ATL Islamic Golden Age (or similar period)

[JorgeGG]

Hi everyody!!! In Alternative History Wikia I'm exploring the idea of creating an ATL based on the Islamic Golden Age (or similar period). I suspect this idea is an old one on this site. If it was discussed before, please direct me to the appropriate links.

My rough ideas are:
1) idea is to have make it more plausible and realistic then The Years of Rice and Salt (the book is too ASB in my opinion), no teleological process, nor too similar with events our OTL.
2) It would be centered around Islamic countries or written from the view point of an Islamic narrator (Arab, Persian, Turk or other). World powers or major colonial nations could perhaps be China and one or several Islamic Nations and one in Africa. Europe would exist, but having minor role. America would be colonized by China and Islamic country. Not sure if native American civilizations could survive in some form (as vassal or independent states).

Any ideas for POD? or comments.

[Elfwine]

I'm not sure what would be a good POD to render Europe "minor".

You could relatively easily have Islam more successful than OTL, but breaking the Christian states entirely...that would be more problematic.

That said, I'd love to see this.

[ANTIcarrot]

Disclaimer: I am not a muslim nor an expert on the subject, but...

Originally Posted by JorgeGG

Any ideas for POD? or comments.

Based upon my knowledge of Islam, from a book written on the subject by muslims... A few hundred years after it's foundation there were two big changes as a result of one side winning a decades long philosophy debate:
1) The islamic obligation of 'ilm' stopping being the acquisition of knowledge about the world, and became focused on muslim holytexts.
2) The tradition of public discussion became blind obedience.
Have the other side win the debate.

Alternatively when the printing press comes along (a little late but possible within the spirit of what you intend) have the islamic world create and accept a standard and simplified version of Arabic. Low Arabic? The latter can be handled by movable type which means translated versions of the quran can be produced on mass, along with clear messages that these are translations and not Precise Copies of the Perfect Origonal. This nullifies the religious objections and books become common in the islamic world.

In both cases muslims are going to run head first intothe problems the roman catholic church did with ideas that go against their holy books and social instincts. Evolution, Slavery, Women's rights (and eventually scientific athiesm) are all going to be speed bumps they'll have to deal with.

If you want the technical terms and timeline, PM me and I can go look them if you want.

[PhilippeO]

Algazel / Al Ghazali book "Incoherence of the Philosophers" change direction of Islamic thought. it stops Natural Science and Ijtihad.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inc...e_Philosophers


alternatively make Averroes more successful in his attempt on debating Algazel

[JorgeGG]

Interesting all comments.

I like the idea of a POD in the Ijtihad versus Taqlid debate, winning the former (and becoming the hegemonic or dominating idea). That would be in the 11th century. Also the one of an emerging Lower Arabic (a standard and simplified version of Classical Arabic) and its use in printing press (movable types or blocks) and publishing a Lower Arabic the Quran. Along a publishing boom by enterprising editors.

However in the Ijtihad versus Taqlid debate, I don't have it clear on whose side the Caliphate and other political and social actors would be for the Ijtihad to win (or the actions or events the must happen for this result). Has far as I recall the attempt to establish the Mu'tazili has the sole interpretative school by Abbasid Caliph backfire.

There are other challenges for this ATL that exist:
a) the political fragmentation of the Abbassid Caliphate (autonomous governors and emirs). ¿any forms to established a more central empire? or at least this fragmentation evolves in a more cooperative model with less military antagonism. For example Al-Andalus began to disintegrate because of numerous political entities and this made easier the Spanish Reconquista. This must consider the problem the development of Iranian nationalism (Shia versus Sunni)
b) the Mongol invasions (bound to happen in someway or another)
c) development of capitalism in the areas controlled by Islamic rulers. I see this option has a necessity for the Islamic world to have a better leverage or option over Europe.

[Elfwine]

Well, the Mongols amounting to something serious enough to shatter Iran is hardly a given, even with a late (post-1200) POD.

And Iran was largely Sunni prior to the Safavids.

So...this shouldn't be a problem.

As for capitalism developing, that probably can come if the rulers pursue policies supporting merchants rather than merely exploiting them (or persecuting them).

[JorgeGG]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Well, the Mongols amounting to something serious enough to shatter Iran is hardly a given, even with a late (post-1200) POD.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And Iran was largely Sunni prior to the Safavids.

So...this shouldn't be a problem.

Ouch, my bad. Forgot that. But you are right.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

As for capitalism developing, that probably can come if the rulers pursue policies supporting merchants rather than merely exploiting them (or persecuting them).

Interesting, ¿any details of these policies?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by JorgeGG

Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

Well, it would take some doing, but you can do it. Or at least have the Mongols splinter earlier than OTL and allow for things to be rebuilt - after Ogedei, the Mongols were beating the average for avoiding that.

A luckier and in some ways cannier Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu (last Khwarezm shah) would probably be enough on Iran's end, the rest is on the Mongols being more bitterly divided.

Interesting, ¿any details of these policies?

Moderate taxes, fair administration of justice, roads and seaways policed effectively...

Basically, "good government" encouraging economic growth instead of looking for short term revenue at the expense of long term growth (a habit all early modern states fell into to some extent out of sheer necessity, but some were better at avoiding the worst of it than others).

And the burghers are a must.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeo..._modern_period

[PhilippeO]

> a) the political fragmentation of the Abbassid Caliphate (autonomous governors and emirs). ¿any forms to established a more central empire? or at least this fragmentation evolves in a more cooperative model with less military antagonism. For example Al-Andalus began to disintegrate because of numerous political entities and this made easier the Spanish Reconquista. This must consider the problem the development of Iranian nationalism (Shia versus Sunni)

- create duplicate of chinese imperial examinations (but with quran and haddid instead of confucianism), this will prevent any family to consolidate power, also if enough persian and turkic become mandarin, they less likely to rebel
- strengthening the ulama classes to balance the military aristocracy
- create alternative military power that loyal only to caliph to weaken military aristocracy. create : slave soldier/mameluke, religious ikhwan, city militia or dhimmi soldier.
- create stable succession rule (very difficult, in theory islam demand each new ruler receive new bayat from its follower)
- take better care of irrigation of mesopotamia (probably impossible, salinitation and change of weather pattern destroy more than good irrigation can possibly rescue)

> b) the Mongol invasions (bound to happen in someway or another)

India, Egyptian Mameluke, and Burmese managed to fight mongol so its not impossible. also period of mongol domination with less city razed is not fatal, maybe quick surrender by caliph ?

c) development of capitalism in the areas controlled by Islamic rulers. I see this option has a necessity for the Islamic world to have a better leverage or option over Europe.

creation of free and caliphate city, lead by rich traders and industrialist might help. it also will weakened local ruler in case they want to rebel.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by JorgeGG

Hi everyody!!! In Alternative History Wikia I'm exploring the idea of creating an ATL based on the Islamic Golden Age (or similar period). I suspect this idea is an old one on this site. If it was discussed before, please direct me to the appropriate links.

My rough ideas are:
1) idea is to have make it more plausible and realistic then The Years of Rice and Salt (the book is too ASB in my opinion), no teleological process, nor too similar with events our OTL.
2) It would be centered around Islamic countries or written from the view point of an Islamic narrator (Arab, Persian, Turk or other). World powers or major colonial nations could perhaps be China and one or several Islamic Nations and one in Africa. Europe would exist, but having minor role. America would be colonized by China and Islamic country. Not sure if native American civilizations could survive in some form (as vassal or independent states).

Any ideas for POD? or comments.

Sounds like good for the most part, but if you would be willing to take one suggestion; Please, please, don't let China(or any of the Muslim powers!) anywhere near America anywhere other than perhaps Alaska(or Florida and/or the Caribbean for the Muslims). That idea has been done to death; how about a powerful Native confederation or two instead? That would be cool!

[JorgeGG]

Originally Posted by PhilippeO

>
creation of free and caliphate city, lead by rich traders and industrialist might help. it also will weakened local ruler in case they want to rebel.

Is there a tradition for this? or the events or mechanism for this to happen? how could they be created? and possible candidates?

If I'm not wrong Italian City-states are from around 10th century, a possible copy from account of Muslin traders and travelers? any posiblity of an informal alliance between Italian and Muslin cities or they competed for the same markets and trade routes?

[JorgeGG]

One thing that intrigues me is that from China the Muslims knew of paper making in the Xth century, but rather late of gunpowder (XIIIth) or did not made a simultaneous discovery of it, though being good chemists themselves.

They also knew of Block printing , but did not use widely or of no influence. Somehow if they had paper + printing blocks + Arabic alphabet (or Arabic abjad) = Spread of knowledge and ideas.

[PhilippeO]

> Is there a tradition for this?

Uh, No. Islamic societies have been criticized for lack of any parliamentary/diets/civic organizations/etc. And OTL Islamic cities have large non-muslim minorities (Jew, Greek, Armenian).

> or the events or mechanism for this to happen? how could they be created?

strengthening power of the guild in cities. or alternatively all citizen in one city decide to enter single sufi Tariqa. or maritime cities when captains association decide to seize power. or revolt by caravan merchant when mistreated by local ruler.

> and possible candidates?

Sallee, Beirut, Tyre, Sidon, cities in Yemen, Zanzibar for maritime cities. Damascus, silk road cities for city based on caravan trade. a lot will be depending on POD.

[Elfwine]

If you want anything on the Levantine coast, the Mamluk policies described here: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/fuess.pdf must be prevented.

[ImmortalImpi]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

If you want anything on the Levantine coast, the Mamluk policies described here: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/fuess.pdf must be prevented.

I think the most important point is really stopping the Mongols from so brutally bruising the psyche of the Muslim world. The Sufi and other mystical movements which formed after these invasions were a reaction to the terrible events which had occurred before. During his time as the leader of all the Ayyubids, Al-Kamil built 37 Madrassahs in Damascus alone, which doubled the amount in the entire country, mainly because He saw Jihad as a holy war against laxity and lack of knowledge as well as a military concept. The Mamluks really didn't have the time to invest in the building of such things, and thus moved to the much more military concept of Jihad. This is very understandable when one understand that not only were the Mamluks essentially a praetorian guard, but they were under constant danger from the Mongols, and later, the Il-khans. The fortress mentality that Baibars and his successors such as Qalawun attempted to produce is therefore fairly understandable in the light of events.

As for the destruction of the coastal ports, it stems from the reformations of the Ayyubid Sultan As-Salih. As-Salih reigned after the death of Al-Kamil in the 1230s and he destroyed the decentralized, quasi-feudal qatisystem which existed under the earlier Ayyubids. Interested in funneling wealth into Egypt as well as making everything much easier to control, As-Salih set the defining system of governance which his General, and later, successor, Baibars strove to maintain. In the earlier Ayyubid state the state was decentralized, much like medieval Europe, into a massive system of prince and landowners. This made such things as assembling an army extremely difficult. It tells wonders of the manipulative and diplomatic ability of both Saladin and Al-Kamil that they were able to keep a system like that together for such a long time.

Such a system also bred disputes; in the succession crisis following Saladin's death several rulers fought for power. Ultimately, Al-Adil(who would be succeeded by Kamil) and Al-Muazzam, along with another whose name escapes me, won out in this battle for control. They took control of the three main hubs of power: Cairo, Damascus, and Mosul. The land itself was decentralized further into the aforementioned Qati system. While this worked fine in theory during times of prosperity, it would falter and collapse in the face of the Mongol horde. It is also intriguing that this inefficient system was employed in many other areas of the middle east and was not an isolated phenomenon. Ironic that the birthplace of the system would be the first to lose it.

As-Salih essentially centralized power into Egypt and Cairo in particular in the face of rising tensions everywhere. The question of what would happen with the crusaders remained apparent, for the fear that Frederick II may make the mainland his imperial domain and begin war once again on the Ayyubids was always a distinct fear, if not necessarily a true one. In addition, the collapse of the Shah's state in Azerbaijan and western Iran, where he had etched out a living with the remnants of his state apparatus until his defeat by a joint force of Seldjuks and Ayyubids opened the very first incursions by mongols into Ayyubid territory. While not that massive, and unfortunately understated by the Ayyubids, it still had a significant effect on As-Salih's planning as the old way of collecting armies, which often took several months, did not work out in lieu of the mongol lightening raids.

Thus, we come to the question of Baibars. He had learned much from his master, As-salih, and had thus capitalized on the vacuum following his death to murder his son, Turanshah, and create a Mamluk sultanate(Though Baibars faded again into obscurity until his victory at Ain Jalut; then he rises back in as a popular leader and then leads a coup to be the Sultan). He kept the centralized structure of As-salih and after he assumed command began funneling as much wealth as possible from the other areas of the empire to Egypt. His destruction of the ports was a very strategic one; not only would this deter Frank attacks, but it also destroyed competitors for trade, and gave Egypt even more wealth. Antioch was absolutely devastated out of pure spite, for they had not been exactly courteous to the Mamluks when they helped the Mongols take Damascus and then turned the Omayyad Mosque into a church. Cilician Armenia received similar treatment, spared only because other urgent matters were at hand.

This also accounts for the relative poorness of Syria in this period. It became a frontier of the empire and was fortified heavily. Like clockwork the Mongols would come down every spring and raid the border regions. Often the Mamluk armies would pillage their own countryside indiscriminately for supplies. Baibars responded to a desperate situation with a daft and radical solution. Of the fleet, there was the inherently obvious fact that as Turkish slaves, the concept of entirely fleet based nations was entirely alien to them and no sultan after Baibars bothered building a suitable navy. Yet even Baibars simply used this to either transport troops to fight the Kingdom of Cyprus or contend with the merchant states. Rarely did he conduct anti-raiding activity, for that would encourage people to go to the Levant instead of Egypt, and he certainly couldn't have that. It's an amusing irony that after the Ottoman conquest Egypt itself faded out of view for the Ottoman golden age, though the Mamluks clung to their old positions like a kitten to laundry string.

[Elfwine]

That all seems to add up very poorly for the region's long term prospects.

How big a deal was this part:

As-Salih essentially centralized power into Egypt and Cairo in particular in the face of rising tensions everywhere. The question of what would happen with the crusaders remained apparent, for the fear that Frederick II may make the mainland his imperial domain and begin war once again on the Ayyubids was always a distinct fear, if not necessarily a true one.

I mean, the idea that the solution to this is to destroy the coast's defenses so that there's no way the crusaders can establish a foothold somewhere fortified sounds like a particularly poor way of rendering the coast secure (from organized invasion, it obviously failed vs. piracy). It "worked", but how many crusaders were launched into the Levant of the size to make any difference after Frederick? None I can think of.

On the other hand, in a situation where Syria is a frontier anyway, and keeping any competitors from Egypt's cities is deemed important...it would be easier to imagine doing that, however terrible the consequences for Syria.

The worst part seems to be that the region never truly recovered from this. Not just in the sense of Syria's wealth in particular, but in the sense that all of these things left the Muslim world in a poorer place than it had once been.

Damn Mongols. Its not as if there aren't enough problems in the area (just as there are in Europe it should be noted).

[ImmortalImpi]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

That all seems to add up very poorly for the region's long term prospects.

How big a deal was this part:

I mean, the idea that the solution to this is to destroy the coast's defenses so that there's no way the crusaders can establish a foothold somewhere fortified sounds like a particularly poor way of rendering the coast secure (from organized invasion, it obviously failed vs. piracy). It "worked", but how many crusaders were launched into the Levant of the size to make any difference after Frederick? None I can think of.

Baibars did not want crusaders assisting the mongols. He knew that it was impossible for Egypt to keep up navally with the west, and he didn't want to fortify the coast, since once he crusaders took these fortresses it would be a headache to get them back. He also didn't want distractions in his campaigns against the Il-khans. One could assume that it was particularly because the coast was utterly devastated that the crusaders lost interest. Certainly the Venetians and Genoans lost interest.

[JorgeGG]

Again thinking of having Al-Andalus has the an intellectual center and a triumph or stronger position of Averroism.

Which of this two POD is more likely to restablish control of Al-Andalus by the Muslims:
1) after the Battle of Alarcos (1195).Yaqub al-Mansur goes to recapture Toledo. Reestablishes control of the central plain around Toledo and in few years (by military conquest and negotiations) establishes the frontier up to the Duero and Ebro rivers.

2) A muslin victory at Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212), with the death of one or two Spanish kings. Muhammad an-Nasir continues to campaign until recovering most of the land south of Duero and Ebro rivers.

[Mirza Khan]

Originally Posted by JorgeGG

Hi everyody!!! In Alternative History Wikia I'm exploring the idea of creating an ATL based on the Islamic Golden Age (or similar period). I suspect this idea is an old one on this site. If it was discussed before, please direct me to the appropriate links.

My rough ideas are:
1) idea is to have make it more plausible and realistic then The Years of Rice and Salt (the book is too ASB in my opinion), no teleological process, nor too similar with events our OTL.
2) It would be centered around Islamic countries or written from the view point of an Islamic narrator (Arab, Persian, Turk or other). World powers or major colonial nations could perhaps be China and one or several Islamic Nations and one in Africa. Europe would exist, but having minor role. America would be colonized by China and Islamic country. Not sure if native American civilizations could survive in some form (as vassal or independent states).

Any ideas for POD? or comments.

Thing is, there's a way to pull off a Years of Rice and Salt-type scenario that, while unlikely, doesn't go quite into ASB-land. Two PODs:

1) Arabs win the Battle of Tours. Paris becomes a minor outpost of the ummayyad empire, and the Frankish kingdom is reduced to being a small regional power.

2) The Ummayyad siege of Constantinople in the 700's (forget what year) results the city's fall. The Ummayyads expand further into the Balkans, and the Byzantine Empire is no more.

Given these two events, an Islamic-dominated Europe becomes pretty much inevitable-Italy and Sicily have a few decades at most, and then the only independent Christianized places in Europe are Ireland, whatever's left of the Franks, and probably a couple minor Germanic realms I'm forgetting. Most of Germany and Eastern Europe is still pagan, and will probably be coverted by Sufis rather than monastics. The few Christian places left in Europe will probably go, one by one, to opportunistic Muslim Sultans over the centuries. "Europe", in the modern since of a place culturally separate from the Middle East, no longer exists, and you can write about the daring deeds of the Caliphs of al-Faranjiyya and the sailors of al-Britanniyyah to your heart's content.

[ImmortalImpi]

I think an interesting question is how the Shias would designate their Da'was in such a world.