Why didn't the Arabs conquer Asia Minor in the 8th century?

[Emperor Goblinus]

It just strikes me that if they had conquered Asia Minor the way that the Turks did, they could have strangled the Byzantine Empire, and have easily conquered it. Taking Constantinople proved an impossibility, at least at the time, but if they had taken Asia Minor, or even landed troops in Greece itself, Constantinople would have been totally cut off and would have had to eventually surrender. As it was, the Arabs' ignoring of Asia Minor allowed the Byzantines to regain their strength, reorganize their armies, and successfully fight back. I know that the Arabs did deep and devastating raids into Asia Minor, but I just don't see why they didn't conquer it and surround Constantinople. Any theories as to why this didn't happen?

[caldrail]

Perhaps it was because the turks were too tough a nut to crack? The arabs would have known of any reputation they had.

Edited September 25, 2008 by caldrail

[Emperor Goblinus]

Perhaps it was because the turks were too tough a nut to crack? The arabs would have known of any reputation they had.

 

I'm not referring to later when the Turks invaded, but in the eighth century when the Arabs had conquered most of Byzantium, and were raiding deep into Asia Minor. Even though they caused alot of damage, leaving it in Byzantine hands allowed the Byzantines to put together an effective army and stop the Arabs. I'm just curious as to why the Arabs didn't take the region in the same period that they took Judae, Syria, Egypt, and Africa?

[Maladict]

I guess it is because most of their attention was directed to the west, to Spain and France. Supply lines were already becoming unmanageable.

And then of course the Ummayads themselves were overthrown, and any aims towards Asia Minor probably went out the window right there.

The new regime based itself in Baghdad rather than Damascus, perhaps another indication of changing priorities?

[Kosmo]

Because Byzantine regional armies were not defeated and kept many fortifications. The arabs raided a few times following the main roads as the Persians have done shortly before them but they could not control the area. And of course the Byzantine army defeated them several times.

Spain and France were highly marginal for arabs but they would have liked to take Constantinople.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, EG

It just strikes me that if they had conquered Asia Minor the way that the Turks did, they could have strangled the Byzantine Empire, and have easily conquered it. Taking Constantinople proved an impossibility, at least at the time, but if they had taken Asia Minor, or even landed troops in Greece itself, Constantinople would have been totally cut off and would have had to eventually surrender. As it was, the Arabs' ignoring of Asia Minor allowed the Byzantines to regain their strength, reorganize their armies, and successfully fight back. I know that the Arabs did deep and devastating raids into Asia Minor, but I just don't see why they didn't conquer it and surround Constantinople. Any theories as to why this didn't happen?

I ought to agree with K; Asia Minor was hardly "ignored" by the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates (the Abbasids were mostly on the defensive side) :

 

-638: Khalid ibn Walid occupied Tarsus and Marash in SE Anatolia.

 

- 649-55: Muawiyah (governor of Syria) captured Cyprus and Rhodes; raid in Lycia.

 

- 668: Yazid captured Chalcedon (opposite to Constantinople)

 

- 674-8: First siege of Constantinople by Muawiyah I (now caliph)

 

- 694-5: muslim conquest of Armenia

 

- 709-11: Cilicia and Capadoccia were raided

 

- 717-718: Second siege of Constantinople by Maslama

 

- 739: Sulayman was defeated in Akroinon (Phrygia)

 

If Anatolia was not definitively conquered by the Islam, it was mainly due to the constant religious and dynastic conflicts of the muslims and the radical military and administrative reforms done by the Roman Empire (especially under the Isaurian dynasty).

Edited September 26, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Pompieus]

As others have said, the Arab Caliphs (Ommayid and Abbasid) tried very hard to conquer Asia Minor for nearly 300 years. Thier attempts culminating in the two sieges of Constantinople. The successful defense of Western Civilization from this threat was the great achievement of Byzantium. The West owes as great a debt to Leo III and Constantine IV as it does to Charles Martel's Franks or Themistocles and the Athenians. Without them we might all be writing in Arabic.

 

If this seems far-fetched remember that the highly developed Iranian civilization, that had it's own native religion, culture and political entity (the Sassanian Empire) succumbed to the Arabs and is now part of the Islamic world. The Christian civilization of the West was in its infancy at the time and might well have been absorbed by Islam.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Pompieus

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

The West owes as great a debt to Leo III and Constantine IV as it does to Charles Martel's Franks or Themistocles and the Athenians. Without them we might all be writing in Arabic.

Your tribalism is simply overwhelming.

[abvgd]

One plausible theory is that it was simply because of the difference in geography, since the Arab cavalry was most used to and most comfortable in flat (preferrably desert) environments where they could easily outmaneuver their enemies. This does OTOH not explain the ease with which the Arabs conquered Persia but the Persian case might be an exception to the rule because of the instability in Persia that preceded the Arab conquests. The Arabs were stopped at the Pyrenees and in Anatolia, maybe this is more than a coincidence? Of course, they raided past these mountainous regions, but for conquests you need fast and secure supply lines and mountain ranges can complicate matters...

 

The West owes as great a debt to Leo III and Constantine IV as it does to Charles Martel's Franks or Themistocles and the Athenians. Without them we might all be writing in Arabic.

Your tribalism is simply overwhelming.

I don't think it's tribalism to say that he is happy that his culture wasn't overrun by a foreign culture in the past which would have drastically changed his current cultural heritage which he feels a strong affinity to. This does not in itself imply disrespect or even lack of interest in the culture of others, only that he prefers his own culture for himself I'm happy too that Constantinople acted as a bulwark against Islam, thus enabling Europe to continue develop itself largely free from external conquests and tyranny. Looking back in retrospective I think this has worked out just fine and I wouldn't want it any other way

 

Coincidentally, if you look at the way the Greco-Roman heritage is treated today in north Africa and the Middle East, it's in a rather sad state of neglect and indifference which makes me wonder whether it might not be due to the radical cultural break that Islam introduced with regard to the region's glorious Greco-Roman past, but that's a whole other subject.

Edited February 26, 2011 by abvgd

[DecimusCaesar]

The armies of Islam were best at raiding and sometimes fighting pitched battles rather than taking on enemy armies in sieges. Asia Minor and Constantinople were heavily defended at the time. I'm sure that the Arabs lost heart when their lighting fast raids and attacks failed to budge the Byzantines from their forts.

 

*Edit - got mixed up with the 7th century siege of Constantinope.

Edited March 1, 2011 by DecimusCaesar