Are civil/succession wars permitted, provided that the territorial integrity of the Caliphate is not compromised?
Civil/succession wars are permitted, and, you know what, to make it more feasible, we can even go through temporary times of division or fragmentation. Think Rome or China. There have been (sometimes quite long) periods where there have been breakaway states or whatever, but ultimately, both were (before the permanent division of rome into east and west) considered one empire, and have been remembered as such in the history books. So yeah, the question is, how long can all of Islam exist under a single Caliphate for, before
permanently fragmenting into different states.
Ottoman Empire if they could break the back of Persia.
But by the time of the Ottoman Empire, Islam had spread way past the Sahara into Africa, past Persia into central Asia, into Hindu majority India, and even all the way to Indonesia. I think it would be much harder for the Ottomans to control all of this, than it would be for the Abbasids to much earlier on simply not lose land/conquer less to start with, and have islam not really spread much beyond their borders (or, more unrealistically, have the Caliphate expand
with Islam, though that would be a truly monstrously sized Empire).
Perhaps if the Iranians were Sunni and had been less successful in their wars in the East, the Ottomans might have vassalized them? They probably could have achieved more widespread recognition of their claims to be Caliphs that way, but that would still leave the Sahelian Kingdoms and the Mughals.
View attachment 837376
I agree with the point brought up multiple times through this thread that keeping all of islam Sunni is key for this, though I still remain skeptical of the Ottomans being able to expand their control from Timbuktu to Jakarta
Its a boring answer, but getting and keeping a single Caliph is doable, but having a unified early medieval empire including both Spain and Transoxia isn't.
Early medieval communications and transport technology were not up to keeping an area that large united, and not having regional governors do their own things and found dynasty. The Achaeminid Persians had a similar empire in terms of territory, but it was still smaller, was overthrown in two and a half centuries, and they had the same issue of parts of the empire rebelling or breaking off.
One Caliph who is sort of a figurehead or similar to the Pope is doable, just avoid the early politics that led to the Sunni/ Shia split. But you have to either settle into a hereditary caliphate in Ali's family, or deal with disputed elections. There is no way there would not be disputed elections. There were disputed elections for the Papacy all the time, with lots of anti-popes, and finally a lengthy period with two Popes.
Hereditary caliphate would certainly make more long term stability, as has also been said multiple times in the thread. Yes I agree
1. Limit the territorial extent of the Caliphate, probably keeping it confined to the same territory as the Achaemenid Persian Empire (Persia, Afghanistan, Transoxiana, Mesopotamia, Syria and the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia, Thrace and the Caucasus) + Arabia, the Horn of Africa and a bit of the Maghreb (Libya and Tunisia) if you want to still maximise it to its feasible limit. (I personally think a modernised and more dynamic Safavid Empire or Timurid Empire could have reached this extent). Make this synonymous with the territorial extent of Islam. Ensure it is territorially contiguous.
2. Arabise or Persianise the Caliphate’s territory (one predominant language and ethnicity), and keep one Islamic sect (Sunni or Shia) overwhelmingly dominant (no real sectarian challengers to central authority).
3. Make the Caliphate hereditary.
Yeah I think this does summarise the main prerequisites for this to take place. Though, by islams nature, it does seek to convert, so I wonder how we can avoid muslim majority states appearing beyond the borders of this State?
