it was only one of many skirmishes, not very important.

Originally posted by Al-Maqqari
About Covadonga: "Thirty savage donkeys, how could they harm us?"
 
Last edited:
The Greek-speaking city of Damascus?!? AHHHHHHHGH!!!!!! It was not Greek-speaking, it was Aramaic, which is related to Arabic.

It was on the periphery of Roman-Byzantine rule in the east. Now perhaps I should have said the "administraters were Greek-speaking", but so were most Syrian cities before the Arabic conquest.

Also, this whole "Arabic customs" thing is getting out of hand. The Caliphate spread over a huge area and absorbed "customs" from all over the place. It's not unexpected that they wanted to use Arabic as the language of government - much like the Romans used Latin, the Ottomans used Ottoman Turkish, etc. While initially the empire was dominated by its conquerors politically, other than linguistically there wasn't any particular drive to maintain Hijazi culture throughout.

Yes, gradually. But then they needed the traditions of bureaucratic expertise from the Arameans, Copts, Greeks, and Persians before building up their own. Nevertheless, before the Abbasid era, Islamic benefits and priveliges were mainly enjoyed by either Arabs or Arabized-assimilated Mawali families. Any other Muslim converts that still clung to their roots probably weren't considered proper Muslims. The Umayyads adopted non-Arabic practices as was necessary, but usually denied the conquered people top jobs within the regime.


If you look at the mosque built by the Caliph you're referring to, it's profoundly Byzantine-looking

Wasn't the Umayyad Mosque built on the site of a Roman Christian Basilica of John the Baptist to start with?
 
Wasn't the Umayyad Mosque built on the site of a Roman Christian Basilica of John the Baptist to start with?
They built it like the Byzantines because that's the only sophisticated cultural references they had at the time. Using that is not a great example because there was not a choice between Arab and Roman, it was a choice between nothing and Roman.
 
They built it like the Byzantines because that's the only sophisticated cultural references they had at the time. Using that is not a great example because there was not a choice between Arab and Roman, it was a choice between nothing and Roman.

? The Arabs weren't a bunch of guys on camels wandering wide-eyed into civilization for the first time. Mecca and Medina were large trade cities with wide exposure to the rest of the world. Besides their own architectural traditions, they also had familiarity with Persian and Indian forms.
 
They built it like the Byzantines because that's the only sophisticated cultural references they had at the time. Using that is not a great example because there was not a choice between Arab and Roman, it was a choice between nothing and Roman.

? The Arabs weren't a bunch of guys on camels wandering wide-eyed into civilization for the first time. Mecca and Medina were large trade cities with wide exposure to the rest of the world. Besides their own architectural traditions, they also had familiarity with Persian and Indian forms.

Roman style in prestige matter, was certainly only matched by Persian, and because Umayyads had their base in a formerly Roman territory. But Pasha' point stands too.
 
Top