Altara - in your view would you see it more as an uprising or revolutionary movement?
An uprising not fueled by the Quran as understood after Abd al Malik . That does mean that Quranic texts may have existed in the hand of literati
around the leaders which were slowly taught that the biblical God had talk in Arabic that he had sent someone, etc. But is was not the cause of the uprising. The best indication (for me) of this, is that Jerusalem is not
the first objective of these Arabs, but another one
very understandable when you put aside the traditional narrative.
Would you see any comparison to previous acclamations of a new emperor in the Roman provinces, followed by attempts to take the capital.
It does look like taking Constantinople was a central objective,
Why Constantinople would have been a central objective?Ask yourself the question in putting aside the traditional narrative
, you can find it. If I did it, you can do it as well
Put aside what has circumvented you and which is printed in your brain; and reflects anew with the sources since the 5th c.
In the Secret History Procopius mentions a Samaritan revolt where a new emperor was acclaimed. According to Kaldellis’s footnote, “the Samaritan revolt occurred in 529. Ioulianos was actually proclaimed emperor: he took Neapolitan (Nablus) and presided over chariot races there. His head was sent to Justinian.” Could the ‘conquests’ be seen as a kind of more successful rerun of this?
At the surface of events, from (very) far, yes it could. But (for me...) you have to dig the stuff far
more deeper than that and you will realize that this "could" is not what happened in the 7th c. Why Constantinople would have been a central objective?