WI: Umayyad Conquest of Constantinople?

i can respond to this Arab control at first for Georgia was not vassal state and lasted a century armenia went off and on again from the period of the 15th century owndwar I really cant say since I don't know about Caucasus history and the ottoman /Safavid period to make a claim
Eh, the Arab control in Armenia and Georgia were patchy, especially Georgia as a border region but they did control Tiblisi for half of the time that the main Arab Caliphates existed and Armenia for longer.

Also, often the governours here were also more independent autonomous. I'll need to read more on here as well.
 
Okay, fine. If comparison to Copts and Assyrians is flawed what of the Habasha in Eritrea, Armenians and Georgians.

None of these faced significant conversion. There will be more conversions in Anatolia due to its position and the Arabs that will migrate there but I see them being more like Malabari Muslims, largely descendants of Arab and Persian migrants and local women.

And the Anatolians that I see converting would be groups like the Isurians or Albanians, Hellenized peoples that hadn't adopted a Greek identity, just part of the Greek cultural sphere.
Once again, the examples cited do not necessarily validate your argument. Islamic rule in the Caucasus lacked consolidation, in comparison to in the Levant for example. It is therefore not entirely surprising that the region saw little conversion during Arab rule, considering that the Levant itself (quite literally an apex of Caliphal authority in comparison to the peripheral caucus) remained predominately non-Muslim up to the Crusades. Indeed, notable communities of Muslim Armenians and Georgians do exist.

You are not totally incorrect in your perspective, it is true that within many communities (amongst the Greeks), conversion to Islam during the Ottoman Empire was often described as ''Turning Turk.'' Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that many of these communities retained their language and many aspects of their culture, in spite of numerous instances of Turkification. Greco-phonic Muslim communities may not have identified or been identified by their Orthodox peers as Greek, yet that does not negate the clear Greekness of their identity and culture. This discussion is further complicated by the fact that we tend to perceive such matters through the nationalistic lens that independent Greece has historically presented, perpetuating a clear dichotomy between non-Orthodoy and claim to Greekness.

If we are to look at Anatolia specifically, the Greek-American historian Speros Vryonis refers to the Islamisation of the region as a ‘Greek-speaking populace became Muslim (and eventually Turkish-speaking)’; in his seminal piece The Decline of Hellenism and the Process of Islamization in Mediaeval Anatolia from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Century.
 
If the Arabs didn't set up shop in Carthage or Ctesiphon, I don't expect them to break tradition suddenly and make Constantinople a provincial capital or move the capital of their empire there. Will it be an important city? There's no doubt in my mind but the Arabs seemed to have a tendency where they kept themselves apart from the locals. Which is why I mentioned that the Caliphate would build a new settlement not too far away from it, recommending either the site of Pera or Uskudar, the former of which during the OTL fall of Constantinople declared neutrality and submitted themselves to the Ottoman Sultan and the latter was already under Ottoman rule a century prior. Mind you both of these settlements are now part of Istanbul in the modern day and I expect these settlements to become annexed to the (eventually Islamized) Kustantiniyyah. The reason why I bring up the frontier is because I don't expect the Caliphate to easily push the Bulgars and Slavs back to the Danube. The Rubicon has already crossed and you have many Slavic tribes infiltrating the Byzantine Empire and upon its collapse, would declare their independence. That said, the situation is easily reversible.

download (1).jpeg


In regards to demographics, the former Roman Empire is a different animal than Persia which itself took a few centuries to Islamize. The Orthodox Church was a centralized institution and would serve as a nexus for Romanity though I can see this being eroded with time. The Caliphate, especially under the Umayyads was exclusive to Arabs and anyone who wanted to convert were forced to become mawali. There's no doubt that you would have upper class Romans who are willing to swallow their pride and become part of the new order but for most, it's a step too far for most and like the Abbasid Revolution was popular amongst the Iranians, you would have Romans willing to throw their lot with someone willing to undo this, Christian or Islamic. Luckily this is centuries before the Bulgars themselves Christianize so most Romans once Constantinople falls might submit to the Arabs though happy, they won't be. Outside of military encampments, Islam will remain a minority for at least the Umayyad period. In terms of Arabization, there is a slightly higher chance especially in the more marginal areas and in military encampments. The area of greatest Arabization and Islamization would probably be in the areas that the Slavic tribes have infiltrated and settled - the Peloponnese, Thessaly, parts of Macedonia and Paeonia. It's marginally populated and easily perfect area to settle tens of thousands of Arab soldiers and their family.
 
nfiltrating the Byzantine Empire and upon its collapse, would declare their independence. That said, the situation is easily reversible.
that map is actually giving the byzantines more land for example prior as warren treadgold says we dont have much evidence of adrinople being in the roman empire during byzanitine sources until

1655654696116.png


1655654844517.png

this is in 780 after Constantine V campaigned in the place and there was no significant bulgar expansion post 717 until Krum, the Slavic tribes won't be a problem for the caliphate except for Bulgaria which IMO Tervel depending the pod would rapidly expand into Thrace following this It depends in the dulo civil war of 757 occurs or not
 
that map is actually giving the byzantines more land for example prior as warren treadgold says we dont have much evidence of adrinople being in the roman empire during byzanitine sources until

View attachment 751626

View attachment 751630
this is in 780 after Constantine V campaigned in the place and there was no significant bulgar expansion post 717 until Krum, the Slavic tribes won't be a problem for the caliphate except for Bulgaria which IMO Tervel depending the pod would rapidly expand into Thrace following this It depends in the dulo civil war of 757 occurs or not
This is why a Roman evacuation to Italy is just not feasible as someone tried to mention earlier. The Arabs will invest into Constantinople and this will therefore establish the Balkans as the premier region of expansion, though I feel an ambition governer in Africa could conquer Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and the Roman territories of southern Italy. In the north a successful Abd al-Rahmin can solidify control over Septimania and invade northern Italy, this intense pressure on Italy will cause it to fall to the Umayyads with Benevento and Rome becoming vassals, I can see an odd form of the donation of pepin occuring instead done by a Caliph as a token gesture.
 
Very nice map, i can't read the name for Rome btw which one did it was?
al-Madinat al-Babawiya (المدينة البابوية).

Also, I used this to come up with the names for the Anatolian and Thracian provinces.

 
Last edited:
This is why a Roman evacuation to Italy is just not feasible as someone tried to mention earlier. The Arabs will invest into Constantinople and this will therefore establish the Balkans as the premier region of expansion, though I feel an ambition governer in Africa could conquer Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and the Roman territories of southern Italy. In the north a successful Abd al-Rahmin can solidify control over Septimania and invade northern Italy, this intense pressure on Italy will cause it to fall to the Umayyads with Benevento and Rome becoming vassals, I can see an odd form of the donation of pepin occuring instead done by a Caliph as a token gesture.
well the map is 780 this was more to show the balkans , byzantine Italy still had revena and a narrow strip of rome as mentioned it even if septemania becomes solidified it would require more troops from gaul charlegmane had some trouble with the conquest and if max numbers are to believed he brought 40 000 to deal with the lombards
 
Interesting, what happened to France ittl?
Francia disintegrated, the duchy of Aquitaine became a direct vassal of the wali of al-Andalus, Neustrasia, Austrasia and Belgica are all rump states from the former Kingdom of Francia and are all clients of the wali of al-Andalus, Brittany is a tributary of the wali of al-andalus so effectively independent but nonetheless a claimed territory of the Caliphate. The arrangements in Francia could occur due to a collapse in the Mayor of the Palace system or having the system be supplanted with figures that were allies of the Caliphate. The caliph being too busy campaigning in the Balkans could not administer the conquests of Italy and Francia, therefore these arrangements are made to strengthen the walis of either region and will allow them to declare independence during the Abbasid revolution.

Also the other small states in Swabia, Carinthia, the Alpes and Occitania are marcher states, they are fortified and are the buffer between the Caliphal core and the more peripheral regions, they are also disputed regions such as in Viscaya and Asturias.
 
Last edited:
Francia disintegrated, the duchy of Aquitaine became a direct vassal of the wali of al-Andalus, Neustrasia, Austrasia and Belgica are all rump states from the former Kingdom of Francia and are all clients of the wali of al-Andalus, Brittany is a tributary of the wali of al-andalus so effectively independent but nonetheless a claimed territory of the Caliphate. The arrangements in Francia could occur due to a collapse in the Mayor of the Palace system or having the system be supplanted with figures that were allies of the Caliphate. The caliph being too busy campaigning in the Balkans could not administer the conquests of Italy and Francia, therefore these arrangements are made to strengthen the walis of either region and will allow them to declare independence during the Abbasid revolution.

Also the other small states in Swabia, Carinthia, the Alpes and Occitania are marcher states, they are fortified and are the buffer between the Caliphal core and the more peripheral regions, they are also disputed regions such as in Viscaya and Asturias.
Thanks for all the details buddy, i think i would be a little of both, the anarchy post the collapse of the peppinids under Martell and if the Merovingians are smart, could pay lip service to the caliphate so they can recover some real power once the Peppinids family is on dire straits and avoid their OTL usurpation
 
Base map courtesy of Bob Hope.

Decided to make another map.

View attachment 751482

Interesting map, did Croats and Serbs settle in the Balkans that far back?

Also Sarhad in the East means "Frontier" or "Border". It was called that because it was the frontier of British India (NWFP) and Pakistan continued that name until they changed it in 2011 to Pakhtunkhwa. So it wouldn't be accurate as a name in the 7th century.
 
Interesting map, did Croats and Serbs settle in the Balkans that far back?
This states that Serbia as a nation did not exist until the late 8th century but the Serbs had been there for a century at this point, so the collpase of the Roman Empire could certainly see a principality formed for the Serbs ahead of schedule. It is much the same story for the Croats.
440px-Early_medieval_South_Slavic_tribes.png

(No year given but my guess is the 7th - 8th Century.)
Also Sarhad in the East means "Frontier" or "Border". It was called that because it was the frontier of British India (NWFP) and Pakistan continued that name until they changed it in 2011 to Pakhtunkhwa. So it wouldn't be accurate as a name in the 7th century.
I see, googling it could instead be called Pathan, Abasin or Ghazriya.
 
Top