just references about if there had been no reconquesta, I believe I read it there though it could be somewhere else it was a few years ago. I thought in that book they do make some references to Islam being replaced or changed. I got it it was'nt islam it was if greece got conquered by persia, my bad, but still, I think alot of the same things would have happened without islam.
Alternate history exercise - Middle East without Islam
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
The Christians would probably not make too much progress, IMHO. Persia might have been temporarily in a bit of a mess, but it was otherwise spectacularly successful throughout this period. There's a reason that contemporaries judged Khosrau Anushirvan to be greater than Justinian, and a reason too that the Arab Conquest was within two centuries subsumed into a Persian Renaissance. But still, there wouldn't be any huge shift in the dynamic; there hadn't been for the past few centuries. Why should there be now?
Politics aside, the area would be much, much, much the poorer for it all. The Arabs united half of Asia and the nearer side of Africa for a time under a single banner. The time of peace and plenty that resulted was one of the heights of human achievement -- of ALL human civilization, not just the Near East. Quite apart from the idea of the Arabs transmitting Classical ideas back to Europe (it is important, but not as much as most would like to have you believe), the Arabs made leaps and bounds in science in all fields, and a lot of that got imparted into Europe.
Without Islam, Spain would be languishing under the Visigoths or some successor, putzing its way along in lethargic obscurity. Without Islam, Sicily would not have been a cultural and economic powerhouse, however briefly. Without Islam, Egypt would probably still be a religious mess (I can't agree, Dachs, that Monosyphites and the Orthodoxy would ever get along past a temporary reconciliation...) and never have undergone the flowering that the early Fatamids ushered in. Hundreds of polymaths and savants in all fields would likely have died or never been born. Sassanid Persia patronized philosophers, to be sure, but not with the same degree of success. The Byzantines were too often caught up in their own religious absurdities to give the same kind of treatment to scholars that Islam ever did.
In short, we'd be set back about five hundred years scientifically, and culturally one of the greatest artistic syncretisms of all time would never take place. Politically the region would be unchanged.
So, in conclusion: a craphole.
Politics aside, the area would be much, much, much the poorer for it all. The Arabs united half of Asia and the nearer side of Africa for a time under a single banner. The time of peace and plenty that resulted was one of the heights of human achievement -- of ALL human civilization, not just the Near East. Quite apart from the idea of the Arabs transmitting Classical ideas back to Europe (it is important, but not as much as most would like to have you believe), the Arabs made leaps and bounds in science in all fields, and a lot of that got imparted into Europe.
Without Islam, Spain would be languishing under the Visigoths or some successor, putzing its way along in lethargic obscurity. Without Islam, Sicily would not have been a cultural and economic powerhouse, however briefly. Without Islam, Egypt would probably still be a religious mess (I can't agree, Dachs, that Monosyphites and the Orthodoxy would ever get along past a temporary reconciliation...) and never have undergone the flowering that the early Fatamids ushered in. Hundreds of polymaths and savants in all fields would likely have died or never been born. Sassanid Persia patronized philosophers, to be sure, but not with the same degree of success. The Byzantines were too often caught up in their own religious absurdities to give the same kind of treatment to scholars that Islam ever did.
In short, we'd be set back about five hundred years scientifically, and culturally one of the greatest artistic syncretisms of all time would never take place. Politically the region would be unchanged.
So, in conclusion: a craphole.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Meh, this sounds so deterministic.
Arab dominance over the Middle East certainly helped the trade, but it also led to the destruction and displacement of the previous civilizations. I imagine there was some population decline and great deal of damage to the existing societies.
For Europe, the main problem would be the fact that Crusades would have never happened - and all the wealth, experience and knowledge the Crusaders acquired there would have never get back to Europe. The same goes for Spain, through which the ancient knowledge made its way to Western European universities.
On the other hand, we can't simply say that nothing else would change. For example, Spain might be conquered by the Byzantines eventually and they could be the ones who would bring the old texts back to the Latins. Without losing Egypt/Levant/North Africa, the Byzantines might be strong enough to expand in the Balkans. It's possible that Byzantine influence could have stopped the eastwards expansion of Catholic Christianity and the whole Central Europe might become Orthodox.
A strong Byzantine Empire might even establish strong trade ties with India (Egypt->Red Sea->Yemen->Indian ocean->India route). It's also likely that Christianity would travel south to East African coast, just as Islam did.
---
One important question - with absence of a "common enemy", do you believe that Catholic and Orthodox Christianity would be more hostile to each other?
I read the 1st one, but can't get my hands on the 2nd. Our librarians probably never heard about it
BTW, there is a chapter about 1938 Munich Treaty in the 2nd volume, right?
Arab dominance over the Middle East certainly helped the trade, but it also led to the destruction and displacement of the previous civilizations. I imagine there was some population decline and great deal of damage to the existing societies.
For Europe, the main problem would be the fact that Crusades would have never happened - and all the wealth, experience and knowledge the Crusaders acquired there would have never get back to Europe. The same goes for Spain, through which the ancient knowledge made its way to Western European universities.
On the other hand, we can't simply say that nothing else would change. For example, Spain might be conquered by the Byzantines eventually and they could be the ones who would bring the old texts back to the Latins. Without losing Egypt/Levant/North Africa, the Byzantines might be strong enough to expand in the Balkans. It's possible that Byzantine influence could have stopped the eastwards expansion of Catholic Christianity and the whole Central Europe might become Orthodox.
A strong Byzantine Empire might even establish strong trade ties with India (Egypt->Red Sea->Yemen->Indian ocean->India route). It's also likely that Christianity would travel south to East African coast, just as Islam did.
---
One important question - with absence of a "common enemy", do you believe that Catholic and Orthodox Christianity would be more hostile to each other?
I read the 1st one, but can't get my hands on the 2nd. Our librarians probably never heard about it
BTW, there is a chapter about 1938 Munich Treaty in the 2nd volume, right?
Meh, this sounds so deterministic.
Arab dominance over the Middle East certainly helped the trade, but it also led to the destruction and displacement of the previous civilizations. I imagine there was some population decline and great deal of damage to the existing societies.
For Europe, the main problem would be the fact that Crusades would have never happened - and all the wealth, experience and knowledge the Crusaders acquired there would have never get back to Europe. The same goes for Spain, through which the ancient knowledge made its way to Western European universities.
On the other hand, we can't simply say that nothing else would change. For example, Spain might be conquered by the Byzantines eventually and they could be the ones who would bring the old texts back to the Latins. Without losing Egypt/Levant/North Africa, the Byzantines might be strong enough to expand in the Balkans. It's possible that Byzantine influence could have stopped the eastwards expansion of Catholic Christianity and the whole Central Europe might become Orthodox.
A strong Byzantine Empire might even establish strong trade ties with India (Egypt->Red Sea->Yemen->Indian ocean->India route). It's also likely that Christianity would travel south to East African coast, just as Islam did.
---
One important question - with absence of a "common enemy", do you believe that Catholic and Orthodox Christianity would be more hostile to each other?
I read the 1st one, but can't get my hands on the 2nd. Our librarians probably never heard about it
More Hostile? They already have attacked each other. (4th crusade)
Already was working on it; Roman trade with India is well documented
love: Periplus as a source for stuff on the Indo-Greeks) and even though it went into a decline after about the reign of Marcus Aurelius or so it ended up recovering to an extent during the sixth century due to the strengthening ties between the Byzantines and Aksum, which served as a waypoint. Insofar as "Catholic" and "Orthodox" exist yet, of course.Winner said:
As it was, even with a common enemy they kept pulling crap on each other like the Fourth Crusade and Charles de Anjou. Assuming the traditions end up varying as much as OTL, it'll probably just be a rash of the same old same old.Yes, it's quite significant and the author of that particular section spends a great deal of time arguing that the Czechs were perfectly able to resist the Germans provided they got the green light from the Western Allies, and their support. The What If? books in general are nice, but overall they tend to be a little light on actual althistorical speculation and heavy on OTL historical elucidation, which is kinda not the point of that sort of book. And, of course, the ones that do spend a lot of time talking about althistorical possibilities do it wrong, like the one about whether Jesus had not been crucified. (Yeah, way to assume Constantine the Great still exists in this timeline...way to assume the entire history of the Roman Empire is essentially the same up to the early fourth century...Winner said:I read the 1st one, but can't get my hands on the 2nd. Our librarians probably never heard about it
)Doge Soprano
Chieftain
Don't forget Teutonic expansion in central europe at the expense of what already were christian - Novgorod, Lithuania, Poland.
Lithuania wasn't Christian when the Teutonic Order expanded into it, and their conflicts with Poland were not any sort of Western Christianity vs. Eastern Christianity because the Poles were Catholic too. Their territorial conflict, over say Pomerelia, was due to the Polish king's inability to pay the Order for services rendered. 
But yeah, the single example of a disobedient faction of the Order fighting against Novgorod, and the rather greater example of Lithuania after it converted conquering large swathes of Orthodox-majority territory both apply.
But yeah, the single example of a disobedient faction of the Order fighting against Novgorod, and the rather greater example of Lithuania after it converted conquering large swathes of Orthodox-majority territory both apply.
Doge Soprano
Chieftain
Ok then sack of Constantinople wasn't about East vs West. Merely a rich city worth taking and the Emperor's inability to pay the West for the crusades sent eastward...
The reason that the Empire was considered to be even remotely a valid target was because of its Orthodoxy, and you can hardly claim that the Frangokratia wasn't virtually entirely animated by the Catholics' and Orthodoxals' animosity towards one another, along with the episode of Charles de Anjou. Certainly the Fourth Crusade's original justification wasn't punishing the schismatics for their heresy, but it became such eventually.Ok then sack of Constantinople wasn't about East vs West. Merely a rich city worth taking and the Emperor's inability to pay the West for the crusades sent eastward...
mitsho
Deity
Why does everybody think that the Arab expansion wouldn't take place? The question - if I got it right - was regarding Islam, the religion. It'd seem to me that the Arab would have the same success as they did, depending on which religion - probably Monophysist or "Orthodox" Christianity (?) - they accept, the enemies would change. Or not, as conquering rich byzantine cities besides the Persian ones would still be interesting... ;-)
Doge Soprano
Chieftain
So what's the difference? Poland might've been Catholics but the point is Pope sided with The Knights while much of the Orthodox princes supported Poland. Poland was known for its religious tolerance too at the time. It might as well have been not Catholics ....or orthodox. OK I replied too fast too and didn't see your edit.
Spoiler :
Why would the Arabs expand in the same fashion without having previously been united by the partisans of Islam?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Already was working on it; Roman trade with India is well documented
Insofar as "Catholic" and "Orthodox" exist yet, of course.
Wouldn't the rivalry be more serious without a common enemy?
This has been argued to death among Czech historians (for obvious reasons, it's a great national trauma to this day). The funny thing is that foreigners generally believe that Czechoslovakia had a chance, while Czech historians are much more sceptical and critical of the 1938 Czechoslovak military.
I must get it, somewhere, to see the arguments myself.
The What If? books in general are nice, but overall they tend to be a little light on actual althistorical speculation and heavy on OTL historical elucidation, which is kinda not the point of that sort of book. And, of course, the ones that do spend a lot of time talking about althistorical possibilities do it wrong, like the one about whether Jesus had not been crucified. (Yeah, way to assume Constantine the Great still exists in this timeline...way to assume the entire history of the Roman Empire is essentially the same up to the early fourth century...
I've noticed that most AH writers fail to realize the impact of the ripple effect.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I think you may be trying to make it a little too rosy. I'm not saying Islam is some sort of elixir, but when a large area gets united under a single, enlightened ruler, prosperity is the typical result. I just don't see who else would be doing the uniting.
Arab conquests were generally the nicest conquests you'd find anywhere. They left existing institutions almost completely intact, and generally didn't go around massacring people for the fun of it.
Exactly...
Nice thought, but a Byzantine conquest of Spain seems unlikely to ever last. See: every other time they tried it.
So you mean, exactly what Islam did?
Why? It didn't exactly decide to do this for the last seven centuries it was around...
Yes.
I read the 1st one, but can't get my hands on the 2nd. Our librarians probably never heard about it
The second one also contains a chapter on potatoes, which is possibly my favorite essay in the entire what if series.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I seriously, seriously doubt it. The Second Temple is still destroyed, so Judaism is still a non-proselytizing religion. So unless the Jews can organize themselves into an independent state in control of Jerusalem, which pretty much requires that the Christian Byzantines be in the hole-to-end-all-holes, and rebuild the Temple again, I don't see Judaism being remotely important geopolitically.
mitsho
Deity
Who says that it was Islam that made them conquerors? If it were - as you assume - just a question of unity, then this could have been achieved by other means as well, for example a specific christian faith or sect. (as, some would say, islam was in the beginning).
I just don't believe in "Religion makes people go to war".
Religion justifies war, yes. But it's nearly impossible to say that this really was the reason for these men, soldiers and mostly merchants...! Because you really can't tell how these people felt. So, my point, it's up to you to prove that things would have taken a different turn, not mine to defend that they were the same...
And large swathes afterwards, too. I hear the Poles even occupied Moscow for awhile during the smuta.
They spent a small expeditionary force to secure a fairly large province with high revenue that stayed more or less intact for decades with minimal support?
If Muhammad is not a prophet, he does not become head of judiciary at Madinah, thus he does not have the vehicle to use his apparent military and political gifts to conquer the peninsula and instead stays a trader. Even military geniuses like Khalid ibn al-Walid weren't exactly on track to unite Arabia before Muhammad came along and gave them focus. So: what gets the Arabs going if Muhammad isn't there?
Christianity was already very well established throughout the Sassanid empire when Islam appeared on the scene. In fact it was probably the dominant religion throughout the region. This had partly been due to the Sassanid policy of capturing enormous numbers of slaves from Asia Minor (a traditional Christian heartland) and then forcibly resettling them in their own eastern provinces, which basically created new Christian heartlands. The Sassanids mostly gave up persecuting Christians by the mid-fifth century too. As a result, the Persian church - which was not Monophysite, but Nestorian, or, to give it its proper if slightly anachronistic title, the Church of the East - was extremely successful, sending missionaries into central Asia and India. In fact the Church of the East was bigger than the Catholic and Orthodox churches combined.
So to wonder whether Christianity would have become the dominant religion in the absence of Islam is to overlook the fact that it already was. And it remained so for quite a long time even after the Arabian conquests - Islam was the religion of the conquerors, but Christianity remained the dominant religion of their subjects for a long time, and only gradually declined. In fact most of those famed translations of ancient texts that would later inspire medieval Arabian and scholastic philosophy were made by Christians, not Muslims. The real collapse of the Church of the East came in the fourteenth century with the invasions of Tamerlane, who was determined to wipe it out and almost succeeded. That is why Christianity is such a minority interest in central Asia today.
So I should think that without Islam, the Church of the East would have continued to consolidate its position as the dominant religion of the Middle East and of central Asia. How that would have changed the political or military history of the region, I don't know.
So to wonder whether Christianity would have become the dominant religion in the absence of Islam is to overlook the fact that it already was. And it remained so for quite a long time even after the Arabian conquests - Islam was the religion of the conquerors, but Christianity remained the dominant religion of their subjects for a long time, and only gradually declined. In fact most of those famed translations of ancient texts that would later inspire medieval Arabian and scholastic philosophy were made by Christians, not Muslims. The real collapse of the Church of the East came in the fourteenth century with the invasions of Tamerlane, who was determined to wipe it out and almost succeeded. That is why Christianity is such a minority interest in central Asia today.
So I should think that without Islam, the Church of the East would have continued to consolidate its position as the dominant religion of the Middle East and of central Asia. How that would have changed the political or military history of the region, I don't know.
Similar threads
