Charlemagne is very well known for having driven off the Moorish armies in the battle of Poiters. This ended the conquests of the Umayyads into western Europe. What would it take for a successful conquest of Europe to happen?
WI: Islam the dominant religion of Europe by 1000 AD
- Thread starter QueenofScots
- Start date
Actually it was Charlemagne's grandfather Charles the Hammer, Martel who drove back the Umayyad's at the battle of Battle of Tours, (also called the Battle of Poitiers) all you really need to do is have him lose the battle, if the Christians are crushed there there is very little that could stop the Umayyad's from advancing into the heart of Europe.
Thanks for the correction. Wow, to think so much rested on one battle.
The Battle of Tours was just a raid, the Umayyads didn't have the logistics or desire for a full invasion of France.
Yeah, this. The battle was considered a huge thing in classical historiography, but modern revisionists tend to downplay it. Bernard Lewis notes that the Arabs themselves didn't think much of the battle, but were more worried about their failure to conquer Constantinople. Western Europe was basically a bunch of barbarians at this point.
A subtler and possibly more interesting WI is WI the Umayyads had managed to consolidate rule over all of Iberia, without leaving a narrow coastal strip in the north under Christian rule, from which it was possible to launch the Reconquista.
Al-Rum was definitely the prize to be had as it was the site Muhhamad instructed them to capture and thus the Umayyad exerted upmost efforts in strangling Byzantium.
I would say Tours was a major battle but of less significance to the Umayyad than Constantinople or the greater Byzantine and Khazaria conflicts. That being said, make no mistake, the Umayyad did plan on invading France, however, it was and is impossible as the population base is far too large for the extended Arab tribal numbers to compete with.
Last edited:
But, if as Alon suggests, they get 100 percent of Iberia south of the Pyrenees ridge line, and intrude here or there north of it, might it not then be just a matter of time, if they incrementally win their way north and east, region by region?
Actually the thing that bothers me more about Al-Andalus than the fact that small Christian kingdoms existed to try to shove it back, was that apparently far more often than not the Islamic ruled part of Iberia was politically disunited. If on the contrary to getting all of Iberia they got say less than half of what they overran initially, but the Muslim territory remained under unified rule, I'd predict the "Reconquista" to run backward--for the Islamic state, as long as it did remain unified, to keep winning and wear down the Christian north, absorb it, and then later start making inroads in Aquitaine, Gascony, Provence, etc.
I suppose there must have been deep reasons why Muslim Al-Andalus was difficult to bring and keep under one government. I just find it strange because I'd have thought they'd surely feel somewhat besieged by Nazarenes and therefore more likely to fall in line with a strong Muslim leader.
But maybe that assumption is wrong because they weren't thinking in terms of manifest destinies, of which continents "naturally" belonged to whom; that once the initial conquering generation had passed and their descendants who were born in Iberia had grown up there, they just figured they lived "here" and the fact that geographers defined it as part of "Europe" meant nothing to them, still less the notion that "Europe is Christian territory" therefore "we had better pull together then." That they had surged into Iberia, not as a phase of some grand master plan to convert all Europe, but because an opportunity had opened up and so they expanded a bit. When their conquering roll came to a check, they just stopped there and let that be the border between Islamic and Christian spheres.
I'm pretty sure there was some meta-narrative among the Muslims that they ought to be prevailing in the long run, and even that they themselves were called upon to contribute to this inevitable fate. But clearly it wasn't something they were fanatically devoted to from waking in the morning to going to sleep at night.
I'm always on the lookout for a more successful Al-Andalus but I'm never too sure when I see them how realistic they are.
Actually the thing that bothers me more about Al-Andalus than the fact that small Christian kingdoms existed to try to shove it back, was that apparently far more often than not the Islamic ruled part of Iberia was politically disunited. If on the contrary to getting all of Iberia they got say less than half of what they overran initially, but the Muslim territory remained under unified rule, I'd predict the "Reconquista" to run backward--for the Islamic state, as long as it did remain unified, to keep winning and wear down the Christian north, absorb it, and then later start making inroads in Aquitaine, Gascony, Provence, etc.
I suppose there must have been deep reasons why Muslim Al-Andalus was difficult to bring and keep under one government. I just find it strange because I'd have thought they'd surely feel somewhat besieged by Nazarenes and therefore more likely to fall in line with a strong Muslim leader.
But maybe that assumption is wrong because they weren't thinking in terms of manifest destinies, of which continents "naturally" belonged to whom; that once the initial conquering generation had passed and their descendants who were born in Iberia had grown up there, they just figured they lived "here" and the fact that geographers defined it as part of "Europe" meant nothing to them, still less the notion that "Europe is Christian territory" therefore "we had better pull together then." That they had surged into Iberia, not as a phase of some grand master plan to convert all Europe, but because an opportunity had opened up and so they expanded a bit. When their conquering roll came to a check, they just stopped there and let that be the border between Islamic and Christian spheres.
I'm pretty sure there was some meta-narrative among the Muslims that they ought to be prevailing in the long run, and even that they themselves were called upon to contribute to this inevitable fate. But clearly it wasn't something they were fanatically devoted to from waking in the morning to going to sleep at night.
I'm always on the lookout for a more successful Al-Andalus but I'm never too sure when I see them how realistic they are.
I'm not an expert on Al-Andalus or Charles Martel.
Maybe a defeat at Tours wouldn't mean an automatic collaps/conquest of the Franks.
But a defeat in Tours combined with other defeats after Tours could destabilize the Frankish Empire, and bring some of the southern parts of Gallia under the rule of Al-Andalus.
The stability of the reign of a early medieval ruler is often dependent on his ability to win battles. After several defeats, powerful counts or dukes could try to gain more power.
Charles Martell isn't king, he is just mayor of the palace, therefore either other nobles could try to gain his title, or the king (Theuderic IV.) could try to regain some power.
If Charles Martel dies during one of these fights, or during some battles against Al-Andalus his three sons Carloman, Pepin and Grifo could fight against each other for more power.
A intelligent ruler from Al-Andalus could use these fights to increase his power and territory either fast or slow.
Another way would be using Italy.
Sicily was conquered between 827-902
A Muslim Sicily could overtake southern Italy if the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire is weak and Northern Italy fragmented.
After the conquest of Byzantine Southern Italy and the Duchy of Benevent, Rom is near enough for conquest.
But 827-902 is sadly to late for your idea. Therefore, it would be good to find a way to conquer Sicily 100 years earlier.
Any Muslim conquest of Rome could weaken the Papacy significantly. The Pope or his successor would have three options:
- Flee to Constantinople -> weakened Papacy under the Eastern Roman Empire
- Flee to Francia -> weakened western Papacy, under the Influence of Frankish Kings (as long as Francia isn't conquered by someone else)
- Remain in Rome -> weakened Papacy under Muslim rule.
(But I don't know enough about the Muslim powers at the 8. or 9. century to suggest someone with the ambition to conquer new lands.)
If you manage to combine 2 of the three following options, you could weaken the Christian Realms significantly.
a) Fall of Francia
b) Fall of Italy
c) Fall of Constantinople
a) and b) would weaken Christianity in Western Europe. Ambitious Christian nobles could perhaps convert after the decisive defeats of Christianity. Christianity in Great Britain would be isolated. The Eastern Roman Empire could still try to convert the Slaws.
a) and c) would nearly isolate Italy. England is also isolated. Also the christian conversion of the Slaws could be prevented.
b) and c), Maybe a Western European Christianity (Francia and Great Britain, perhaps also some territories in the East of Francia) develops), if there is a Muslim conversion of the Slaws after the Fall of Constantinople it is still possible to have a Muslim domination of Europe.
Even after these conquests you need at least several generations of conversion. A intelligent Muslim ruler would tolerate Christian subjects but tax them.
If we have a Muslim dominated Europe, this could perhaps increase cultural transfer and trade across the Mediterranean.
I don't know much of Islam, but if we have a Muslim dominated Europe, perhaps some Schisms could develop, which could lead to a distinct European branch of Islam.
Maybe a defeat at Tours wouldn't mean an automatic collaps/conquest of the Franks.
But a defeat in Tours combined with other defeats after Tours could destabilize the Frankish Empire, and bring some of the southern parts of Gallia under the rule of Al-Andalus.
The stability of the reign of a early medieval ruler is often dependent on his ability to win battles. After several defeats, powerful counts or dukes could try to gain more power.
Charles Martell isn't king, he is just mayor of the palace, therefore either other nobles could try to gain his title, or the king (Theuderic IV.) could try to regain some power.
If Charles Martel dies during one of these fights, or during some battles against Al-Andalus his three sons Carloman, Pepin and Grifo could fight against each other for more power.
A intelligent ruler from Al-Andalus could use these fights to increase his power and territory either fast or slow.
Another way would be using Italy.
Sicily was conquered between 827-902
A Muslim Sicily could overtake southern Italy if the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire is weak and Northern Italy fragmented.
After the conquest of Byzantine Southern Italy and the Duchy of Benevent, Rom is near enough for conquest.
But 827-902 is sadly to late for your idea. Therefore, it would be good to find a way to conquer Sicily 100 years earlier.
Any Muslim conquest of Rome could weaken the Papacy significantly. The Pope or his successor would have three options:
- Flee to Constantinople -> weakened Papacy under the Eastern Roman Empire
- Flee to Francia -> weakened western Papacy, under the Influence of Frankish Kings (as long as Francia isn't conquered by someone else)
- Remain in Rome -> weakened Papacy under Muslim rule.
(But I don't know enough about the Muslim powers at the 8. or 9. century to suggest someone with the ambition to conquer new lands.)
If you manage to combine 2 of the three following options, you could weaken the Christian Realms significantly.
a) Fall of Francia
b) Fall of Italy
c) Fall of Constantinople
a) and b) would weaken Christianity in Western Europe. Ambitious Christian nobles could perhaps convert after the decisive defeats of Christianity. Christianity in Great Britain would be isolated. The Eastern Roman Empire could still try to convert the Slaws.
a) and c) would nearly isolate Italy. England is also isolated. Also the christian conversion of the Slaws could be prevented.
b) and c), Maybe a Western European Christianity (Francia and Great Britain, perhaps also some territories in the East of Francia) develops), if there is a Muslim conversion of the Slaws after the Fall of Constantinople it is still possible to have a Muslim domination of Europe.
Even after these conquests you need at least several generations of conversion. A intelligent Muslim ruler would tolerate Christian subjects but tax them.
If we have a Muslim dominated Europe, this could perhaps increase cultural transfer and trade across the Mediterranean.
I don't know much of Islam, but if we have a Muslim dominated Europe, perhaps some Schisms could develop, which could lead to a distinct European branch of Islam.
I've always found the argument that the Umayyads didn't have he resources to rule Gaul problematic. They didn't have the resources to rule their empire anyway. Thats why it collapsed not long after.
No, it collapsed due to internal rebellions coupled with the Abbasid revolution. I have seen no evidence of the Umayyad lacking effective rule across its territories, only the inefficiency of the fact that due to constant warring, the Umayyad state could also not at the same time attend to the Khawarij revolt in Ifriqiya and also see the threat rising in the east (Abbasids and Abu Sayj).
Seems to me that facing constant internal war is a pretty solid piece of evidence to lacking effective rule.
scholar
Banned
Any sufficiently large empire will suffer from revolts as regional interests attempt to rise to the occassion, or local interests chaff under outside oversight.
I don't know much about Al-Andalus, but early medieval christian kingdoms are not better in this matter. Political instability could occur regularly caused by either succession crisis or weak kings.
Of course. But the stakes get higher the larger the realm is.
Since the Muslims seized Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearics, I think they have a decent fleet.
How often can you categorically say 'never' in the alternate history genre?