What if the Arabs took Constantinople in 675?

They wouldn't. What said combined with repeated raids from slavs and later vikings would stop them.

Owning Anatolia and Constantinople doesn't give you complete control of the Mediterranean.

And the Arabs basically had complete domination of the Mediterranean. It's kind of how they got to Constantinople in the first place. Losing didn't put that at risk.

>Arab Caliphate in 675
>Owning Anatolia and Constantinople doesn't give you complete control of the Mediterranean.

Attached: 1516181474768.jpg (1218x1015, 212K)

Logistics? Demographics? Resistance? Instability?

>Logistics
Literally not a problem at that point
>Demographics
The population of the Caliphate would have literally dwarfed the rest of Europe if they took Anatolia.
>Resistance
From shitty steppe/snow-niggers?
>Instability
The Umayyad dynasty was still in it's prime in 675, if they actually took Constantinople their prestige and influence would've been limitless and probably kickstarted a golden age for them.

Logistics has always been a problem you mongoloid

Just look at the results in France and later in Italy. How would Anatolia have helped when the Arabs were mostly in the business of fighting alongside other Arabs and desert nomads? Taking Iran for example didn't suddenly give them hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops to conquer past Transoxiana or Sindh.

The Islamic forces were already overstretched even as near as Sicily. There's a reason why Andalus and most of North Africa broke free.

These are the same people who conquered from Spain to the edges of India.
Its not out of the question that they can take on a fractured Europe, especially once they take Constantinople and Rome.

And because they allow for religious tolerance as long as you pay your taxes, rebellions might not be so big, looking at Egypt or the middle East.

When has anyone lost to Vikings

Not when you have the biggest navy in the world, a massive treasury and some of the richest and most prosperous regions in the whole world.
Those were long after the disastrous defeat in the second siege of Constantinople in 718 which led to the Arabs fracturing into factions and the lowering of their morale.

They had that before Constantinople and it didn't get the much farther. Plus there was already a big civil war before the siege.

>Not when you have the biggest navy in the world
That is exactly when you need logistics

There'd be a lot less byzzie shit posting on Veeky Forums

>vikings not being shit when facing a standing army
They were only good for plundering weakly defended villages and being mercenary scum

>big civil war
Lmao, that shit was dealt with in no time even in otl.
>They had that before Constantinople and it didn't get the much farther
Because they were focusing on, you know, Constantinople and the only power capable of rivaling them?

>navy
>logistics

That is not true, they fractured with the Ummyadd purges, nepotism and racism caused the rise of independent emirs and Caliphs.
When Tariq and Musa took Spain they were immediately recalled, not because the Caliphate needed them to fight elsewhere but the Kalif was worried how powerful people of low birth we're becoming. They kneecapped themselves to enforce the status quo.

Are you retarded?

And you think good morale can solve everything? Even logistical problems?

>Historia civilis, BazBattles or some other pleb tier YT channel releases a mediocre Wikipedia reading video with rectangles pushing each other
>user makes a shitty what if """"historical"""" scenario
>It happens every single time
Really tells you a lot about the absolute state of Veeky Forums

Attached: 1498062883977.png (869x494, 685K)

Where would they have faced logistical problems nigga?

Attached: 1514441874681.jpg (1129x1600, 290K)

>conquering an entire continent
>not a logistic mess that the Romans couldn't even pull off

Not the entire continent, I'm talking about them taking Southern Europe and the rest being converted to Islam.

But muslims can't be racist
Racism=power+privilege

Go away pls. The grown ups are talking

This.

explain why the ottomans didn't rule the mediterranean after possessing them. explain why byzantines didn't either.

you're fucking retarded

> the current state of Veeky Forums
No, it's always been this bad.

Okay Anons, tell me who other than the Byzantines had a fleet or the resources to build one capable of competing with those of the Arabs?

its actually quite sad. when bill wurtz released the sengoku video that made him popular there was a wave of sengoku echo chamber threads on Veeky Forums.

>I'm talking about them taking Southern Europe
They couldn't even manage that despite almost no Byzantine naval presence to stop them.

The bulk of their forces was locked in the fight with the Byzantines, if they were no longer around the rest of Europe wouldn't have stood a chance.

>The bulk of their forces
The bulk of the Syrian and Iraq forces under the caliph. The Maghrebi and Iranian forces didn't involve themselves because that's how decentralized the empire actually was. People seem to think the Arabs were like the Romans and run from a capital that could and would have redirected armies to manage different threats. The disappearance of a Byzantine frontier doesn't mean suddenly the jund of Syria and Iraq are going off to fight the Franks and Turks. They weren't legions that could be shipped off like that.

was Constantinople usefull for stopping would be conquerors?

Eastern Europe at the time was filled with unorganized Slavic tribes and steppe nomads. The ERE was pretty much the only functioning state in Eastern Europe at the time.

>unorganized Slavic tribes and steppe nomads
Like the Avars? They were a large and powerful khaganate at the time.

The Avars were indeed powerful and organized. But let's be honest, the Caliphate would have had no issues with them, and would have probably just secured their borders like they did with the Khazars.