What do you think?
Rate this book
Osprey Campaign #347
Constantinople AD 717–18: The Crucible of History
The siege of Constantinople in AD 717--18 was a key clash between the expanding Umayyad Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire, and one which influenced the fate of Western civilization. In this specially illustrated study, Si Sheppard examines the course of this pivotal campaign.
The siege of Constantinople in AD 717--18 was the supreme crisis of Western civilization. The Byzantine Empire had been reeling under the onslaught of Arabic imperialism since the death of the Prophet, whilst Jihadist armies had detached Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Carthage from imperial control and were in the process of imposing their ascendancy at sea. The Empire had been reduced to its Anatolian and Balkan heartland, and Arab incursions threatened even this--Arab naval forces had appeared under the walls of Constantinople every year from 674 to 678. But all this was only a prelude to the massive combined-arms invasion force that advanced on the capital in 717.
This title offers a comprehensive study of the ensuing clash between the ascendant Caliphate and the Empire at bay. It details the forces available to each side, with their respective advantages and vulnerabilities, evaluating the leadership qualities of the rival commanders and assessing their strategic and tactical initiatives. It also accounts for the trajectory and outcome of the campaign and emphasizes the fundamental significance of the struggle. By holding the line, the Byzantines gave Europe enough time to develop at its own pace and emerge strong enough to face down its Islamic counterpart on equal terms. If Constantinople had fallen in 717, could Europe have endured as an independent entity? Could Christianity have survived as major religion? What would the future course of world history have been?
The siege of Constantinople in AD 717--18 was the supreme crisis of Western civilization. The Byzantine Empire had been reeling under the onslaught of Arabic imperialism since the death of the Prophet, whilst Jihadist armies had detached Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Carthage from imperial control and were in the process of imposing their ascendancy at sea. The Empire had been reduced to its Anatolian and Balkan heartland, and Arab incursions threatened even this--Arab naval forces had appeared under the walls of Constantinople every year from 674 to 678. But all this was only a prelude to the massive combined-arms invasion force that advanced on the capital in 717.
This title offers a comprehensive study of the ensuing clash between the ascendant Caliphate and the Empire at bay. It details the forces available to each side, with their respective advantages and vulnerabilities, evaluating the leadership qualities of the rival commanders and assessing their strategic and tactical initiatives. It also accounts for the trajectory and outcome of the campaign and emphasizes the fundamental significance of the struggle. By holding the line, the Byzantines gave Europe enough time to develop at its own pace and emerge strong enough to face down its Islamic counterpart on equal terms. If Constantinople had fallen in 717, could Europe have endured as an independent entity? Could Christianity have survived as major religion? What would the future course of world history have been?
96 pages, Paperback
Published March 24, 2020
3 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
About the author
Si Sheppard
25 books6 followersSi Sheppard is an associate professor of political science and international relations at Long Island University in Brooklyn, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 12, 2020
The city of Constantinople is best known for the 'bookends' of its founding as a capital for the newly-Christian Roman Empire, and its fall to the Muslim Ottomans over a millennium later. Following that would be its fall to the Fourth Crusade. With those two exceptions, the city never fell to enemy forces, mostly thanks to a very defensible position, and extensive fortifications.
This does not mean that this important city was never brought under siege apart from 1204 and 1453, and Sheppard discusses what might be the most serious of those other attempts to take the city. As is usual, there is a background to the campaign, though this one goes back to 626 and the first ever siege of Constantinople. This, and some other sieges are largely passed over, but the chapter as a whole is quite long, going fairly in-depth for a book of this size into the military history of the next ~100 years.
To a certain extent I was disturbed by how much space this was allowed to take, but it really is a very good ~20-page history of the fighting between Byzantium and the early Caliphate. It does dissolve into a flow of names on a couple occasions, but mostly it's very effective at showing the amount and types of activity on the frontier during this time. There are constant raids into Anatolia, and fighting over Armenia, and its obvious that the Byzantine military is struggling to get any real grasp of the situation ever since the Battle of Yarmuk. This is something that gets assumed, or passed over in a lot of works touching on the period, so its very nice to have a lot of the action layed out and shown.
Sheppard also spares a few words for various Muslim commanders of this period. Their achievements rank in the first order of military command, but not only do they not get celebrated (or even reviled) in the West, but their names are nearly unknown. He posits ideological reasons for this, but I wonder if at least some of this comes from Islamic myth-making, which has done a good job of painting the entire early expansion of the Islamic world as being bigger than any one person, and more of an impersonal force (divinely-inspired or not); this would also tend to minimize the contributions of army commanders. It would be informative what Islamic scholarship makes of them, and how they were viewed historically. At any rate, learning more of Maslama b. ‘Abd al-Malik (the commander of the army at this siege) would be interesting, as he shows as a capable and accomplished commander.
Except, on this occasion. I'm seeing a TV-miniseries drama, where Emperor Leo III is sponsored onto the throne of Byzantium by the Muslims, and as he keeps promising al-Malik that he'll be a good puppet king, and hand over the city just as soon as he convince the rest of the nobles that it's the best idea. And then he turns around and tells the rest of the Byzantine government of course he's not going to turn the city over to the infidel, he just needs their support to hold out a bit longer. And as the tension mounts, the audience is never quite sure who, if anyone, he's telling the truth to.
But al-Malik believed him. Believed him enough to destroy his food stores when Leo III told him that it would convince the city that they were serious, and on the verge of storming the city. And he even agreed to let Leo send men out to to gather some of the food first, to distribute in the city.
I'd love to see that conversation.
As a whole, the book is very well produced, with color reproductions of art and coins throughout, along with some very good maps, and some good illustrations. Its a highly recommend addition to Osprey's Campaign series that covers a siege that just does not get enough attention.
This does not mean that this important city was never brought under siege apart from 1204 and 1453, and Sheppard discusses what might be the most serious of those other attempts to take the city. As is usual, there is a background to the campaign, though this one goes back to 626 and the first ever siege of Constantinople. This, and some other sieges are largely passed over, but the chapter as a whole is quite long, going fairly in-depth for a book of this size into the military history of the next ~100 years.
To a certain extent I was disturbed by how much space this was allowed to take, but it really is a very good ~20-page history of the fighting between Byzantium and the early Caliphate. It does dissolve into a flow of names on a couple occasions, but mostly it's very effective at showing the amount and types of activity on the frontier during this time. There are constant raids into Anatolia, and fighting over Armenia, and its obvious that the Byzantine military is struggling to get any real grasp of the situation ever since the Battle of Yarmuk. This is something that gets assumed, or passed over in a lot of works touching on the period, so its very nice to have a lot of the action layed out and shown.
Sheppard also spares a few words for various Muslim commanders of this period. Their achievements rank in the first order of military command, but not only do they not get celebrated (or even reviled) in the West, but their names are nearly unknown. He posits ideological reasons for this, but I wonder if at least some of this comes from Islamic myth-making, which has done a good job of painting the entire early expansion of the Islamic world as being bigger than any one person, and more of an impersonal force (divinely-inspired or not); this would also tend to minimize the contributions of army commanders. It would be informative what Islamic scholarship makes of them, and how they were viewed historically. At any rate, learning more of Maslama b. ‘Abd al-Malik (the commander of the army at this siege) would be interesting, as he shows as a capable and accomplished commander.
Except, on this occasion. I'm seeing a TV-miniseries drama, where Emperor Leo III is sponsored onto the throne of Byzantium by the Muslims, and as he keeps promising al-Malik that he'll be a good puppet king, and hand over the city just as soon as he convince the rest of the nobles that it's the best idea. And then he turns around and tells the rest of the Byzantine government of course he's not going to turn the city over to the infidel, he just needs their support to hold out a bit longer. And as the tension mounts, the audience is never quite sure who, if anyone, he's telling the truth to.
But al-Malik believed him. Believed him enough to destroy his food stores when Leo III told him that it would convince the city that they were serious, and on the verge of storming the city. And he even agreed to let Leo send men out to to gather some of the food first, to distribute in the city.
I'd love to see that conversation.
As a whole, the book is very well produced, with color reproductions of art and coins throughout, along with some very good maps, and some good illustrations. Its a highly recommend addition to Osprey's Campaign series that covers a siege that just does not get enough attention.
May 12, 2025
Beautiful illustrations and detailed maps complement a text establishing the Siege of Constantinople as a turning point in world history which, more than the Battle of Tours, ended the hitherto unstoppable initial expansion of Islam.
April 28, 2024
A Very Short Overview of the Siege
Any review of this book would have to start out by pointing that it is part of Osprey Publishing’s
“Campaign” series of books. For the uninitiated, books in this series are 96 pages in length and include extensive illustrations (i.e. maps, photographs of locations, etc.). In terms of text the books
come to about a very rough 60 or so pages. Hence this is not the book for anyone looking for an
academic treatise on the topic. The relevant question thus becomes, considering its format, how good of a job does it do? The answer is very good. Great for anyone who wants to get up to speed on the topic with an investment of approximately an hour and half.
The book follows the typical format of the Campaign series by setting out a brief high level
history of events that led to this battle. This was basically that Arab/Jihadist expansionism.
occurred in the context of a power vacuum and internal strife in the Persian and Byzantine states.
that resulted from their extensive war against each other. This collapse of each power’s military
strength and internal cohesion enabled the Arabs to expand where otherwise they would have probably have been held in check by one or both powers.
The next section, “Opposing Commanders”, covers the backgrounds of the leaders of both sides, Leo III on the Byzantine side and Maslama al-Malik on the Arab. Both were very capable administrators and military leaders albeit Leo’s power rested on much less firm grounds as he was a relatively new king (but still an experienced stateman and military leader) and was facing serious internal dissension while Maslama, on the other hand, was not.
Next there is the section on “” Opposing Forces and Plans” that provides an overview of the military strength of each side and its administrative and organizational structures. It also covers the
very important issue of what the author calls the “wild card” in the campaign – the Bulgarians.
He also discusses their options with respect to siding with the Byzantine side as opposed to
Arab. This was critical as their army proved a critical element in the battle.
Then the actual seize is discussed, starting first with the landing and the siege of
Constantinople. The book goes into how the Arab strategy was initially to lay siege to the city
and use what Maslama thought was his “puppet” Leo III. Maslama had promised to support him against his opponents and viewed him as his trojan horse. Unfortunately for Maslama it was Leo who, in reality, had Maslama by the leash. Leo, by making Maslama think he was his lackey, tricked Maslama into handing over all his supplies, prepared for the long winter and long siege, to Leo. As a
result of this, plus the Byzantine destruction of Maslama’s fleet, led to the atrophy of the Arab
army that, months later, caused a catastrophic defeat. Of the 2,500 ships in his fleet
only about 5 survived the battle and his army suffered almost proportionately.
In the “Aftermath” chapter, the implications of the battle are discussed. Basically that the
Byzantine state bought a few years to rebuild itself while the Arabs, on the other hand, turned
against each other (at least initially) and then against other neighbors. Eventually they once
again, turned against the Byzantine state but by then it was no longer the relatively weak state
that it was during the siege of 717-18.
In the “Aftermath” chapter, unlike almost any such chapter in an Osprey Campaign series book,
there is also a very lengthy discussion and analysis of the implications of this one battle for
European and World history. That is, if the Arabs had won they would have been able to
practically unopposed spread their power and dominance over the rest of Europe. Although this
analysis involves a fairly decent amount of speculation (as all hypotheticals do) it does strongly.
make the case that this would have probably have happened had this one battle been lost.
Unquestionably one of the most important battles in history.
The book does have a few weaknesses. One is that nearly all its sources, listed in the extensive
biography, are in English (with one or two in French) and none in either Greek or Arabic.
Secondly, the book has plenty of operational level maps but none on the tactical level
(emphasizing either individual naval or land battles). Very uncharacteristic of the Campaign
series.
Despite the aforementioned weaknesses, a very good overview of what lead to the siege, the siege
itself and its implications. Four and a half stars.
Any review of this book would have to start out by pointing that it is part of Osprey Publishing’s
“Campaign” series of books. For the uninitiated, books in this series are 96 pages in length and include extensive illustrations (i.e. maps, photographs of locations, etc.). In terms of text the books
come to about a very rough 60 or so pages. Hence this is not the book for anyone looking for an
academic treatise on the topic. The relevant question thus becomes, considering its format, how good of a job does it do? The answer is very good. Great for anyone who wants to get up to speed on the topic with an investment of approximately an hour and half.
The book follows the typical format of the Campaign series by setting out a brief high level
history of events that led to this battle. This was basically that Arab/Jihadist expansionism.
occurred in the context of a power vacuum and internal strife in the Persian and Byzantine states.
that resulted from their extensive war against each other. This collapse of each power’s military
strength and internal cohesion enabled the Arabs to expand where otherwise they would have probably have been held in check by one or both powers.
The next section, “Opposing Commanders”, covers the backgrounds of the leaders of both sides, Leo III on the Byzantine side and Maslama al-Malik on the Arab. Both were very capable administrators and military leaders albeit Leo’s power rested on much less firm grounds as he was a relatively new king (but still an experienced stateman and military leader) and was facing serious internal dissension while Maslama, on the other hand, was not.
Next there is the section on “” Opposing Forces and Plans” that provides an overview of the military strength of each side and its administrative and organizational structures. It also covers the
very important issue of what the author calls the “wild card” in the campaign – the Bulgarians.
He also discusses their options with respect to siding with the Byzantine side as opposed to
Arab. This was critical as their army proved a critical element in the battle.
Then the actual seize is discussed, starting first with the landing and the siege of
Constantinople. The book goes into how the Arab strategy was initially to lay siege to the city
and use what Maslama thought was his “puppet” Leo III. Maslama had promised to support him against his opponents and viewed him as his trojan horse. Unfortunately for Maslama it was Leo who, in reality, had Maslama by the leash. Leo, by making Maslama think he was his lackey, tricked Maslama into handing over all his supplies, prepared for the long winter and long siege, to Leo. As a
result of this, plus the Byzantine destruction of Maslama’s fleet, led to the atrophy of the Arab
army that, months later, caused a catastrophic defeat. Of the 2,500 ships in his fleet
only about 5 survived the battle and his army suffered almost proportionately.
In the “Aftermath” chapter, the implications of the battle are discussed. Basically that the
Byzantine state bought a few years to rebuild itself while the Arabs, on the other hand, turned
against each other (at least initially) and then against other neighbors. Eventually they once
again, turned against the Byzantine state but by then it was no longer the relatively weak state
that it was during the siege of 717-18.
In the “Aftermath” chapter, unlike almost any such chapter in an Osprey Campaign series book,
there is also a very lengthy discussion and analysis of the implications of this one battle for
European and World history. That is, if the Arabs had won they would have been able to
practically unopposed spread their power and dominance over the rest of Europe. Although this
analysis involves a fairly decent amount of speculation (as all hypotheticals do) it does strongly.
make the case that this would have probably have happened had this one battle been lost.
Unquestionably one of the most important battles in history.
The book does have a few weaknesses. One is that nearly all its sources, listed in the extensive
biography, are in English (with one or two in French) and none in either Greek or Arabic.
Secondly, the book has plenty of operational level maps but none on the tactical level
(emphasizing either individual naval or land battles). Very uncharacteristic of the Campaign
series.
Despite the aforementioned weaknesses, a very good overview of what lead to the siege, the siege
itself and its implications. Four and a half stars.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews