What would the world like like today if their was no islam? Say Mohammad either converted to a form of Christianity or died before his conversion.
Modern world with No Islam
- Thread starter Arch-Angel
- Start date
Interesting, but I was speaking more in terms of borders and nations.
My current ideas:
-Kingdom of Jerusalem?
-Rather than second songs of nobles going to the middle east they flock to North America when its discovered?
-slower tech development/slower exploration?
-larger nations in the middle east under some form of Christianity?
My current ideas:
-Kingdom of Jerusalem?
-Rather than second songs of nobles going to the middle east they flock to North America when its discovered?
-slower tech development/slower exploration?
-larger nations in the middle east under some form of Christianity?
Arch-Angel said:
Without islam I think jerusalem would have been overrun from the east or south after the eastern empire fell. I doubt the jews would have been strong enough to hold it at that point in time. The Christians may well have still held crusades to take and keep the holy land no matter who controlled it. I can also see the big 3 (francs, germans and english) fighting with each other to control the holy land.
I am not sure there would have been much slower tech devevelopment as most of the technologies the christians got from the muslim world were already known by the time of muhammed or came from the east and most likely would have been had by who ever was invading from the east. If we didn't have problems with who was controlling the holy lands I think westward exploration might have gone faster
It is hard to say what kind of nations would hold the middle east, but I think it would most likely be just as many or more nations due to tribal concerns.
David S Poepoe
Banned
What would be the possibility that Zoroastrianism, and other such religions, would survive to rival Christianity?
David S Poepoe said:
I think several of the minority religions would have survived better, would they rival christianity, that is questionable. Religions that were harshly treated by the muslims such as zoroastrianism would have done better but some religions/sects such as the gnostics that were harshly treated when they weren't harrasing muslims may well have disapeared.
How would Byzantium fall? It would take quite a bit of time before any European Continent could rival it if it was never attacked by the Islamic Empire... And what happens to the Turks? Do they become Christians, and if so, will they attack Byzantium, or are they simply allowed in?
Also, without Islam, the Middle East is controlled by Byzantium. However, the Middle Easterners were tired of intolerence of Monphysite Chrisitianity.. Could they break away and form a Kingdom of Syria or something?
Also, without Islam, the Middle East is controlled by Byzantium. However, the Middle Easterners were tired of intolerence of Monphysite Chrisitianity.. Could they break away and form a Kingdom of Syria or something?
NapoleonXIV
Banned
The world is about at a technical level 100 years below the present.
China/Japan (3 major civilizations, China, Mongolia and Japan occupy about the same cultural niches as France, Germany and England in OTL) is the de facto world Hegemon. This is due to her grabbing the gold ring of explosive modernization in the 10thc. She was able to do this because she did not have to fight off Islamic invaders in the eighth and ninth centuries. However, her progress has been slower because she has had to discover many technical/scientific events which Europe leapfrogged from Islamic advances. Also, much more of the ancients was lost in the Darkness.
Europe, without the unifying and civilizing effects of the Crusades, disintergrated into a series of smaller and smaller fratricidal states. Roads, commerce, cities and finally even villages disappeared as all vestiges of civilization decayed. A tiny recovery began in the 13thc but was cut short by the climactic and epidemiological catastrophes of the 14th.
By the latter 14thc Europe became the Northern outpost of the Songhai Empire. This conquest raised them above the tribal level they had sunk to and commerce began to revive. However, the Songhai was a typical short-lived kingdom. In 1421 it became the first major conquest of the Great Fleet sent out by the Chinese. This same fleet also discovered the Americas. Five centuries later the staid old mandarins of California and Oregon (indian names, I believe, so they wouldn't change) are trying to come to terms with the freethinkers just moving into an area they call Green Mountain and the other cold and poorly soiled regions of the area we call New England
Much else has, of course, happened since then.
but Europe remains a severely disadvantaged area, cut into colonies totally dominated by its Chinese and Japanese masters, an Ancient and backward country, lost in dreams of its former, and now nearly mythical, Roman glory. Christian fundamentalism is a new and increasingly violent force menacing the Great Buddhindi Peace, the world's dominant and guiding religious movement for nearly 200 years
China/Japan (3 major civilizations, China, Mongolia and Japan occupy about the same cultural niches as France, Germany and England in OTL) is the de facto world Hegemon. This is due to her grabbing the gold ring of explosive modernization in the 10thc. She was able to do this because she did not have to fight off Islamic invaders in the eighth and ninth centuries. However, her progress has been slower because she has had to discover many technical/scientific events which Europe leapfrogged from Islamic advances. Also, much more of the ancients was lost in the Darkness.
Europe, without the unifying and civilizing effects of the Crusades, disintergrated into a series of smaller and smaller fratricidal states. Roads, commerce, cities and finally even villages disappeared as all vestiges of civilization decayed. A tiny recovery began in the 13thc but was cut short by the climactic and epidemiological catastrophes of the 14th.
By the latter 14thc Europe became the Northern outpost of the Songhai Empire. This conquest raised them above the tribal level they had sunk to and commerce began to revive. However, the Songhai was a typical short-lived kingdom. In 1421 it became the first major conquest of the Great Fleet sent out by the Chinese. This same fleet also discovered the Americas. Five centuries later the staid old mandarins of California and Oregon (indian names, I believe, so they wouldn't change) are trying to come to terms with the freethinkers just moving into an area they call Green Mountain and the other cold and poorly soiled regions of the area we call New England
Much else has, of course, happened since then.
but Europe remains a severely disadvantaged area, cut into colonies totally dominated by its Chinese and Japanese masters, an Ancient and backward country, lost in dreams of its former, and now nearly mythical, Roman glory. Christian fundamentalism is a new and increasingly violent force menacing the Great Buddhindi Peace, the world's dominant and guiding religious movement for nearly 200 yearsI think we're assuming too much about the association between Islam and militant Arabism. You can take Islam away from the Arab, give him Christianity and still have him explode onto the world stage with similar results. It is possible to argue that the 7th-8th C irruption was as much a coming of age for the Arab 'nation' as it was an Islamic conquest of a spiritually bankrupt infidel world.
Furthermore, you could argue that it is more a case of Omar having his date with destiny than Mohammed. If you hold that greatness will not be denied, then Omars construction of a theocratic world-empire could as easily be dressed in the clothes of a nationalized Christendom with Omar as King. Arabic invasion routes would follow the OTL ones and before you know it you have a three way clash of churches with the Papacy, Patriachy and [insert Arab church here], with the latter in control of Jerusalem.
History needn't be bent too much out of shape as the various peoples (Mongols, Turks etc) can still turn up on schedule. The religious map of the world may be slightly murkier as Christians engage in idealogical bloodletting and we see more of the Fourth and Albigensian Crusades than the First or Third, but on the whole things are quite recognizable.
Croesus
Furthermore, you could argue that it is more a case of Omar having his date with destiny than Mohammed. If you hold that greatness will not be denied, then Omars construction of a theocratic world-empire could as easily be dressed in the clothes of a nationalized Christendom with Omar as King. Arabic invasion routes would follow the OTL ones and before you know it you have a three way clash of churches with the Papacy, Patriachy and [insert Arab church here], with the latter in control of Jerusalem.
History needn't be bent too much out of shape as the various peoples (Mongols, Turks etc) can still turn up on schedule. The religious map of the world may be slightly murkier as Christians engage in idealogical bloodletting and we see more of the Fourth and Albigensian Crusades than the First or Third, but on the whole things are quite recognizable.
Croesus
Nestorian Christian missionaries from Persia were doing well in some parts of Arabia pre-Islam. They had a monastery in Bahrain and some of the eastern Arabs (incl. King Naman III) were Christians.
Perhaps armies of Arab horsemen ride to the rescue of persecuted Nestorians in the Byzantine Empire?
Perhaps armies of Arab horsemen ride to the rescue of persecuted Nestorians in the Byzantine Empire?
Leo Caesius
Banned
Actually, I have a timeline in the works along this line. The "eruption" out of Arabia actually happened at several points in the history of the region - the Akkadians, the Amorites, the Aramaeans, and finally the Arabs. Interestingly, each of these groups represents a cross section of Semitic as it developed, and each belongs to a different group within the language family (East Semitic, West Semitic, Northwest Semitic, and Central Semitic). They all originated in the same region, AFAWK.Croesus said:
I don't want to give too much away, but my timeline involves a stronger Manichaeism, a Nabataean prophet (Salih of the tribe of Thamud) who adopts it, and a slightly earlier Arabian eruption which conquers much of the territory occupied by the Umayyads. In this timeline, there is no Islam, but the Salihi sect of Manichaeism (a Gnostic "heresy" that derives from the third century CE) covers the territory conquered by Islam and then some. The spread of a Gnostic religion, which was a rival to Christianity long before the coming of Islam, and to a greater degree than Islam in many regards, has a profound impact upon the internal politics of Christianity - resulting in a very different church than the one to which we're accustomed.
I've put a lot of thought into this Gnostic Nabataean Timeline, but I have to finish a chapter of my dissertation before I start hammering out the details.
Leo Caesius said:
They certainly did. While the different time periods make comparison of their relative impacts difficult, the Islamic wave had the most profound effect (IMHO).
[/QUOTE]
I don't want to give too much away, but my timeline involves a stronger Manichaeism, a Nabataean prophet (Salih of the tribe of Thamud) who adopts it, and a slightly earlier Arabian eruption which conquers much of the territory occupied by the Umayyads. In this timeline, there is no Islam, but the Salihi sect of Manichaeism (a Gnostic "heresy" that derives from the third century CE) covers the territory conquered by Islam and then some. The spread of a Gnostic religion, which was a rival to Christianity long before the coming of Islam, and to a greater degree than Islam in many regards, has a profound impact upon the internal politics of Christianity - resulting in a very different church than the one to which we're accustomed.
[/QUOTE]
Intriguing. It would seem that we're playing with the same fire. I have a TL where the Temple in Jerusalem defies one Seleucid too many and ends up getting deposed in favour of a more pliable theocracy: one where Jeshua/Jesus is recognized by the Samaritans as their messiah Taheb and who thence find that his teachings transform their hitherto minor faith and launches them onto the world stage. The missionary activities of this proto-christianity takes them into the heart of the Arabian peninsula and, armed with monotheistic fire, the Arabs emerge much as they do OTL.
I like the Mani and Nabataean angles.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours...
Croesus
Leo Caesius
Banned
You're going to scoff at me, but the Arewordik' ("Children of the Sun," a group of sun-worshippers in Armenia) survived until modern times. One of them recently died here in a Massachusetts hospital. For most of history, they were relatively unmolested, even though they did not profess Christianity, as they kept to themselves. They lived in secret, and so there's no telling how many of them survive today, if any. The problem is, like a lot of "heresies" in Armenia, it's difficult to tell if we're dealing with the survival of a chthonic religion or an actual Christian heresy.Matt Quinn said:
There's also the amusing heresy of the Popuzians. Epiphanius tells of a Cappadocian prophetess by the name of Quintilla, who had a dream in which she became a man and then had sex with Jesus Christ (this is in his Panarion or "Medicine Chest" of heresies).
Leo Caesius
Banned
That sounds very intriguing. I want to see more theological/religious what-ifs that don't center around carving up the Ottoman Empire or eliminating Christianity/Islam entirely (even if that's what I propose to do) but it's always a bit of a sensitive topic here. I'm a field linguist, but I research the last surviving Gnostic tradition (which itself is pre-Islamic and probably pre-Christian) so I've been doing a lot of reading on the early Church and the various Gnostic "heresies" lately. Right now I have my thumb in Yamauchi's Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, and I've just read Jonas' The Gnostic Religion.Croesus said:Intriguing. It would seem that we're playing with the same fire. I have a TL where the Temple in Jerusalem defies one Seleucid too many and ends up getting deposed in favour of a more pliable theocracy: one where Jeshua/Jesus is recognized by the Samaritans as their messiah Taheb and who thence find that his teachings transform their hitherto minor faith and launches them onto the world stage. The missionary activities of this proto-christianity takes them into the heart of the Arabian peninsula and, armed with monotheistic fire, the Arabs emerge much as they do OTL.
I like the Mani and Nabataean angles.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours...
Croesus
One of the things I wanted to experiment with was an alternate Nicaea. To a large extent, Nicaea was a compromise between different interpretations of Christianity who were unified against Arianism and other heresies. If the major challenge facing the early church was not Arianism but some other more more pressing heresy, then the Confession of Eusebius of Nicomedia (which was the first submitted) might have been better received, and Arius himself might not have been sent into exile. While the Arians, like the Nestorians and the Jacobites, would probably not be tolerated by the "orthodox" church for long, they might have more of an impact in the formative stages - with the result that the early church would have a different creed and the history of its formation (and the canonization of the Bible) might go differently. John might be dumped in favor of some other gospel, or the triumph of the Gnostic sects might cause the "orthodox" church to become more judaizing. Anyways, it's all terribly academic and so I wanted to throw in some good wars and bizarre mystical sects to keep people stimulated.
Leo Caesius said:
Kewl. The longer the Arians remain at the table, the greater their chances of becoming orthodox. Then again, if you have some very whacked out fringe beliefs the whole orthodox question may become moot and you find yourself with a splintered, non-unifiable Christianity right from the get go.
If the differences are significant enough and early enough then I'd expect not just a different bible, but several different bibles. And given such a thing, there raises the possibility of contemporary Henry VIII's hijacking the process and turning a religious debate into a 'nationalized' conflict. We see it with Constantinople v Rome; why not Antioch, Alexandria or Babylon? All you need is one or two powerful monarchs (i.e. a Constantine) and things can get very different very quickly.
Heresy is defined in relation to orthodoxy, and a strong orthodoxy at that. Given enough differences you may be able to sidestep Nicaea entirely. Unless that's not an aim. In which case you may have to tone things down slightly to obtain the orthodoxy. The other side of the coin is that if you do have a splintered faith, then those beliefs christianity supplanted otl get a longer shelf life.
Very murky, and very attractive. Though thinking about, the centralising principle would suggest that at some point an easily accessible, problem-solving belief system will come along and mop up the others. Whats more the 44 magnum of monotheism has a lot more competition and may end up as a 22 short.
Epicureanism anyone?
Croesus
Check out Harry Turtledove's Agent of Byzantium. In this world, Mohammed coverted to Christianity, and the Eastern Empire rose to be a world power. Zoroastrianism took the place of Islam, as the Sassanid Empire was their greatest rival. The world was in the 1500's, I think, but they were two hundred years ahead of OTL, so they had the technology of the 1700's.