WI: No Abbasid Revolution/Failure of Revolution

Interesting question.

First thing first, the Umayyad without the Abbasid revolution are in a very dangerous predicament. I typically give Islams immediate survival to the Abbasid period of calming of expansion and focusing it mainly around looting. The Umayyads had by this point began to exhaust itself, especially in the Caucus, Anatolia and Ifriqiya/Andalus. So I will give a scenario of what could happen had the Umayyads remained in the throne of Islam instead of the Abbasid throne.

1. The Byzantine powers by the 730s have already begun to have a resurgence in power. This mai my derives from the beginning weakness from the previously dominant Umayyad forces as a consequence of their many territorial wars which pulled and gave strain to the empire. This was further increased by the fact that the Umayyad was based out of Dimashq which made it more dépendant on winning wars in Europe, which was becoming more and more difficult.

By the 740s, I would argue that the Umayyad will never take Constantinople and without the change of rule, and continued Umayyad negligence, the Caliphate will be overtaken in relative power by Byzantium and slowly if they do not act, Byzantium will begin to turn the naval war into a one sided Byzantine affair and push back the Arabs from the fringes of Anatolia.

Notice too, that the Umayyads do not benefit from the boost of Baghdad and the inclusion of ethnic groups not Arab as the Abbasid did and still posses an even more rebellious Iran. Without the Abbasid changes to the fundamentals of being a Muslim, Iran likely remains Zoroastrian and the possibility of a return to Zoroastrian rule is not out of the question. Especially this could be the case if the powerful Alid groups in Iraq side with a Zoroastrian strong man, perhaps an alternate Ya'qub ibn Layth al-Saffarid or alternate al-Afshin.

If such a Zoroastrian revival does occur, that could leave the Umayyads in control over Arabia, Levant and North Africa.

Al-Andalus is hard to read. It could be the case that in this scenario, it becomes the Pakistan of the tl. With Iran out of the way, thus removing India as a place to raid; France and Europe become the next favorite for Caliphal sanctioned raiding. However, I do not see the Umayyads without Iraq and Iranveing able to win in a long war with Byzantium in the long run, the Abbasids only just draws the Byzantines and it controlled all of the Islamic East and much of Ifriqiya (east of Algiers).


Another possible effect, is less Islamic conversion in the Levant. With the extremely pro Arab identity of the Umayyad, it could be the case that the majority of thé Levant remains Christian for much longer and by extension, Syriac benefits greatly from this.

Also, the possibility to another Khawarij revolt is all too likely. If another major revolt like the Berber revolt occurs again; I am afraid the Umayyad would not survive save an incredible General.

Sorry for such a weak response, I have only just awoken.
 
So, could this end with the OTL Arab World not being linguistically Arabized? With Syriac, Coptic, and Berber being the main languages of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, and Maghreb till today?

Very, very possible. However, these areas will be varying levels of Arabic speaking. You could see something where Syria is 40-50% Arabic speaking, Southern Iraq 70-80%, Palestine 60-70%, Egypt 10%~, Northern Iraq 30-40%, Jordan 80-95%, Lebanon 20-30%, Ifriqiya 75-95%, etc.... These numbers mind you would take time to accumulate and perhaps would need till say, the say 1500s to reach such numbers.
 
Interesting question.

First thing first, the Umayyad without the Abbasid revolution are in a very dangerous predicament. I typically give Islams immediate survival to the Abbasid period of calming of expansion and focusing it mainly around looting. The Umayyads had by this point began to exhaust itself, especially in the Caucus, Anatolia and Ifriqiya/Andalus. So I will give a scenario of what could happen had the Umayyads remained in the throne of Islam instead of the Abbasid throne.

1. The Byzantine powers by the 730s have already begun to have a resurgence in power. This mai my derives from the beginning weakness from the previously dominant Umayyad forces as a consequence of their many territorial wars which pulled and gave strain to the empire. This was further increased by the fact that the Umayyad was based out of Dimashq which made it more dépendant on winning wars in Europe, which was becoming more and more difficult.

By the 740s, I would argue that the Umayyad will never take Constantinople and without the change of rule, and continued Umayyad negligence, the Caliphate will be overtaken in relative power by Byzantium and slowly if they do not act, Byzantium will begin to turn the naval war into a one sided Byzantine affair and push back the Arabs from the fringes of Anatolia.

Notice too, that the Umayyads do not benefit from the boost of Baghdad and the inclusion of ethnic groups not Arab as the Abbasid did and still posses an even more rebellious Iran. Without the Abbasid changes to the fundamentals of being a Muslim, Iran likely remains Zoroastrian and the possibility of a return to Zoroastrian rule is not out of the question. Especially this could be the case if the powerful Alid groups in Iraq side with a Zoroastrian strong man, perhaps an alternate Ya'qub ibn Layth al-Saffarid or alternate al-Afshin.

If such a Zoroastrian revival does occur, that could leave the Umayyads in control over Arabia, Levant and North Africa.

Al-Andalus is hard to read. It could be the case that in this scenario, it becomes the Pakistan of the tl. With Iran out of the way, thus removing India as a place to raid; France and Europe become the next favorite for Caliphal sanctioned raiding. However, I do not see the Umayyads without Iraq and Iranveing able to win in a long war with Byzantium in the long run, the Abbasids only just draws the Byzantines and it controlled all of the Islamic East and much of Ifriqiya (east of Algiers).


Another possible effect, is less Islamic conversion in the Levant. With the extremely pro Arab identity of the Umayyad, it could be the case that the majority of thé Levant remains Christian for much longer and by extension, Syriac benefits greatly from this.

Also, the possibility to another Khawarij revolt is all too likely. If another major revolt like the Berber revolt occurs again; I am afraid the Umayyad would not survive save an incredible General.

Sorry for such a weak response, I have only just awoken.
Great informative post though I think you might be overestimating how fast islam spread in the mid east considering islam wasn't the majority in syria or palertine/israel by the time of the first crusade.
 
Great informative post though I think you might be overestimating how fast islam spread in the mid east considering islam wasn't the majority in syria or palertine/israel by the time of the first crusade.

Well those areas had a small Christian majority perhaps, but the noble class was entirely Muslim.
 
Well those areas had a small Christian majority perhaps, but the noble class was entirely Muslim.

Yea I'm reffering mainly to the general populace than the ruling class, I do agre if the Abbasids hadn't taken over it'd have gone quite badly for the caliphate.

Guess the question is how much the byzantines can exploit it and the fate of the turkic tribes religion
 
Yea I'm reffering mainly to the general populace than the ruling class, I do agre if the Abbasids hadn't taken over it'd have gone quite badly for the caliphate.

Guess the question is how much the byzantines can exploit it and the fate of the turkic tribes religion

I doubt the Turks move past Khursan in this tl. The only reason they came to the Mid East was that the ruling military caste were in some cases their relatives and were all Turks by the 900s.
 

Deleted member 97083

This was further increased by the fact that the Umayyad was based out of Dimashq which made it more dépendant on winning wars in Europe, which was becoming more and more difficult.
By Europe, you just mean Constantinople, right? Or was the conquest of al-Andalus actually a signficant moral victory even in the east?
 
I doubt the Turks move past Khursan in this tl. The only reason they came to the Mid East was that the ruling military caste were in some cases their relatives and were all Turks by the 900s.
I disagree there seems to be a long history of migration from that area through persia or westward.

I suppose manichaeism survives as well
 
I disagree there seems to be a long history of migration from that area through persia or westward.

I suppose manichaeism survives as well

How so? The only migrants that went through Afghanistan and all the way to Iraq were the Iranians. More likely, is the Turks migrate and invade Hindustan as they did otl.
 
The Turks went west because they were pushed by forces beyond the scope of this POD, they are gonna keep heading west no matter what...
 
Love the discussion so far! Learning a lot. :)

Just one thing...

Under the Abbasids, culture, medicine, and science flourished. Without this added prosperity and instead borderline anarchy as suggested, what would the long term social and scientific effects be?
 
Top