AHC: Worst 9th Century for Byzantine Empire

[John Fredrick Parker]

With no PoDs prior the Leo V the Armenian resuming Iconoclasm in 814, and preferably starting sometime before the death of Theophilos (the last Iconoclast Emperor) in early 842 -- how can the "Roman" Empire have as hard a time as possible in the century following said PoD? We're basically looking for this period to be so bad, that the recovery the empire saw in OTL's 10th Century effectively can't happen, or is at least as curbed as possible.

For example, we already know the Byzantines lose Crete and Sicily during this time to the muslims; could the Duchy of Beneveto take this opportunity to take the Duchy of Calabria from them as well? If the empire did lose all remaining Italian possessions, they'd just be left with Anatolia, Thrace, and the Hellenic Peninsula (also Cherson) -- is there a way they could lose even chunks of that? For example, could the Bulgarian Empire possibly have expanded their borders to the Peloponese? What if the Rus Siege of 860 had been more successful?

If it helps, I'm trying to see this as part of a world where both the Carolingian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate do better in the 9th Century compared to OTL. What do you guys think?

 

[Evil Crusader]

Taking away Italy is easy, taking away more of the Balkans is hard (because Bulgarian logistics are mostly road-based and the Balkans have plenty of mountains slowing that down), taking away chunks of Armenia or Anatolia risks bringing down the Empire.
In that period, the game was more for Byzantium to lose than for others to win.
If you keep the stabilisation bottled up, it quite possibly never is followed by a recovery.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

taking away more of the Balkans is hard (because Bulgarian logistics are mostly road-based and the Balkans have plenty of mountains slowing that down)

I think I came across a map of the later 9th Century that showed raids along the western coast of the Hellenes (basically modern day Albania); anything to that?

 

[aluzinnu]

One the Abbasid front:

when the caliph al-Ma’mun died in 833, he was in the opening stages of a HUGE invasion of Anatolia. Not just a summer raid—he had stated intentions of marching all the way to Constantinople and converting Theophilos, whose army wasn’t ship-shape at the time. Al-Ma’mun had already rejected desperately huge sums of money from Theophilos for peace. In OTL, al-Ma’mun took ill and his successor, al-Mu’tasim, called off the invasion to secure his own position. But I can see a world where al-Ma’mun lives to see that invasion through, maybe not capturing Constantinople, but possibly annexing and at the very least devastating huge swathes of Anatolia. That would leave the Byzantines with a pretty precarious frontier.

Alternately—most attribute the waning power of the Abbasid to the increasing domination of Turkish officers over the court (Anarchy at Samarra), which began under al-Mu’tasim. In 838, there was a conspiracy by supporters of al-Abbas (a strong general and son of al-Ma’mun, who had been passed over for the caliphate) against al-Mu’tasim and his Turkish guard, which in OTL was revealed and all the conspirators executed. But again, I can see a world where the coup goes off without a hitch, al-Abbas assumes power, and the Turks do not go on to destabilize the dynasty. (I myself am using this idea in a scenario of my own, though with significantly more complications, namely an Abbasid civil war, but if you want the Abbasids more powerful it would be easy to skip a civil war and just have al-Abbas take the reins as a powerful new rival to the Byzantines.)

These are just some possibilites that came to mind for how to strengthen the Abbasids vis a vis Byzantines, hope you find them somewhat useful.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@aluzinnu I really like the idea of al-Ma’mun living longer as a PoD -- I’d been looking into how I frame a debate on how Mu’tazilism could have a more “positive” impactful legacy on Islam -- and if his son, Al abbas, succeeds him (instead of Al Mutasim), that would help further.

 

[aluzinnu]

That’s a really interesting question. I think most are of the mind that al-Ma’mun shot himself (and the Mu’tazila) in the foot with his the Mihna, but if he somehow manages to bring it around to intellectual dominance we may be looking at a very different modern Islam. Assuming his 833 invasion of Anatolia is a triumph, that in itself could surely play a big role in galvanizing public support for Mu’tazila.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Assuming his 833 invasion of Anatolia is a triumph, that in itself could surely play a big role in galvanizing public support for Mu’tazila.

Assuming that much - - how much would you say Al Ma’mun could accomplish with, say, five extra years?

 

[aluzinnu]

Difficult to say concretely, and it really depends what he does with those five years. But I think it’s feasible that he could establish Mu’tazila is the predominant theological school through at least the reign of his successor (presumable al-Abbas).

If we take the 833 Anatolia campaign as a success, and assume also that he puts down the ongoing Khurramite rebellion in Azerbaijan (which al-Mu’tasim did OTL), two major military victories would do a lot to bolster his popular legitimacy.

I would say the big question is the Mihna: does he continue his Mu’tazili inquisition? End it? Intensify it? I think you have two options here: either he continues the Mihna (perhaps intensified?) and suppresses out opposing schools through force, OR he ends the Mihna after a few years, maybe a revolt, and attempts to reconcile the Mu’tazila with the orthodox ulema through political maneuvers. Personally, I find the first more likely but the second more compelling.

Important to consider is the Mihna was as much a political as a religious project; certainly al-Ma’mun was sincere in his beliefs, but at the same time it was an attempt to elevate the intellectual authority of the caliph over the ulema. Which is why I feel like he would have carried on with the Mihna. Bottom line though, stronger Mu’tazila in the 830s = stronger central caliphal authority.

I’ve gone way long already but a few other points I recommend looking into for narrative elements: his relationship with the rest of the Abbasid family (somewhat hostile), his relationship with the Shi’a (very complicated), and his relationship with Theophilos (surprisingly cordial, until the invasion). Really fascinating guy, there’s a lot you can do with extending his reign as a POD.

 

[Evil Crusader]

I think I came across a map of the later 9th Century that showed raids along the western coast of the Hellenes (basically modern day Albania); anything to that?

Raids are not conquests. Oftentimes, Byzantine control was just a small coastal strip focused on the main towns and supported by sea, but uprooting them requires a lengthy and costly campaign which only a 'peer' polity could afford - or a sudden failure of the Byzantines elsewhere, which probably spells doom for the whole machine in the mid-term. The Slavs got as far as the Peloponnese in the 7th century, down to the bottom tips, this did not prevent eventual recapture when the Empire stopped being so weak that its capital got besieged twice in fifty years. Even the mighty zar Symeon scarcely held ports on the Aegean, despite enjoying absolute superiority over land. I'd say that is the maximum believable border that a non-broken Byzantine Empire can give to another Balkan power, beyond that it becomes a question of 'why are they good enough to hold all that and yet unable to forcefully capture Constantinople'.

 

[raharris1973]

taking away chunks of Armenia or Anatolia risks bringing down the Empire.

Well, could we also plausibly get this result inside the century running 814 AD to 914 AD ? If so, how?

 

[Putnam]

The problem is, territorially there isn't much land the Romans can lose in the 9th century without causing a total collapse. Here's a map of the Roman Empire in 814 AD:

By 914 AD Sicily and Crete are gone historically, so you have to do worse than that. I guess you could take away the rest of Italy, but outside of Constantinople's ability to influence the Papacy, which is a big deal, it doesn't really impact the strength of the Empire directly.

Any significant loss of territory in the east (i.e. the loss of an entire Theme) would be devastating at this point since Anatolia is the Empire now.

Perhaps you could have even worse political instability within the Empire, and preventing the rise of a strong dynasty in the latter half of the century, while preventing the slow decline of the Abbasids somehow.

That's really all I have. By the 9th century, the only way the Romans were going to have a significantly worse time of things is if they actively shoot themselves in the foot and/or there is a significantly stronger power that can prevent their expansion moving forward. By the 9th century the Romans had already seen off the worst of the last few centuries and were poised to rise from the ashes.

Some how you have to prevent that rise during the Macedonian Dynasty and the best way to do that is maintain a Caliphate that is still very much a major threat while weakening the internal situation in the Empire.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The problem is, territorially there isn't much land the Romans can lose in the 9th century without causing a total collapse...

Any significant loss of territory in the east (i.e. the loss of an entire Theme) would be devastating at this point since Anatolia is the Empire now.

I mean, that is perfectly acceptable under terms of the OP.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Well, could we also plausibly get this result inside the century running 814 AD to 914 AD ? If so, how?

See aluzinnu's first post here to an easy how. Combine it with a slightly wanked Bulgarian Empire that pounces on the weak Constantinople, and it even becomes a near immediate breakdown.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Honestly, I think a near-total collapse is entirely possible - as stated before, and creates something interesting - WI you have such a collapse that Constantinople is independent, essentially pinned between the Abbasids and the Bulgarians? Sort of taking a similar role to the Pope/Later Caliphs in that they're limited in power, with only Constantinople, but through prestige/diplomacy and the Theodosian Walls stubbornly refuse to disappear entirely?
The idea of Constantinople effectively becoming a city-state, and a functional one, for a significant length of time is interesting, especially considering how dependent it'd be on constant immigration to even survive. Could be a cool neutral-ground for a lot of powers

 

[Silver01]

you dont need the abbasids to conquer anatolia just make the raids worse than otl or just have them keep going after Mauropotamos in 844 the front stayed quiet by 863 the sittuation had changed as seen with the victory at Lalakaon just keep the caliphate some what stable enough to keep doing raids or imo just make Lalakaon a disaster for the romans

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Let’s see if we can break this down - - if Caliph Al Ma’mun doesn’t die in 833, how much Anatolian territory do you think the Byzantines are likely to lose? Over the next five years to start, and does that set them to lose more in the 60 years after that?

you dont need the abbasids to conquer anatolia just make the raids worse than otl or just have them keep going after Mauropotamos in 844 the front stayed quiet by 863 the sittuation had changed as seen with the victory at Lalakaon just keep the caliphate some what stable enough to keep doing raids or imo just make Lalakaon a disaster for the romans

Looking at the maps, it looks like the muslims could push pretty far in -- maybe as far as Sinope on the northern shore, and possibly as far as Lycia (so capturing Seleucia and Cibyrrha) on the southern shore. Does that seem plausible?

 

[aluzinnu]

Let’s see if we can break this down - - if Caliph Al Ma’mun doesn’t die in 833, how much Anatolian territory do you think the Byzantines are likely to lose? Over the next five years to start, and does that set them to lose more in the 60 years after that?

If al-Ma’mun lives until 838, I reckon he could establish effective control over most of south and central Anatolia. In that year OTL the Abbasids struck a huge blow against the Byzantines at Anzen and ravaged the country, and that was after al-Mu’tasim spent those 5 years getting his affairs in order. I think from the Anatolic theme south, and the Paphlagonian theme east would be reasonable—assuming al-Ma’mun doesn’t have any internal conflicts demanding his attention, which isn’t necessarily a safe assumption. I also suspect much of this land would be fiercely-contested and little-inhabited frontier, like in the east was OTL but moved westward, while the east of Anatolia becomes more thoroughly-incorporated into the Abbasid fold.

Umar al-Aqta of Melitene is another important factor to consider when it comes to asking how far the Abbasids could expand. I could see a world where the Emirate of Melitene swells to be a semi-autonomous Abbasid-aligned buffer-state comprising a big chunk of Anatolia.

EDIT: Another cool thing about Melitene was its alliance with the Paulician rebels—that could be something to play with.

 

[Silver01]

et’s see if we can break this down - - if Caliph Al Ma’mun doesn’t die in 833, how much Anatolian territory do you think the Byzantines are likely to lose? Over the next five years to start, and does that set them to lose more in the 60 years after that?

Not much a massive raid yes and even capturing territories but the caliph for one will have to face the revolt of Muhammad Ibn Qasim which to be fair can be defeated easily there is also the problem of the zutt rebellion, Khurramite revolt, despite some help AlMa'mun had left the local Muslims to deal with the problem themselves if he wants to wast recourses on actually conquering anatolia while he had 3 active rebellions going on then even if he manages to win against the romans ignoring the revolts will have consequences down the line.

this is why al-Mu'tasim was smart enough to crush the revolts before he went on the offensive with the romans

 

[Silver01]

and that was after al-Mu’tasim spent those 5 years getting his affairs in order.

As mentioned because he was smart enough not to invade the romans with 3 ongoing rebellions

 

[aluzinnu]

As mentioned because he was smart enough not to invade the romans with 3 ongoing rebellions

You’re very right, my bad. I don’t know why but when I made that post those revolts were completely out of my mind. The Khurramites would definitely be a major hurdle for al-Ma’mun to get over before involving himself again in Anatolia.

As for Muhammad ibn Qasim and the Zutts, both of those were ultimately negligible. I think there is a lot you could do with Muhammad ibn Qasim and Shi’a rebellion in general (I am utilizing him an a scenario of my own), but without some other changes I don’t see either of those being a big threat to al-Ma’mun’s stability. At any rate, I think we may assume both of those revolts (at least Muhammad ibn al-Qasim’s) were catalyzed in part by the death of al-Ma’mun, so you could butterfly them away that way if you like.

The Khurramites though, yeah, that was a brainfart on my part. There’s no way he makes serious headway in Anatolia without first dealing with them. I think best-case scenario, as far as weakening the Byzantines within five years, is basically rendering most of Anatolia war-stricken no man’s land, of little practical value to either empire. I would say the real legwork there would have to be done by al-Abbas.

EDIT: I would reckon, also, the real internal conflicts for al-Ma’mun (Khurramites notwithstanding) would come in the form of popular/scholarly resistance to the Mihna (which he had only just gotten going before his death) and court conspiracies, mostly involving his family, almost certainly involving Abu Ishaq (OTL al-Mu’tasim) who some theorize actually poisoned al-Ma’mun in 833.