egypt is a strong base of power along with syria there is no natural disaster unlike the fatimids which had to deal with one of the worst periods of natural disasters in egyptian history the only thing they would have to do is reform and pronto starting in 693 massive coptic revolts began in 720 the sittuation was so bad that the delta was controled by the coptic rebels, if the uymmads are reduced to africa including egypt and the levant then Bashmurian revolts would be terrible not enough for the copts to take back egypt but enough for the byzantines to take back territory as the forces from the caliphate are sent to crush revolts in such scenario i see a byzantine reconquest of antioch in the 8th century
Second Fitna Possibilities
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
Yes, with the Umayyyads the heart of the empire will be Syria. The armies are Syrian, just as the administration comes from Syria. As long as Syria and Damascus remain strong, a conquest of Egypt is impossible. Not only that but their exclusive form of Islam is more viable. After all, if only Arabs could be Muslims, the economic base of the Umayyads would remain strong.
I think a map of the first fitna would be more similar to the idea of two caliphates. The major difference is that Medica and Mecca will probably be controlled by the Umayyads. But Antioch will be one of the first cities to be reconquered by the Byzantines. But that doesn't mean a super Byzantine empire. I think that it will long term look a lot like OTL Turkey plus Greece (maybe they can liberate Armenia and expand in the Balkans).
I think basil II borders if the coptic revolts still occur at the scale it did in the otl are very plausibile by the 8th century
by this point justinian II would likely fully cement control of byzantine cilicia and as mentioned in another comment the treaty of 689 made the umayyad give up their claim in iberia and armenia while i dont think this would fully cement control Zubayrids troops were still there but i dont find impossible that the empire wins out against the Zubayrid, but in otl despite the 10 year truce the caliphate began to attack much sooner i dont think the umayyads would re start raids on the scale we saw in olt 690s and likely the 10 years truce holds, which gives time for the romans to consolidate cilicia and for more campaings against the slavs even if a defeat occurs in 700s i think given his victories during the civil war Justinian II is not ousted which means no twenty years anarchy wich means iconoclams remains a small sect and justinian II or who ever is alive by 726 seeing that a reconquest of the former territory is possible would try another swing at unification with the oriental churches especially if the council manzikert occurs
Last edited:
yes, the Balkans border will be more flexible due to the Hungarians, Poles, and Germans. But the Byzantine border in the Middle East will be something like that.
that is possible, with the Arminian sect having more chance to unite with the Byzantine one than the Syrian one.
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Considering that Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr was 68 when he was slain OTL, is it safe to say he only lives a few more years at best TTL? If so, is it safe to say one of his sons (maybe him) succeeds him, or does his opposition to the Umayyad succession mean that a new shura is likely to pick someone else? If so, who?
yeah given how severus of antioch was considered a heretic by the armenians till 726 and the chalcedonian ecumenical councils condem him i see it more plausible than the syraics,.
the likely sucessor is Mus'ab.
depends on the pod assuming a late pod that Mus'ab listens to al-Ashtar and Mus'ab detain and hold the treasonous leaders hostage, releasing them on the condition of victory or executing them if defeated and says he wins the battle of Maskin even though he sustains so much casualties that an invasion of syria is not possible as al malik had attempted by now three times and failed to conquer iraq and given how he just defeated a revolt would mean Abd al-Malik would likely face some revolts as well, Mus'ab is also busy cleaning his house so to say so no side likely marches on eachother thinking they will march upon them soon, but both Abd al-Malik and to a lesser extend Mus'ab would be worried about the byzantines, on the one hand Abd al-Malik relinquised all claims of armenia and gave it to Justinian II despite it being controlled by Zubayr, on the other hand Justian II captured antioch in 680s as show of force who is to say Abd al-Malik does not fear that this would occur now unlike the first fitna were both sides agreed to come together if the byzantines invaded we saw none of that in the second one as Abd al-Malik essentially gave justinian armenia and iberia so that he could deal with the Zubayrids so by this point both sides especially the umayyads would not be against using the byzantines to their benefit.
I see a peace following in all frontiers for some years, maybe a decade, until 700, with likely Abd al-Malik being the aggressor and trying another take at conquering Iraq. By this point, Mus'ab likely had dealt with the problems in Iraq and would make an attempt at conquest harder, and it's not impossible, depending on how desperate Mus'ab's or his sucessor situation is, that he also gives up his claims to Armenia and Iberia in exchange for the Byzantines not attacking them as well. That would eliminate any reason for Justinian II wanting to side with the Umayaads and might even change Justinian II's mind if he remains neutral or attacks Syria.
and now i want to write a timeline i will call it justinian triumphant or something cheesy like @Lady Visenya told me
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Ok, so if I understand right, the idea that Mus’ab isn’t killed, and that Abd Allah still dies before the Ummayads can be brought to heel, leaving that task to his sucessor Mus’ab. That right?
If so, couple of things -- first, the prospect of Caliph Mus’ab Zubayr is kind of interesting in its own right, in part due to his wife, a daughter of Abu Bakr, who apparently argued against the veil. Second, can we safely assume Mus’ab lives a to about circa 705 or so (said women’s third husband lived that long, as did Abd al-Malik, so it seems reasonable)? Third, is Mus’ab’s successor likely to be chosen by a shura council, or do they keep it in the Zubayr family?
pretty much
could be both that the shura elects a family member especially given how if he dies the same year as Abd al-Malik dies and does not do one i think the Zubayrids after that are going to look west trying to reclaim eastern iran by this point islam is changed a while the idea that Abd al-Malik made the quran is a silly one the idea that he standarized it via al-Hajjaj is valid the is a possibilty that there was consonantal diferences in the quran, the umayaads destroyed other qurans that did not consonantal skeleton as his version, he cant do that for all the caliphate so Zubayrid caliphate, keeps other qurans which have diferent consonantal skeletons. thus further divisions in islam
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
To be clear, I meant Abd al-Malik’s OTL death; obviously, if Mus’ab is defeating him TTL, the former is going to die earlier. In other words, Mus’an dies in 705 presiding over a now unified Islam TTL similarly to how Malik did OTL. Does that make sense; and are we talking the same thing?
If so, does the shura council electing another Zubayr mean that said family is now head of a new caliphate dynasty?
You mean “east”?
Scripture is a good place to start, but I wonder how much more about this alternate version of Islam we could speculate about. First, if I’m right about the above, how long does this Zubayrid Caliphate last? Once we have that idea, we can get deeper into questions if legacy.
I was refering to Mus’ab defeating malik but like most of the battles prior to 691 its a phyric victory and given how iraq is unstable in the otl much more than syria, even with this victory Mus’an is not able to counter and march on syria, essentially we have two caliphates the uymaayads rulling egypt with more of africa and the levant and the Zubayrids rulling iraq and most of iran and likely could win out in arabia.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I see, you were talking about an “Islam splits” scenario; that certainly has fascinating potential too, though me and @holycookie earlier were also talking about a second scenario where the Zubayrids win the Second Fitna outright.
Obviously, if the Caliphate splits, then the prospects of “Ummayad Islam” are as important for the religion’s development as “Zubayrid Islam” is.
oh ok well given how syria will really resist him i do not think Zubayrids will recover as quickly as al malik syria for all its problemas more or less stable iraq was not so he would have to subdue syria and deal with his center being a mess so that good news for justinian II if he dies in 705 the can choose his sucessor
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Agreed.
Ok, this gets to the follow up - - what does this mean for the eight century at large? We’ve already discussed how, territorially speaking, Islam won’t be doing as well, and how conversely this is good news for the Byzantines; but how well does this new Zubayrid Caliphate hold together in these circumstances (Roman reconquests aside)? We’ve also had mention of how the textual context of the Quran would be different (surviving “commentaries”, possibly multiple “versions”, etc); how is the overall development of Islam different TTL, and what is the legacy of the Zubayrid Caliphate in this development (and how does that leg t compare to the OTL legacy of the Ummayads)?
assuming the sucessor is competent apart from taking syria and pacifying it as the center would be iraq attention shifts faster to the man who owns much of the east Abd Allah ibn Khazim al-Sulami which could and likely would be a thorn assuming the caliph dies in 705 it really depends who succeeded him, if a weak caliph took the throne with the energetic justinian II and given that many of the central asia states had not been conquered the tang arrival to the region migth spell disaster aksu was a bad enough defeat and that was with a stronger caliphate, it could spell a doomed legacy and another fitnah later down the line
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Let’s assume a competent successor for now; it sounds like Justinian II is prevented from pushing much further south than Antioch and Aleppo. The caliph, meanwhile, has his hands full securing Persia; but what about after that? How do arab-malawi-dhimmi relations faring? Do they do better than OTL due to the Zubayrids being more frugal than the Ummayads? And what kind of impact does that have on Islam going forward?
I do think it would be interesting that if the Romans did reconquer Egypt, somewhere down the line some theological dispute would go terribly wrong and Egypt declares independence, leading to an independent Coptic Egypt.
I was thinking of reigniting the first ie. the resolution of the First being less decisive and thus re-erupting a generation later.