Raqqa; Ideal Caliphal capital?

[wakobear]

Problems with Damascus:​

The Umayyads chose Damascus as their capital, but while it's a good, centrally located Levantine capital, it seems to me to be a poor capital for a Caliphate stretching from the Atlantic to the Indus.

Firstly Damascus is quite isolated. Landlocked with no Navigable rivers for access to the sea, Surrounded by desert to the south and east and mountains to the west. Lack of transportation links makes it a poor imperial capital.
Also the only route to Iraq was long. Going north to Raqqa, then down the Euphrates to Kufa. Or if one is Khalid bin Walid, through the desert...

It also lacks a large arable hinterland to allow it to grow into one of the world's largest metropolises, unlike Baghdad or Cairo. So even though it was the political capital, Kufa was the largest city in the Caliphate, followed by Basra, both of which the Umayyads had tenuous control over... Kufa was also the intellectual capital of the Caliphate, overtaking Madina. Which is why there is a Kufan school of Arabic grammar, Kufan qira'at of the Qur'an, Kufan madhhab of Ra'y (opinion) etc.

Whereas Damascus doesn't seem to have grown that extensively and probably remained Christian majority. The only main Syrian scholar in early times was alAwzaa'i, but he was from Baalbek. The rest came mainly from Madina or Kufa.
The Umayyad Caliphs themselves seem to have rarely ruled out of Damascus, preferring to rule out of their Caliphal palaces which moved with every ruler, but seem to predominate around Palestine or northern Syria.

Finally, Damascus was able exert strong control over Syria, Egypt and Hejaz, but found difficulty in controlling Iraq, the breadbasket, bankroller and most populous region of the Caliphate. Facing endless revolts by Iraqi Arabs who despised them, eventually demilitarising them and and resorting to a forced Umayyad occupation carried out by the Syrian army based in Wasit.
The Umayyad governors of Iraq, otherwise know. as the Viceroy of the East, usually controlled more of the Caliphate than the Caliph, such as Ziyad bin Abihi or Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Yazid bin Muhallab etc, Controlling: Iraq, Bahrayn, Oman, Persia, Khurasan, Sijistan and Sindh....

Alternatives:​

The Ideal Caliphal capital needs to control the entire fertile crescent. Especially both Iraq and Egypt. The two richest provinces.


Cairo has access to both the Mediterranean and the Red/Indian Ocean via the Pharaohs Canal, as well astrong control over Syria, Hejaz and Yemen to an extent. But it's too western to control Iraq or even Jazira. Let alone anything further east.

Baghdad is located at the closest point of the Tigris-Euphrates, exerting control both downstream to the Sawad, the richest region of the Caliphate and upstream to the Jazira and Upper Syria. While also having strong Indian Ocean links and control over Persia/the east. But it had difficulties in controlling some regions of Syria or Egypt let alone Ifriqiyah or further west.

Personally this leaves one option: Raqqa.

The case for Raqqa:​

Iraq:​

It's most important factor is that it's navigable on the Euphrates. So it can send troops and supplies much more efficiently downstream to the ever rebellious Kufa and Basra. Since Waterborne transport is far faster and cheaper than the camel-caravan alternative through the Syrian desert.
Enabling a much more effective forced occupation of Iraq by the Syrian jund, making revolts less common/easier to put down.
And making direct Caliphal rule over Iraq possible, doing away with the Iraqi superprovince and it's potentially dangerous Viceroys of the East: Ziyad ibn Abihi, Hajjaj, Yazid ibn Muhallab, Khalid alQasri etc. Thereby increasing Umayyad influence and control in Khurasan, and increasing centralisation as a whole - which would lead to a much more advanced and developed administration.
Beyond that, more Iraqi wealth would reach the Umayyad treasury, giving it the wealth to expand the Syrian jund even more. And stronger Umayyad ties to Iraq would encourage them to invest more wealth into Iraqi irrigation systems (instead of the irrigation of their OTL desert palaces) Increasing the prosperity of the Sawad even further.

The huge Iraqi grain barges sent upstream to Raqqa, as well as it's fertile hinterlands of the Khabur river valley, the Jaziran breadbasket and nearby Aleppo, would enable Raqqa to become a gigantic metropolis numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Giving the Umayyads an intellectual and cultural powerhouse similar to OTL Baghdad which can rival and surpass hostile Kufa. Giving greater Umayyad control over the intellectual currents of the Muslim world, since Kufa was the capital of Anti Umayyad ideologies.
This would also kick-start the efflorescence of Arab/Islamic civilization, in terms of development of science, schools of law, systems of governance, literature etc, as usually happens with huge metropolises.
Instead of the small Umayyad palaces which usually moved to an entirely different provinces with each new ruler, unideal for an imperial administration....

There would probably be a large Iraqi migration to Raqqa from Kufa and Basra, and the constant trade barges between them would integrate Iraq much more firmly into the Caliphate.

Also Indian Ocean trade can flow upstream to Raqqa, giving the Umayyads more interest in investing in and developing Indian Ocean trade networks, as an additional source of wealth, as well as increasing international influence.

Additional factors:​

It's also located at the crossroads of the Jazira and Upper Syria, allowing control over both, especially as Jazira increases in influence overtime. And its still close enough to Egypt to keep it firmly under control.


It's close to the centre of the fertile crescent (Circesium is too isolated) and close to the 700+ year Romano-Persian frontier.
Thus could be symbolically seen as a statement of being successor to both states.
It also means it's environs like the Khabur river valley weren't heavily cultivated due to centuries of warfare, allowing the Arabs to bring uncultivated land into cultivation, thus gaining direct control over the land, which they couldn't do elsewhere, at the same time promoting irrigation and agricultural generally instead of nomadism (some Umayyads seem to have been semi nomadic)
Similarly it's location at the crossroads of Rome and Persia would mean it would take more equally from both civilizations. Damascus was a Roman city, and the Umayyads were quite romanised. While Baghdad was next to and built using Ctesiphon, the Abbasids heavily persianised. Whereas Raqqa was a small border town, without too strong of a pre-islamic culture. Allowing the creation of something new.

Its also close to the Mediterranean, especially since the Orontes is navigable to at least Antioch. So Antioch would become one of the largest ports of the Caliphate, from which exerting Caliphal will on the Maghreb and Andalus. (Damascus while closer to the Med physically needs to pass large mountain ranges en route)

Potentially the Orontes could be dredged to Homs. Then a Canal could be made from the Euphrates, through lake Jabbul to Homs, Giving Raqqa direct Mediterranean access. In 1836, British general and explorer Francis Rawdon Chesney proposed a 67 mile long Orontes-Euphrates canal and was awarded for his work, though it never came to fruition.





There is also significant historical precedent for this move.

During Umar ibn AbdalAziz's reign the Caliphal palace/capital was at Khanaser, halfway between Raqqa and Aleppo. Then during Hisham's 20 year long reign, the palace/capital was at Rusafa, 25 km directly south of Raqqa.... (But in the middle of the desert, unnavigable) Later Marwan ii moved the as far north as Harran due to his Jaziran/Qaysi powerbase. Then Raqqa was made into a fortified garrison by Mansur. But came into true prominence under Harun ar-Rashid who made Raqqa the seat of Abbasid government from 796 until his death in 809. But even after that Raqqa was the western capital, instead of Fustat. Raqqa surpassed the population of Umayyad Damascus, despite only being capital for 13 years compared to 90.

It was also in home to a major glass/ceramic industry, due to minerals nearby, giving the city a headstart in terms of industry, compared to other cities.




It's main downside seems to be it's proximity to the frontier. Though this didn't deter Umar ii, Hisham, Marwan ii or Harun ar-Rashid from moving capitals near it. Perhaps this could actually encourage greater conquest of central Anatolia for more protection?

It's also more distant than Damscus, Cairo or Baghdad from Madina/Hejaz weakening control in a potentially rebellious region. Though Hejazi revolts were usually ineffective.


Potentially, if Raqqa is slightly too eastern for the Umayyads, it could be moved to Barbalissos instead, a small Roman fortified town, closer to Aleppo and Syria, but still navigable on the Euphrates. (Basically a navigable Khanaser)


Damascus would remain provincial capital of Syria. In Iraq, the city of Anbar (directly west of Baghdad, on Euphrates) may replace Wasit as the Syrian Jund's centre in Iraq, due to its closer connection to Raqqa.
Though Baghdad itself is a better option due to its greater arable hinterland, the Diyala river and proximity to the Khurasan Road. It's also easily navigable from the Euphrates via the Tigris-Euphrates canals.




But essentially it's just Rusafa but navigable.
Is there a better capital than Raqqa?

 

[Nivek]

Raqqa

The idea could work if they realize that,once they made the caliphate hereditary,they need a bigger hold and powerbase around it,they can leave Syria as a familiar holding and build a new Capitol.

 

[wakobear]

The idea could work if they realize that,once they made the caliphate hereditary,they need a bigger hold and powerbase around it,they can leave Syria as a familiar holding and build a new Capitol.

Ye, Damascus would probably remain the capital of Syria/Levant, but the Imperial/Caliphal capital would move to Raqqa due to its much more advantageous location.

It would ideally be moved early in Muawiya's reign, realising he needs stronger control over Iraq. If not then, then definitely after the 2nd fitnah where control over Iraq is crucial

 

[Nivek]

Ye, Damascus would probably remain the capital of Syria/Levant, but the Imperial/Caliphal capital would move to Raqqa due to its much more advantageous location.

It would ideally be moved early in Muawiya's reign, realising he needs stronger control over Iraq. If not then, then definitely after the 2nd fitnah where control over Iraq is crucial

Excatly,that logic can come when the ummayds need a firm hold of the caliphate now it become a hereditary holding.

And I mean Syria being a ummayds land,ie being part of the family alongside the caliph own lands, that way you've the powerbase.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

The Umayyads chose Damascus as their capital, but while it's a good, centrally located Levantine capital, it seems to me to be a poor capital for a Caliphate stretching from the Atlantic to the Indus.

It's good to notice that Damascus wasn't really chosen. It was from where the umayyads ruled Syria (the province from which they rose to the Caliphate), and as such ruling from Damascus was seen as proper - And due to the umayyad powerbase being itself mainly based out of Syria, you don't see any push towards changing that by the Caliphs. It is indeed an inconvenience when projecting power for the extension the Caliphate got, but i don't see any of the Umayyad Caliphs having such foresight (except Hisham, i guess? But he never got too comfortable ruling in order to actually change something about that).

It's main downside seems to be it's proximity to the frontier. Though this didn't deter Umar ii, Hisham, Marwan ii or Harun ar-Rashid from moving capitals near it. Perhaps this could actually encourage greater conquest of central Anatolia for more protection?

I pretty much agree to the concept, but i don't think being next to the frontier is the main problem at all. IMO the main problem of a capital in Raqqa is the political difficulty in making it work - At least for the Umayyads. As such that, the actual moves towards the sort just came with the Abbasids, that had more of a free hand on what to actually do, due to comparatively more legitimacy with the general population and non-commitment towards arab supporters.

The thing is that, even for the Abbasids, a capital in Raqqa is alienating (by distancing themselves from) their persian supporters, those who pretty much got them in power first place. For that matter, to do that isn't exactly dumb, it's actually quite intelligent (that's why the Abbasids toyed with Raqqa as capital in the first place) but you need a true string of committed and capable-of-handling Caliphs for that to truly work out.

Being next to the frontier isn't really that much of a fuss - It simply isn't near enough for it to be a problem.

Is there a better capital than Raqqa?

Short-term, not really, if your purpose is to actually maintain an empire from the Atlantic to the Indus, Raqqa is the sweetspot. Now, long-term there may be better spots than Raqqa, since the Euphrates Valley will lean towards becoming more and more arid historically if subject to extended periods of negligence. But if you can maintain the area irrigated, the canals working and conflict well-away? It's difficult to find a better alternative (specially if you don't want to just build a capital from the ground-up, Raqqa is simply the best option that already exists).

 

[wakobear]

It's good to notice that Damascus wasn't really chosen. It was from where the umayyads ruled Syria (the province from which they rose to the Caliphate), and as such ruling from Damascus was seen as proper - And due to the umayyad powerbase being itself mainly based out of Syria, you don't see any push towards changing that by the Caliphs. It is indeed an inconvenience when projecting power for the extension the Caliphate got, but i don't see any of the Umayyad Caliphs having such foresight (except Hisham, i guess? But he never got too comfortable ruling in order to actually change something about that).

After Walid I's death in 715, the Umayyads rarely ruled from Damascus. They were still coronated there, and it was the nominally official capital, but they usually ruled from their palaces elsewhere, particularly in the north. Sulayman ruled from Qinnasrin province, extremely close to Raqqa, as did Umar ii, Yazid ii moved it to Balqa province in modern day Jordan. Hisham moved it to Rusafa, which is incredibly close to Raqqa, just to the south, on a seasonal tributary of the Euphrates. Finally Marwan ii officially moved the capital to Harran, completely outside Syria since his support was based in Jazira.

But since 715, there had been a shift of the Caliphate towards the environs of Raqqa.
All I'm saying is instead of moving it to Qinnasrin, Sulayman instead choses to move it to nearby Raqqa or if that's slightly too eastern, then Barbalissos is within Jund(province) Qinnasrin, as is incredibly close to Umar ii's capital of Khanaser while still being navigable.

The coronation and nominally official capital stays initially at Damascus. Umar ii and Yazid ii keeps it in Raqqa, quickly growing in prestige and size. At the beginning of Hisham's reign, after 10 years of being capital, it surpasses Kufa to become the largest city in the Caliphate at around 250,000+ inhabitants and by the end of his reign rivals Constantinople and perhaps even Chang'an...



Once again, Rusafa, Qinnasrin and Harran are nextdoor to Raqqa. Instead of those 3, just chose the city between them: Raqqa/Barbalissos which is literally in the almost exact centre of the 3 cities.



It would be difficult for one such as Muawiyah to move the capital to Raqqa. Since it's under him that the Syrian capital moved from Jabiya to Damascus. And that the Syrian Junds were united at Damascus. But he also seems to have moved throughout Syria extensively on a seasonal basis, in a semi nomadic kind of way, so it's not totally out of the question. The hold on Cilicia isn't that strong yet either, so Raqqa might be at serious risk of Byzantine attack.

But in these early stages a system of 2 capitals could work. Spending half the year at Damascus, the other half at Raqqa, especially in the campaigning season. As Raqqa quickly surpasses Damascus, the latter becoming mostly ceremonial, until eventually even that is removed, becoming merely historical.

The thing is that, even for the Abbasids, a capital in Raqqa is alienating (by distancing themselves from) their persian supporters, those who pretty much got them in power first place. For that matter, to do that isn't exactly dumb, it's actually quite intelligent (that's why the Abbasids toyed with Raqqa as capital in the first place) but you need a true string of committed and capable-of-handling Caliphs for that to truly work out.

Well, the Abbasids had a habit of alienating their support bases. First the Shia, by killing Nafs Zakiyyah, then the Khurasanis by giving up Khurasan to Tahirids, then Baghdadis by moving to Samarra and finally their own slaves...

Also, the Persians the Abbasids were bringing in weren't those who lived in or near Iraq - which was mostly Aramaic anyway - but we're Khurasanis, from modern day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and far eastern Iran. They had little connection to Iraq. Kufans didn't like them, and Baghdad was a new city, with no Persian connection other than being close to the now dishevelled Ctesiphon. No one would be alienated. Instead settling tens of thousands of Persians in Raqqa, would spread their influence the farthest west since Achaemenids times.

But generally, Baghdad and Raqqa would be twin capitals, as they were in Harun's time. Even though he moved the capital to Raqqa, the majority of the administration still remained at Baghdad, and Baghdad was by far the more prestigious and far far more populous city. The Caliphs would spend about half a year in each, moving to Raqqa especially in campaigning season.


Also depending on how early they make Raqqa as second capital, it wouldn't alienate anyone. Initially they ruled out of Kufa for the first 17 years of the Caliphate, before Mansur decided to build Baghdad, due to tensions between Arabs and Khurasanis.
So instead as soon as they take they take Syria in 750, they establish a second capital in Raqqa, to better control Syria, and to exert more control on Ifriqiyah, Maghreb and potentially Andalus. Establishing a Khurasani presence in the city on its creation.
Giving initial capitals of Kufa and Raqqa in the west, soon shifting to Baghdad and Raqqa. With Raqqa becoming the military capital, while Baghdad is the economic and intellectual capital.


I do firmly believe Mutasim should've moved the capital to Raqqa not Samarra. Samarra lacks any major geographical benefits and seems fairly isolated.

Whereas if he moved it to Raqqa, he would be able to strengthen the Abbasid position in Syria, Egypt and even Ifriqiyah which had majorly declined during the Mamun-Amin civil war, and still had significant Umayyad sympathies, while also becoming increasingly controlled by anti-abbasid Bedouin. This would greatly reduce the chances of a Tulunid uprising in Egypt, and potentially help to combat the Fatimid while their still in Ifriqiyah due to more Aghlabid and general Mediterranean influence.
Secondly, it is closer to the frontier, making the Turkic slaves busy against the Byzantines instead of plotting, and making Mutasim's campaigns quicker and easier to carry out. And it would give the Turkics more connection to the frontier ghazis who they fought alongside in Anatolia.
Thirdly, it would hearken back to the glory days of Harun and his Raqqan capital.

Now, long-term there may be better spots than Raqqa, since the Euphrates Valley will lean towards becoming more and more arid historically if subject to extended periods of negligence. But if you can maintain the area irrigated, the canals working and conflict well-away?

Firstly, Raqqa's enormous population would primarily be fed by grain barges from Iraq, and so it would be paramount to build huge irrigation works throughout Iraq to ensure Raqqa can be fed. This is unlike OTL, where Umayyads didn't have much of an incentive to invest in Iraqi irrigation, instead focusing on private land holdings in Syria, which caused Kufa/Basra to feel even more marginalised in a state they already despised. Active investment in Iraq could potentially drastically alter Iraqi hostilities

Secondly
Ideally, instead of creating Wasit in 701 as the new capital of Iraq, the Umayyads should've made Baghdad as administrative capital of Iraq, due to its control of both the Tigris and Euphrates, giving immense control over all Iraq from Mosul down to Basra. It's naturally strategic location would allow it to become an enormous city, coming close to rivalling Raqqa, even if its not imperial capital.
And its rise would result in the decline of Kufa - the plague of the Umayyad state.
A fortified garrison would be made at Wasit, to march armies to Basra/Kufa, but it had a disadvantageous location, resulting in significant costs to the Umayyads to maintain it. Whereas Baghdad would naturally create large amounts of wealth.

specially if you don't want to just build a capital from the ground-up, Raqqa is simply the best option that already exists

Byzantine Raqqa was a fairly small town, on the Romano-Persian frontier for 700 years. With little grand Roman architecture unlike Damascus, Baalbek, Palmyra and other Syrian cities. Mansur and Harun did not use Byzantine Raqqa, but built a city next door called Rafiqa, which quickly grew to encompass both.
Generally I would see it as a new city, due to the insignificance of Roman Raqqa.
The Arabs liked to build new cities anyway: Kufa, Basra, Jabiya, Ramla, Fustat, Cairo, Baghdad, Qayrawan, Brahmanabad, Tunis etc.

 

[Nivek]

Once again, Rusafa, Qinnasrin and Harran are nextdoor to Raqqa. Instead of those 3, just chose the city between all 3: Raqqa.

It even make more sense if you think about it

 

[Jürgen]

Raqqa lies in the middle of the northern Arabic tribal area (the southern Arabic tribal area being Nejd), this would indicate that the region is harkr to control for a centralized state and very open to raids and invasions by the tribes. Baghdad on the other hand lies in the middle of the most densely populated and most agricultural region of the Fertile Crescent, while Damascus control the access to the Mediterranean and lie protected from Christian invasions.

 

[wakobear]

Raqqa lies in the middle of the northern Arabic tribal area (the southern Arabic tribal area being Nejd), this would indicate that the region is harkr to control for a centralized state and very open to raids and invasions by the tribes. Baghdad on the other hand lies in the middle of the most densely populated and most agricultural region of the Fertile Crescent, while Damascus control the access to the Mediterranean and lie protected from Christian invasions..

Firstly what do you mean by northern and southern? Do you mean Qaysi/Mudari/Northern and Yamani/Southern tribal super groups? If so then Raqqa was on the border of Southern/Yamani Syria and Northern/Qaysi Jazira, giving control over both tribal super groups. Nejd was predominantly Qaysi/Northern tribes, particularly Banu Hanifa, which produced a large number of kharijites.

Also the early Caliphate was extremely tribal. No tribes are raiding and invading others. Except for some small khariji Bedouin groups in Najd/Bahrain, Basra, Fars and Sijistan, who were mostly defeated by the end of the 2nd fitnah, save some holdouts in Sijistan (Iran-Afghan border) But khawarij are more dominant in the east and Persia, until the Berbers.

The Umayyads had near absolute loyalty of the Syrian tribes and Yamani/Southern tribes in general. As well as a decently high loyalty of the Jazirans.
The Abbasids reduced their reliance on Arab tribes, by introduction of Khurasani. And Syro-Jaziran Arabs still had strong Umayyad loyalties decades after the revolution. Over time these tribal Arabs began to feel left out by the Abbasids. As the Abbasids weakened throughout the 800s, some Bedouin restlessness resulted in some initial Bedouin attacks, Nejd/Yamama
Coming to a height under the Qaramita, who united a large number of Arab tribes throughout Arabia and the Syrian desert. Eventually sacking Makkah. By this time almost the entire fertile crescent was under Bedouin control. With Mazyadids in southern Iraq, Uqaylids and Mirdasids in upper Syro-Jazira, Banu Kalb in Damascus and Banu Jarrah in Palestine/Jordan.

But all this would be impossible under the Umayyads, due to it being a tribal empire. Whose longevity lied in the ability of the Syrian tribes to overpower all other tribes.


Also Raqqa had been either the capital, second capital, or near an Umayyad palace-capital from 715 to late 800s. So there is a clear precedent and the early Caliphates had no problems in controling it.




While Baghdad does indeed control the richest area of the fertile crescent. Raqqa is surrounded by fairly fertile regions, such as Aleppo, the Balikh valley and the Jaziran breadbasket - which was a major source of food for Abbasid Baghdad. And most importantly, Raqqa is Navigable upon the Euphrates. Allowing a huge portion of Iraqi grain to reach Raqqa.


Raqqa seems to have easier access to the Mediterranean, despite being farther than Damascus, since it's flat land, and the Orontes is somewhat Navigable. Damascus had to bypass huge mountain ranges to access the sea - difficult to transport large quantities of resources or men through such difficult terrain, so the usual route was probably longer than that of Raqqa's.
And after Cilicia is secured in 700, till the Byzantine resurgence in 930s, Raqqa is largely secure. Which is why Harun moved his official capital there, or Marwan moved it even closer to the Byzantine frontier at Harran.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Wasn't Raqqa the Abbasid capital under Caliph Harun al-Raahid?

 

[Beefhammer]

So how much easier would it be to control the far peripheries of the Muslim world from Raqqa, with its easier access to both the Persian Gulf and apparently the Mediterranean? Likewise the front lines with the Byzantines.

 

[wakobear]

Wasn't Raqqa the Abbasid capital under Caliph Harun al-Raahid?

Yee, I'm saying it (or Barbalissos) should've been Umayyad capital, to use its navigability on Euphrates to better control Iraq and the east, while still maintaing strong control over Syria, Egypt and the west.

Or Mutasim should've moved his capital to Raqqa instead of Samarra, to strengthen the already weak Abbasid hold on Syria, Egypt and the west.

 

[wakobear]

So how much easier would it be to control the far peripheries of the Muslim world from Raqqa, with its easier access to both the Persian Gulf and apparently the Mediterranean? Likewise the front lines with the Byzantines.

If control on the centre is improved, then control over the peripheries would be easier too.

The main problem with the Umayyads is that the richest, most populous and most intellectual cities of the Caliphate: Kufa and Basra, absolutely despised the Umayyads.
With Kufa endlessly rebelling, and being a primary cause for the success of the Abbasids, as well as their capital for the first 17 years.

This required the costly foundation of Wasit, between these 2 to keep them in check, And the cities were also demilitarised in wake of Ibn al Ashath's massive (perhaps as many as 200,000 troops) revolt. This denied the Caliphate enormous quantities of men, who could've been invaluable in pushing the frontiers. But even during the Berber revolt, when manpower shortages reached their maximum, and the Umayyads had even let Armenian Christians fight for them in Anatolia, yet they didn't remilitarise hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, due to the existential Umayyad fear of doing so.


So the whole point of a capital at Raqqa is to use the Euphrates to much directly control Kufa and Basra, both on the Euphrates. Which Damascus could never do, since to get to Iraq, it needed to cross the desert, or march north and follow the Euphrates.
Strong control of Kufa and Basra could potentially allow remilitarisation, and thus much more manpower and thus better successes on the frontiers, keeping the Umayyad model of Jihad state running.
It would also bleed into stronger control over the east, since they were conquered and settled by Kufa or Basra, and maintained strong ties to their mother cities.

Another problem was the Viceroy of the east. Wherein the governor of Iraq governed more of the Caliphate than the actual Caliph, such as Ziyad ibn Abihi, Hajjaj bin Yusuf and Yazid bin Muhallab etc. If one of these men revolted it would be incredibly difficult to put down, such as when Yazid bin Muhallab revolted, even though he had been removed from his governorate a few years prior, still had massive loyalties throughout the east.

Greater and more direct Umayyad control of Kufa/Basra would prevent the need for a viceroy of the east. Allowing more direct Umayyad control over the east, establishing Umayyad loyalties, instead of loyalties to their governor.


Also stronger Umayyad control on the Persian Gulf could allow more influence in Sindh, ideally preventing the total abandonment of the entire province after Junayd was moved to Khurasan, despite pushing deep into Punjab and Gujarat, requiring reconquest by al Hakam, who lost a battle on the borders of Maharashtra. Leading to a stabilisation around Sindh only.
These probably lost huge quantities of men. But there are almost no sources whatsoever.
A stronger control over Persian gulf, could prevent this, and perhaps encourage further expansion.

(Personally I don't know why Junayd pushed south into Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, instead of fully focusing on the Gangetic plain down to Bangladesh, which was in total chaos after Harsha's death in 647, and is far more richer than the south....)


Another aspect is the benefits a metropolis would bring. During the short time Raqqa spent as Harun's capital, it surpassed the population of Umayyad Damascus at its peak. Which remained predominantly Christian and was much smaller than Kufa, Basra and perhaps Madina?. One reason for this is it's lack of a huge arable hinterland allowing for a population explosion which Baghdad and Cairo have. Raqqa seems to have a larger hinterland than Damscus via Aleppo, Balikh valley and Jaziran grains. But most importantly, it has navigable access to Iraq, the most fertile region of the entire fertile crescent, moreso than Egypt.
This would allow it's population to surge to hundreds of thousands, surpassing Kufa. Such a large urban conglomeration usually promotes the development of civilization, administration, sciences, literature and other aspects of high culture, as seen by Kufa intellectual capital of the Umayyad caliphate, despite being wholly opposed to their rulers.

This permanent capital would replace the Umayyad norm of ruling out of their palaces, often moving province on each ruler's death. Such endless movement likely indicates a poor administration, as noted by Blankinship. So a metropolis would allow for the creation of a real administration and the beginnings of centralisation of the vast Umayyad realm, similar to what occured with Abbasid Baghdad. Strengthening Umayyad control.

Perhaps the large number of non Arabs typical for a large metropolis could lighten Umayyad harshness on non Arabs, particularly Berbers. Though this is unlikely since Arab landowners would lose out on Jizya. (Though the thing which Berbers hated the most was being enslaved despite being Muslim.....)




With regards to the Mediterranean, I am unsure if Damascus or Raqqa/Barbalissos is easier. In terms of straight line distances Damascus is 85km, Barbalissos is 175 and Raqqa is 250. (But Raqqa would sail upstream to Barbalissos then disembark).
The problem is Damascus has large mountain ranges in the way, and so would require a much longer path to Acre or Tyre the 2 naval capitals of the Levant.

Barbalissos has largely flat land on the way to Antioch, with the major city of Aleppo en route. The Orontes in Navigable at Antioch but might be able to be dregded further to Hama or Homs? Making it even easier.
A potential could be an Orontes-Euphrates canal, going through lake Jabbul. Though I'm unsure of the feasibility of this.

In any case, moving to Raqqa would make Antioch the Mediterranean capital of the empire, preventing it's decline. And since it's so close to the Lycian/Cibyrrhaeot coast, would make conquests there more efficacious.


Similarly, it's proximity to the Byzantine frontier would probably encourage conquest, not raiding, of the Anatolian plateau to create a larger buffer.
It's closeness to Cilicia would encourage it's resettlement and fortification much faster, allowing more effective campaigns into Anatolia.
While a maritime capital at Antioch would also strengthen the Cilician ports, overall giving a much more powerful navy against the Anatolian and later Aegean coasts.



Raqqa is still close enough by land to Egypt to keep it firmly in check. But it generally had strong Umayyad loyalties anyway.

Control over the Maghreb and Iberia would always be difficult. But due to the remilitarisation of Iraq, many more Arabs can be sent to the west.
Reducing the overwhelming dependence on berbers. Since Arabs only settled in Ifriqiyah (Tunisia) the only other Arab presence being a small misr at Tangier.
While the Iberian Army seems to have been majority Berber.
Sending tens of thousands more Arabs would strengthen the Umayyads hold on the region.

And if Raqqa does strengthen Umayyad influence on the sea, this would make communication and troops transfers with the west easier.

 

[Beefhammer]

If control on the centre is improved, then control over the peripheries would be easier too.

The main problem with the Umayyads is that the richest, most populous and most intellectual cities of the Caliphate: Kufa and Basra, absolutely despised the Umayyads.
With Kufa endlessly rebelling, and being a primary cause for the success of the Abbasids, as well as their capital for the first 17 years.

This required the costly foundation of Wasit, between these 2 to keep them in check, And the cities were also demilitarised in wake of Ibn al Ashath's massive (perhaps as many as 200,000 troops) revolt. This denied the Caliphate enormous quantities of men, who could've been invaluable in pushing the frontiers. But even during the Berber revolt, when manpower shortages reached their maximum, and the Umayyads had even let Armenian Christians fight for them in Anatolia, yet they didn't remilitarise hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, due to the existential Umayyad fear of doing so.


So the whole point of a capital at Raqqa is to use the Euphrates to much directly control Kufa and Basra, both on the Euphrates. Which Damascus could never do, since to get to Iraq, it needed to cross the desert, or march north and follow the Euphrates.
Strong control of Kufa and Basra could potentially allow remilitarisation, and thus much more manpower and thus better successes on the frontiers, keeping the Umayyad model of Jihad state running.
It would also bleed into stronger control over the east, since they were conquered and settled by Kufa or Basra, and maintained strong ties to their mother cities.

Another problem was the Viceroy of the east. Wherein the governor of Iraq governed more of the Caliphate than the actual Caliph, such as Ziyad ibn Abihi, Hajjaj bin Yusuf and Yazid bin Muhallab etc. If one of these men revolted it would be incredibly difficult to put down, such as when Yazid bin Muhallab revolted, even though he had been removed from his governorate a few years prior, still had massive loyalties throughout the east.

Greater and more direct Umayyad control of Kufa/Basra would prevent the need for a viceroy of the east. Allowing more direct Umayyad control over the east, establishing Umayyad loyalties, instead of loyalties to their governor.


Also stronger Umayyad control on the Persian Gulf could allow more influence in Sindh, ideally preventing the total abandonment of the entire province after Junayd was moved to Khurasan, despite pushing deep into Punjab and Gujarat, requiring reconquest by al Hakam, who lost a battle on the borders of Maharashtra. Leading to a stabilisation around Sindh only.
These probably lost huge quantities of men. But there are almost no sources whatsoever.
A stronger control over Persian gulf, could prevent this, and perhaps encourage further expansion.

(Personally I don't know why Junayd pushed south into Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, instead of fully focusing on the Gangetic plain down to Bangladesh, which was in total chaos after Harsha's death in 647, and is far more richer than the south....)


Another aspect is the benefits a metropolis would bring. During the short time Raqqa spent as Harun's capital, it surpassed the population of Umayyad Damascus at its peak. Which remained predominantly Christian and was much smaller than Kufa, Basra and perhaps Madina?. One reason for this is it's lack of a huge arable hinterland allowing for a population explosion which Baghdad and Cairo have. Raqqa seems to have a larger hinterland than Damscus via Aleppo, Balikh valley and Jaziran grains. But most importantly, it has navigable access to Iraq, the most fertile region of the entire fertile crescent, moreso than Egypt.
This would allow it's population to surge to hundreds of thousands, surpassing Kufa. Such a large urban conglomeration usually promotes the development of civilization, administration, sciences, literature and other aspects of high culture, as seen by Kufa intellectual capital of the Umayyad caliphate, despite being wholly opposed to their rulers.

This permanent capital would replace the Umayyad norm of ruling out of their palaces, often moving province on each ruler's death. Such endless movement likely indicates a poor administration, as noted by Blankinship. So a metropolis would allow for the creation of a real administration and the beginnings of centralisation of the vast Umayyad realm, similar to what occured with Abbasid Baghdad. Strengthening Umayyad control.

Perhaps the large number of non Arabs typical for a large metropolis could lighten Umayyad harshness on non Arabs, particularly Berbers. Though this is unlikely since Arab landowners would lose out on Jizya. (Though the thing which Berbers hated the most was being enslaved despite being Muslim.....)




With regards to the Mediterranean, I am unsure if Damascus or Raqqa/Barbalissos is easier. In terms of straight line distances Damascus is 85km, Barbalissos is 175 and Raqqa is 250. (But Raqqa would sail upstream to Barbalissos then disembark).
The problem is Damascus has large mountain ranges in the way, and so would require a much longer path to Acre or Tyre the 2 naval capitals of the Levant.

Barbalissos has largely flat land on the way to Antioch, with the major city of Aleppo en route. The Orontes in Navigable at Antioch but might be able to be dregded further to Hama or Homs? Making it even easier.
A potential could be an Orontes-Euphrates canal, going through lake Jabbul. Though I'm unsure of the feasibility of this.

In any case, moving to Raqqa would make Antioch the Mediterranean capital of the empire, preventing it's decline. And since it's so close to the Lycian/Cibyrrhaeot coast, would make conquests there more efficacious.


Similarly, it's proximity to the Byzantine frontier would probably encourage conquest, not raiding, of the Anatolian plateau to create a larger buffer.
It's closeness to Cilicia would encourage it's resettlement and fortification much faster, allowing more effective campaigns into Anatolia.
While a maritime capital at Antioch would also strengthen the Cilician ports, overall giving a much more powerful navy against the Anatolian and later Aegean coasts.



Raqqa is still close enough by land to Egypt to keep it firmly in check. But it generally had strong Umayyad loyalties anyway.

Control over the Maghreb and Iberia would always be difficult. But due to the remilitarisation of Iraq, many more Arabs can be sent to the west.
Reducing the overwhelming dependence on berbers. Since Arabs only settled in Ifriqiyah (Tunisia) the only other Arab presence being a small misr at Tangier.
While the Iberian Army seems to have been majority Berber.
Sending tens of thousands more Arabs would strengthen the Umayyads hold on the region.

And if Raqqa does strengthen Umayyad influence on the sea, this would make communication and troops transfers with the west easier.

How much of North Africa/Iberia/Anatolia/Central Asia/the Indo-Gangeatic Plain do you see being possible to hold and govern from Raqqa?

 

[wakobear]

How much of North Africa/Iberia/Anatolia/Central Asia/the Indo-Gangeatic Plain do you see being possible to hold and govern from Raqqa?

If the Umayyads manage to create an Abbasids level administration.
Fully integrate the Berbers. Other ethnic groups don't matter, since only the Berbers entirely embraced Islam by 740, and were actively recruited, trained and equipped by the Umayyads, vastly outnumbering Arab forces in the west.

Somewhat integrate or at least reduce the hostility of the Iraqis. Perhaps even marry into/integrate Banu Hashim.

Turn poor, difficult frontiers into defensive frontiers instead of offensive ones (Khazaria/Caucasian, Transoxiana and to an extent Anatolia, Frankia? And maybe even southern Maghreb) focusing instead on rich frontiers primarily India to bankroll the empire. Preventing the dispersion and destruction of the Syrian armies (backbone of the Umayyads) to reinforce provincial garrison's on poor, difficult frontiers.

While also moving tens of Umayyad lesser princes to the peripheries to improve provincial loyalties to the Umayyad family.

And finally building a gigantic navy in the Mediterranean restarting a large portion of the Roman Mediterranean trade network to control Iberia/Maghreb and similar in the Indian Ocean for India (particularly a Yamuna-Sutlej canal). As well as an improved multiple horse-relay postal system for much faster communications and thus control over land.


Then the Umayyads have fixed all their problems, and should be able to continue ruling indefinitely as long as their Administration/Centralisation improves enough to offset the decline of the Jihad state, due to reduction of easy loot from easy frontiers


If somehow India is conquered entirely, then conquest would basically end. Since there are no wealthy frontiers left, save China which is too difficult. Until perhaps An Lushan's revolt?


The state would now have to solely focus on administration and centralisation to maintain the state, it would be incredibly difficult, but if all other ethnic groups are demilitarised, leaving only the Arabs as a military force, and the Umayyads manage to maintain loyalty of the majority of Arab tribes. Then the locals wouldn't be able to properly revolt, tying Umayyad longevity to loyalty of the Arab tribes.

Non Arabs converting to Islam would complicate things. But as long as they aren't militarised like the Berbers were, then there revolts should be easy to put down.


Loyalty would somehow need to be drilled into provincial governors/civil servants. As well as strict anti-corruption policies such as whistleblowers get the governorship if corruption is proven and a vast network of spies to report on disloyal governors would be required.
A large portion of this is dependent on high velocity communications to the centre. Horses, ships or even carrier pigeons can only go so fast...


Raqqa merely provides a potential Umayyad metropolis fromwhich a centralised administration could emerge. While located around the heart of the empire.
Though if India is somehow conquered in its entirety, the Capital would likely shift to Baghdad or perhaps even Basra?







Alternatively:
If the Abbasids build a massive navy in the Mediterranean straight after taking Egypt in 750, use it to firmly take the Maghrebi coast (not caring too much for the interior). Then invade Iberia, the navy attacking all sides of the peninsula simultaneously, with an emphasis on the Asturias coast. Then the Muslim world has been reunited.

Strong naval ties to the west would be required to maintain control. And probably integration of the Berbers just as the Khurasani Persians were.

The aspect which is most paramount is maintaining the militarisation of Arabs. Instead of giving it up to disloyal Turkic slaves. Ideally maintaining an aspect of the Umayyad jihad state, but only on profitable frontiers namely India.

And maintaining centralisation of the Abbasid realm, not handing out hereditary semi-independent governorships.

Improving irrigation and agriculture, to improve wealth throughout the state. As well as direct government influence on Indian Ocean trade, to gradually monopolise the entire network. Doing similar to a lesser extent in the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Caspian-Volga-Baltic.


The benefit Raqqa would provide here is control over the Syria, Egypt and the west. And especially the navy.
Though this could all be provided by making Fustat the second capital to Baghdad's first. The Caliph alternating between the 2. Raqqa is merely in central position of the fertile crescent. Able to provide control over both.

 

[Nivek]

Though if India is somehow conquered in its entirety, the Capital would likely shift to Baghdad or perhaps even Basra

I think ummayds were more interested in destroying the ERE and Europe that india, they did funded the expenditions but almost all troops and support were used in Anatolia and north Africa/Mediterranean

 

[wakobear]

I think ummayds were more interested in destroying the ERE and Europe that india, they did funded the expenditions but almost all troops and support were used in Anatolia and north Africa/Mediterranean

True, but India had perhaps as much as 35% of the world's GDP at the time.
If the entire world was conquered, save China, India would probably be richer.

All Europe was little compared to India.


This is shown by the initial Umayyad campaigns. Muhammad al Qasim forwarded 120 million dirhams to Hajjaj. If this was the Caliphal fifth then he received a total of 600 million dirhams. Then Junayds campaigned further in India, forwarding 80 million west, meaning he took a total of 400 million dirhams. A BILLION dirhams in total.
Astronomical figures worth more than the annual taxes of the Caliphate many times over. and that was only for Sindh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and some of Madhya Pradesh. The Gangetic plains, Deccan, west and eastern coasts, Bengal would all provide billions more.

In my opinion invading anything other than India is foolhardy. Especially since the Indian armies seem to be small. Only some 12,000 for Muhammad al Qasim. Campaigns in Transoxiana, Khazaria, Anatolia, Maghreb, even Frankia were given far more men. Yet all combined being so much poorer...

 

[Nivek]

True, but India had perhaps as much as 35% of the world's GDP at the time.
If the entire world was conquered, save China, India would probably be richer.

All Europe was little compared to India.


This is shown by the initial Umayyad campaigns. Muhammad al Qasim forwarded 120 million dirhams to Hajjaj. If this was the Caliphal fifth then he received a total of 600 million dirhams. Then Junayds campaigned further in India, forwarding 80 million west, meaning he took a total of 400 million dirhams, and took 650,000 slaves. A BILLION dirhams in total.
Astronomical figures worth more than the annual taxes of the Caliphate many times over. and that was only for Sindh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and some of Madhya Pradesh. The Gangetic plains, Deccan, west and eastern coasts, Bengal would all provide billions more.

In my opinion invading anything other than India is foolhardy. Especially since the Indian armies seem to be small. Only some 12,000 for Muhammad al Qasim. Campaigns in Transoxiana, Khazaria, Anatolia, Maghreb, even Frankia were given far more men. Yet all combined being so much poorer...

Anatolia did make sense being the frontier, and frankia was being punitive expedition against the Aquitaine duqis ended up becoming full wars after clashing with the majordomos, regardless ummayds might be doing what they do, support expeditions till those stop, maybe the butterflies hit the Indian campings in Muslim favor?

 

[Beefhammer]

I gotta say, a Raqqa-based Umayyad state, if such a capital is indeed the logistical boon you claim it is, would probably be a victim of its own success. More expansion, more non-Arabs, more non-Arabs converting to Islam, more non-Arab Muslims pissed that they're still second class citizens... Especially if the Umayyads secure the Indo-Gangeatic Plain. That is a lot of men, materiel, and money that could rally behind the Abbasids or an Abbasid-like movement.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

But since 715, there had been a shift of the Caliphate towards the environs of Raqqa.
All I'm saying is instead of moving it to Qinnasrin, Sulayman instead choses to move it to nearby Raqqa or if that's slightly too eastern, then Barbalissos is within Jund(province) Qinnasrin, as is incredibly close to Umar ii's capital of Khanaser while still being navigable.

The coronation and nominally official capital stays initially at Damascus. Umar ii and Yazid ii keeps it in Raqqa, quickly growing in prestige and size. At the beginning of Hisham's reign, after 10 years of being capital, it surpasses Kufa to become the largest city in the Caliphate at around 250,000+ inhabitants and by the end of his reign rivals Constantinople and perhaps even Chang'an...

I think this scenario can work, and i don't think that the Barbalissos option is needed at all, Raqqa seems perfectly central to me, the difference between it and Barbalissos also is kinda superficial - Like, if you have a problem with one, the other shouldn't be seen as a solution, but anyway. I do think that Raqqa would initially grow a bit slower than what you outlined here - 15-30 years to actually surpass Kufa seems more plausible to me, but after that population skyrocketing is only natural.

Also depending on how early they make Raqqa as second capital, it wouldn't alienate anyone. Initially they ruled out of Kufa for the first 17 years of the Caliphate, before Mansur decided to build Baghdad, due to tensions between Arabs and Khurasanis.
So instead as soon as they take they take Syria in 750, they establish a second capital in Raqqa, to better control Syria, and to exert more control on Ifriqiyah, Maghreb and potentially Andalus. Establishing a Khurasani presence in the city on its creation.
Giving initial capitals of Kufa and Raqqa in the west, soon shifting to Baghdad and Raqqa. With Raqqa becoming the military capital, while Baghdad is the economic and intellectual capital.

Also can work, the Abbasids settling in Raqqa is an idea that should be explored more - I also think Samarra was an error.