What if the Umayyads had won the Siege of Constantinople (717-18 AD) AND the Battle of Tours (732 AD)?

[krste]

Not that this is going to increase my popularity in this thread, but you are all wrong.

Live Science says that even today, the DNA is between 4 and 20% depending on region. http://www.livescience.com/37092-sou...can-genes.html And that's even after all Moors and Moriscoes were expelled in the 16th and 17th centuries, so the original total would have been significantly higher.

Once again, the real motive for the posts of certain posters in this thread has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with their racist, unpleasant right wing views. Why not just come out and admit it: you don't like people who are not white Christians. There, I said it. It's out in the open, and now we can acknowledge it for what it is. Come out and be man enough to admit what you are. Go post on Stormfront ffs. This forum would be a much better place without you and your hateful, racist, neo-Nazi posts. That and your attitude problem, I know for a fact many of us are frankly sick of your behaviour and would not be sorry to see you gone.

You claim that one civilization is superior to another in every way, and then accuse others of being racists and neo-Nazis.

Anyway, I find "What if?" threads rather silly, people in them seem a little to confident in their "what happens next" predictions for my taste. In my opinion it would be better to stick to immediate consequences, instead of making bold predictions for the next couple of millennia. There are too many things that will go differently, too many variables that will result in a world largely unrecognizable.

For all will know this particular deviation in history can result in world dominated by the Mongols; a ship reaching the Americas and exposing them to Old World diseases before large colonization effort can be mounted; European emigration to a economically more developed North Africa. Or, Bulgar Arabia, maybe the ERE was keeping them at bay, and not the Umayyads and the Abassids.

[bigdaddy1204]

The Mongols were not the ones who "took care" of the Seljuks of Rum(even though they landed the last blow), Theodore I Laskaris obliterated what was probably the largest army they ever assembled at the battle of Meander, that is what prolonged a Roman western Anatolia.

The Seljuks never recovered from that.

This is pure fantasy, that never happened.

What ACTUALLY happened was that the Byzantine forces were on the point of being annihilated by a superior Turkish force, when by sheer luck an Alan soldier in the Byzantine army cut off the head of the Turkish leader. This event caused the rest of the Seljuk army to flee, as there was no point in dying for a leader who was already dead. The actual number of Turkish soldiers lost was probably not very high. Most likely was simply the psychological factor; for one reason or another, the Seljuks didn't get round to organising another go before they were bulldozed by the Mongols.

Laskaris oblitering the Seljuk army? Please.

[Roma_Victrix]

Who could have guessed that my innocent little thread could stir up such riveting, sexy, Donald-Trump/Caitlyn-Jenner-sized controversy. I'm not sure about anyone else here, but I'm titillated by all of this. Please, continue!

[Condottiere 40K]

Actually, for the exact same Donaldesque reason.

The Med used to be our wall.

[+Marius+]

This is pure fantasy, that never happened.

Sure thing brah, its not as if we have plenty of info on it or anything

What ACTUALLY happened

*Gasp*

when by sheer luck an Alan soldier in the Byzantine army cut off the head of the Turkish leader.

Never mind the "by sheer luck" part that you just had to put in, but it was actually a full frontal clash led by the Sultan Kay-khusraw himself and Theodore on the other side, not some random Alan soldier.

Written by the near contemporary, Akropolites;

"The sultan hastened towards the emperor with all his might, for he had confidence in his superiority over him. They recognized each other. The sultan smote the emperor's head with his mace, and the emperor fell from his horse; for he was stunned by the blow. Now, without his horse, but strengthened, so to speak, by the power of the Divine, the emperor stood on his own feet and drew his sword from the sheath. When the sultan turned and contemptuously exclaimed; "Take this man!", the emperor struck the back legs of the sultans horse. The sultan fell down as if from the tower, and suddenly his head was cut off."


The Turks were slaughtered in the ensuing rout and most of the Byzantine casualties were the western mercenaries that carried off the brunt of the attack.

This event caused the rest of the Seljuk army to flee, as there was no point in dying for a leader who was already dead.

Strawman, the Sultans sons were still there fighting and they would not just abandon the body of the Sultan.

The Turkish army fought, lost and routed, simply as that.

The actual number of Turkish soldiers lost was probably not very high.

On what do you base this?

Because from what I can see, the Sultans son succeeded the throne imediatelly and yet sued for peace and left the entirety of western Anatolia to Theodore.

Hardly actions of a man with an intact army on his hands.

Also, while all this was happening, the Latin Empire was allied with the Turks and were invading the Nicaeans from the north.

What did the Latins do when they found out about the victory?

Abandoned the alliance and retreated from Anatolia.

Hardly actions that would happen if the Byzantine army was no longer intact and Seljuks still had an army.

Most likely was simply the psychological factor; for one reason or another, the Seljuks didn't get round to organising another go before they were bulldozed by the Mongols.

There are nearly three decades between that battle and the Mongol invasion of Anatolia.

It takes Turks 30 years to organize a counter attack?

[Roma_Victrix]

I'm actually rather intrigued that Theodore I Laskaris apparently paid 20,000 dirhams to the Seljuk royal family after the battle, as alms for Sultan Kaykhusraw I's funeral ceremony.

[+Marius+]

Because they were very good friends and allies for most of their careers.

Theodore knew the sultans son since he was a boy.

It was a gift, not some immense amount of money, for instance, the Mamluks were to receive an annual tribute of one million dirhams from the Armenians after the truce of 1285.

[Dromikaites]

A victory against Charles Martel and the fall of Constantinople might have significantly changed the course of history even if the Ummayads would have collapsed just like they did in the real life. After all, the Ottomans had started with less resources than what the Emirate of Córdoba had at their disposal at the time the Ummayads collapsed. Better emirs in Córdoba and say Constantinople might have ended up fighting each other for control over Italy and Germany.

Under such a scenario the Christians would have probably survived in Europe just like they did in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon or Iraq.

What is less likely under such scenario is for science and technology as we know it today to be saved by the Chinese. A victory at Poitiers and in Constantinople would not prevent Al-Ghazali from being born, nor from winning the dispute with the "philosophers". Once that happens, save for some truly exceptional circumstances, the Muslims would be stuck in the 13th century.

The Ottoman example is again relevant: the Ottomans were the most progressive of the Muslim empires. They were eager to adopt the Western technologies and even tried to reinvent themselves politically when they realized they were losing the geopolitical game.

However, due to the crushing victory scored by al-Ghazali long before the rise of the Ottomans, the only type of philosophical thinking considered worth pursuing by a Muslim was that of the mystical type. As a result the Ottomans dabbled in plenty of Islamic sects, one more mystical than another without ever coming anywhere close to something similar to the Renaissance.

No Renaissance, no modern science. And since the Chinese weren't able to produce a Galillei or a Newton by the 17th century either, it's quite unlikely we would have Internet today had the Arabs won at Poitiers and Constantinople.

[bigdaddy1204]

Sure thing brah, its not as if we have plenty of info on it or anything

Look, I know far more about the Byzantines than you ever will. So why don't you just admit you are WRONG and get over it.

According to what I read in Nichol's book, the events were exactly as I described. The Byzantine army was the smaller force, and it was on the brink of losing when Kay khusraw was killed. The Byzantine force was largely destroyed in the fighting, which explains why the Nicaeans were unable to fight the Latins shortly thereafter and instead signed the peace of Nymphaeum.

So why don't you go cool off and admit that you don't know the first thing about Byzantium, and I will always beat you, every time. I'd like to settle this, man to man, in the offline world. Then we'll see who is so smart. Me versus you, tough guy. I want a fight. I want to settle this old school, just me and you. Then we will see who is a smart ass, and who is right.

[+Marius+]

Look, I know far more about the Byzantines than you ever will.

So why don't you just admit you are WRONG and get over it.

According to what I read in Nichol's book, the events were exactly as I described. The Byzantine army was the smaller force, and it was on the brink of losing when Kay khusraw was killed. The Byzantine force was largely destroyed in the fighting, which explains why the Nicaeans were unable to fight the Latins shortly thereafter and instead signed the peace of Nymphaeum.

You mean David Nicolle?

Firstly, he is not the only one with works about this subject.
Secondly, he is a known Turkophile.
Thirdly, even he states differently that you.

It was not the Roman army that was destroyed as a whole, merely the western mercenaries that carried the brunt of the fighting.
That is why they had issues with the Latins, because they lacked heavy western cavalry.

Also, again, the Latin army was already marching at Nymphaeum when the battle of Meander took place...why would they retreat from Anatolia and abandon their campaign if the Roman army was destroyed?

So why don't you go cool off and admit that you don't know the first thing about Byzantium, and I will always beat you, every time.

Shaka brah

I'd like to settle this, man to man, in the offline world. Then we'll see who is so smart. Me versus you, tough guy. I want a fight. I want to settle this old school, just me and you. Then we will see who is a smart ass, and who is right.

Time and place?

Also...gas money.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Look, I know far more about the Byzantines than you ever will.

I sincerely doubt that. People always have the propensity to learn.

I could say "I know more about Flavius Aetius than anyone on the planet" and I would literally be right, 100%, unquestionably. But I would look like a total ass saying so, ergo I do not brag about it and I usually back up my statements with precise references. Just because I know a lot, does not mean my word on a topic is law. Far from it, in a world of theory and conjecture like Migration Era history.

So please refrain from such statements, especially when you are, in fact, not entirely correct in your statements about the Battle of Meander.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

You just said that MMFA, you know I've nominated him like every year for an award Big Daddy I must ask what makes you the foremost authority on Byzantium? This forum has many Byzantinophiles, I mean like a lot. What exactly makes you stand out? Anyway all of this will probably be deleted by a mod.
Do not listen to him my Fuhrer, we are awed by your brilliance.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You just said that MMFA, you know I've nominated him like every year for an award

My apologies. When I'm writing a 1500 word paper analyzing a 12 minute news clip for my "Critical Thinking" class I'm required to take by my Liberal Arts university, my propensity to be irritable knows no bounds.

And yes, I am really enjoying using the word "propensity" today.

Back on topic:

What really WAS the chance that the Arabs could take Constantinople in 717/718? I mean, the city had its Land Walls which were completely impenetrable at the time, and the first sea wall had been built, and the chain across the Golden Horn kept ships out.

They'd have to starve the city out, and with a functional navy the Romans could keep importing grain from other parts of the empire (and possibly Carthage... not sure if they still owned it at the time).

[+Marius+]

Back on topic:

What really WAS the chance that the Arabs could take Constantinople in 717/718?

Not a good one.

The first Arab siege lasted much longer, 4 years, had better prospects and also failed utterly.

It actually ended up with the Caliph having to pay an annual tribute to the Romans.

The second siege was a complete disaster as well, so much so, that certain historians look to that specific mass loss of Umayyad troops and massive, completely wasted wealth required to mount such an expedition as one of the causes for their downfall.

Contemporary sources speak of the loss of nearly all men who took part in that expedition to the City, including basically the entire fleet.

If not for the Bulgars, the Romans could have conter attacked both times and probably cause massive gains in the East.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I would definitely credit that failed campaign as one of the reasons for the Umayyad downfall. Though I would make it far more complex by adding discontented Arab aristocracy, discontented everyone else as well as the fact that besides provincial militias the Umayyads had no regular army with the exception of their Syrian army which took huge losses fighting Byzantium. The majority of their provincial militias (some of which might be described as being elite regulars) were usually under the control of the local governors rather than the Caliph himself and at times made up of mercenaries who had no loyalty to the Caliph. This is especially true in the areas where they expanded (Maghreb, Spain) or the areas where border protection was always an immediate requirement (Khorasan/Central Asia border).

Compound all of this against the Umayyads and subtract the loss of their Syrian army in their wars against Byzantium and you see the massive discrepancy between the Abbasids and the Umayyads.
However the area was in such clear disorder that the Abbasids did not launch campaigns against Byzantium until the 760's I think which is a full decade or more after they came to power.

[+Marius+]

Well, the Umayyads did return once more, but were met in open field at the battle of Akroinon and completely destroyed.

This marked their last attempt at going after the Romans.

[Dromikaites]

During the last Ottoman siege of Constantinople, the Turks were very close to destroy the wall through mining. Luckily the Byzantines had a Scottish "engineer" who knew the trick and answered it with counter-mines.

Mining and counter-mining were practiced since at least the 3rd century BC in Europe and the Arabs themselves would later use it against the Crusaders (for instance at Jacob's Ford).

So I think the Arabs could have taken Constantinople during the second siege but they didn't because on that occasion they lacked experienced siege engineers.

[Roma_Victrix]

During the last Ottoman siege of Constantinople, the Turks were very close to destroy the wall through mining. Luckily the Byzantines had a Scottish "engineer" who knew the trick and answered it with counter-mines.

Mining and counter-mining were practiced since at least the 3rd century BC in Europe and the Arabs themselves would later use it against the Crusaders (for instance at Jacob's Ford).

So I think the Arabs could have taken Constantinople during the second siege but they didn't because on that occasion they lacked experienced siege engineers.

Such an excellent point. I wish I could rep you for this, but I've repped too many people in the past 24 hours.

[+Marius+]

Perhaps, but it is not as simple as merely crumbling a part of the wall.

That does not mean that a clear breach is achieved, more like a giant pile of rubble that your soldiers can climb over, breaking through it may not be as easy as one may think.

Imagine how disorganized an infantry push would be through this;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The catastrophic sieges of Rhodes by the Ottomans come to mind, there mining did not achieve victory, yet it was a much superior army against a much smaller fortification.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I thought the wall was basically impervious to mining though due to the moat in front of it, although IIRC maybe there was an exposed section at one end of it where it was possible?