What if the Muslims won the 718 siege of Constantinople?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2017
- If the Muslims won the 718 siege of Constantinople the Italians would be Muslim and the Pope would be in England. Turkey would be Slavic and the Germans would win World War 1.
when you realize the 718 siege of Constantinople was the inspiration for the siege of king's landing in game of thrones
@River Finnley @Joseph Raphael reported
@@boyishmallard9404 fuck
Dubrovnik actually
@@007leet yeah it was filmed there but the siege itself was inspired by the siege of Constantinople 718
Really? I would have the thought the 4th crusade siege was the inspiration for it
Islam wasn't originally the religion of nomadic bedouin. Islam was the religion of settled Arabic merchants, prophet Muhammad being one of them. Even these days, bedouins are considered bad muslims.
And to add something most people don't know, arabs of hijaz became really aware of Byazntium and Sassanid's power and richness only because commercial routes which once passed through Mesopotamia and Syria now had to pass through Arabia in order to get to Constantinople from India. So, merchants are the heart of Islam.
If it was a merchant religion (which I agree), it's an important note to make that nomadic people usually convert to the religion of who they conquered, such as the Mongols later on.
However, Muslim cities were centers of trade, being between Europe and the East.
iVulkan_
?
@iVulkan_ you don't make sense
@iVulkan_ 100iq. You must be a genius 💯
@iVulkan_ small pp
*cough* The Greek Fire wasn't a flamethrower, it was fire that burnt on water.
What would u call something that threw fire
It's theorized to have been something similiar to napalm. And they had a device to 'shoot' it over long distances.
@Adi Adiani if the pig eaters of Russia or Europe or America start to get tired of your muslim bullshit (wich they kinda do lately) you're gonna have a really really hard time
I am a white European pig eater and while I do not stand by adi’s views I cannot accept the white ones either. How can anybody allow anyone to call someone a Muslim degenerate or tell them their entire race is just a plaything to us. Maybe Turkic are not the majority but that does not mean their culture is not a majority.
@@josephcardwell24 How do you know everyone here is white?
Says "look at all the ocean", shows the Adriatic sea and the mediterranean sea.
That’s the ocean to the romans
@@lilyongmoney5903 The Mediterranean was the world to them. Mare Nostrvm
@@YoungOddo Mare nostrum means
Our sea
So no
@@sadiqahmed4143 Yes. Mare Nostrvm
well, Bulgars did convert to Islam. They're called Tatars of Kazan. The Bulgars that settled in Balkans became Christian, known today as Bulgarians and Macedonians
don't forget the chuvash
The "macedonians" you are referring to are not real macedonians of course. They are a mix of bulgarians, slavs and Greeks. The real macedonians, the ancient macedonians were a Greek tribe
Macedonians????
kryptia b you re right
Actually Bulgarian Bulgars are Turks which intermarried with Slavic people and therefore lost their language.
The Volga Bulgars which were a regional power in the north, attempted to convert the Kiev Rus to Islam, but their leader Vladimir I rejected, because he considered wine the joy of their lives, and wine was banned under Islam. Considering how much stronger Islam would be in this timeline, I'd bet he would be a lot more open to conversion.
agree,
actually not just the wine, he sent emissaries for the kingdoms around him to know "which religion has happier subjects"
and it happened that the catholic emissaries have gone to eastern Europe, the muslims were in the volga river bulgars but the orthodox sent to Constantinople and being the richest and most developed around the options of course they found the people there happier ,
also there was some pragmatic trade relations so if Constantinople was Muslim the russians would just become Muslim too
@@AhmadAbdelaal--not only for money but because the orthodox christianity is the truth
@@belyen6330 you won’t to know the truth until your body enters the grave
@@belyen6330 you know the truth till your body down to grave
@@belyen6330 Pls don’t get religion involved as a Muslim I see Orthodox Christianity as the true Christianity
Are you speaking into a paper bag , or did you drop your microphon into a bucket of water.
AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA SO TRUE LOL WHATIFFALTIST NEEDS A BETTER MIC LOL
Steven:
Yes, it seems "WHAT IF ALT IST" has a "Nasal" problem. But I like and enjoy Alternative History, so I overlook the Nasal thing. Maybe it's a problem he can't fix.
@@sqwong3947 But you can still hear him.
Bulgariana defeated the arabs on land, the Byzantines defeated them on sea.
Well there was Arabs within the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottomans were not even a formed state by the point in history so why do you feel the need to mention them. The Umayyad Caliphate (Arab) were defeated by the combined forces of the Bulgars and Byzantine.
Yankı Kıran
Youre a damn idiot dude.He was talking about 718.The siege was lifted by Bulgarian Khan Tervel who broke the lines of the tired besiegers.
Bulgarian didn't fight a single battle against arabs (maybe only some well paid bulgar mercenaries fighting for byzantine empire), They were only profiting on the situation by capturing byzantine land that they couldn't defend at the moment. So they were weakening the byzantine empire.
Rudi they killed the whole attack singlehandly in 705 and killed 45k arabs in the siege of 717/718 while byzantines „only“ killed 30k and destroyed the arab navy after the battle bulgaria kicked their ass and almost took control of the whole balkans
Since Rome was the seat of Catholicism for 400 years there would always be the drive to take it back, so the Crusades of 1100 would be to take back Rome instead of Jerusalem, being much closer they would have been able to hold it.
But this would have happened before Charlemagne united the Germanic tribes as one nation. The Pope is in Canterbury at this point so he would have tried to conquer Britain more so than Italia.
Wow an actually informative video that is unbiased
Simple answer: Islamic Europe
GoldenHawk
Northern Europe was pagan until the 11th century.
I’m about 15-20 years this will be a reality
Dank Dan1
No it won't you daft fear mongering shit
In 15-20 years Syria will be rebuilt and beautiful
Iraq will be beautiful
Practically every refugee would have gone back home and rebuilt there lives
Things would have settled down in the Middle East
And who knows South America would probably become the hotspot of world politics and war again
Or maybe Eastern Europe with rising tensions between NATO and Russia's future massive and powerful army
You never fucking know what will happen
Lord Slashington III “Practically every refugee would have gone home” Okay, that “refugee” from Somalia will go home when Syria is rebuilt. They aren’t fleeing prosecution they are coming for the benefits of living in the west and they are bringing their shitty religion With them. Islam needs a peaceful reform or it needs to be destroyed entirely.
Dank Dan1
Your ignorance is hurting my mind
Muslims will never change their religion just so they can appease whining westerners like you
Once again
Somalia has improved so fucking much in the last decade it's unbelievable
It's still a little dangerous but not as dangerous as it was in the 90s
Isis is almost defeated in Somalia
And why the fuck do you generalise
Why are you assuming every single somali that comes to Europe is taking benefits
Ironically, I am somali and my dad runs a restaurant in the UK
I also work part time there cause am studying in University
Every uncle of mine is either self employed or employed
This fucking assumption that every immigrant that comes just comes for the benefits needs to die
Immigrants in the UK are 10x more hardworking then the general populace and that's a fact
They appreciate the opportunity they have been given
Almost every chippy shop is run by an Indian or Pakistani
Don't assume stupid shit like that
Hey!!! The fact that the Byzantine empire managed to win the war with the arabs in the first place was all thanks to the Bulgars. The Byzantines were losing, Constantinopole was almost down, and then the Byzantine emperor Leo III asked the Bulgarian khan Tervel for help. He sent 5000 warriors on the battlefield and thus they helped to win over the arabs.
Константин Георгиев ok...
Most of the battle was at sea not at ground 5000 warriors did not change the battle
TBH the arabs would still lose 15000 is nothing
certainly the Bulgar's helped by cutting Arab land supply. However saying that thanks to them the Roman's manage to save their capital is just not true my friend.
Well the byzantine empire lost the first war against muslims
the one who saved Konstantinople in 718 was the Bulgaria ruler Tervel
Виждам те навсякъде.
KILLimanjaro Unfriggenbelievable защото съм навсякъде
Lol
imagine him collapsing and so the Arabs conquering the Byzantine Empire. Just one little action and the whole History would completely different
Точно....
Removing the Mediterranean does not remove the Roman culture as England, Austria and France already had Latin culture deeply ingrained (especially France.) And they had a massive impact on Western Civilization.
(I also realosed you keep northern Italy in, so yeah latin culture is definitely still around.)
yea but it would be much less influential, as Gaul was not as roman and latin as Spain and Italy were. There would still be a roman aspect but it would be weak and overpowered by the Germanic
Romance cultures in this timeline would be very small England, France and Austria would be the last bastion of Latin culture worst. That Kingdom of Asturias would have a been chance be wipe out or in defensive for they survival from ummayed caliphate
@@spear1504 Northern Italy and France were in our timeline the bastion of latin culture in the middle ages. Although latin culture is weakened in this timeline, it is not by much.
@@meneither3834 true
wow - i want to learn more about Islam
I am Muslim Arab if you want add me on a call or something i can tell you some stuff or go to this link its the entire Quran in Arabic-English translation and some UA-cam links to Videos about Islam
Turks didn't conquer all of Anatolia with one blow, it was a long process because of the Byzantine Empire.
Furkan Cebeci
And because of
The timurids
Safavids
And themselves
They had a massive civil war for the thrown that almost crippled them
Byzantium hardly made a threat to them
As soon as they got their shit together
They annihilated Byzantium
+Lord Slashington III
Byzantine empire had many civil wars during that time and at the same time we had to fight many invaders from European north and west and from Asia...
Furthermore Constantinople had been sacked by the Crusaders...
If the turks dared to invade, lets say, 250 years earlier, we would have crushed them easily.
Remember that Byzantine empire had 27 million population while the turks were just 400000...
And thats why the majority of modern "turks" dont look mongoloid like the medieval turks. Because they are not real turks. They are Greeks, armenians, assyrians and descendants of all the nations who had Jannisaries...
Furkan Cebeci Mainly also because of internal power struggles. Just Google "Ottoman Interregnum". Or the Sultans who were poisoned or taken off the trone.
Yes they did search up Battle of Manzikert.
I'm sure in that timeline the Ottoman Empire would still rise. With the new strengt of the Muslims they perhaps wouldn't even fall and all Turks would live in an united Ottoman Empire. That's what humans should dream of, isn't it.
Bulgars were conquered by the ottoman empire for 500 years and still didn't covert to islam 6:23
Same for Spain, which was a taken by the caliphate.
Whatta shit Bulgaria is not Bulgaristan idiot
@Lari Muzzarelli stfu they did
@Lari Muzzarelli wtf
@Gregory Johnson Spain at the time was like Italy; There was no "Spanish" identity although there was a vague Germanic identity. It would be a major stretch to claim there was a cultural genocide of a foreign culture that was relatively new to the region. Muslim Spain adopted a lot of aspects from Arabic culture and society because Islam gave them this missing identity. The reason we don't see them today is the level of brutality of the Spanish Inquisition.
8:00 The picture of Italy looks like a Islamic Pope lol
The pope would flee to Cologne or Milan
No Italy is bordered on the east coast by the Adriatic Sea.
The waters between the Italian and Balkan Peninsula is the Adriatic Sea. Just like the water between the Greece and turkey is the Aegean Sea.
Right but all of those are totally open to the Mediterranean and are basically just glorified bits of it.
Darth Mortus you can say that about every ocean as well is the Indian Ocean just a glorified bit of the Pacific Ocean too? Is the Caribbean Sea just a glorified bit of the Atlantic Ocean?
Yes on the latter, and kinda yes on the former? I mean all non-inland seas are intereconnected and part of our global ocean. Plus people who discovered/named seas were way overzealous. if your "sea" is less than 70% enclosed by land then might as well just leave it a part of the nearest ocean.
The Muslim did took most of south of Italy for 400 hundred years before the Normans come and invaded it .
The Mediterranean is made of many inland seas...
Russia would have probably converted to Islam in this timeline because the reason the Rus converted to Christianity irl is because they were impressed by how the Byzantines ran their empire. and because the byzantines wouldnt be able to give the Rus inspiration they wpuld look to the muslims for more guidance
It was because Islam didn't allow alcohol and you know how Russians love their vodka...
No chance
God's Soldier yeah no alcohol
no, it was because of the nobility didnt want to give up alchohal
@@wildfire9280 Islam only technically bans consumption of wine
Do a vid about this: What if the Arabs lost the firsr Byzantine-Arab War in the 630's AD.
Eastern Rome Revived???
@@appleslover Cyprus isn't it divided between Turkey and Cyprus & Britain
@@appleslover middle east Iraq Syria are more stable in 1970 compare to Cyprus
How did mo even get all those troops
@@ihatemotionblur_3255 how did who?
@@maths.solved6215 muhamed
This was a far more serious challenge than the more well-known Siege of Vienna in 1529. Christian Europe in 1529 was powerful. In 718, beyond Constantinople it was much weaker than the Arabs, who had already destroyed the 400-year-old Sassanian Empire.
Every Muslim like "why couldn't this happen" when they see the first map
Mr. Orwell ? The first map did actually happen....
From my Muslim perspective, we conquered well enough. Lol. Other people conquered more, but borders from Iberia to India is certainly nothing to scoff at. Constantinople would have been nice in the 700s, though.
ottomans did a far better job than the arabs did tho, you guys never even conquered anything past eastern anatolia
What are you talking about? Ottomans weren't the ones who made it into Islamic Spain. It was the Arabs and Moors. Even ignoring the Ottomans, the Muslims conquered huge regions.
Not to mention, nomadic Arabs fought and defeated the two biggest empires at the same time. That can't be ignored.
Great video my man
excellent video. people are really getting info from pop culture. also im really against calling dark age to the era after western roman empire. it wasnt dark because agricalture and bueracracy improved a lot in hundred years. nomadic tribes converted to feudalism. these are big things .
Hey, can I help you with scripts or editing or anything? I have a lot of spare time. .. ;-;
Check your facts first. Usually you do, but here .... As in the previous comments, the BE was lost since the Arabs had bigger fleet, bigger army, much better supply system, higher spirit so yes, they could afford much more losses. On top of that Constantinople was isolated by the siege. The only reason they retreated was that Bulgarians were not included into the equation. Totally interfered/destroyed their strategy.
Bulgarians helped, but overall it was the big city walls, well prepared defense, cold winter that the Arabs never experienced, the Greek fire and also the Byzantine army that attacked the relief Arab army coming from Anatolia.
Bulgars killed the Arabs while retreating, also made it difficult to resupply a d forage.
all of this only if the Byzantines did not have Greek fire
Omar Walid Bulgarians played a major role
Without the Bulgars even Greek fire wouldn't have saved Constantinople though.
Aleksandar Kan Here some facts. 1st the muslim navy was devastated by Greek fire, 2nd the vicious diplomacy of Emperor Leo iii the Isaurian bought precious time and even made the Arab army grain to run out .3rd Byzantine army destroyed an Arab reinforcement army in Anatolia. 4rt when the Bulgarians attacked the Byzantine army defending the City had already salied outside of the walls. Bulgarian help made this victory decisive, no doubt for that, but it was just one of the factors that contributed to the victory. The statement "the City would had fallen if not of the Bulgarians"is utterly false and biased. This victory belong to BOTH of us neighbour , peace!
We had an army that defeated the Muslim reinforcements in Bithynia and also an army inside the walls. Also because of naval superiority they were unable to bring more supplies, along with Leo iii convincing them to burn their grain.. that's why they suffered during the winter. Khan Trevel was indeed a factor but not the olny one. Do not forget that the Byzantines defeated another siege in 678.
Because of armies being away to other fronts, like in 626 and 907, or just because the empire was exhausted or just the emperors had not enough time to raise a proper army. I think you did not read well my earlier post.
I do not downplay the Bulgarian participation the Bulgarians were the ones that made this victory so impactful.
But the city would stand just like it stood in earlier sieges, even without Bulgarian help, simply because no army was able to storm Konstantinople successfully from land, the walls were really formidable.
Russians in our timeline converted to Christianity basically because of the Byzantine Empire being such a strong force and thzy needed to seal alliances. If the byzantinzs become muslim in our timeline i'd expect them to become muslim too
Can you make a part : What if the plan Marshall never existed
As a kid in Bulgaria I was taught that Khan Tervel was called to aid Byzantium in holding back what is now referred to as the first Arab invasion as far as I can recall. His army marched through the open gates of Constantinople
They were welcomed as saviours.
Tervel wrecked the Arab cavalry while the Arabs were dying from the siege.
@@horationelson2212 That’s a first! A besieging army dying from the siege they are imposing? How does that happen Jackson?
The only way it happens if they are prevented from getting supplies.
@@vaniost They indeed were.. They had come a long way but they commited a huge mistake not consolidating prior conquests
7:40 charlemagne wouldn't even attack Italy. The only reason why he did so was the Invitation by the Pope and the Opportunity to become emperor that came with it. Neither of the two would exist in this time line.
that's just like your opinion man
the pope being in francia would have meant they would want to reconquer rome for the papacy, promising the emperorship in return
@@NeverEverClever That's not my oppinion, that's literally why charlemagne did that.
You're selling the Eastern Roman Empire short. It survived the capture of constantinople in the fourth crusade, and later recapture it. Back then they were likely weaker than in the 8th century. So there is little reason to assume, it couldn't survive the fall of constantinople in 718.
Also it would be interresting to see how Early middle age Europe would have responded to the fall of Rome to Muslim forces. Maybe we would get some crusading kind of stuff happening.
Any case you understimate the stratetical value of constantinople. Pretty much anyone could defend it against a vastly superiour force, especially if said force wasn't capable of a naval blockade. So how any Stepp tribe would just bypass it, is beyond me.
Finally Russia would have been Muslim if it wasn't for Byzantium, not Catholic. After it "liberated" itself from Mongol rule, it was approached both by Orthodox and Muslim missionaries. It is said it sided with the Orthodox ones, because Islam doesn't allow Vodka. But without the Orthodox option they'd look for the Muslim allies.
You can't compare the crusaders to Troops that have lands from France to China.
@@user-dl5ln3wd6f I lack the context to understand what you're trying to say here.
@@rutger5000
The Roman Could Survive The Crusades because the Crusades never had enough troops to fully conquer the Byzentine empire after the fourth Crusade while the Caliphate could've easily overrun the Byzentines after capturing Constantinople.
@@user-dl5ln3wd6f Conquest is more complicated than numerical supremacy.
They would found the sultanate of rome just like sultanate of hindustan
Didn't know there were 717 other sieges before this one...
Was there
@East Muhammed was a rapist tho
@@ihatemotionblur_3255 facts
@@subaru-kuntheotakudude9942 yeah lol, that guy is a dumbass
@@ihatemotionblur_3255 do you have any evidence?
Its a bird! Its a Plane! ITS THE SELJUK TURKS!
Chrischi3LPs FUCk YoU cCcOTTOMANcCc
this is an amazing scenario, you seem to have great insight to the Islamic history, so what would happen if the Abbasid dynasty did not fall for the Mongols ?
The Abbasid would have eventually been conquered by another islamic empire because by the time the mongols reached baghdad, the abbasids were no longer that important. The abbasids didn’t control Mecca,Medina,or jerusalem, they only ruled the areas on the tigris and euphrates river, and they were gradually becoming more and more weaker. Even before the mongols destroyed baghdad, baghdad had already lost its importance as a knowledge hub. Less and less poetry literature and art was being produced and the local population was becoming more and more lazy and weak. That’s why the mongols were able to easily capture baghdad because the population of baghdad didn’t have the pride it once had at the height of its power. But in my opinion if an islamic empire conquered baghdad then they wouldn’t have completely destroyed the city. The house of knowledge wouldn’t have been destroyed and gradually over time baghdad would have regained its position as a trading, economic, and knowledge hub that it once had during its golden age. And because of this the muslims would have been way more scientifically advanced and maybe things such as the telephone and various modern things would have been created by the arabs/muslims not the westerners. The world would look completely different, the Middle East would have been the technically advanced society not the west and countries such as iraq would probably be very powerful and economically and culturally rich
Honestly I think that the Caliph would’ve just been a ceremonial role or something akin to the Pope
Perhaps the Church and State or Masjid and State would fight each other for dominance but it seems unlikely
morocco is a majority arabic speaking country bro. get your facts right
They still have their own culture
"Berber/amazigh"
@@ThatOneMalaysianGuy Most berbers can speak Arabic
A consequence would be that America would had been discovered 600 years earlier, so Erik the Red would have been followed by hundreds of ships from France and England
i think the renaissance would almost be stronger, as there would be more means of islamic knowledge being restored to the europeans. it might not be italians, perhaps french or austrian, but still. Especially since italy would be a hub of multi religious coexistence because of how trade and diasporic communities work,
I think there would be no Renaissance.
The muslim reformation was completely religion centric, it basically abolished science for muslims and any interest in previous times.
Big up from Morocco
1:11 Hey, isn't that Assassin's Creed: Revelations?
Yeah
Do a video on what if Mohammed expanded south into Africa instead of north into the middle east, persia, and egypt.
“ no one speaks of the Byzantine empire “
Me a Muslim who has to deal with Byzantine fan bois
Didn't know a Muslim could be a weeb.
@@shereenhussian6651 whats that supposed to mean?
@@anotherguycalled6253 Your name is "random weeb"
@@shereenhussian6651 no how did u think that Muslims can’t be weebs?
@@anotherguycalled6253 Because its weird
The Bulgarians would not be considered back in these days. Emperor Nikephoros I tried to conquer them and become a drinking cup.Let's not forget that if it wasn't for them, Constantinopol would have fallen in 717. Concerned is a different story however.
@@Parkour_Vector390 u gud bruh?
@Accelerated Found the Bulgarian nationalist
and actually, if the byzantines didnt have to fight on their european border with the bulgars, they would have an easier time fighting the muslims on their eastern border in the first place
If the greeks hadnt been busy fighting bulgarians Constantinople would be still greek, so basically the slavs destroyed Byzantine empire because the Byzantines let them in their empire.
@@katask7849 just shut the fuck up you piece of shit
*WHAT IF JAPAN BECAME CATHOLIC IN THE 16TH CENTURY?*
I bet you thought I forgot.
I don't think this has been made yet
@@robertmech3069 it has
Japanese would actually be able to speak English...
@@southparkundersecretwisdom3230 bruuuhhh you did them dirty there
@@mertinibus Japanese would be heavily mixed with Portuguese and Dutch words, all these european powers trading with japan , also their Bible is in Latin and maybe for once they would be writing in Romanji and basically ditch Katakana, hiragana and Kanji
but Japanese language right now still has lots of loan words from European languages
Hey man, I love the video but, you didn’t mention about one people. How would the mongols affect Islam in this timeline? Would the eastern Khawarasm empire still collapse to the mongols even with allies in the west such as the Seljuks, and so on?
There were a few exceptions to the Islamic conversion rule, namely Armenia and Lebanon
The Bulgars also created a state on the river Volga and merged with Finno-Ugric peoples there, forming the Volga Bulgars. They became muslim , despite being a "forest" tribe, 80 years after their Danubian cousins became Christian.
Yes, and seeing how they were unable to spread Islam seems to point to be muslim wasnt easy there.
Considering it was only taken over because it was weakened via Catholic infighting after taking cover there. And the most famously gate being left open.. What if do one what if it never fell
Green Sleeves
Turks were very powerful anyway they would have simply grew from conquest to the east and eventually destroy Constantinople
Even if they didn't fight they couldn't help the Byzantines, because Ottomans had a big pice of the Balkans under control when they finished off the Byzantines. If they arrived early enough, that would't change history at all. The Ottomans had a Canon which destroy the Byzantine walls and that was the only thing what defended them. The Turkish soldiers were quite many and the crusaders even tried to help the Byzantines, but were quickly defeated by the Turks in Serbia. The Byzantine Empire had to fall, there was no other way. Even the Turks lost that Siege, they would do an other Siege and an other Siege and so on. The Byzantines were Surround.
One of the reason Constantinople falls was because the roman empire at that time was ridiculously poor that they can't even have proper firearm. The engineer that build that famous cannon that destroy the wall originally went to the byzantine, when he realized the roman was too poor to pay their soldiers, let alone his services, he turned to the ottoman. Really, the real reason byzantine fell was the sack of constantinpole during the fourth crusade
PrimalForlorn Yeah, it affected byzantines so much it eventually led them to their downfall
.. neat .. . i like the logical argumentation with the forest and the nomad tribes converting to different religions because of the food :)
2:45 i disagree. The reason why those places became Arabic was because they were already linguistically close to Arabs. However places that werent linguidtically close to Arabic still remained culturally seperate. It wasnt because the cultures that became Arabic had a weak culture to fall back on but more because they and the Arabs were part of the same larger cultural group.
If so, then explain why african romance went extinct?
@@oitubeman1019 It was mostly only spoken as a primary language by Roman Settlers while the native population spoke Berber which still exists. It was also learned because the language was intrinsically linked to Christianity. When people began to convert to Islam, they stopped having a reason to learn it as a secondary language because they had to learn to read Arabic. It stopped being the language of administration and government and the communities that spoke it as a primary language were too small and were assimilated into the native Berber culture group over time (more than a 1000 years). Regardless it had an effect over modern north african languages.
@@lastword8783 would sardinian go extinct?
@@oitubeman1019 not sure what you mean. Do you mean would sardinian go extinct if Muslims ruled Sardinia for long time? I doubt it unless there was lots of berber migration there and even then maybe not but its difficult to say. For example in Iberia MozArabic was the language of Iberian Moors and it sounded basically like Spanish with some Arabic words here and there. So maybe the same could happen to Sardinian.
@@lastword8783 Also, note the Berber are Afro-Asiatic speakers related Arabs and both had similar cultures despite living in two different regions. Berbers were closer to Arabs than Italians that's why they were able to easily adopt the Arabic language, easily.
Wait would this mean that France and Germany are the same country
I dont think so. The frankish succession laws really fucked the idea of a united empire.
Bulgaria actually saved the byzantines Khan Tervel brought his armies and defeated the arabs at constantinople
John Plays Turks...they save Constantinople and destroy Constantinople :D
I would not say Save, but deffinetly help.
Byzantines we're the ones who did the whole job, cause of Greek fire
+ xmajesticdragonx
Yes, they hold the siege impressively long time, but the truth is that without bulgarians Constantinople is lost!!!
+ Ekn _38
They was Indo-Eupeans with turkic elite!!!
Good video
2:15 - the reason the early conquests became permanently Muslim (if we exclude groups like the Copts, Maronites, etc.) is because they stayed under Islamic rule for 1000+ years, not because there was something magical about those early conquests.
But there was something magical about those early conquests
Would the greek culture stay strong in this timeline? If it would anatolia sicily malta sardinia and calabria would stay greek.
probably yes, but they’d lose Malta,Sardinia and Calabria
Ironically yes, they’d just be a Islamic culture (similar to the Persians, whom went from the center of Zoastrianism to a major Islamic group)
Me :see that the comments are 666 and post about it in twitter
Illuminati wants to know your location
I agree with the possible anatolian demographics if siege of 718 was succesful, however, not for the given reason. I believe the Turkish expansion into the anatolia was initially caused by nomadic tribes being pushed towards the borders of muslim states because nomands would not understand the concept of "land ownership" as for them land belongs to everyone. As a result of this, nomads started to "harrass" byzantine lands. byzantinian act against this lead to the "single blow" mentioned in the video. If there wasn't any byzantine, but instead small states, the states couldn't have acted against, and as a result, Turkish invasion of the Anatolia would not have happened.
I can imagine the united Italy with Arabic influences (while Arabic culture was still one of the more advanced in the world) would be a great power and very culturally rich.
I don't know why this makes me satisfied and happy
So: according to you the countries which have been conquered by Muslims earlier became 'fully islamic'...
Actually still now 10% or more Egyptians are Christians, same in Syria (but they were 1/4 just 100 years ago), 1/2 of Lebanese and big minorities are allover the Middle East!
Then you strangely said that Morocco didn't take the Arabic language, and that's totally false.
Then Italy according to you hadn't any shared identity at that time.. That's very questionable as just two centuries before the Roman Empire was still there, and the longobards and all the rest of barbarians took Latin language anyway, even if the remnants of their languages are still in the variety of Italian dialects.
It is just similar to what happens with Arabic and its dialects, still carrying elements from the old languages of those countries.
You are saying that having a huge hi tech equiped army is worse than some farmers with rocks
Who has the Hight-tech Army? Just for you to know, it was the dark age of Europe and the golden age of Islam. The Muslims were by far better equipped and had better tactics. They had the advantage.
Prior to viewing this video July 20, 2019, I honestly thought the FIRST time the Muslims attacked Constantinople was in 1453. Who KNEW?
Mate you weren't considered an empire if you didn't besiege Constantinople. Literally everyone did, including the Kievan Rus who ended up their greatest allies.
Even the Ottoman Turks had attempted numerous times beforehand, the Islamic powers had always wanted Constantinople for prophecy related reasons
Islam history is so facinating to me
Taking two great empires at the same time !
imagine saudi arabia takes america and russia at the same time !
making a coin flip to its side is easier than that
Flithy Islam is trash
Arabian Empire lol that would be mad
Can decise even win?
They will be smash to peaces!
Jezz your voice has changed incredibly.
Would Islam have a reformation like the christian one in this timeline? Seeing as to the geographic area of which it has spread
No, the reformation although a cultural and geographical split happened due to the papacy not controlling all parts of societies letting room for the reformation to wiggle as soon as you say you want to pray once a
Day you are basically burned at the stake as well as Islam being much more political
U missed an important point, if Muslims conquerored constantinople in 718, they would probably change the capital from Baghdad to constantinople
Thus making more fortified and probably will prevent the slavs from conqueroring it, if the abbasid Khalifat fall
The Slavic tribes never owned the city. Bulgarian emperors had the wet dreams to take it but who knows maybe it's TRUE two of them died before they go to besiege it. 🤣🤣the story tells when Khan Tervel came to the freed city he entered and they had grew celebration. He threw his spear on the ground and the East Roman's covered it all with treasures. Plus there were land concessions.
Abasids came later. I think the umayds would remain in Constantinople and the califate would split.
Could I please have some additional information on the plains tribes/forest tribes theory?
:24, what gratitude does it get? it gets invaded in the crusades by their own coreligionists. though that would make an interesting alt, what they weren't trampled in the crusades?
What if Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 never happened? :)
They did not only fall once, they actually fell twice.
1204 😞
Since the Muslims didn't form a very strong rear guard in 718 ,the Bulgars where able to run in and out the Muslim camp with there swords tasting blood each time.
And the Byzantium and bulgars prolonged the siege so much it became winter and the Arabs which were coming from hot climate lost significant amount of troops to the climate
Your best Vid so fa, by far!
Honestly, had the Arabs successfully conquered Constantinople the Greeks would've been living in the center of Anatolia's interior as Muslims with no Turks seen in sight. When Arabs conquered the Persians, the Arabs promised them peace, protection, and less tax if they accepted two things from them. One is to accept the Caliph as your ruler and two, pay Jizya and in return, you will be protected and treated as an equal citizen. You can freely practice your religion and keep your property and live your life the same as you did in the previous administration. The Greeks would've actually lived much better because Anatolia would no longer be raided by Arabs and the cities in eastern Anatolia would've been repopulated and flourished as all these areas came under one administration meaning increased trade. Constantinople would've been the major city in the empire and Arabs would've promised the Greeks protection by preserving the South Danube river as the border and repelling Bulgarian/Slavic raids and migration. On top of that, the Arabs were under Persian influence because 50% of their army was Persian/Iranian tribes whilst the rest were Arab, Berbers, Turks, Coptic Egyptians, Indo tribes, Armenians, Iberians, and the Caucasus tribes. Let's not forget their administration was heavily influenced and dependent on Persian bureaucrats. If had the Greeks been integrated into the growing empire the Greek bureaucrats would've countered the Persian bureaucrats. The Byzantine army (Greek army) would've reduced the Persian/Iranian forces into a lesser threat. The Greeks would've had their own quarter in Baghdad. The Arabs would've adopted the Greek democracy like senators and voting governors in different provinces every five years, etc. Basically, the empire would've grown sophisticated thanks to the Greeks and when the Arab empire collapsed, the Byzantine Empire would've been revived stronger this time and would've been similar to Ottoman Empire calling themselves the calipha. Today modern-day Balkan region and Anatolia would've been Greek-majority with the only difference being Muslims and Greeks would've been more powerful and probably been the leaders of the Muslim world today as we speak
In this scenario what would the Muslim Greeks do after Baghdad fell into the hands of the Mongols?
@@user-yj4ym4ki1u I believe the Greek Muslims would've been a force to be reckon with especially if they had Balkans and Anatolia for themselves. This massive population combined with their strong economy. They would've captured Baghdad and attempt to restore the Byzantine empire and rule lands similar to that of Ottoman empire. Perhaps, Baghdad may have never fallen to the Mongols since the Greek Muslims would arrive to fight off the Mongols and supported by local Iraqis would've put up a big fight against the Mongols.
@@lumiam6982 Another question: How would the Muslim Greeks withstand the Crusades?
Would the center of Islam in this timeline move from Baghdad to, let's say, Cairo? You know, bc of them having more lands to the west
Or Istanbul.
@@adamnesicoConstantinople, Istanbul is a recent, Turkish name meaning "in the city" not arabic
We wouldn't be watching you tube, thats for sure. No, electricity, no industrial revolution, no cars, no plains, no medicine and so on
another vid i wish hed remaster
wait so since the ummayads weakend and wen't smaller couln't the conquest fo spain begein(same with italy)?
The Armenians held them back.Once Armenia fell, that's when the Muslims came pouring in. I wish you could make a video on this subject, which no one knows about.
History time made an amazing video, talking a bit about this.
ua-cam.com/video/w0UaYSUKH40/v-deo.html
Took Muslims 800 years to beat the Greeks
Well i have praised the Byzantines many times and it has my deepest respect for what they have done. But i couldn't give credit to the empire before i knew the history. That is the problem, far to little people know about the deeper history of Europe than the mainstream history like the world wars and french revolution etc.
zonxo i agree!
zonxo Greek Nationalist detected
@@AgarthaFan how is that a Greek nationalism? wtf
معركة بلاكووتر في جيم اوف ثرونز مستلهمة من الحصار الأموي الإسلامي لمدينة القسطنطينية ، اللي عاجبني في جورج مارتن أنه ياخذ احداث تاريخية حقيقية و يستلهمها في كتابة احداث عالمه الخيالي
This mean in this timeline there is a chance of a slavic ottoman empire I am jsut imagining an Adidas empire.
"Technology would be slow"
Arabs that invented modern day medicine and revolutionised science: :/
It would be slow, after the mongol invasion islamic scientific age was dead in a coffin. Didnt recover since, and now the world is globalised
Now even though I think the Muslim world technologically fell behind the west due to decline in Mediterranean trade and connectivity, Circassian thugs taking over vital Muslim centres of wealth and science as well as the mongol invadions destroying the house of wisdom and sparking a conservative backlash as well as less competition and the merchants being cracked down became much more conservative and less innovative then the west but I think if the muslims won the siege with them converting not conquering all those territories in Europe and the balkans would make Islam much more comparable to the west, as well as having much more divisive geography would increase competition solving a few problems as well as Islam as a theology being much more egalitarian would lead to what I would see as all Muslim nations being part of a caliphate but the caliph would have no power but would still stay in power almost trike the Holy Roman Empire anywho my rant is over
The khalifate came to be because The byzantine and Sassanid empires had depleted each other and was a shawdow of their high point. That is why a lesser force could gain ground. In Spain there was a civil war at the time of conquest so of course they could take it. Italy was a bunch of small states. If the Byzantine's would have lost the Khalifate would have met proper resistance from stable countries of mainland Europe and wouldn't be able to advance. And in reality they didn't advance for that same reason.
I think its highly unlikely Italy ends up the push over you assumed, and such an invasion itself, could easily cause Italian unity, through recognition of the Islamic threat. Let alone you'd have the Pope having a strong argument to rally Europe to set aside their petty squabbles with the enemy on the doorstep.
Muslim emirates had already controlled the southern Italy, consider how Guelphs and Ghibellines formed there might probably be a divided Italy, one supports the caliphate while the other supports the pope.
At 3:21 is actualy Albanian culture not greek !
You forgot to say that the Bulgarians surrounded the muslims by land, if it weren't them, Byzantine would have lost.
The Bulgarian Communist
Ottomans practically owned you guys for centuries
Yes, near 5 centuries but this happened in 14th century.
Lord Slashington III compare kingdom of bulgaria to ottoman empire...bulgarians did their best with their numbers
no man true. Let's set a statement: OTTOMAN RULES!
That's good, isn't it?
Turkic Bulgar Khan Tervel.
what if Indian Mughul empire invaded China
why genghis khan son was king of china after he's death
They couldn't secure there hold on India and u assume they would go after China?.... There entire history has been filled with rebellions after rebellions and few blows from the persians
@@leaveme3559 they secured it for more than 300 years
@@hadi8699 yes they controlled northern india for most of there rein the south was always rebellious
@@leaveme3559 yes
IF Bulgaria converted to Islam, that means they never invent Cyrillic. This means Russia never adopts Cyrillic as their alphabet because it never exists. Instead, they use the Latin alphabet, which will also influence the vocabulary itself, and just like neighboring Polish which was only ever written in Latin script, will do a lot to bring Russia closer into the European sphere. This shift closer would be exacerbated by the Muslim world consolidating it's grasp and becoming the sole existential threat to Europe. I believe this linguistic aspect carries just as much influence, or at least close, as the lack of this earlier religious schism in the Christian world.
Russia itself could be smaller than it is in today's world, unless they took steps to suppress Islam from spreading through the Caucuses and central Asian steppes, as it might in fact be deterred from strong Slavic kingdoms in Anatolia which could be the target of a vengeful Inquisition. Russia would be far more developed and at least somewhat less corrupt (in the traditional sense) than it is now. It would likely be a close partner in all global international projects rather than a distanced and demonized rival.
Poles are Slavs larping as westerners.
3:57 HA! 😝 I *KNEW* the Pope would become the Archbishop of Canterbury! That's going tocause some serious butterfly effects with the Catholic Church being also known as the Anglican Church.
"Pray six times a day."
"No, because we live in a forest."
"???"
That's basically this video.
@Pecu Alex 5 times
7:01 why would anyone convert to christianity in that timeline anyway.
do a video on if Mongol never existed.
Would it effect the ottoman conquests
@M777 Abbai but I think the ottomans would face some resistance by other ethnicities
I dont think ottomans would exist here.
As an ethnic Greek I'm just happy they didn't and Greek fire destroyed their fleet. Nothing wrong with speculation.
Michael H As a Turk I believe if Arabs conquered you,They wouldve assimilated you and force their culture on you essentially destroying your culture..
LonelyWanderer That’s why even though I dislike the Turks invading Europe. I still like the ottomans simply because they allowed the people they conquered to keep their native culture, religion and language. They were truly a respectable empire due to their tolerance and strength.
قدر الله و ماشاء فعل
Forest tribes and Pork? That Explains East Asians
Cross meditarrean struggle's indeed.
lol what a bunch of nonsense.Syria, Egypt, Iraq etc """culturally""" converted (if by that you mean language, because I doubt anybody even remotely knows any culture beyond his own) because they spoke languages not too far off from Arabic, i.e. Semitic languages, whereas Persians spoke Persian, which did take the Arabic writing system and loaned some words, but never spoke Arabic. yes in that case Greeks would likely have kept their language, but adopted the Arabic writing system. """""""""Culture""""""" is very relative and dynamic, and the result would be far too random to predict. Plus the Byzantines and Sassanids sucked ass, their rule was unwelcome in the Levant, and they lost battles with huge armies against Muslim armies half or maybe even a fifth their size. Constantinople mostly held because it was Constantinople, and it was before the discovery of gunpowder.