The Umayyads conquer Constantinople in 717

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,019
Slovenia, EU
#11
Do you know the numbers on each side wrt the Siege of Constantinople?

Siege of Constantinople (717–718) - Wikipedia

Wiki says that the Byzantines were severely outnumbered but still won the decisive battle. What are your thoughts on the numbers provided by wiki?
Those numbers do not include Bulgars in my opinion. They were able to put at least few tens of thousands on a field. Wiki says that they killed 22.000 Arabs in one battle and that could have been done by main Bulgar army under a khan.
 
Likes: JoanOfArc007

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,545
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#12
Do you know the numbers on each side wrt the Siege of Constantinople?

Siege of Constantinople (717–718) - Wikipedia

Wiki says that the Byzantines were severely outnumbered but still won the decisive battle. What are your thoughts on the numbers provided by wiki?
I agree with Kirilax. The 120,000 figure is ridiculous for a besieging army, or for any army of the period. That many men couldn’t be supplied until railroads. Even a much smaller army would soon consume every scrap of food and fodder available through foraging.
As for the Byzantines, any able bodied man can perform necessary tasks, even if not actually swinging a sword. So I would think the number of men defending the city to be many more than 15,000.
Also, I think we should remember that many, if not most, besieged cities fell though treachery or momentary carelessness, Constantinople itself included. So it’s not necessary to concoct a scenario with no Walls or Greek fire.
 
Likes: JoanOfArc007

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,019
Slovenia, EU
#13
I agree with Kirilax. The 120,000 figure is ridiculous for a besieging army, or for any army of the period. That many men couldn’t be supplied until railroads. Even a much smaller army would soon consume every scrap of food and fodder available through foraging.
As for the Byzantines, any able bodied man can perform necessary tasks, even if not actually swinging a sword. So I would think the number of men defending the city to be many more than 15,000.
Also, I think we should remember that many, if not most, besieged cities fell though treachery or momentary carelessness, Constantinople itself included. So it’s not necessary to concoct a scenario with no Walls or Greek fire.
That many soldiers were supplied before railroads and before siege of Constantinople. Romans and Chinese come first to my mind and also more than on one occasion.
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,545
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#14
That many soldiers were supplied before railroads and before siege of Constantinople. Romans and Chinese come first to my mind and also more than on one occasion.
When did Rome field an army of 120,000 men? If I remember correctly, that’s about the entirety of Rome’s army.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,019
Slovenia, EU
#16
When did Rome field an army of 120,000 men? If I remember correctly, that’s about the entirety of Rome’s army.
Total imperial army was 300.000-450.000, it depends when. I think that Septimius Severus was having 450.000 or close to it. At end of republic all parties were fielding over 50 legions and Augustus has kept 28. But number of auxilia was same as of legionaries. 28 full legions were 168.000 and with auxilia total around 330.000 or so. Later number of legions was 30 and 32.

Imperial Roman army - Wikipedia
Battle of Philippi - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Openminded
Sep 2012
3,875
Bulgaria
#17
I agree with Kirilax. The 120,000 figure is ridiculous for a besieging army, or for any army of the period. That many men couldn’t be supplied until railroads. Even a much smaller army would soon consume every scrap of food and fodder available through foraging.
As for the Byzantines, any able bodied man can perform necessary tasks, even if not actually swinging a sword. So I would think the number of men defending the city to be many more than 15,000.
Also, I think we should remember that many, if not most, besieged cities fell though treachery or momentary carelessness, Constantinople itself included. So it’s not necessary to concoct a scenario with no Walls or Greek fire.
A decade or so before the siege in question the last of Heraclian dynasty began his second reign after enterin the City through an unused water conduit under the walls. So idd It was quite possible to enter the City as you describe it: through treason. Though Justinian task was easier, he had supporters inside city walls. The premise is Nova Roma is already in Maslama hands, Umayyads own it. Reading post # 3 the fall happens even earlier and Rashiduns rule the City. The question is i guess what next, for the romans and the the first and second caliphate in these two scenarios.
 
Feb 2014
312
Miami
#20
The ummayyads cared more about money and commerce than they did for religious fanaticism. They would probably make the jewel of the world, Constantinople, their capital. When the Abbasid revolt did occur, the empire would probably split along the Roman and Persian lines rather than the abbassids being as successful in overtaking the entire empire except Spain. I could see the ummayads being more tolerant of alcohol use which would end up with a Muslim Russia. I would be surprised if Bulgaria and Hungary also didn’t become Muslim as well. So christemdom May be kept to the empire of Charlemagne borders and the British isles.

I see the ummayads seeing themselves as successors of the Roman Empire as controlling the east capital, Africa, and Spain, so they may seek to reunify the Roman Empire under the banner of the green moon. The dark age may be seen associated with Christianity and that religion may fade. Or since Islam still isn’t viewed as an entirely different faith, they would view Islam as the right path chosen by the Abrahamic god.