This is an omake that I've been playing around with for some time, but held off because I was wary of spoilers. However, we have finally reached a point in the story where it doesn't feel like spoiling far off events, though some parts of the omake will be kept deliberately vague.
The perspective of the omake is someone composing an alternate history theory, similar to AlternateHistoryHub over on YouTube. So, there's a bit of going over what history remembers about the events of the story, then delving into alternative histories that could have happened if things had gone a bit differently.
Hope you enjoy!
…
The fall of the Umayyad Caliphate has been a subject of debate for generations, and to this day, it remains one of history's greatest "what ifs" that has captured many a scholar's imagination. While the Caliphate had fallen from grace due to the Abbasid rebellion that supplanted the dynasty, Abd al-Rahman proved himself to be a capable leader - both in re-establishing a caliphate in modern-day Spain and in the immediate aftermath of its fall due to the combined efforts of three legendary figures.
Caliph Abd al-Rahman proved himself to be an able administrator and diplomat by taking advantage of his dual heritage to ally with the Berber people of northern Africa, while proving his worth as a military commander in the following rebellion that returned his family to power. Naturally, the Abbaisids could hardly afford a member of the former Dynasty taking power, and they sent a considerable force to crush the fledgling renewal of the Umayyad Caliphate, only to be slaughtered in the battle of Carmona with the heads of the defeated being sent to the new Abbasid Caliph, al-Mansur, who was on a pilgrimage to Mecca.
The sight was shocking enough that it wasn't until Harun al-Rashid that the Abbasids would make another attempt at removing what was a painful political and economic thorn from their side some fifteen years later.
Those fifteen years of relative peace gave us a snapshot of the immediate future of the Umayyad Caliphate. Abd al-Rahman made long-reaching reforms, establishing a standing army and large-scale infrastructure works, while displaying surprising degrees of religious tolerance for the time toward Jews and Christians. His economic reforms, in particular, greatly enriched his Caliphate, further enabling a focus on educational reform and innovation.
Likewise, Hisham was, by all accounts, his father's son. He was an able administrator with some military experience due to rebellions and Charlemagne's near-seasonal raids into the Upper March of Spain.
By all accounts, the Umayyad Caliphate was poised to enter a golden age. It had all the qualifications for one: able rulers, a robust administration, excessive wealth that enabled widespread development, and an acute focus on arts and education.
Yet, instead, the Umayyad Caliphate fell due to the combined forces of three great men who all became legends, whose actions can still be felt to the modern day - Siegfried the Wolf-Kissed, Charles the Great, better known as Charlemagne, and Hadi al-Ghayb.
History has distorted who was most responsible for the downfall of the Umayyad Caliphate, with all three men being granted full credit by their respective people. The truth is a bit more complicated, and it is further obscured by folklore that is rooted in history but distorted for either religious or political goals.
One such example is the Tale of the Ten Cities, which became a popular folk tale in Scandinavia. In the tale, Siegfried manages to gain entry to each city through conquest, trickery, and diplomacy. Many variations of the story still persist, each highlighting a specific aspect of Siegfried's character while imparting a moral to the listener. For example, don't be greedy and accept bribes, or a band of angry Vikings will plunder your home and carry it off with them.
However, the tale does have a historical basis. The proceeds of which went to what is today the city of Huffington, as the foundations for the city were built from the spoils taken from the Umayyads. What is a matter of debate is which the speed and the timing of the raid as, allegedly, Siegfried sacked all ten cities within the span of a month.
Given the timeframe of the simultaneous invasions from Charlemagne and Hadi al-Ghayb, travel time between the cities, Siegfried spent at most three days attacking the cities before moving on. Likely less, given his established habits of looting everything that wasn't nailed down, then taking the nails so he could loot everything else.
As such, the most commonly held theory is that Siegfried raided throughout the eastern coast of the Umayyads while Hadi al-Ghayb raided and sacked the southern coast.
Yet, this theory does contrast other established evidence - such as the 'Greatest Treasure of All' painting, which depicts Siegfried standing upon a pile of gold and silver and holding a book aloft. This painting, which was created by Hussain al-Jassmi, a year after the supposed negotiation between Siegfried and Hisham outside of Cordoba to suspend hostilities between their people and, allegedly, to aid Abd al-Rahman in battle against Charlemagne.
This has the theory diverge further - as Siegfried had an alliance with Caliph Harun al-Rashid, it is suspected that Siegfried and Hadi al-Ghayb launched a joint invasion with the treaty in question was an armistice between the Umayyads and Abbasids, with a stipulation that Siegfried aid in battle against Charlemagne. Something that would never manifest as, allegedly, Abd al-Rahman refused to pay Siegfried.
In response, Siegfried performed one of his most infamous acts - the extortion of both Charlemagne and Abd al-Rahman over the fate of the Umayyad Caliphate. A moment that has been made immortal in poem, tale, and art for which Siegfried is either lauded or vilified depending on the source. But, given that the moment was so well documented, we can say with sufficient confidence that it did happen.
The result of the battle sealed the Umayyad Caliphate's fate - Charlemagne was victorious while Abd al-Rahman retreated. They engaged in battle once more, but after a second defeat, there was no hope of recovery. Not as Hadi al-Ghayb was invading from the south and making rapid progress. Eventually, the two legendary men would clash in the middle of Spain before dividing it between them, leaving their descendants to squabble over the borders for more than three hundred years.
Instead of leading his nation into a golden age, Abd al-Rahman spent the remainder of his life as either a gorilla warrior or a robber baron, depending on the source. He harried the Abbasids, Franks, and then Romans, for more than thirty years until his death in 804 at the age of 73. He attacked supply lines, raided villages and towns, and kidnapped nobles to hold for ransom. Yet, at the same time, he inspired people to rebel, freed slaves, and aided civilians in times of need, even at great risk to himself.
This has turned Abd al-Rahman into a figure that is as likely to feature in a story for children as he is used as an icon for resistance against authoritative powers.
And thus, one of the greatest "what ifs" in history.
While it is a matter of debate on who exactly destroyed the Umayyad Caliphate, as all three parties caused their own share of damage which made it impossible for it to survive, what is of greater debate is what would have happened if the three never invaded in the first place. Or, as external factors would have seen it happen - what if Abd al-Rahman had won at the battle of Andorra?
It is one of those moments that could have radically diverted the course of history as we know it. Even if Abd al-Rahman failed to defeat Hadi al-Ghayb, with the Umayyads still falling - a defeat at Andorra would have had devastating consequences for Charlemagne. He staked his legitimacy as a ruler at Andorra, as he was still reeling from successive revolts across Francia in the aftermath of his defeat at Saxony.
It was his partial conquest of Hispania that gave Charlemagne the legitimacy to claim the title of Emperor of Rome. If he suffered a second defeat, it's highly unlikely that he would have been able to even attempt the resurrection of the Western half of the Roman Empire. He would have faced significant widespread rebellions, just as he did after Saxony. History has shown us that Charlemagne was rather adept at crushing rebellions, but it would have put an end to his ambitions to restore Rome as it's highly unlikely that Irene would have married a ruler who faced such significant internal strife.
In all likelihood, Irene would have married within her nobility after the customary mourning period to sure up her own support base.
Meaning that there would be no restored Rome in our history.
This would have radically shaped Europe's fate. Even assuming Charlemagne was able to quell the rebellions, it significantly changed the scope of the conflict between the Frankish King and Siegfried. The rebellions would have sapped Charlemagne's military strength as well as manpower, and this issue would be coupled by the fact that he wouldn't have access to the Byzantine resources.
Siegfried proved to be a menace to Charlemagne even with those resources. Based on their historical track record, it's entirely possible that all of Western Europe would have fallen to Siegfried without them. Already, he was a dominating force in the affairs of Europe for the time, but in this "what if", Siegfried and his descendants could be the only major influence in Europe for centuries. Outside of the Abbasids, and any unexpected successive rebellions, the Mongol invasion of 1223 into Europe would be the next major upheaval to the status quo.
While it is unlikely, it also is possible that Charlemagne could fall to the ensuing rebels that his defeat at Andorra would have spanwed. As mentioned before, historically, Charlemagne proved to be extremely adept at managing rebellions, often using them to clean house and centralize his own power, as well as implementing reforms. But, combined with his already unpopular earlier reforms and attempts at centralization in the wake of the Saxony rebellion, and his second major defeat of his reign just years after his first?
It is possible that there could be a splintering of Francia with regional powers vying for their independence. And, in this scenario, Europe would likely be divided between what would become the Ghayb Caliphate and Siegfried. The smaller and more isolated regional powers couldn't hope to contest the concentrated might of both powers. Which, in turn, could have ruined what would have become a historical alliance as they would end up competing for territories.
That being said, this scenario is unlikely, but the outcome is also inevitable due to Francia's succession laws. Gavelkind. Each of Charlemagne's surviving children would be granted lands within his empire. Going by historical examples, his children would be made kings, and the splintering of Francia would be inevitable upon Charlemagne's death.
Going even further, if Abd al-Rahman did manage to defeat Hadi al-Ghayb? There is a very strong possibility that would lead to the collapse of the Abbasids and possible outright restoration of the Umayyad Caliphate.
The Abbasid Caliphate was a very young dynasty at the time of Harun al-Rashid. He was the fourth Abbasid ruler, but only his father ruled for more than a handful of years before him with the Dynasty itself being around twenty years old. There would still be plenty of those who remembered the Umayyad Caliphate. While it wasn't particularly well-liked, it couldn't be denied that Abd al-Rahman had proven himself extremely capable.
Whereas the Abbasids had launched two failed invasions against him, the latter occurring very early in Harun al-Rashid's reign. In our history, the conquest of the Umayyads united the Caliphate behind the young caliph, but in this "what if?" the failed conquest would very likely destroy him.
Far more so as it would draw attention to the blunder of Crete at the Battle of Ravenfeast, which was largely glossed over in his history thanks to defeating the Romans in Anatolia and saving his father from a disastrous defeat. Rebellions would be certain, and it's quite possible that some of them could clamor for Abd al-Rahman to lead them.
Such a thing would have required an invasion on Abd al-Rahman's part, but after successfully fending off two invasions, his popularity would have been at its zenith. Even if he didn't, it's very possible that the Abbasid Caliphate would collapse in the wake of the failed invasion.
Likewise, the rise of what would become the Ghayb Caliphate, which expanded from the Pyrenees to modern-day Morocco at its height after breaking away from the Abbassids centuries later, would never have existed. Hadi al-Ghayb, provided that he survived the defeat, would be executed by Harun for his failure.
In either case, the failure of the Abbasid Caliphate likely would have affected the kingdom Siegfried left in his wake as the Abbasids were a very important longstanding ally in the Mediterranean while it existed. Perhaps it could have survived longer without being sandwiched between two massive empires, but that's a 'what if' in itself.
The history of Europe, however unknowingly, hinged on the outcome of that battle.
Abd al-Rahman could have been a renowned ruler rather than being known as a rebel. Renowned figures such as Charlemagne, Hadi al-Ghayb, and Harun al-Rashid likely would be reduced to blips on the radar of history with no true lasting impact instead of being the figures that defined European history for generations after their deaths.
The whole fabric of European history would be completely different, with historic rivalries that would dominate the continent for more than a thousand years simply wouldn't exist. Legendary figures that came after them never would have been born, or the circumstances that gave to unlikely rises to prominence never would have occurred. It's almost impossible to imagine what Europe would look like if Charlemagne and Hadi al-Ghayb had lost.
And this "what if" is merely the first of many that these figures spawned in their lifetime. There are many historical figures whose decisions can be felt in the modern day, but none can match the waves that these three men had on Europe and the world at large.
In this series, it is our hope to explore every possibility of alternate decisions or fates during this time period. So, sit tight with many more to come!
…
Let me know how you liked this - I'm experimenting a bit with it.