AHC: Keep Islam out of North Africa

So, here is my question/challenge.

With a POD before (or after) the birth of Mohammed, but without butterflying away his birth nor Islam itself, how can North Africa remain Christian?

Islam can spread anywhere else like Persia, East Africa, India, etc.

Is this possible? What are the effects?

Have the Axumites conquer Mecca (that could lead to a lack of Islam, though.)

Another alternative is to have the Byzantines ally with the Axumites shortly after Muhammad's conquests in Arabia and keep the Muslims from entering North Africa that way.

Have them focus on Europe instead.

You don't need to abolish Islam for this. Just have Persia win the war against the Byzantines, so they'll hold most of the East Mediterranean(and maybe Constantinople, in the best case scenario for them). In this context the Muslims will be restricted to Arabia, unless they expand across the Indian Ocean or into East Africa.

Of course once the fertile crescent faces an inevitable era of instability, the Islamized Arabs will surely move to take advantage of it. Of course this doesn't mean they have to succeed in the attempt.

persia would be even weaker

lordyu said:

persia would be even weaker

Click to expand...

Eh? Without the devastating rout by the Byzantines, and with the resources of the conquered territories to prop them up, I think they'd be strong enough to resist the Arab advance.

If have this guy be a little more competent and successful, you can probably keep everything west of Egypt Christian. Keeping the Muslims out of Egypt itself is a little harder.

Make Egypt be Chalcedonian, the question is how this can be made or have the Byzantines tolerate the Monophysites.

Caesar Australis said:

Eh? Without the devastating rout by the Byzantines, and with the resources of the conquered territories to prop them up, I think they'd be strong enough to resist the Arab advance.

Click to expand...

It was the Persian invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire that devastated those territories (Syria and Egypt), rendered them indefensible and allowed such a quick takeover by the Muslims. The renewed Persian empire was a paper tiger.

A much better solution is ensuring that the Sassanids don't have as much success against the Romans in the first place - if the Roman Empire remains strong and intact then the Muslims will have a much harder time penetrating through Egypt into North Africa.

Tangerine said:

It was the Persian invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire that devastated those territories (Syria and Egypt), rendered them indefensible and allowed such a quick takeover by the Muslims. The renewed Persian empire was a paper tiger.

A much better solution is ensuring that the Sassanids don't have as much success against the Romans in the first place - if the Roman Empire remains strong and intact then the Muslims will have a much harder time penetrating through Egypt into North Africa.

Click to expand...

This, really. A post 632 POD makes it very difficult to keep Islam out of Africa altogether, though I suppose a defeat at the River Yarmouk could do the trick.

Keeping Islam out of everywhere but Egypt and Cyrenaica, can, in my view, be done by having Constantinople fall to the Caliphate, with Arab expansion directed against the Slavic and Turkic peoples of the Balkans instead. This'll give the Christian remnants of the Exarchates breathing space, and probably allow them to hold out.

Tangerine said:

It was the Persian invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire that devastated those territories (Syria and Egypt), rendered them indefensible and allowed such a quick takeover by the Muslims. The renewed Persian empire was a paper tiger.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The reason that Syria and Egypt were devastated and an easy prey for the Muslims, was that they were only reconquered shortly before (in 628 only four years befor the muslim expansion). This meant that they were both ravaged by war and the civil administration was next to nonexistant.
If the Byzantines don't take them back (say a butterfly causes a convenient strom that sinks Heraclius fleet on his voyage to constantinople) the sassanids have 14 years (if we take the OTL battle of the bridge in 634 as the start of the muslim invasion) to integrate them in their empire and repair the war damage. Certainly possible especially because the Sassanids (unlike the Byzantines) did not attempt to presecute the Miaphysites.

Moreover the Persian Empire was far from being "a paper tiger". The reason it folded so quickly IOTL was that:
a) Heraclius had devastated Mesopotamia a major powerbase
b) They had been at war for over two decades (if Heraclius doesn't fight back they will instead have had a decade of peace to recover)
c) The humiliating defeat and the murder of their emperor lead to a four year civil war which further drained their resources.

As you can see all this won't happen if the Romans don't launch a counterattack. If they don't do, lets say a storm sinks Heraclius fleet (including him) on its way to Constantinople, and the byzantine empire remains in chaotic state, has a couple of coups and so on. The persians have now 14 years to consolidate their gains, recover from the war and and able emperor and general, they will certainly be abel to repel the arab invasion.

Kalan said:

This is incorrect. The reason that Syria and Egypt were devastated and an easy prey for the Muslims, was that they were only reconquered shortly before (in 628 only four years befor the muslim expansion). This meant that they were both ravaged by war and the civil administration was next to nonexistant.
If the Byzantines don't take them back (say a butterfly causes a convenient strom that sinks Heraclius fleet on his voyage to constantinople) the sassanids have 14 years (if we take the OTL battle of the bridge in 634 as the start of the muslim invasion) to integrate them in their empire and repair the war damage. Certainly possible especially because the Sassanids (unlike the Byzantines) did not attempt to presecute the Miaphysites.

Moreover the Persian Empire was far from being "a paper tiger". The reason it folded so quickly IOTL was that:
a) Heraclius had devastated Mesopotamia a major powerbase
b) They had been at war for over two decades (if Heraclius doesn't fight back they will instead have had a decade of peace to recover)
c) The humiliating defeat and the murder of their emperor lead to a four year civil war which further drained their resources.

As you can see all this won't happen if the Romans don't launch a counterattack. If they don't do, lets say a storm sinks Heraclius fleet (including him) on its way to Constantinople, and the byzantine empire remains in chaotic state, has a couple of coups and so on. The persians have now 14 years to consolidate their gains, recover from the war and and able emperor and general, they will certainly be abel to repel the arab invasion.

Click to expand...

That is if the Sassanids don't waste their resources on invading Anatolia.

yourworstnightmare said:

That is if the Sassanids don't waste their resources on invading Anatolia.

Click to expand...

Given the fact that they managed to lay siege on constantinople in 626 before Heraclius counterattacked (the situation was so desperate that even Heraclius briefly considered to abandond the city - especially because the awars ravaged the balkans at the same time), an invasion of Anatolia would not appear to "waste" so much resources.
Additionally after his coup Phocas slayed the family of the previous emperor Maurikios, and established a reign of terror and was universially disliked (when Heraclius toppled him he was hailed as a liberator).
Now Chosrau II. had produced a heir (theodius) which he claimed had escaped the massacre and wanted to help him to regain the throne in exchange for territorial compensation.
As the reverse had happend with Chosrau himself - he was evicted by the nobels and regained the power with the help of byzantine emperor Maurikios who received territorial gains in Armenia - this plan may have worked.

But wether it would or not the romans were unable to offer resistance against Anatolia as OTL proved.

Kalan said:

As you can see all this won't happen if the Romans don't launch a counterattack. If they don't do, lets say a storm sinks Heraclius fleet (including him) on its way to Constantinople, and the byzantine empire remains in chaotic state, has a couple of coups and so on. The persians have now 14 years to consolidate their gains, recover from the war and and able emperor and general, they will certainly be abel to repel the arab invasion.

Click to expand...

If Heraclius doesn't launch his coup, then the Persians are unlikely to break out as triumphantly as they did. It was only after the African rebellion unleashed a wave of chaos that things began to go really pear shaped for Constantinople. No Heraclian revolt means a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Persians, maybe another sack of Antioch, and changes to the frontier and to Armenia's status. All pretty standard, really.

Kalan said:

If the Byzantines don't take them back (say a butterfly causes a convenient strom that sinks Heraclius fleet on his voyage to constantinople) the sassanids have 14 years (if we take the OTL battle of the bridge in 634 as the start of the muslim invasion) to integrate them in their empire and repair the war damage. Certainly possible especially because the Sassanids (unlike the Byzantines) did not attempt to presecute the Miaphysites.

Click to expand...

14 years isn't going to be enough time to repair a century's worth of devastation in Syria, or to reverse the deep decline of the Persian economy brought on by constant wars with the Romans. Khosrau essentially bankrupted his empire in order to achieve the successes he did OTL, and even if those conquests were kept the fragility of the Sassanid state and army could not be remedied in such a short time.

The obvious way of ensuring that Syria and Egypt are strong and well-defended is butterflying the Persian-Roman wars at the earliest opportunity (6th century), or at least ensuring they go heavily in the Romans' favor. A strong Roman army and stable administration ensures that they are as secure as possible before the Muslim invasion.

As a quick note to bear in mind, guys- the correct term for the dynasty that ruled Iran from the third to the seventh century is not "Sassanid"- it's "Sasanian".

Basileus Giorgios said:

As a quick note to bear in mind, guys- the correct term for the dynasty that ruled Iran from the third to the seventh century is not "Sassanid"- it's "Sasanian".

Click to expand...

They have the same meaning. If we use the terms Seleucids, Arsacids, Buyids, Samanids, etc. etc. then we can also use Sassanids. The fact is that both forms are of Greek and Latin origin, and Persian contemporaries would have used neither.

No Byzantine-Sassanid War in the early 7th century would do it.

Off-the-wall suggestion:

During the Byzantine-Persian War, Egypt falls into revolt under a local figure/commander who effectively exploits religious differences to spark uprisings up and down the Nile, leaving loyalist Byzantine garrisons isolated. Said garrisons eventually surrender, defect, or are destroyed.

Constantinople would respond more quickly, but the Sassanids have been making great victories and rapidly advancing to the Levant and Anatolia. The new Principality of Egypt offers a separate peace with the Persians, and they accept. Egypt also begins negotiations with Constantinople, continuing to supply critical grain for a truce.

Ultimately, Heraclitus attains costly victories against the Sassanids and begins recovering Anatolia and the Levant, even advancing into Mesopotamia. Egypt changes tactics toward suggesting that maybe being an autonomous vassal of the Emperor, personally, might not be so bad. This of course has nothing to do with the dramatic shift in power back toward Constantinople, and the fact that the Emperor is no longer quite bereft of military force, nothing at all, surely.

Regardless, the offer is more or less accepted--returning Egypt back to the Imperial fold, but closely tied to the Emperor personally, which is not entirely unhelpful in giving the leader of the Second Rome more than a little leverage against troublesome nobility or potential rogue commanders.

Unfortunately for this nice arrangement, the Arabs unite under a charismatic leader and burst into the middle east. Mesopotamia is quickly taken, and the Levant barely holds thanks to Egypt's own undevastated military potential. Persia itself soon falls, but the momentum of conquest ebbs before the Levant and Anatolia are overwhelmed, though they do suffer yet another round of destruction through raids, pillaging, and army foraging.

In the end, the Empire of the Romans survives the storm, barely. And an independently-minded Egypt has a new external reason to consider the value of Imperial cooperation.

-----

Probably implausible.

Basileus Giorgios said:

If Heraclius doesn't launch his coup, then the Persians are unlikely to break out as triumphantly as they did. It was only after the African rebellion unleashed a wave of chaos that things began to go really pear shaped for Constantinople. No Heraclian revolt means a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Persians, maybe another sack of Antioch, and changes to the frontier and to Armenia's status. All pretty standard, really.

Click to expand...

So do you think it would be fair to say that Heralclius is partially responsible for the Byzantine decline?

Over the past few years, I began to see Heraclius less as a hero that just received an insane amount of bad luck, and more as a guy who really turned a bad situation into something much, much worse by his hubris.