AHC\WI: Islamic England?
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
The problem is, England was already Christianized by the time of Mohammed. By the time that any Islamic missionaries could reach England realistically, the Britons will have heard of the conquest of the Levant, Iberia, and the invasion of Aquitaine. The only way I can think of without derailing Christianity entirely, would be for an Islamic conquest of the Isles, and that seems extremely unlikely unless France falls.
Deleted member 67076
Here's an idea. Have England stay balkanized a bit longer while trade ties form with Al Andalus. Eventually, one of the various warlords converts to Islam in order to bolster his relations with the Muslims and invites Ghazis and other mercernaries to help him conquer other statelets, which allows him to unify England under a Muslim dynasty. Said Ghazis and mercs will then be granted titles of nobility, replacing the existing elites with an Arabized one, which should help the religion and the culture trickle down.
Eventually, in a few centuries, the Emirate of Anglistan would be majority Muslim.
Eventually, in a few centuries, the Emirate of Anglistan would be majority Muslim.
That logic makes as much sense as saying Indonesia couldn't be converted to Islam because it was already Hindu at the 700s and would have heard of the conquest of Persia.
Hmm, surprisingly original and surprisingly plausible.
It likely wouldn't be named "Anglistan", tho - "-stan" is a Persian root, not an Arabic one.
Except that Hinduism to Islam conversions were much more common than Christianity to Islam or Islam to Christianity, both of which were usually only accomplished, on a large scale, by conquest. And Hinduism was more willing to tolerate other religions than Christianity was. Further, the Christians of the time had felt more connected to other Christian realms and viewed invasions like the Islamic invasion of Aquitaine as a larger threat. Lastly, I think that England is to distant for an Islamic foothold against a hostile Christian establishment. You can bet the farm that the English Bishops will bring everything they have to bear on anything that looks like an Islamic foothold.
Another issue that occurs to me, is keeping England Islamic. I doubt the Scots and Welsh will convert of their own volition, and as we have seen IOTL truly conquering Scotland and Wales is a time consuming process for the English. Which will leave safe harbors and willing allies for other Christians along Anglistan's borders. Meanwhile, in France, at some point, an invasion of England will start to look mighty attractive, not to mention that the Norse invasions will continue. The inevitable religious infighting will also weaken the English and leave them vulnerable.
There is a possibility for Islamic England to happen. Maybe King John who had an emissary from Morocco during his reign converts to Islam?
What about Muhammad being expelled from Arabia, wandering in Europe, and eventually preaching Anglo-Saxons, creating an Islamic Bretwalda, that takes over all Britain before his death?
Well, as all the others (There's no way that any medieval king in his right mind would change religion, critically for Islam, and manage to keep power). At this point, I tought it was more about "Rule of Cool" than plausibility.
Hmm, surprisingly original and surprisingly plausible.
It likely wouldn't be named "Anglistan", tho - "-stan" is a Persian root, not an Arabic one.
Al-Angalus? Angalusi-/al-Angalusiyahh?
I would assume that a partial or total conquest of France by an Islamic caliphate is a necessary prerequisite for the partial or complete Islamisation of England. In that case, there's either no French king at all, an Islamic one who would welcome the Islamisation of England, or a weak Christian one, who has his hands full trying to hold back both the Muslim tide and his own unruly subjects and preserve his rump state in the northeast.
Hey, you just gave me an idea - if France is Muslim in whole or in part, there's nothing stopping the Muslim King of France from going through with an invasion of England - in which case there's a French invasion, yes, but the French are the ones bringing Islam!
I see two big problems: pork and beer.
Forbidding pork might not be unthinkable: medieval Englishmen (if they could afford meat) ate more beef, fowl and lamb than pork, but they washed it down with roughly a liter per day of beer. They aren't giving that up without a civil war.
Perhaps the Imams would decide that only wine was forbidden? (too expensive and French for the commoners anyway), but that would likely lead to a schism with other sects.
Forbidding pork might not be unthinkable: medieval Englishmen (if they could afford meat) ate more beef, fowl and lamb than pork, but they washed it down with roughly a liter per day of beer. They aren't giving that up without a civil war.
Perhaps the Imams would decide that only wine was forbidden? (too expensive and French for the commoners anyway), but that would likely lead to a schism with other sects.
Hardly. At best, Abd al Rahman manages to plunder Tours.
There wasn't much difference between 731-732 raids and 725-726 that were far more successful (plundering up to Sens, in the very heart of Francia).
Battle of Tours was overblown by Peppinid/Carolingian chroniclers for starters (it did provided a great boot for legitimacy), and was even more (France as defender of the faith, allowing intervention in religious matters: France as defender of Europe, allowing to intervene is other countries matter; colonialism, etc.)
The truth was that the expedition was basically another raid, as you had up to the end of Carolingian Era, with an historiographical importance that was clearly without comparison with its more modest historical one (critically compared to Battle of Toulouse in 721, or the Battle of Berre in 737).
Giving the really reduced numbers of Arabo-Berbers (maybe 10 000/15 000 at very best in 740's), the absence of real interest into conquering Gaul (You had only one maintained garrision in Septimania for all the period of establishment), and the endemic trouble (if not civil war) in Early Al-Andalus...That wasn't going to happen.
Nope. No real plausible chance of it happening without a different Islam (different theology allows it to basically be the Mormonism to Christianity- no iconoclasm, possibly rejecting Semitic bans on pork and Muslim bans on alcohol the way Christianity rejected circumcision) spreading into Europe organically so as to give Early Islam a more diverse and larger European power base. Without that, they are stretched thin even before the conquest of Spain- and that's just one peninsula!. As it was, the Muslims weren't getting far north of Septimania or the Po- those would, in my mind, certainly be the maximal limits for early Islam, quickly pushed back by Christian forces as they were in OTL.
The John converting thing- not happening.
English warlord builds ties with Muslims- why not Christians? France stronk, HRE at times also stronk, Viking Christians stronk. No need to alienate the populace.
Maybe in a Rule of Cool TL that cares more about GoT references than plausibility, but Muslims converting England (which was, by the way, the richest part of what still was a backwater for most of European history) is implausible.
The John converting thing- not happening.
English warlord builds ties with Muslims- why not Christians? France stronk, HRE at times also stronk, Viking Christians stronk. No need to alienate the populace.
Maybe in a Rule of Cool TL that cares more about GoT references than plausibility, but Muslims converting England (which was, by the way, the richest part of what still was a backwater for most of European history) is implausible.
Last edited:
You know, they could simply ignore that. Central Asian Muslims usually did, and that got carried into India and Persia.
Central Asia was also located north of lands where Islam held prestige/power (and where Central Asian Turks became Mamluks). Englishmen have no reason to convert and draw the ire of literally all of their neighbors (I imagine al-Andalus would abandon them to their fate, in the spirit of pragmatism).
I never buy the whole alcohol prohibition ban (really not that highly enforced even in Muslim countries back in the day), but I do buy the geopolitical pragmatism thing. It's why the Russians went Orthodox, as did the Bulgarians and others- the Byzzies were bigger and more prestigious/better poss. allies than the Bolghars or a distant Caliphate.
And no, one trading ship is not going to convert Cornwall. The Cornish won't understand them, and in all likelihood the Muslims will convert or be burned at the stake. Or just stay there for repairs and then go somewhere that is profitable and not full of rain and poor Cornishmen. But the Cornish aren't going to go "oooh, Islam" at them.