How often can you categorically say 'never' in the alternate history genre?
Very very few, but this is one of them
How often can you categorically say 'never' in the alternate history genre?
How often can you categorically say 'never' in the alternate history genre?
The 20 years's anarchy continues for a bit longer, allowing Constantinople to fall in the 718 siege, and the Ummayads are able to sweep up Anatolia as their last gasp of power before the Abbasid revolution. Yet in doing so, Arab settlement is allowed to gain a foothold in both Anatolia and Thrace. Once the Abbasids are in power, raiding then transfers over not towards Anatolia, but towards the Balkans and Italy, crushing resistance from the comparatively weak Slavs and Italians.
With a large Muslim presence in the Balkans, the Bulgars convert to Islam instead of Christianity, and the knock off effects lead into Russia, the Ukraine and parts Hungary.
Post Abbasid Dynasties (or really strong governors), with their more local focus, continue the string of conquests in Italy, turning the Mediterranean into a Muslim Lake. By 875 or so, everything south of the Po and east of the Carpathians should be nominally Muslim and steadily converting, with Francia being the last major Christian stronghold.
That should get you Islam as the Dominant religion once Francia's feudal tendencies cause it to drift apart.
The Also, I seriously doubt the conversion of the Balkans, for reasons I have expressed elsewhere into the lack of conversion outside of the Khilafah until at least the faltering of the Abbasid. More than likely any Balkan people's are strengthened in their religion especially as it is far from Dimshaq and also it's relative importance being liquidated into a territorial state on the outer fringes of a greater Arab state.
Also do not forget that the Umayyads are not free to prosecute wars constantly and forever and that it also is fighting the Khazars and another half of its forces invested into fighting Iranian rebels and invading into Hindustan, Bactria and Central Asia. It is not as if Umayyads are only interested in Europe, internal factions in the Umayyad state require invasion in all directions, gaining slaves from Africa, Hindustan, etc, defending from various avenues of invasions from different states such as the tenants of the Hepthalites, Gokturks, Khazars, Zunbil, etc...
Hence why my main point is increased Byzantine internal conflict, which the possibilities were endless at the time. Another civil war, another shuffling of troops around, use of foreign armies that wreck havoc in Anatolia, etc, all these things tip the scales just a little bit more to the breaking point. Besides, once Constantinople is taken, the head of the government is decapitated, and all that will be left are theme army remnants in Anatolia led by unprofessional troops- no better than brigands at this point. This can be mopped up in a decade at the most so long as the new government introduces stability.The only issue I have with this is that it essentially happened, with the Uqaylids taking much of Anatolia and the islands leading up to Constantinople. Further, the Umayyads launched invasions into
Greece and Italy to engage the Byzantines.
In all honesty, the Umayyads did all they could and if allowed to continually invade unhinged, could've broken the Byzantine shell, but at what cost? An even more brutal rebellion than the one amongst the Khawarij? Despite the view of Umayyad writers putting significance on the capture of al-Rum, it in my opinion would not necessarily prolong this state not give credence to their legitimacy.
Also, I seriously doubt the conversion of the Balkans, for reasons I have expressed elsewhere into the lack of conversion outside of the Khilafah until at least the faltering of the Abbasid. More than likely any Balkan people's are strengthened in their religion especially as it is far from Dimshaq and also it's relative importance being liquidated into a territorial state on the outer fringes of a greater Arab state.
Also do not forget that the Umayyads are not free to prosecute wars constantly and forever and that it also is fighting the Khazars and another half of its forces invested into fighting Iranian rebels and invading into Hindustan, Bactria and Central Asia. It is not as if Umayyads are only interested in Europe, internal factions in the Umayyad state require invasion in all directions, gaining slaves from Africa, Hindustan, etc, defending from various avenues of invasions from different states such as the tenants of the Hepthalites, Gokturks, Khazars, Zunbil, etc...
I hear a lot of what you're saying, but I don't see how replacing the Byzantine state with at best warlord states of Greek soldiers, who lack a centralized government, would: a) strengthen Christianity in the Balkans; or b) be more difficult than opposing an actual Byzantine state along the border.
Hence why my main point is increased Byzantine internal conflict, which the possibilities were endless at the time. Another civil war, another shuffling of troops around, use of foreign armies that wreck havoc in Anatolia, etc, all these things tip the scales just a little bit more to the breaking point. Besides, once Constantinople is taken, the head of the government is decapitated, and all that will be left are theme army remnants in Anatolia led by unprofessional troops- no better than brigands at this point. This can be mopped up in a decade at the most so long as the new government introduces stability.
I don't think it will make the Ummayads last longer- far from it. I think a rebellion would be likely. I do think however, when the next state arises seeking to reunify the Caliphate it will take the borders of the Acheamenid empire, going after the wealthy cores of Anatolia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt (and of course Thrace). And without the skilled leadership or finances available to the Roman government, any rebellion will be far weaker than a standard war between the Byzantines and the Ummayads.
Now I didn't mean willing conversion in the Balkans by the tribes there, I meant that with the raids against the Empire no longer needed, the Caliphate would shift its raids towards the Balkan cities, in effect leading to conquest of the Balkans (which I believe would be rather easy, given there's no state there with the numbers or organizational capacity to resist). If not the Caliphate as we know it, it will almost certainly occur with one of the post Caliphate dynastic states. Henceforth, this new Persian state would basically complete the conquest of Greece that Darius failed centuries ago.
The splinter remnants of the Ummayads in North Africa will almost certainly try to move up north into Italy, which I think they can do incrementally.
Quite a lot I would believe, mainly because of extensive military superiority in the Balkans in comparison to the vastly organized Slavic proto-states. The only real threat is the Bulgar's and even then they would be drastically dwarfed by the Caliphates resources.Yes it would divert its raids. But to what avail? The Umayyad shifted the Rashidun raids and it did not give any relief in converting those areas.
Quite a lot I would believe, mainly because of extensive military superiority in the Balkans in comparison to the vastly organized Slavic proto-states. The only real threat is the Bulgar's and even then they would be drastically dwarfed by the Caliphates resources.
I just don't think the Balkans would be hard to hold down at this time period, and the fertile yet comparatively empty lands will make settlement attractive to Caliphate soldiers (when the garisson cities aren't enough).
And also, a few more raids could be shifted towards the wealth of Italy, granting a small foothold in that region.
Sure, and with the Byzantine fleet wiped out and unable to be rebuilt it would be quite a bit easier to launch raids and obtain territory.Raids already existed against Italy during the Rashidun and Abbasid period.
Perhaps, but I believe things are not that difficult for the Ummayads (or any succesor state) to expand a bit more with their chief rival removed from power.The Umayyads again do not have therefore to prosecute war indefinitely whilst also warring across the entire classical world in every direction. I think you are overestimating their power.
Umayyads Victory in Battle of Tours and Siege of Constantinople.