The Islamic Caliphate captures Constantinople!

[Mujahid786]

what if the ummayad caliphate captured constantinople in the 7th century? how would the world have been effected?



my conclusion is that they would sweep norhtwards conquering much of the balkans, and converting it to islam, they might have also gotten a foothold on the russian steppe

 

[Philip]

what if the ummayad caliphate captured constantinople in the 7th century?

Not really possible, but okay.

my conclusion is that they would sweep norhtwards conquering much of the balkans,

Not likely. The Avars, Bulgars and assorted Slavs were not pushovers. The Ummayads would be operating far from their power base in terrain that did not favor them. I wouldn't expect them to get much past Thrace.

and converting it to islam,

Possibly through cultural exchange.

they might have also gotten a foothold on the russian steppe

Doubtful. Look how long it took OTL for anyone other than nomads to take that land. The Arabs couldn't hold it -- and I doubt it would be inviting to them anyway.

 

[Mujahid786]

lol, u just shot me down man!

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Possibly an earlier start to the Crusades although Chrisendon's threat from the Umyads was through Spain. Maybe there would be less pressure in that direction as the Unwyad caliphate would have concentrated its forces in the East

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

What happens to the remaining Byzantine lands? Do they accept the Caliphate as a heir to the Roman Empire or do they go their separate ways?

 

[Zyzzyva]

What happens to the remaining Byzantine lands? Do they accept the Caliphate as a heir to the Roman Empire or do they go their separate ways?

Not a chance, I would think. They go their separate ways.

 

[Philip]

Not a chance, I would think. They go their separate ways.

Agreed. I think the outcome of the Fourth Crusade is instructive.

 

[danielbd]

What happens to the remaining Byzantine lands? Do they accept the Caliphate as a heir to the Roman Empire or do they go their separate ways?

I doubt the Arabs would have the forces to conquer significant territories outside the walls of the city so my guess is that something similar to 1204 might happen... several states rise in Macedonia, Epirus and Greece that would try to regain the city OR most Roman territories fall under Bulgar vassalage/ocupation.

 

[Faeelin]

I doubt the Arabs would have the forces to conquer significant territories outside the walls of the city so my guess is that something similar to 1204 might happen... several states rise in Macedonia, Epirus and Greece that would try to regain the city OR most Roman territories fall under Bulgar vassalage/ocupation.

Was Greece basically lost by this point, or had that happened later?

Personally, I don't see what's so unfeasible about it; the Umayyads laid siege to the city several times.

Or, as I once put it...

As the dim rays of the morning sun pierced through the fog that hung over the Queen of Cities, it is clear, to a casual observer, that something has changed. Palaces have been stripped of hammered gold; monuments of magnificence have been melted down; and the hammering of Grecian goldsmiths, which once kept drowsy emperors awake, has fallen silent. Even the sensual music that once stirred the soul is no more.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I doubt the Arabs would have the forces to conquer significant territories outside the walls of the city so my guess is that something similar to 1204 might happen... several states rise in Macedonia, Epirus and Greece that would try to regain the city OR most Roman territories fall under Bulgar vassalage/ocupation.

The Bulgars were pagan nomads who only established a foothold south of the Danube in (according to wiki) 680. The 7th century Arab siege took place in 674-678. You can forget about them.

I don't think you should look to 1204. These are different times, Byzantine Christianity has yet to assume its distinct identity and Islam is a young religion. I specifically did not refer to conquest but to acceptance of authority. If the caliph moves to Constantinople, proclaims himself basileus (or maybe Patriarch of Constantinople) and offers the imperial remnants protection against their dangerous neighbors (Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Lombards, Berbers) his offer would at least be considered IMO.

The resulting mix of Greek and Arab culture could be even more interesting than the one in OTL. For one, I expect the Koran will be translated in Greek and its Arabic original will not be given any special reverence. And I'd really like to see what the merger between caesaropapism and the caliphate looks like. Islam could develop quite differently. (I'm not sure it would even be called that, its Greek name could become dominant.)

Edit: According to the Armenian Genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674%E2%80%93678)

Just prior to the siege, a Syrian Christian refugee named Kallinikos (Callinicus) of Heliopolis had invented for the Byzantine Empire a devastating new weapon that came to be known as "Greek fire". At the Battle of Syllaeum in 677, the Byzantine navy utilized it to decisively defeat the Umayyad navy in the Sea of Marmara, lifting the siege in 678.

The defeat can be attributed to two factors: the unbroken defences of the city, and the devastating winter. The naval victory that the Byzantines won ensured that the city could be resupplied by sea. Meanwhile, the Arab forces were beset with starvation in winter.

So the Arabs could win with a little luck.

 

[Atreus]

So the Arabs could win with a little luck.

It would probably be more than a little. breaching the defenses against a determined opponent directly is hard. These are the Theodosian walls, which were very formidible before the advent of gunpowder. Starvation could force a surrender, but the arabs lack any real means to prevent resupply by sea, given how the byzantines armed with greek fire managed to defeat them at sea several times in this time period. The siege from 717 to 718 illustrates this point. A Byzantine fleet of inferior numbers defeated larger Muslim fleets several times, while the land defenses were fairly impregnable and disease wreaked havoc in the Muslim camp.

that said, the hybrid Muslim-Hellenic civilization you described would be very interesting to see.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Starvation could force a surrender, but the arabs lack any real means to prevent resupply by sea, given how the byzantines armed with greek fire managed to defeat them at sea several times in this time period.

My idea was that Callinicus doesn't invent Greek fire on time (or at all). Maybe he doesn't escape the Arab conquest of Syria, maybe he doesn't survive.

 

[Atreus]

My idea was that Callinicus doesn't invent Greek fire on time (or at all). Maybe he doesn't escape the Arab conquest of Syria, maybe he doesn't survive.

That does change things. on the other hand, the byzantines did have a more experienced navy, and the muslim one had some loyalty issues (most notably, a large portion of the fleet was egyptian, and crewed by coptic christians of somewhat dubious loyalty (they deserted in OTL)). And keeping the army intact for the length of time necessary, which would robably include at least one awkward winter, would be tough. Nevertheless, no greek fire does weaken the defenses, although on it's own it might not be enough.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Look up the "Affair of the Necklace"- on SHWI. It is on this exact premise. And it is really, really good.

 

[Waldo]

Even if the Arabs can't expand far into Europe the fall of the Byzantines could have major repercussions. They had a tremendous cultural influence on Eastern European peoples such as the Rus. If the Byzantines were gone Eastern European culture could be significantly different. Also without the Byzantine emperors as an alternative figure of authority it could be less likely for something like the East-West schism to happen. A lot of Eastern Europe was still pagan at the time so maybe without Byzantine influence and with Arabs in their place some Eastern European peoples who became Christian could become Muslim instead?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't see how the terrain matters. If Constantinople had been captured, it would have become the capital, and would have become the power base. The Avars, Bulgars, and assorted Slavs are not pushovers, but the Caliphate has 20 times the resources the Byzantines did, and the Byzantines managed to prevail in OTL. They have no chance against the Caliphate.

How did a teeny little state like the Ottomans of 1200 manage to conquer the Balkans even without Constantinople? The Caliphate is on another level entirely - the powers in the Balkans have no chance.

Not really possible, but okay.



Not likely. The Avars, Bulgars and assorted Slavs were not pushovers. The Ummayads would be operating far from their power base in terrain that did not favor them. I wouldn't expect them to get much past Thrace.



Possibly through cultural exchange.



Doubtful. Look how long it took OTL for anyone other than nomads to take that land. The Arabs couldn't hold it -- and I doubt it would be inviting to them anyway.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I don't think you should look to 1204. These are different times, Byzantine Christianity has yet to assume its distinct identity and Islam is a young religion. I specifically did not refer to conquest but to acceptance of authority. If the caliph moves to Constantinople, proclaims himself basileus (or maybe Patriarch of Constantinople) and offers the imperial remnants protection against their dangerous neighbors (Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Lombards, Berbers) his offer would at least be considered IMO.

The resulting mix of Greek and Arab culture could be even more interesting than the one in OTL. For one, I expect the Koran will be translated in Greek and its Arabic original will not be given any special reverence. And I'd really like to see what the merger between caesaropapism and the caliphate looks like. Islam could develop quite differently. (I'm not sure it would even be called that, its Greek name could become dominant.)

As much as this will be interesting, I doubt it. Firstable, Ummayads were fairly Arab exclusive. They can't simply eject their Arab original identity in a flash nor neglecting the elite status of the Arab people in the empire that time. Of course that doesn't mean that isn't doable, but this will require a Caliph that is hellenophile enough to not mind having half of the Caliphate, if not everything outside of formerly Roman realm being seized by the more conservative fellows. Really, never had we encountered any age nor even a land in which a man wouldn't be oppossed fiercely for changing the language of Qur'an from Arabic into something else, not even in Java ! But if your objective wasn't for a Hellenic Caliphate covering half of the known world of the time, then we'll be having a plate of Basileia Omaeodos Rhōmaiōn for dinner tonight

 

[danielbd]

The Bulgars were pagan nomads who only established a foothold south of the Danube in (according to wiki) 680. The 7th century Arab siege took place in 674-678. You can forget about them.

The Bulgars had been present in Wallachia for some years now and had campaigned in the late 670s south of the Danube, being aknowledged by treaty in 681 as rulers of Dobrogea ( which was Roman land) as a consequence of a defeat in battle of Constantine IV by Asparuh. They also got control of most of Moesia.
LE: also Asparuh's father Kubrat had the Roman title of "patrikios" and his brother Kuber had been aknowledged as ruler of parts of Macedonia shortly after. So the Bulgars had been in contact with the Balkans for a while, they were not complete strangers, like the Arabs were for that matter.

Even if they had not been contemporary, i don't see how they can be butterflied away by an Arab victory. If anything an Arab victory would be make it much easier for the Bulgars to assert themselves, seeing how even with the Romans still beeing in control of most of the region they made their capital Pliska, south of the Danube in 681.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

snip

What I'm saying is this:

1) As uncivilized heathens, the Bulgars would be far from ideal overlords. Don't automatically assume they'd be preferred to the Arabs.

2) Many Byzantine possessions in the Balkans would be too far from the Bulgars for them to be of any help for awhile.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What I'm saying is this:

1) As uncivilized heathens, the Bulgars would be far from ideal overlords. Don't automatically assume they'd be preferred to the Arabs.

2) Many Byzantine possessions in the Balkans would be too far from the Bulgars for them to be of any help for awhile.

I'm not so sure why everyone is so stuck on the Bulgars. If Constantinople is taken, the Bulgars become Muslim.

In this period, it wasn't entirely clear to everyone that Islam was even a different religion - without Constantinople, Eastern Christianity is toast.

As for whether or not it would be possible for the Caliphate to take the city, I agree it would be hard, but it's not impossible or ASB. Greek fire is not that important in a siege (as opposed to a naval battle).