WI:Umar had prayed inside the Church of the Holy Sephelcure

Prefrence

Banned
After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638, the Patriarch of Jerusalem invited Umar to pray inside the Church of the Holy Sephelcure. Umar thought rationaly, and realized this could endanger the sites Christian status which could cause major problems down the road. Instead of Umar declining to pray inside the church, he either didn't think or for some reason was convinced to pray inside it.

Because Umar had prayed there, the site would likely be turned into a mosque in a few decades. Would the conversion of the most holy site in christianity to a mosque cause a sizeable rebellion of the inhabitants of a mainly christian populated caliphate? Could the Byzantines use this as a rallying point for reconquests in the East?
 
After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638, the Patriarch of Jerusalem invited Umar to pray inside the Church of the Holy Sephelcure. Umar thought rationaly, and realized this could endanger the sites Christian status which could cause major problems down the road. Instead of Umar declining to pray inside the church, he either didn't think or for some reason was convinced to pray inside it.

Because Umar had prayed there, the site would likely be turned into a mosque in a few decades. Would the conversion of the most holy site in christianity to a mosque cause a sizeable rebellion of the inhabitants of a mainly christian populated caliphate? Could the Byzantines use this as a rallying point for reconquests in the East?

I don't think they would rebel. The local Christians would still prefer the Arabs over the Byzantines.
 
I don't think they would rebel. The local Christians would still prefer the Arabs over the Byzantines.

Put it this way.

If the Ottomans had invaded Italy, captured Rome and then turned St. Peter's Basilica into a Mosque while the population were still majority catholic, would there be a rebellion? Equally, converting the Grand Mosque of Mecca into a church would lead to a rebellion of local muslims.

I think the answer is probably yes.

Here we have a similar situation, and a rebellion does not necessarily mean inviting back the Byzantines, it could aim for an independent Christian state in the Levant. We could also see the concept of a crusade being thought up earlier.
 
Maybe it could have developed a relationships similar to the OTL Basilica of Saint John the Baptist in Damascus, that was used both for Muslims and Christians for decades until it became the Great Mosque.
 
There were rebellions IOTL anyway regardless of that. Not one of those rebellions wanted the ERE back, the memories of the persecutions of the mostly-Monophysite population as well as the rather more onerous ERE taxation and collection of said taxation was too strong. In this scenario the Muslims are likely to get most of their support from Palestinian Jews who would most definitely be the ones least anxious to see the return of the Caesars there. The ERE could easily blame them for the fall of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and resume the persecutions that led to ERE-era rebellions again.
 
The Caliphate wasn't really that strong of a state. They weren't "a defeat at Yarmouk sends them back into the desert" weak, but the state really relied on the army's success and prestige. Although it was important that cities had mosques, the Arab forces often built cities (Baghdad being the prime example) near existing ones that would serve as Arab colonies. This was done for a multitude of reasons.

So the fear was that compromising the Church would create a backlash amongst Christian believers. Probably wouldn't be enough to destroy the Caliphate, but it would obviously run the risk of being a real headache for the Caliphs. So no, there's no springboard for the Roman Empire to regain the Near East.

A bit offtopic, but something I'd like to point out:

The idea that Palestine, Syria, and Egypt fell because of Monophysite rebellions against Chalcedonian rule is false, and doesn't give the Muslims the credit they really deserve. The vast split between them isn't really as major as often believed, as Mark Whittow argues rather convincingly in The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025.

Although there is always stress between the two religious camps, and was a factor in the war with the Persians, it's worth noting that the Tur Abdin region of Syria (IIRC, it's in what's now Turkey) was staunchly Monophysite, and yet was completely loyal to Constantinople throughout the Persian invasion.

The only real place where really major rebellions took place against Roman rule was in Upper Egypt, and there was more than religion to do with it.

Honestly, much more effective in the fall of the Near East was the fact that a generation had grown up without knowing Roman rule, so had good reason to dislike the Romans as interlopers.
 
The Caliphate wasn't really that strong of a state. They weren't "a defeat at Yarmouk sends them back into the desert" weak, but the state really relied on the army's success and prestige. Although it was important that cities had mosques, the Arab forces often built cities (Baghdad being the prime example) near existing ones that would serve as Arab colonies. This was done for a multitude of reasons.

So the fear was that compromising the Church would create a backlash amongst Christian believers. Probably wouldn't be enough to destroy the Caliphate, but it would obviously run the risk of being a real headache for the Caliphs. So no, there's no springboard for the Roman Empire to regain the Near East.

A bit offtopic, but something I'd like to point out:

The idea that Palestine, Syria, and Egypt fell because of Monophysite rebellions against Chalcedonian rule is false, and doesn't give the Muslims the credit they really deserve. The vast split between them isn't really as major as often believed, as Mark Whittow argues rather convincingly in The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025.

Although there is always stress between the two religious camps, and was a factor in the war with the Persians, it's worth noting that the Tur Abdin region of Syria (IIRC, it's in what's now Turkey) was staunchly Monophysite, and yet was completely loyal to Constantinople throughout the Persian invasion.

The only real place where really major rebellions took place against Roman rule was in Upper Egypt, and there was more than religion to do with it.

Honestly, much more effective in the fall of the Near East was the fact that a generation had grown up without knowing Roman rule, so had good reason to dislike the Romans as interlopers.

When I refer to the role played by the Monophysite controversy, I'm referring to the reality that Muslim rule was far less brutal for those people than the ERE's was. Muslim victory + nicer rulers = Muslim rule. The Conquest had political as well as military elements and in both the Muslims had the advantage over the previous rulers of the place.
 
After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638, the Patriarch of Jerusalem invited Umar to pray inside the Church of the Holy Sephelcure. Umar thought rationaly, and realized this could endanger the sites Christian status which could cause major problems down the road. Instead of Umar declining to pray inside the church, he either didn't think or for some reason was convinced to pray inside it.

Because Umar had prayed there, the site would likely be turned into a mosque in a few decades. Would the conversion of the most holy site in christianity to a mosque cause a sizeable rebellion of the inhabitants of a mainly christian populated caliphate? Could the Byzantines use this as a rallying point for reconquests in the East?

I don't think it (the Holy Sepulchre) would necessarily have been turned into a mosque because Umar prayed there. Muslims revere "Isa" (Jesus) as a messenger of god, yes, but I don't think the Caliphs were quite so short-sighted as to assimilate one of Christianity's most holy sights into one of their own. It would have created an easily avoidable headache over essentially nothing.

Also, it's doubtful that any rebellion would have anything to do with the Byzantines simply because many Eastern Christians preferred Muslim rule. Yes, they got an extra tax, but it was actually LESS than the charity taxes to which Muslims were subjected (and from which Christians and Jews were exempt). Additionally the Byzantines would have actively interfered in their religious lives -because the subtle doctrinal differences mattered to them- whereas to the Muslims they were all just Christians.
 
When I refer to the role played by the Monophysite controversy, I'm referring to the reality that Muslim rule was far less brutal for those people than the ERE's was. Muslim victory + nicer rulers = Muslim rule. The Conquest had political as well as military elements and in both the Muslims had the advantage over the previous rulers of the place.

Even that's dubious at best.

Was there tension? Definetely. However, it's much less a case of folks coming from Constantinople and killing Monophysites, and much more a case of religion being intimately tied up in political disputes.

The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, pg 43:

"...Much of what we know about the Monophysite community comes from the contemporary writings of their leaders, especially John of Ephesos, who was evidentely trying to present a picture of a righteous community, bearing comparison with the heroic days of the early church, holding fast to the truth while persecuted by its enemies.... ...Otherwise we depend on much later authors,... ...For these authors, a major part of what defined their communities in Egypt and Syria after several centuries of Islamic rule, was their consciousness of unwavering orthodoxy as against Chalcedonian heresy...."

Pg 43:

"...Imperial religious policy always took it for granted that the Monophysites were natural members of the orthodox community. To achieve unity the emperors tried a mixture of persuasion, compromise, and persecution, but when compared with campaigns against the Jews and Samaritans, imperial persecution of the Monophysites was only half-hearted.... ...The force used was limited, and no legal penalties, such as a ban on receiving inheritences, were imposed. There are no cases where contemporaries thought that Monophysites had betrayed a Roman city to the Persians. Instead throughout the series of sixth-century wars the Monophysite districts of eastern Syria provided a resolute bulwark to the empire."

There's more, but I think I've made my case plenty well. The idea of a mass Chalcedonian-Monophysite split has been well overdone in most histories.
 
There's more, but I think I've made my case plenty well. The idea of a mass Chalcedonian-Monophysite split has been well overdone in most histories.

Agree with both of your last two posts. The main reason for Monophysites to want rid of the Empire was the taxation burden, not religious persecution.
 
Agree with both of your last two posts. The main reason for Monophysites to want rid of the Empire was the taxation burden, not religious persecution.

True.

However, what was decisive in my mind was the fact that a whole generation grew up without knowing Roman rule. Just a hunch, but I imagine that the Persians didn't bother with taxation during the war, though I could be wrong.

But it was definately important after the war for Constantinople's treasury to be refilled. But the burden was laid heavily over the same people who had just lived under Persian rule.

Though FWIW, I don't believe the Muslims won because Monophysites jumped to their aid. They won because they were able to crush the Roman armies sent against them, and took cities that surrendered after being surrounded by Muslim territory (Though there are quite a few examples of successful Muslim sieges.) Where the desire to get rid of the Empire comes in, I think it ensures that there aren't pro-Roman revolts against Caliphal rule.
 
Actually, I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that the Sasanians came in and started administering Syria and Egypt using Achaemenid records, of all things. Which just goes to show the hubris of Khusro II and his advisers in Ctesiphon.

I'd say the Empire didn't fall to the Arabs because of active uprising by the locals- more a passive indifference. I agree with you that the importance of the long break from Imperial rule is a big contributing factor to this (though in some cases, I think you overstate, most of Egypt and Syria under Persian occupation for about a decade, hardly a whole generation). That, and undoubted military prowess on the part of the Arabs, was what made the conquest of the East so easy.

The Empire then couldn't recover because of the shenanigans of the 640s, where you had a teenage Emperor, who, while capable and ambitious, had to deal with numerous revolts, religious crisis, and a few unlucky defeats at bad times.

Basically, the Arabs were very, very lucky- they had a good twenty years where pretty much everything went right for them. But that's not to discount their undoubted skill, or to minimise the scale of their achievement.
 
Top