The Persians would never survive in the east. They had only superficial control over these territories which soon melted down into individual cities run by Princes or in the case of Southern Afghanistan the Zunbils. Why would the Arabs simply stop there? These sorts of silly things never take into account the Arabs aren't blundering idiots.
Islam Christian Switch
- Thread starter PoeFacedKilla
- Start date
I'm talking about Persia itself, with only the ex-Roman territories falling to the Arabs.
And about the Arabs' strategic choices, they recognize the Greeks groaning under Avar despotism would be a good target, while Persia is much stronger.
(It doesn't get ravaged by multiple civil wars in TTL--there's an attempt by one of the Shah's sons to secede in Constantinople, but that doesn't destroy Persian society as much as OTL's king-after-king-after-king situation did.)
(It doesn't get ravaged by multiple civil wars in TTL--there's an attempt by one of the Shah's sons to secede in Constantinople, but that doesn't destroy Persian society as much as OTL's king-after-king-after-king situation did.)
Why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
OTL saw the Persians regaining territory lost to the Arabs and that was Persia that had been greatly weakened by defeats at Roman hands and civil war.
And then there's this OTL battle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qadisiyyah
This went on for days and there're plenty of PODs in which the Persians could have won. And again, that's a greatly weakened Persia.
Please don't patronise me on matters pertaining to the Eastern Roman Empire when your own knowledge, as can plainly be seen from your ill-informed statements on the non-Chalcedonian communities within the Empire, is far from up to scratch.
True enough that Christianity was relatively deeply ingrained in western European culture by the eighth century- but it was equally, if not moreso, ingrained in the culture of Egypt and Syria- and, for that matter, eleventh century Anatolia and the fourteenth century Balkans. None of this stopped Islam from gaining a strong and long-lasting hold over these regions. If the Muslims can conquer these areas, they can conquer Western Europe. Though I'd agree with you that such expansion is unlikely to come under a centralised Caliphate.
You could also have a scenario where the Muslim empire in the Middle East/Asia falls apart because of a more extensive civil war around the year 750. Again, go with the Tours scenario so that Europe becomes Muslim. Around 750 the Umayyad Caliphate collapses into civil war as IOTL, but neither the Abassids nor any other group succeeds in keeping control. Instead, the ummah descends into anarchy with no reognized leader. Besides the Ummayad and Abassids, there are other contenders who spring up in the chaos. The Shi'ites and Kharijites also rebel. A series of disasters follow.
Central Asia deals the Muslim armies a defeat which causes Islam to collapse in that region. Either the native Turks win, or the Chinese intervene and win in a reverse Battle of Talas (historically in 751).
In Anatolia, a revived Byzantium under Constantine V (ruled 741 to 775) is more successful than IOTL as there is less united opposition. He restores Byzantine authority throughout Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine. He or his successors use this as the basis to later reconquer Egypt and even Mesopotamia. Georgia and Armenia are restored by local rebellions.
With the richest provinces now in the hands of their enemies, Muslim power collapses in the Middle East. Native Persians rebel and throw out the Arab invaders. They turn their back on the foreign religion. Instead, the new Persian state adopts Nestorian Christianity to distinguish itself from the Byzantines, the Arabs, and the failed Sassanid Dynasty.
Islam probably survives in the Hedjaz and Arabia given the unprofitability of invading that region, but its power is broken in Asia. However, the Muslims still control northwestern Africa and Spain. A new caliphate emerges in Western Europe that eventually dominates that region. The Byzantines are not able to extend their reach deep into Europe since they are dealing with the Bulgars and a revived Persia. Italy probably becomes a battle ground between the Byzantines and European Muslims. Perhaps with a deal where Rome is kept safe in return for the Byzantines not despoiling Mecca.
The Muslim Conquests were extensive, but not very deep. For a long time, the majority of the population in the Caliphate retained their original religion (especially in the Christian areas). If the Muslims do not retain their military superiority, the local population would be willing to accept whomever moves in next. They are not especially loyal to their Muslim overlords. It took prolonged Muslim rule to turn those socities into majority Muslim lands. I think it wasn't until just before the Crusades that Muslims constituted the majority of many of the former Byzantines provinces. Around 750, there aren't enough roots to truly make the area Muslim except by military occupation.
Central Asia deals the Muslim armies a defeat which causes Islam to collapse in that region. Either the native Turks win, or the Chinese intervene and win in a reverse Battle of Talas (historically in 751).
In Anatolia, a revived Byzantium under Constantine V (ruled 741 to 775) is more successful than IOTL as there is less united opposition. He restores Byzantine authority throughout Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine. He or his successors use this as the basis to later reconquer Egypt and even Mesopotamia. Georgia and Armenia are restored by local rebellions.
With the richest provinces now in the hands of their enemies, Muslim power collapses in the Middle East. Native Persians rebel and throw out the Arab invaders. They turn their back on the foreign religion. Instead, the new Persian state adopts Nestorian Christianity to distinguish itself from the Byzantines, the Arabs, and the failed Sassanid Dynasty.
Islam probably survives in the Hedjaz and Arabia given the unprofitability of invading that region, but its power is broken in Asia. However, the Muslims still control northwestern Africa and Spain. A new caliphate emerges in Western Europe that eventually dominates that region. The Byzantines are not able to extend their reach deep into Europe since they are dealing with the Bulgars and a revived Persia. Italy probably becomes a battle ground between the Byzantines and European Muslims. Perhaps with a deal where Rome is kept safe in return for the Byzantines not despoiling Mecca.
The Muslim Conquests were extensive, but not very deep. For a long time, the majority of the population in the Caliphate retained their original religion (especially in the Christian areas). If the Muslims do not retain their military superiority, the local population would be willing to accept whomever moves in next. They are not especially loyal to their Muslim overlords. It took prolonged Muslim rule to turn those socities into majority Muslim lands. I think it wasn't until just before the Crusades that Muslims constituted the majority of many of the former Byzantines provinces. Around 750, there aren't enough roots to truly make the area Muslim except by military occupation.