Islamic Roman Empire

[redman]

So I was reading the what if Pilate spared Jesus thread, and thought instead what if Islam took root in the Roman Empire? Say, for example, the extent of Roman conquests in the Middle East is more comprehensive in TTL, leading to the annexation of the whole, or at least majority, of the Arabian Peninsula including Medina and Mecca. Then, I can see two ways to this.

1. Jesus is not born in TTL or any other similar Messiah. So say things continue to move along except with a few butterflies, i.e. Constantine doesn't become Christian. Then when Islam comes around, Constantinople is hard-pressed to accept it just as Christianity was in OTL. So what effects would this have, both short and long term, considering that the extent of the spread of Christianity would have been limited only to the Eastern Roman Empire?

2. Jesus dies as per OTL, or in any other way for that matter. But say Islam comes around much earlier, say around the time of Jesus. Or even vice-versa, Jesus being born around the time of OTL's birth of Islam (Though I must ask if this sounds ASB? Personally I should think not, thinking in purely secular terms, I think it's possible that events like these could have happened at different times, though admittedly with major butterflies). What would happen? Would there be a competition between both? Would the Roman State tolerate both, even adopt both religions? Maybe even combining both Abrahamic religions, though I don't know if this is possible. Short and long term effects, politically, culturally, etc?

[I Blame Communism]

Actually, the Roman Empire was Islamic between the years of 1453 and 1922, at least, under the Osman dynasty.

(Not a joke. The Ottomans meant any sensible set of criteria. They called themselves the Ceasars of Rome, and were recognised as such by their Christian subjects, generally known as "Romans" until the 19th C. They held the New Rome as their capital, and the Roman Empire had been without Old Rome for some time. They destroyed the previous dynasty so that there were no pretenders. Etcetera.)

As to your actual questions:

1) I'm very badly ignorant of the classical period, but I have to wonder the Romans would expand down the red sea coast? Their interests there were mercantile. Military expansion would be coastly without a benefit that I can see there.

2) Although talking about butterflies when it comes to messianic figures is tricky, they do still apply. Islam in a world without Christinaity will be a differant thing.

[DuQuense]

Easiest way would be a Isot, of a major Islamic Center. Or even a -Least Darkness Fall- Isot of a Islamic Iman.

[redman]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Actually, the Roman Empire was Islamic between the years of 1453 and 1922, at least, under the Osman dynasty.

(Not a joke. The Ottomans meant any sensible set of criteria. They called themselves the Ceasars of Rome, and were recognised as such by their Christian subjects, generally known as "Romans" until the 19th C. They held the New Rome as their capital, and the Roman Empire had been without Old Rome for some time. They destroyed the previous dynasty so that there were no pretenders. Etcetera.)

ack, of course you are right. I realized this too late, forgive me.

but the Ottoman Empire's status as the successor to Rome was at least disputed by most Western powers. Admittedly the Byzantine-era empire was also disputed by the Popes and the Holy Roman Empire, but I should think to a lesser degree than the Ottomans. Besides, the Byzantines were part of the original empire anyway, until its other half collapsed but itself continued to exist, whereas the Ottomans literally destroyed, as you have said, the "Roman Empire", which in this light leads me to view them as "pretenders" than anything else.

anyway my point is for Islam to have taken root in the classical-era Roman Empire, not during the Medieval era.

1) I'm very badly ignorant of the classical period, but I have to wonder the Romans would expand down the red sea coast? Their interests there were mercantile. Military expansion would be coastly without a benefit that I can see there.

Admittedly I am also quite unaware of a few facts. Why didn't the Romans ever ventured to control Arabia anyway? I can understand that, especially before the discovery of oil, the Peninsula would be seen as nothing more than endless dunes of worthless dust, but why not at least capture and be content with key cities, such as Medina and Mecca? If I understand correctly, they were already important trading centers back then, and so would have been an incentive for the Romans to at least control certain towns.

2) Although talking about butterflies when it comes to messianic figures is tricky, they do still apply. Islam in a world without Christinaity will be a differant thing.

That is true, and it is for this reason that I would like to discuss how different this world would be in a thread like this.

[Emperor Qianlong]

I think Islam (or, at least Islam as we know it in OTL) would be butterflied away with either scenarios.

If the Romans (or the Byzantines, for that matter) had fully incorporated the Hejaz, this most likely would have butterflied away Islam, simply because entire socio-political context (ruling tribes, etc.) from which Islam emerged in OTL would be radically changed.

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Emperor Qianlong

I think Islam (or, at least Islam as we know it in OTL) would be butterflied away with either scenarios.

If the Romans (or the Byzantines, for that matter) had fully incorporated the Hejaz, this most likely would have butterflied away Islam, simply because entire socio-political context (ruling tribes, etc.) from which Islam emerged in OTL would be radically changed.

What would really be interesting is how Arab paganism would be incorporated into the Roman pantheon in such a scenario.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

Actually there is a reason for Rome to expand into Arabia, well Oman and Yemen atleast. Frankincense and Myrh, which were both valued perfumes in Rome, it would also give them a clear jump to India so they have large market far closer giving them (hopefully) an economic boom.

[Ridwan Asher]

Hmm, inevitable Islam heh ? Sounds like a good candidate for a cliche

However, I'd like to play plausibilty better. While it'll be hard, the conquest of Byzantine Empire by Arabs will actually be possible enough if you can make the Byzantines screwed enough from inside to allow more advantage for the Arabs.

[IMP CAES AVG]

During the reign of Augustus Caesar there was an attempt by Cornelius Gallus, the Prefect of Egypt, to conquer Arabia Felix, but it met with failure.
Also, the borders of the Roman Empire in Arabia extended quite a lot further into the Hejaz then is commonly depicted on maps, so, to a a certain extent Rome did rule Arabia. However, I doubt that the conditions necessary for Islam to arise would be present in a Roman Arabia. Certainly Islam would not have the same terrific expansion it has actually occurred.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by redman

So I was reading the what if Pilate spared Jesus thread, and thought instead what if Islam took root in the Roman Empire? Say, for example, the extent of Roman conquests in the Middle East is more comprehensive in TTL, leading to the annexation of the whole, or at least majority, of the Arabian Peninsula including Medina and Mecca. Then, I can see two ways to this.

1. Jesus is not born in TTL or any other similar Messiah. So say things continue to move along except with a few butterflies, i.e. Constantine doesn't become Christian. Then when Islam comes around, Constantinople is hard-pressed to accept it just as Christianity was in OTL. So what effects would this have, both short and long term, considering that the extent of the spread of Christianity would have been limited only to the Eastern Roman Empire?

2. Jesus dies as per OTL, or in any other way for that matter. But say Islam comes around much earlier, say around the time of Jesus. Or even vice-versa, Jesus being born around the time of OTL's birth of Islam (Though I must ask if this sounds ASB? Personally I should think not, thinking in purely secular terms, I think it's possible that events like these could have happened at different times, though admittedly with major butterflies). What would happen? Would there be a competition between both? Would the Roman State tolerate both, even adopt both religions? Maybe even combining both Abrahamic religions, though I don't know if this is possible. Short and long term effects, politically, culturally, etc?

The problem with this is that an Islam without christianity is, if it even exists (a very big if), going to be rather different than the one that we know.

The truth of the matter is, unless you believe that sooner or later god was going to send a messenger to earth in the form of Muhammad (which is outside the purview of this discussion), it is rather hard to justify Islam existing in a world where christianity never existed, and pretty much impossible to imagine occuring several hundred years earlier. Even if we suppose that a certain merchant of the Banu Hashim starts preaching the message of a monotheistic god, his interactions with the environment of either the first century CE or the prophet's OTL timeframe after 600+ years of divergence are going to be radically different. he is going to be surrounded by completely different personages, a different political and religious dynamic, etc... So the spread of ATL Islam is going to be substantially altered, and the theology of this religion will be radically different.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by redman

1. Jesus is not born in TTL or any other similar Messiah. So say things continue to move along except with a few butterflies, i.e. Constantine doesn't become Christian. Then when Islam comes around, Constantinople is hard-pressed to accept it just as Christianity was in OTL. So what effects would this have, both short and long term, considering that the extent of the spread of Christianity would have been limited only to the Eastern Roman Empire?

You do realize that it would be impossible to have Islam without Christianity, just as it would have been impossible for there to have been Christianity without Judaism.

[Keenir]

Originally Posted by redman

but the Ottoman Empire's status as the successor to Rome was at least disputed by most Western powers. Admittedly the Byzantine-era empire was also disputed by the Popes and the Holy Roman Empire, but I should think to a lesser degree than the Ottomans. Besides, the Byzantines were part of the original empire anyway, until its other half collapsed but itself continued to exist, whereas the Ottomans literally destroyed, as you have said, the "Roman Empire", which in this light leads me to view them as "pretenders" than anything else.

the Holy Roman Emperors reached a deal with the Ottoman Emperors, which resulted in both sides recognizing the other side as Roman Emperors.

I kid you not.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Keenir

the Holy Roman Emperors reached a deal with the Ottoman Emperors, which resulted in both sides recognizing the other side as Roman Emperors.

I kid you not.

Do you have a source?

I'm not challenging this; but I've never heard about this, and part of me wonders what circumstances would have lead to this coming about.

[XNM]

Again the Ottoman Empire is mentioned, and Abdul is nowhere in sight.

[Faux Pas]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Actually, the Roman Empire was Islamic between the years of 1453 and 1922, at least, under the Osman dynasty.

(Not a joke. The Ottomans meant any sensible set of criteria. They called themselves the Ceasars of Rome, and were recognised as such by their Christian subjects, generally known as "Romans" until the 19th C. They held the New Rome as their capital, and the Roman Empire had been without Old Rome for some time. They destroyed the previous dynasty so that there were no pretenders. Etcetera.)

Would that mean by extension that Turkey could be considered a renewed Roman Republic?(obviously they don't claim the title, but they are the succesors of the Ottoman caliphate)

[Skokie]

You wouldn't get Islam without Christianity. Islam sees itself as the restorer of a primeval monotheism that supposedly existed before polytheism and Persian, Jewish and Christian "innovations."

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Faux Pas

Would that mean by extension that Turkey could be considered a renewed Roman Republic?(obviously they don't claim the title, but they are the succesors of the Ottoman caliphate)

Hmm. They've deliberately broken continuity with the Ottomans and make no such pretensions. I'd say that they are the best candidates for a renewed Roman Republic, which isn't to say they actually are.