The Fourth Fitna was a devastating civil war that broke out very shortly after the death of Caliph Harun-al-Rashid, that lasted from 811-819, with local provincial rebellions taking advantage of the crisis lasting in some form to the 830s. It set the stage for the further decline of the Abbasids, a cascade of events including the Khurramite rebellion, Egypt breaking off under Ahmad-ibn-Tulun, the Zanj revolt, and the Anarchy at Samarra, to list just a few. What if Harun-al-Rashid had been more clear in the succession, or Al-Amin had managed to silently assasinate his brother or defeat him in one battle? Can the Abbasids avert their decline and retain Egypt? What happens to Persia and the Tahirids, since the Saffarids are probably butterflied away? What happens to Byzantium?
WI: No Fourth Fitna?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
first time they call me for this so thanks
well the fourth fitna was not just a succecion crisis rather that and a combinaion of many things of the abbadis caliphate problems , this is evedidence by Harun al rashid Syria was inhabited by tribes with Umayyad sympathies and remained the bitter enemy of the Abbasids, while Egypt witnessed uprisings against Abbasids due to maladministration and arbitrary taxation this is why the coptic revolts continued till the 9th century , we see the caliphate splitting first the berbers then al andalus and the Aghlabids,the caliph began to loose more central power al rashid tried to impose his central authority by diplomacy and dealing with rebellions.
Rashid died when he was dealing with one and his two sons where close enough in age and worse yet one was more persian than the latter he was less prestiguis but had the support of the persian nobles so even from the get go this civil war would had factions not only based on loyalty but of regions , the fall of Barmakids didnt help as harun in his bid to get more central authority used the abnaʾ and apointed them as governors so that the capital could have more control this backfired horribly
as it would lead to governors extracting as much wealth as he could from the province for the benefit of the capital , the central government, and, not himself at the expense of the region The Khurasani elites had a long-standing rivalry with the abnaʾ and led to interal disputes over their salaries, and other things.
in fact the civil war between the brothers was short just 4 years but even then the troubles erupted post the civil war with bad policies,due to the new Caliph al-Ma'mun entrusted the governance of the state to Fadl ibn Sahl, who intended to permanently move the Muslim world's centre of power eastwards to Khurasan,
due to these numerous rebellions and local power struggles erupted across the Caliphate, al-Ma'mun took actions to gain Alid support ,al-Ma'mun while he pacified most of the caliphate there where still some areas in rebellion it was not until his brother who used turkic mercenaries that these where finally defeated and the turks rose to gain more power
old Arab families and the members of the Abbasid dynasty itself lost their positions in the administrative and military and with them their influence and power.The provinces of the Caliphate were now grouped into larger units, often controlled by a hereditary dynasty (making them easier to split of)
so even if we butterfly away the brothers figthing in 813 i think instead of the fitna we would see a great number of rebelions occur that they would be crushed turkic power would rise but the total collapse follwing the decades of war would not occur , this is kinda of good for the caliphate for now at least since they had a recovery period that would be better in the dynasty
the byzantine stabilization had already occured by 800 ad harun was the last one who really did any major raid that truely did damage the byzantines that got all the way to constantinople , the closet after that was the caliphate supporting a rebellion by thomas the slav.
and sure the abassids did sack of Amorion the byzantines in the late 9th century isntead of dealing with a splitered caliphate would deal one that is on the verge of the great next rebellion and in fact the byzantine migth provoke one whether it be on armenia or on their border since any victory they migth have would be an excelente excuse for a rebellion .
well the fourth fitna was not just a succecion crisis rather that and a combinaion of many things of the abbadis caliphate problems , this is evedidence by Harun al rashid Syria was inhabited by tribes with Umayyad sympathies and remained the bitter enemy of the Abbasids, while Egypt witnessed uprisings against Abbasids due to maladministration and arbitrary taxation this is why the coptic revolts continued till the 9th century , we see the caliphate splitting first the berbers then al andalus and the Aghlabids,the caliph began to loose more central power al rashid tried to impose his central authority by diplomacy and dealing with rebellions.
Rashid died when he was dealing with one and his two sons where close enough in age and worse yet one was more persian than the latter he was less prestiguis but had the support of the persian nobles so even from the get go this civil war would had factions not only based on loyalty but of regions , the fall of Barmakids didnt help as harun in his bid to get more central authority used the abnaʾ and apointed them as governors so that the capital could have more control this backfired horribly
as it would lead to governors extracting as much wealth as he could from the province for the benefit of the capital , the central government, and, not himself at the expense of the region The Khurasani elites had a long-standing rivalry with the abnaʾ and led to interal disputes over their salaries, and other things.
in fact the civil war between the brothers was short just 4 years but even then the troubles erupted post the civil war with bad policies,due to the new Caliph al-Ma'mun entrusted the governance of the state to Fadl ibn Sahl, who intended to permanently move the Muslim world's centre of power eastwards to Khurasan,
due to these numerous rebellions and local power struggles erupted across the Caliphate, al-Ma'mun took actions to gain Alid support ,al-Ma'mun while he pacified most of the caliphate there where still some areas in rebellion it was not until his brother who used turkic mercenaries that these where finally defeated and the turks rose to gain more power
old Arab families and the members of the Abbasid dynasty itself lost their positions in the administrative and military and with them their influence and power.The provinces of the Caliphate were now grouped into larger units, often controlled by a hereditary dynasty (making them easier to split of)
so even if we butterfly away the brothers figthing in 813 i think instead of the fitna we would see a great number of rebelions occur that they would be crushed turkic power would rise but the total collapse follwing the decades of war would not occur , this is kinda of good for the caliphate for now at least since they had a recovery period that would be better in the dynasty
the byzantine stabilization had already occured by 800 ad harun was the last one who really did any major raid that truely did damage the byzantines that got all the way to constantinople , the closet after that was the caliphate supporting a rebellion by thomas the slav.
and sure the abassids did sack of Amorion the byzantines in the late 9th century isntead of dealing with a splitered caliphate would deal one that is on the verge of the great next rebellion and in fact the byzantine migth provoke one whether it be on armenia or on their border since any victory they migth have would be an excelente excuse for a rebellion .