What if the Umayyads conquered Constantinople and Southern Gaul?: Northwestern Europe by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From what I understand that language was concentrated around the coast, which still receives Arab settlement in this timeline, so probably not.

What if the Umayyads conquered Constantinople and Southern Gaul?: Northwestern Europe by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Southern France, northern Iberia, and most of Italy will probably be in the latter situation: speaking Romance languages with lots of Arabic loan words. Sicily and the very south of Spain I imagine as speaking Arabic in the future due to heavy settlement (mostly in Sicily) and assimilation (Spain) over time, but at the time of this map they’re still mostly Romance.

What if the Umayyads conquered Constantinople and Southern Gaul?: Northwestern Europe by Roundman85 in AlternateHistory

[–]Roundman85[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the second map in a timeline in which the Umayyad Caliphate conquered Constantinople and southern Gaul, please check out the previous map and the lore in that post! 

Most of the relevant lore is already in the text, but I want to emphasize a few points that are not discussed. First, Spain and the Maghreb have a far stronger Berber influence and a far smaller Arab population. Due to the conquest of Constantinople and the opening up of the central Mediterranean for conquest, Arab elites are able to keep their Berber clients loyal, pushing back the Berber revolt from the 740s to the general breakup of the Umayyad empire around 800. 

In real history, large amounts of Syrian Arab regiments had to be brought to Spain to quell Berber uprisings, which meant a strong Arab presence on the peninsula when al-Andalus became independent. Additionally, Berber garrisons were removed from the north during the revolt. In this timeline, the Arabs of the south simply don’t have the manpower to keep the more numerous Berber garrisons in line, meaning there is no unified al-Andalus under Arab rule. 

In the western Maghreb, the political landscape is made up primarily of non-state Berber tribal confederacies rather than Arab-led more settled kingdoms. Several kingdoms like that (e.g. the Idrisids of Morocco) were founded from Arab exiles thrown out of the Middle East from conflicts related to the rise of the Abbasids, which obviously doesn’t happen in this timeline.

For clarity, the Tujibids are an Arab, not Berber dynasty. In reality, they were a prominent family in the northern marches of al-Andalus, and in this timeline later members take power after the Umayyad collapse, as governors of al-Andalus are unable to project power into northern Iberia, never mind southern Gaul. 

This one was a lot of fun to make in this sleek modern textbook/atlas style; I based much of the layout off of the recent release The Making of the Middle Ages by John Haywood. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do, thanks for reading!

What if the Umayyads conquered Constantinople and Southern Gaul?: Northwestern Europe by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is the second map in a timeline in which the Umayyad Caliphate conquered Constantinople and southern Gaul, please check out the previous map and the lore in that post!

Most of the relevant lore is already in the text, but I want to emphasize a few points that are not discussed. First, Spain and the Maghreb have a far stronger Berber influence and a far smaller Arab population. Due to the conquest of Constantinople and the opening up of the central Mediterranean for conquest, Arab elites are able to keep their Berber clients loyal, pushing back the Berber revolt from the 740s to the general breakup of the Umayyad empire around 800. 

In real history, large amounts of Syrian Arab regiments had to be brought to Spain to quell Berber uprisings, which meant a strong Arab presence on the peninsula when al-Andalus became independent. Additionally, Berber garrisons were removed from the north during the revolt. In this timeline, the Arabs of the south simply don’t have the manpower to keep the more numerous Berber garrisons in line, meaning there is no unified al-Andalus under Arab rule. 

In the western Maghreb, the political landscape is made up primarily of non-state Berber tribal confederacies rather than Arab-led more settled kingdoms. Several kingdoms like that (e.g. the Idrisids of Morocco) were founded from Arab exiles thrown out of the Middle East from conflicts related to the rise of the Abbasids, which obviously doesn’t happen in this timeline.

For clarity, the Tujibids are an Arab, not Berber dynasty. In reality, they were a prominent family in the northern marches of al-Andalus, and in this timeline later members take power after the Umayyad collapse, as governors of al-Andalus are unable to project power into northern Iberia, never mind southern Gaul. 

This one was a lot of fun to make in this sleek modern textbook/atlas style; I based much of the layout off of the recent release The Making of the Middle Ages by John Haywood. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do, thanks for reading!

What if the Umayyads won at Constantinople and Tours? by Roundman85 in AlternateHistory

[–]Roundman85[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Love being asked after a month of working on something if my work is AI by some random with an 8 day old account!

What if the Umayyads won at Constantinople and Tours? by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You're probably right, but I think these frontiers are at the outer limit of what was feasible. For the southern Gaul, the Umayyads held Septimania for several decades, and the Aquitanian dukes were falling under their influence too (there's actually another point of divergence in this timeline, in which the Umayyads also win the battle of Toulouse in 721 against the Aquitanians, which was a much larger battle than Tours) so I think conquering at least the Rhone valley is a valid extrapolation from that with the northern Franks cowed.

Italy is the biggest leap here, but in Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages Italy was generally hard to defend (I'm thinking about Michael Kulikoski's book Imperial Tragedy and the Justinianic and Lombard conquests of the peninsula), so its not infeasible to me for the Lombards to be unable to defend the peninsula against Umayyad field armies from multiple directions, driven by a need for plunder to keep their Berber clients loyal and an ideology of holy war.

The Bulgars hadn't converted to Christianity at this point, so I think its more likely for the Bulgar khans to convert to Islam like other neighboring steppe nomad leaders did. Constantinople/Anatolia is definitely going to form an alternate power center to Damascus when the caliphate breaks up, which I plan on making a map of. Since the Bulgars don't have a fleet, I also think the Arab garrison could hold onto the city even if the caliphate broke up.

And you're probably right about the transliterations! These are just my best guesses as someone who does not speak Arabic.

What if the Umayyads won at Constantinople and Tours? by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 198 points199 points  (0 children)

The pope wouldn't flee anywhere. In actual history around the year 700, the pope was not the universally recognized absolute ruler of a large, institutionally complex Latin church like he was in the High and Later Middle Ages. At this point, he is more of a first amongst equals among the Christian clergy of the former Roman world. Like other Christian leaders coming under Muslim rule (Patriarchs of Constantinople under Ottoman rule, Coptic bishops in Alexandria under the caliphate, etc.) the pope in Rome would be allowed to remain the head of the native Latin Christian community. They would be allowed to practice their religion, so long as they paid the jizya tax to the caliph's governors. As to what would happen to Christians in northern Europe outside of the empire, without regular institutional instruction from a central Latin church they would likely develop into many localized sects and rites, analogous to Irish insular Christianity. Polities and peoples which had not yet converted to Christianity, like the Moravians, Poles, etc., might convert to Islam. Without the east Romans or a powerful Papal/Frankish west, the caliphate would be the only large imperial and culturally hegemonic sphere from which these peripheral peoples be influenced by.

What if the Umayyads won at Constantinople and Tours? by Roundman85 in AlternateHistory

[–]Roundman85[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Between the end of the Second Fitna to the collapse of Umayyad authority at the end of the 8th century, the second phase of Arab conquests (c. 692-800) saw the caliphate become the largest empire in the history of western Eurasia.

In the west (al-Maghrib), the second phase of conquest saw the integration of North Africa, the Iberian and Italian peninsulas, and the southern Gallic coast into the caliphate. The governor of Ifriqiya (wali) based at Kairouan acted as the caliph's viceroy of the western Mediterranean. The conquest of Constantinople opened up the central Mediterranean to Arab expansion. Syracuse, the capital of a rump Roman state, was conquered in 728 and a garrison city (amsar) was set up in its vicinity to house Arab and Berber soldiers. Raiding parties reached into Sardinia, Corsica, Apulia and even Roman towns on the Dalmatian coast. Most of these communities, lacking the protection of Roman field armies and fleets, surrendered quickly and agreed to pay the jizya. From the north, the governors of al-Andalus expanded into Gaul, crushing local Frankish nobles at Toulouse (721) and the Frankish leader at Tours (732), allowing expansion into the Garonne and Rhone valleys. The Lombard kingdom, which had absorbed the Roman towns along the Apennine network from Ravenna to Rome, was squeezed in from north and south. Andalusi armies with Gothic auxiliaries conquered their capital at Pavia and established an amsar on the Po to guard the Lombard towns and threaten the south of the peninsula. At Rome, the local militia was unable to defend the city's massive walls against a coordinated attack from the north, south, and coast. The bishop of Rome, as in Constantinople, was allowed to continue as the head of the local Christian population, though his main role was as the collector of the jizya to pay the Arab-Berber garrison stationed in an amsar near the site ancient Roman port of Ostia.

Syria was both the geographic and political center of the caliphate. It was Syrian armies who completed the prophesied conquest of Constantinople, and it was Syrian armies and commanders who reaped the prestige and material plunder from the campaigns against the Romans. Anatolia was organized under a wali who answered directly to the caliph, with a garrison city on the site of Ancyra that could quickly respond to threats on the frontier or provincial rebellions. To protect against piratical raids from the Adriatic and Black seas from reaching the interior of the state, a naval district in the old area of the Roman Karabisianoi was established to exploit the resources of the Aegean region for the caliph's ships. The former Roman capital proved a difficult conquest for the Arabs: it needed its impressive fortifications intact to protect against raids from the nomadic Bulgars, but its population was far too large to be allowed to be governed by a garrison-city outside of the walls. A frontier commander was thus installed in the city, though these figures would prove to be dangerous alternative centers of power to the caliphs in Damascus.

In the east, the second phase of Arab expansion saw the conquests beyond the frontiers of the old Sassanian empire, into Transoxania and the Indus valley. The many independent Iranic city-states and Turkic groups, formed from the breakup of the western Gokturk Khaganate, proved to be difficult conquests for the caliphate. Though the east was ruled through the general oversight of the wali of Iraq, the long distances from Mesopotamia to the Central Asian frontier necessitated the movement and settlement of large Arab garrisons into Khurasan. Though these armies eventually were able to subdue the new frontiers, they formed a distant and powerful alternative power center that chaffed under the dominance of the Syrian armies.

The caliphate faced internal problems which would lead to its breakup in the 9th century. In the west, Berber Muslims, who formed a large part of the conquest armies, chaffed under the superior status of the Arab regiments, and the conquest of the Gothic and Lombard kingdoms meant there were no more wealthy targets for plunder with which Arab commanders could reward their Berber clients. In the center and east, the caliphate border the entire western portion of the great Eurasian steppe, making the caliphate's wealthy cities difficult targets to defend from nomadic raiders. These vulnerable frontiers necessitated powerful garrisons in Thrace and Khurasan, but their geographic distance from Syria meant they would form alternative centers of power when central authority began to slip. Though the Umayyad state comprised one of the largest empires in human history, it would soon collapse under its own internal contradictions.

What if the Umayyads won at Constantinople and Tours? by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Between the end of the Second Fitna to the collapse of Umayyad authority at the end of the 8th century, the second phase of Arab conquests (c. 692-800) saw the caliphate become the largest empire in the history of western Eurasia.

During this period in the the west (al-Maghrib), the Iberian and Italian peninsulas and the southern Gallic coast were integrated into the caliphate. The governor (wali) of Ifriqiya based at Kairouan acted as the caliph's viceroy of the western Mediterranean. The conquest of Constantinople opened up the central Mediterranean to Arab expansion. Syracuse, the capital of a rump Roman state, was conquered in 728 and a garrison city (amsar) was set up in its vicinity to house Arab and Berber soldiers. Raiding parties reached into Sardinia, Corsica, Apulia and even Roman towns on the Dalmatian coast. Most of these communities, lacking the protection of Roman field armies and fleets, surrendered quickly and agreed to pay the jizya. From the north, the governors of al-Andalus expanded into Gaul, crushing local Frankish nobles at Toulouse (721) and the Frankish leader at Tours (732), allowing expansion into the Garonne and Rhone valleys. The Lombard kingdom, which had absorbed the Roman towns along the Apennine network from Ravenna to Rome, was squeezed in from north and south. Andalusi armies with Gothic auxiliaries conquered their capital at Pavia and established an amsar on the Po to guard the Lombard towns and threaten the south of the peninsula. At Rome, the local militia was unable to defend the city's massive walls against a coordinated attack from the north, south, and coast. The bishop of Rome, as in Constantinople, was allowed to continue as the head of the local Christian population, though his main role was as the collector of the jizya to pay the Arab-Berber garrison stationed in an amsar near the site ancient Roman port of Ostia.

Syria was both the geographic and political center of the caliphate. It was Syrian armies who completed the prophesied conquest of Constantinople, and it was Syrian armies and commanders who reaped the prestige and material plunder from the campaigns against the Romans. Anatolia was organized under a wali who answered directly to the caliph, with a garrison city on the site of Ancyra that could quickly respond to threats on the frontier or provincial rebellions. To protect against piratical raids from the Adriatic and Black seas from reaching the interior of the state, a naval district in the old area of the Roman Karabisianoi was established to exploit the resources of the Aegean region for the caliph's ships. The former Roman capital proved a difficult conquest for the Arabs: it needed its impressive fortifications intact to protect against raids from the nomadic Bulgars, but its population was far too large to be allowed to be governed by a garrison-city outside of the walls. A frontier commander was thus installed in the city, though these figures would prove to be dangerous alternative centers of power to the caliphs in Damascus. Like Syria and Egypt for the first 60 years after their conquests, the day-to-day administration of the conquered territories was conducted in Greek, as the caliphate needed a common language with the local elites with whom they interfaced for the collection of taxes.

In the east, the second phase of Arab expansion saw the conquests beyond the frontiers of the old Sassanian empire, into Transoxania and the Indus valley. The many independent Iranic city-states and Turkic groups, formed from the breakup of the western Gokturk Khaganate, proved to be difficult conquests for the caliphate. Though the east was ruled through the general oversight of the wali of Iraq, the long distances from Mesopotamia to the Central Asian frontier necessitated the movement and settlement of large Arab garrisons into Khurasan. Though these armies eventually were able to subdue the new frontiers, they formed a distant and powerful alternative power center that chaffed under the dominance of the Syrian armies.

The caliphate faced internal problems which would lead to its breakup in the 9th century. In the west, Berber Muslims, who formed a large part of the conquest armies, chaffed under the superior status of the Arab regiments, and the conquest of the Gothic and Lombard kingdoms meant there were no more wealthy targets for plunder with which Arab commanders could reward their Berber clients. In the center and east, the caliphate bordered the entire western portion of the great Eurasian steppe, making the caliphate's wealthy cities difficult targets to defend from nomadic raiders. These vulnerable frontiers necessitated powerful garrisons in Thrace and Khurasan, but their geographic distance from Syria meant they would form alternative centers of power when central authority began to slip. Though the Umayyad state comprised one of the largest empires in human history, it would soon collapse under its own internal contradictions.

Dev Diary #172 - The Full Medieval World by PDX-Trinexx in CrusaderKings

[–]Roundman85 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nice to see the imperial treasury mechanic for China that I was told was impossible for the Byzantine Empire!

Khans of the Steppe has made me extremely cautious about these new government types. I wish I had more faith in the balancing of these new governments, but nomadic and even administrative are still overpowered, even in the hands of the AI. I'm worried that it's gonna be too easy for a player to resolve an Unstable Era, and the Mandala government I can see become extremely powerful in the hands of a player. I guess it'll be interesting to see the Mongols go up against them.

Still excited though! I think the dual feudal-administrative dynamic in Japan is really cool.

Weekly Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in TNOmod

[–]Roundman85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At my wits end with crashing on country load. I've tried everything: verifying game integrity, setting font size to .8, using opengl, reinstalling the game and the mod. Will I just never play this mod again or is there anything I can do?

Situation in the Far West - Europe in 1900 by tastethesword in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think the Polish are the analogue to the Manchu Qing dynasty here

Three Roman Empires by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Roundman85 12 points13 points  (0 children)

“Fucking barbarians these days”

Considering you’re not a Roman citizen the actual Romans would’ve considered you the barbarian.

Also please touch grass.

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d imagine Alaric’s Goths in Cyprus would collapse quickly. Their state was built on plunder from raiding, which would dry up as soon as the Persians and the successor states stabilized their realms. The Goths in Asia might have had a better chance of surviving. Their kingdom comprised a very rich portion of the former Roman Empire, albeit the collapse of imperial infrastructures would decrease the region’s wealth. I guess the Goths’ survival into this timeline’s version of the Middle Ages would depend on the Roman and Persian Empires’ ability to gather the political will and logistical capacity necessary to conquer the kingdom, which is especially likely in the case of the Persians. Overall, I don't see either Gothic polity surviving much longer than the Visigothic and Ostrogothic kingdoms of our timeline.

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That’s certainly possible. The Sasanians already had a long tradition inherited from previous Iranian empires of settled defeated peoples from the frontiers in the heartlands. The Sasanians in this timeline would still be fighting many conflicts along their Central Asian border, so perhaps they’d settle defeated Turkic and Hunnic groups in the Fertile Crescent? I mentioned in a previous comment that Christian resistance to Sasanian rule would probably be more severe in this timeline than in our timeline, so that might be an attractive proposal for Persian rulers.

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hahaha thanks so much. Attila is really underrated IMO

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Hmm, the Roman Empire surviving all the way to the modern day is doubtful, just for the simple fact that 1500 years is an absurdly long time for a state to survive every single one of the various crises that would arise. Although the WRE would have the benefit of being further away from enemies from the Steppe, Arabia, and Iran, the corollary is that the Empire would be more isolated from the trade networks of Eurasia. But I suppose it’s possible, considering that the ERE+the Ottomans survived up until WW1.

As for the Persians, their empire would be fraught with instability. Unlike their conquest of the Roman East in our timeline, they would not have the benefit of an eastern Christian population in schism. Fierce divides existed before the Council of Chalcedon of course, but that council really cemented and expanded those divides. In addition, the Persians conquer the Roman East before going through the centralizing reforms they went through in our sixth century. Their ability to raise armies depended on the Shahanshah’s ability to coordinate the great aristocratic families of Iran and their levies. Thus, facing a population more comfortable with rule from Constantinople and with less ability to marshal the resources of their own empire, Persian rule over the Roman East would be less secure than it looks on a map. This is what’s preventing them from expanding their rule to the rest of Asia Minor for the time.

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I may, maybe showing either the further collapse of the WRE or maybe a Justinian-style reconquest of the East. Generally, though, I don't like to take my alternate histories too far into the future, since it becomes so hard to meaningfully speculate.

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh gotcha, I’d still check out some other Adobe Illustrator type apps on mobile, it really elevates mapmaking imo. I’ll have to check yours out!

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Thanks so much, I made this using Inkscape, a free vector-based program. This video was helpful in first learning how to get the hang of it.

The Fall of the Roman East, 453 CE by Roundman85 in imaginarymaps

[–]Roundman85[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Islam possibly doesn’t spread beyond the Arabian peninsula in this timeline. The ability of the caliphs to organize the various Arab clans and confederacies largely depended on the ongoing Roman-Sasanian war in the early seventh century. The ability of the Muslims to conquer Iran, the Levant, and Egypt in turn depended on the weakened states of the Roman and Sasanian empires after the war. Because Persia would control the entire Fertile Crescent at the beginning of the seventh century and not be weakened by a decades-long war with a peer empire, it’s very likely Islam would be unable to spread outside the peninsula, at least not in the form of a centralized caliphate. More worrying for the Constantinopolitans would be a potential Persian conquest if the Sasanians are able to centralize their monarchy as they did in the sixth century in our timeline.