Mr. Evangelical
Banned
Lets say that the Muslims decide not to travel into any Christian territory (they can still border them, but not invade), them and decide to got even more eastward, what happens?
Islam decides to ignore The Byzantines
- Thread starter Mr. Evangelical
- Start date
Well since this is a thread started by Mr. Neoconservative, I feel that I must reveal a shocking realization. I know this is off-topic, but bear with me.
I noticed you posting at the beginning of the week, having but a few posts, indicating you were new. Naturally, I thought nothing of it. What did it matter? Then I saw one of your posts earlier today, and I realized you had already racked up a ridiculous post count. Having nothing better to do, I applied math to the matter.
You post at a rate of 42.24 per day (as of yet, because these things fluctuate). Your current post count is 310.
Thande, the member with the highest post count, has 17,655 posts as of now, and he has a post rate of 14.66 per day (although, of course, these things fluctuate as well.
So if you put these into equations, you get:
Mr. Neoconservative: 310 + 42.24P
Thande: 17,655 + 14.66P
where P is days after today.
If you put these on a graph, then you come up with some interesting information.
Looking at the point they intersect, you can see that Mr. Neoconservative, keeping up that rate, can pass Thande, keeping up that rate, in only 618 years.
Does it matter? No. I just thought it was interesting.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, just so this post was not a total waste.
The other major foe which the Muslims could not conquer was the Chinese.
Perhaps that is where they will turn.
I noticed you posting at the beginning of the week, having but a few posts, indicating you were new. Naturally, I thought nothing of it. What did it matter? Then I saw one of your posts earlier today, and I realized you had already racked up a ridiculous post count. Having nothing better to do, I applied math to the matter.
You post at a rate of 42.24 per day (as of yet, because these things fluctuate). Your current post count is 310.
Thande, the member with the highest post count, has 17,655 posts as of now, and he has a post rate of 14.66 per day (although, of course, these things fluctuate as well.
So if you put these into equations, you get:
Mr. Neoconservative: 310 + 42.24P
Thande: 17,655 + 14.66P
where P is days after today.
If you put these on a graph, then you come up with some interesting information.
Looking at the point they intersect, you can see that Mr. Neoconservative, keeping up that rate, can pass Thande, keeping up that rate, in only 618 years.
Does it matter? No. I just thought it was interesting.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, just so this post was not a total waste.
The other major foe which the Muslims could not conquer was the Chinese.
Perhaps that is where they will turn.
Nikephoros
Banned
I'd say that the odds of Islam ignoring Byzantium is very low. Almost ASB, assuming that Islam leaves Medina and takes over Mecca. If the muslims fail to take the Arabian peninsula then I am sure they will ignore Byzantium
Looking at the point they intersect, you can see that Mr. Neoconservative, keeping up that rate, can pass Thande, keeping up that rate, in only 618 days.
I accidentaly wrote years. It is under 2 years
I accidentaly wrote years. It is under 2 years
Mr. Evangelical
Banned
You made me feel really old. 
Lets say they can't conquer their peninsula, and leave for Parthia, what happens?
Lets say they can't conquer their peninsula, and leave for Parthia, what happens?
Does this also mean that they don't move westward into Northern Africa, or just that they don't expand into Spain (and other places)?
Also, is there any anti-Muslim sentiment in your post, or am I just seeing things? (Which could very well be possible, in which case I apologise sincerely)
Nikephoros
Banned
You made me feel really old.
Lets say they can't conquer their peninsula, and leave for Parthia, what happens?
Easy, Mohammed and his followers would be mocked, ignored, or annihilated
I'm not sure wether I get your point; Parthia was long gone during the 7th century.
And in case you mean Persia; if the Muslims don't even manage to conquer all of the Arabian Peninsula, then why would they even bother attacking Persia?
Even being in the utterly deplorable state in which it was during the mid-7th century, the Sassanid Empire would still be a much more formidable foe than any of the major Arab tribal confederations.
Nikephoros
Banned
Bumped for bumping sake.
If Islam ignores the Byzantines, it could still spread by "missionaries". I however doubt that it would gain much traction.
Any thoughts? disagreement? anything?
If Islam ignores the Byzantines, it could still spread by "missionaries". I however doubt that it would gain much traction.
Any thoughts? disagreement? anything?
I think a big part of the reason Islam spread as quickly and as widely as it has was due to three factors. First, it is a heavily proselytizing religion, and with a very strong militant streak, meaning it sees nothing wrong with conquering in its name. Second, the deplorable state of Byzantine and Persian empires after 20+ years of open warfare, religious persecution of everyone who did not fall in line, and so on, leaving them both open to conquest. Third, conquered people often tend to take on the religious and the social traditions of the conquerors, providing that the conquerors settle in the conquered territories, and form a ruling class that is not quickly overthrown. The fact that in Islam, religion forms a basis for where in a society an individual falls, and conversion is often a way for social advancement of one and one's family, there is an added incentive for the conquered people to convert.
Now, let's do a quick check. If Islamic conquerors ignore Byzantium, where can they go? Without conquest, Islam remains a religion of a rather backward region of the Dark Ages world. There is no incentive for anyone to convert to it, such as trade links, being somewhat attached to a great and powerful civilization, etc etc (see Malay conversion to Islam in OTL as an example of a culture adopting Islam through trade and diplomatic links as opposed to being directly conquered). Much of Islam's eventual advancement was due to its conquest of formerly prosperous and advanced territories, whose culture and sophistication played very much into what is now called the "Golden Age of Islam". Most of those territories were Byzantine and Persian provinces at the time.
Let us figure out first why Arabs ignore Byzantium. If it is because they never managed to unify in first place, then it is safe to assume they are not powerful enough to take on either Byzantium or Persia. Which means Islam as a religion and as an ideology is pretty much stifled at birth, and remains a historical footnote. There are not many other places where the kind of an army the Arabs are likely to wield at the time could be as effective outside of Middle East or North Africa. Not to mention that the experience the Arab commanders gained from fighting Byzantine and Persian forces was sorely needed for the future conquests.
So, if the Arabs do not unite under the flag of Islam, then it remains a regional phenomenon, and not a major threat to either Byzantium, Persia, or anyone else. And without having wealthy, heavily populated, and advanced provinces with their human potential, Golden Age of Islam never starts in first place. Without the Golden Age of Islam, there is very little cultural incentive for anyone to convert to it, and without the resources or control of trade routes that eventual Arab conquests brought, there is very little economic incentive for anyone to convert to Islam. After all, conversion does not open new markets, does not bring new advancements, and does not make one a part of a greater cultural or social sphere in this scenario.
Now, let's presume that Islam DID unify Arabia. This postulates a question of just why would Byzantium be ignored. In order for this to be accomplished, perhaps an earlier, more overwhelming victory against Persia is required, so that the Byzantine forces are not essentially spent by the time of Yarmuk. Or, perhaps, an overwhelming defeat of the Arabs at their initial attempt at invasion would do the trick here. This means that the only places the Arabs can expand to are either Axum, or Persia.
If Axum is their next target, perhaps we can see Islam spreading further into Africa, but then, the question remains as to how long will it be possible to keep it from advancing into the Byzantine territories. If Persia, then consider that the Persians have already been thoroughly defeated by the Byzantines, and will probably fall just as they have IOTL.
For Islam, taking Persia is a better overall thing than taking on Axum. Axum, while relatively powerful for the region, is far from a powerhouse of technological and cultural advancement. Not to mention the generally good relations between the Axumite rulers and early Islamic leaders early on. There is just not much of an incentive to go there.
On the other hand, Persia is still relatively rich, quite advanced, and with quite a few people to form a strong economic and intellectual base. This may lead to Islamic civilization still being quite powerful and advanced down the line, although with more of an Eastern focus. And still it would be very likely to come into conflict with the Byzantines at one point or the other. Of course, given a few more decades, the Byzantines are more likely to recover and prove to be a "stopping block" for the Islamic expansion, which means that one opponent for Byzantium in the region will be simply replaced by another.
Now, what would be interesting to see would be how Islam would develop early on if it does not have any Hellenistic influences, which ignoring Byzantium would certainly cause to happen. Much of what we came to know as Islamic science and philosophy would not come to pass without conquest of formerly Roman territories that possessed foundations for it. Especially if Islam still unified Arabia, conquered Persia, and attempted to expand East, towards India. The implications of that would be quite interesting, especially since at that stage Islam would still be very much in its formative stages (as opposed to the later period, when most of its formative stages were through by the time it conquered enough of India)...
Now, let's do a quick check. If Islamic conquerors ignore Byzantium, where can they go? Without conquest, Islam remains a religion of a rather backward region of the Dark Ages world. There is no incentive for anyone to convert to it, such as trade links, being somewhat attached to a great and powerful civilization, etc etc (see Malay conversion to Islam in OTL as an example of a culture adopting Islam through trade and diplomatic links as opposed to being directly conquered). Much of Islam's eventual advancement was due to its conquest of formerly prosperous and advanced territories, whose culture and sophistication played very much into what is now called the "Golden Age of Islam". Most of those territories were Byzantine and Persian provinces at the time.
Let us figure out first why Arabs ignore Byzantium. If it is because they never managed to unify in first place, then it is safe to assume they are not powerful enough to take on either Byzantium or Persia. Which means Islam as a religion and as an ideology is pretty much stifled at birth, and remains a historical footnote. There are not many other places where the kind of an army the Arabs are likely to wield at the time could be as effective outside of Middle East or North Africa. Not to mention that the experience the Arab commanders gained from fighting Byzantine and Persian forces was sorely needed for the future conquests.
So, if the Arabs do not unite under the flag of Islam, then it remains a regional phenomenon, and not a major threat to either Byzantium, Persia, or anyone else. And without having wealthy, heavily populated, and advanced provinces with their human potential, Golden Age of Islam never starts in first place. Without the Golden Age of Islam, there is very little cultural incentive for anyone to convert to it, and without the resources or control of trade routes that eventual Arab conquests brought, there is very little economic incentive for anyone to convert to Islam. After all, conversion does not open new markets, does not bring new advancements, and does not make one a part of a greater cultural or social sphere in this scenario.
Now, let's presume that Islam DID unify Arabia. This postulates a question of just why would Byzantium be ignored. In order for this to be accomplished, perhaps an earlier, more overwhelming victory against Persia is required, so that the Byzantine forces are not essentially spent by the time of Yarmuk. Or, perhaps, an overwhelming defeat of the Arabs at their initial attempt at invasion would do the trick here. This means that the only places the Arabs can expand to are either Axum, or Persia.
If Axum is their next target, perhaps we can see Islam spreading further into Africa, but then, the question remains as to how long will it be possible to keep it from advancing into the Byzantine territories. If Persia, then consider that the Persians have already been thoroughly defeated by the Byzantines, and will probably fall just as they have IOTL.
For Islam, taking Persia is a better overall thing than taking on Axum. Axum, while relatively powerful for the region, is far from a powerhouse of technological and cultural advancement. Not to mention the generally good relations between the Axumite rulers and early Islamic leaders early on. There is just not much of an incentive to go there.
On the other hand, Persia is still relatively rich, quite advanced, and with quite a few people to form a strong economic and intellectual base. This may lead to Islamic civilization still being quite powerful and advanced down the line, although with more of an Eastern focus. And still it would be very likely to come into conflict with the Byzantines at one point or the other. Of course, given a few more decades, the Byzantines are more likely to recover and prove to be a "stopping block" for the Islamic expansion, which means that one opponent for Byzantium in the region will be simply replaced by another.
Now, what would be interesting to see would be how Islam would develop early on if it does not have any Hellenistic influences, which ignoring Byzantium would certainly cause to happen. Much of what we came to know as Islamic science and philosophy would not come to pass without conquest of formerly Roman territories that possessed foundations for it. Especially if Islam still unified Arabia, conquered Persia, and attempted to expand East, towards India. The implications of that would be quite interesting, especially since at that stage Islam would still be very much in its formative stages (as opposed to the later period, when most of its formative stages were through by the time it conquered enough of India)...
Last edited:
Keenir
Banned
east to where?
Egypt, India, Persia all have Christians. Central Asia at this time...not sure.
Indian Ocean doesn't, though...viking/polynesian-style Muslims?
Just remember that the Arab conquests were not unlike any other barbarian conquest before them. They inhertied much of Byzantine and Classical culture after they've taken-over. If they drive better into India or China, you'd get a first-wave of Islamic scholars influenced not by Plato, but by Confucius.
Well, considering that at the time North Africa was Christian and part of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire I would have to say that's a no.
Flocculencio
Donor
Actually, in a book I just read, The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy, the author's sources indicate that initially the Muslims were willing to deal with other Peoples of the Book by receiving tribute from them. The initial Muslim invasion of the Byzantine Levant was triggered by Heraclius refusing to authorise payment. The invasion succeeded in part because those provinces had just been recaptured by Heraclius from Persian rule and thus had a large proportion of the population who had never before lived under Byzantine rule and felt no allegiance to the Emperor. Also, the non-Orthodox sects of Christianity were especially resentful because of the recent loss of the relative privileges they had enjoyed under Persian rule.
Perhaps you could have a POD where Heraclius decides to err on the side of caution and continues the payments, thus buying time to consolidate his reconquered Levantine provinces. Now, the early Caliphate must expand or collapse since all the energies of overpopulatd Arabia need to be directed somewhere. In this case, the Muslims might well concentrate on the Sassanids. Although Zoroastrians were later pragmatically accepted as People of the Book, this wasn't the case until after the conquest and as such they might be seen as the more important target.
With a generation to consolidate, and with the initial energy of the Islamic conquest totally directed into Iran and Central Asia perhaps the Byzantines have a chance to hold the Levant. Once the Caliphate made the transition to an actual Imperial government, it might be natural for them to step into the shoes of the Persians. Perhaps we'd see a situation develop where the Caliphate is ore focused on it's Iranian and Iraqi territories and the Transjordan simply becomes a no-man's-land where the Byzantines and Muslims raid and counter-raid just as during the days of the Persians.
Perhaps you could have a POD where Heraclius decides to err on the side of caution and continues the payments, thus buying time to consolidate his reconquered Levantine provinces. Now, the early Caliphate must expand or collapse since all the energies of overpopulatd Arabia need to be directed somewhere. In this case, the Muslims might well concentrate on the Sassanids. Although Zoroastrians were later pragmatically accepted as People of the Book, this wasn't the case until after the conquest and as such they might be seen as the more important target.
With a generation to consolidate, and with the initial energy of the Islamic conquest totally directed into Iran and Central Asia perhaps the Byzantines have a chance to hold the Levant. Once the Caliphate made the transition to an actual Imperial government, it might be natural for them to step into the shoes of the Persians. Perhaps we'd see a situation develop where the Caliphate is ore focused on it's Iranian and Iraqi territories and the Transjordan simply becomes a no-man's-land where the Byzantines and Muslims raid and counter-raid just as during the days of the Persians.
Last edited:
I'd say no - they'd have to get past Axum, the deserts and mountains between the Red Sea and the Nile (which were coincidentally the territory of the Beja - a fierce, nomadic Christian African people) and the Christian Nubian kingdoms for that.
Simply conquering Egypt would be much easier.
Only the 18th? Surely the 1848 revolutions would be Byzantiums downfall? Or if it survives those, World War One?
Flocculencio
Donor
So, no thoughts about the more fluid nature of early Islam with regard to Peoples of the Book and the possible implications of this for an Islamic expansion directed mainly into Asia?
What happens is that the Byzantines grow stronger and turn their greedy eyes towards Islamic regions. Afterwards, the Muslims can no longer ignore the Byzantines.
The battle was inevitable.