Second Fitna Possibilities

[John Fredrick Parker]

So was looking to see if we had any good AH discussions on the Second Fitna, and it seems those we do have are pretty short, and focused on one of two scenarios: Islam fracturing earlier (here, here), or Zubayr prevailing (here), or the Alids (here). Anyone think a new discussion thread could offer more?

Here's another way of looking at this -- of the two more popular scenarios, the Caliphate fracturing longer term or the Zubayrids prevailing in the civil war, which one is more likely/plausible? And going with this option, what needs to happen for this to come about? And once we have that, what are the effects?

If fracturing the more likely scenario, how is Islam effected if the Ummayads have a region of control pretty much consisting of Islam's "Roman" conquests? If Zubayr prevailing is more likely, would this mean that the Caliphate avoids becoming a pseudo-monarchy as it did under the Ummayads, or does it just mean a different tribe controls the office?

@AtreusHashim @John7755 يوحنا

 

[jacob ningen]

Id say splintering via Ali being too lenient to Kharajite and them breaking off again. If Karbala went differently how long could the first fitna last

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Id say splintering via Ali being too lenient to Kharajite and them breaking off again. If Karbala went differently how long could the first fitna last

Wait, are you talking about the First Fitna? I was looking for us to discuss the Second (so preferably no PoDs prior to the death of Mu’awiya in 680).

 

[holycookie]

he Caliphate fracturing longer term

A fractured caliphate with 2 or 3 caliphates is possible. One in the Roman areas (Umayyad), another in Arabia (Zubayr or Kharijites), and another in Persia (Ali, Zubayr or Kharijites). But as a whole, the side with the greatest weight will be the Umayyad because they have the best provinces. The most likely if a fracture occurs in 2 caliphates imitating the dispute between Rome and Persia, with one in the Levant/Egypt and the other in Persia.

or the Zubayrids prevailing in the civil war

The Umayyad would probably win again, they had the best position. But if Zubayr wins we will have a very different caliphate. Focused on restoring the caliphate's moral integrity and governance according to the original practices of the early Islamic community. His idea was that early Islamic principles would guide you as a Caliph. At the same time, the Umayyads sought centralized power and expansive governance, whereas Ibn al-Zubayr and the Kharijites advocated for a return to simpler, more pious governance. So it is difficult to know whether the caliphate will expand as much as seen by the Umayyads. At the same time, the caliphate would have fewer rebellions, but a weaker government and state army.

what needs to happen for this to come about?

there are a lot of variables, so it is easier to pick one to win and work with that.

how is Islam effected if the Ummayads have a region of control pretty much consisting of Islam's "Roman" conquests?

In the long term, you will get 2 or more sects of Islam with many differences. Especially if you have an Umayyad caliphate and a Persian caliphate.

would this mean that the Caliphate avoids becoming a pseudo-monarchy as it did under the Ummayads

Maybe/probably but at the same time central government is weaker, só are its state armies and institutions. With the caliphate being more of a confederacy than a state.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

there are a lot of variables, so it is easier to pick one to win and work with that.

If they’re both at least reasonably plausible, it sounds like a Zubayarid Victory would be absolutely fascinating.

Given their more decentralized nature, does this mean that expansionist attempts like the Invasion of Iberia or the Siege of Constantinople don’t happen TTL?

 

[jacob ningen]

Wait, are you talking about the First Fitna? I was looking for us to discuss the Second (so preferably no PoDs prior to the death of Mu’awiya in 680).

so no Uthman-Fatima codification failure.

 

[holycookie]

Given their more decentralized nature, does this mean that expansionist attempts like the Invasion of Iberia or the Siege of Constantinople don’t happen TTL?

This can happen, but without the militarization and central government of the Umayyas, it is difficult for it to go better than in the OTL. You need a central government to run expensive campaigns. And the siege of Constantinople is always very expensive. I will say that it is probably not, but nothing is impossible. Before the conquest of Iberia, they had to win in Tunisia, and I tend to think that a victory for Zubayarid will demand a much more destructive Fitna than the victory of the Umayyads was in OTL.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Before the conquest of Iberia, they had to win in Tunisia, and I tend to think that a victory for Zubayarid will demand a Fitna much more destructive than the victory of the Umayyads in OTL.

Wow, I hadn’t even considered the Byzantines holding Carthage (for longer), but yeah, that could also be in the cards. Could a more successful Byzantine counteroffensive -- in the Levant, or possibly Egypt -- be possible as well?

 

[holycookie]

Could a more successful Byzantine counteroffensive -- in the Levant, or possibly Egypt -- be possible as well?

Perhaps, where will Zubayarid 's power base be in the future? What is the state of the caliphate after the fitna, who died that is important? The Umayyads had a much more professional army than the rest. Zubayarid will do the same or prefer a composite army of tribal alliances? As a whole, I don't see Zubayarid with his more conservative vision of the world doing what the Umayyads did (central government, a large standing professional army, directly appointing blood-related governors, central coin printing coin, etc). Nor having such a strong power base to do those things.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Perhaps, where will Zubayarid 's power base be in the future?

I expect he’d want the capital restored to Medina.

What is the state of the caliphate after the fitna, who died that is important?

Not sure yet.

The Umayyads had a much more professional army than the rest. Zubayarid will do the same or prefer a composite army of tribal alliances?

From the sound of it, it seems Zubayarid would do the latter.

As a whole, I don't see Zubayarid with his more conservative vision of the world doing what the Umayyads did (central government, a large standing professional army, directly appointing blood-related governors, central coin printing coin, etc). Nor having such a strong power base to do those things.

In that case, it really does sound like the Caliphate could lose its momentum earlier than OTL, allowing the Byzantines to reclaim at least some lost territory.

It also seems, to me at least, that Egypt has an OTL long running history of being difficult for an “eastern” power to hold -- the Achemenids could never seem to pin them down long, and the OTL Abbasids only held it a couple centuries before it was conquered by the Fatimids -- meaning, if “Rome” reasserts herself in Africa and the Levant before the process of the region’s Islamization can even begin, then Muslim rule in Egypt may not last long either (though whether due to Byzantine reconquest or a native Coptic Kingdom
asserting itself, that’s another matter). Though this is likely to happen centuries after our PoD.