If not for the dominance of Islam would North Africa and the Levant region be viewed as more interconnected to Europe?

During the height of the Roman period and for some time after I believe, the whole Mediterranean area was seen more as an interconnected region than as a border area as it is now.

Was it actually a quirk of the rise of Islam that this split happened? Would there have a been more of an interconnected development of Europe, North Africa and the Near East?
 
I mean it's not like it wasn't interconnected already. There were extensive trade links between the Middle East and Europe even after the former went Muslim, with Middle Eastern architecture, fashion, cuisines, etc. having a huge influence on Europe at the time. Do you mean that the Middle East is seen as less of an "other" by Europe? That could be possible, but there will still be significant differences. While the Eastern Roman Emperors definitely tried to create a sense of loyalty of those regions to the empire by bringing their Churches into communion with Constantinople, many Christians in the region, especially in places like Egypt, split with what would eventually become Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in the 400s and would eventually be seen as heretical by Christians in Europe. There's also Persia to consider, and whatever steppe cultures like the Turks and Mongols come out of Central Asia. If any of those groups can conquer the Levant for a significant period of time they will pull it further out of the orbit of Europe.

I think without Islam what you're likely to see is a Middle East Levant that doesn't stay under East Roman domination as the empire weakens, and that is likely to be seen as "other" in the same way Catholic Europe viewed the Eastern Orthodox states like Byzantium and Russia. Christian, but not the right kind of Christian and thus not fully "us."
 
They would still be regarded as different, but only to the extent Greeks, southern Italians or Armenians are, looked down upon to some extent in north western Europe, especially as first generation immigrants, but, unlike OTL Muslims from the same regions, considered principally integratable into our society instead of the looming threat of Eurabia they are all too often seen as IOTL.
 
Last edited:
During the height of the Roman period and for some time after I believe, the whole Mediterranean area was seen more as an interconnected region than as a border area as it is now.

Was it actually a quirk of the rise of Islam that this split happened? Would there have a been more of an interconnected development of Europe, North Africa and the Near East?
Nope, people tend to be very condescending with foreigners, specially when looks far different from themselves, that already happened in Roman era to begin with.
 
Nope, people tend to be very condescending with foreigners, specially when looks far different from themselves, that already happened in Roman era to begin with.
I mean I don't know if I'd say Mediterranean based people on both sides on the Mediterranean look "far different" from each other. I feel most of the separation has come from culture and customs than pure physical difference.

It gets complicated with regards to the racial theories that emerged in the 19th century when southern Euros like Italians and Greeks were seen as racially separate from Nordic and Germanic Europeans.
 
I mean I don't know if I'd say Mediterranean based people on both sides on the Mediterranean look "far different" from each other. I feel most of the separation has come from culture and customs than pure physical difference.

It gets complicated with regards to the racial theories that emerged in the 19th century when southern Euros like Italians and Greeks were seen as racially separate from Nordic and Germanic Europeans.
I would say the opposite if Muslims conquered more Mediterranean areas... what is Europe them? or the definition would have extended? or Europe ends at the alps now?
 
See, the 'split' between Middle East and Europe and, by some attachment, between North Africa and Europe begins in the ancient world. Edward Said placed the origins of Orientalism rather specifically with the Aeschylus' 'Persians'. Certainly, there's a concept of the 'East' as somehow being the other in regards to the western world and during Antiquity, something similar is applied to Carthage and other North African states. This is all long before Islam so the perceived division already existed.
 
While the Eastern Roman Emperors definitely tried to create a sense of loyalty of those regions to the empire by bringing their Churches into communion with Constantinople, many Christians in the region, especially in places like Egypt, split with what would eventually become Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in the 400s and would eventually be seen as heretical by Christians in Europe. There's also Persia to consider, and whatever steppe cultures like the Turks and Mongols come out of Central Asia. If any of those groups can conquer the Levant for a significant period of time they will pull it further out of the orbit of Europe.
true how ever north africa beyond egypt was chalcedonian and more latin than greek (refering to areas around carthage even though the lybian bend area was also chalcedonian the persians its quite unlikely for some time as for the levant assuming a turkish group conquers it with out islam who is to say they dont assimilate more?
 
See, the 'split' between Middle East and Europe and, by some attachment, between North Africa and Europe begins in the ancient world. Edward Said placed the origins of Orientalism rather specifically with the Aeschylus' 'Persians'. Certainly, there's a concept of the 'East' as somehow being the other in regards to the western world and during Antiquity, something similar is applied to Carthage and other North African states. This is all long before Islam so the perceived division already existed.
But from the Greek/Roman persoective, this defect was at least to some extent healed by the hellenisation of the Levant and Egypt post Alexander the Great's conquests and the romanisation of North Africa post the Roman conquest after the third Punic War.
 
During the height of the Roman period and for some time after I believe, the whole Mediterranean area was seen more as an interconnected region than as a border area as it is now.

Was it actually a quirk of the rise of Islam that this split happened? Would there have a been more of an interconnected development of Europe, North Africa and the Near East?
In pre-modern times, waterways are almost always highways rather than walls. So almost certainly yes. In fact, this is the thesis of one of the more influential books on the Early Middle Ages--"Mohammad and Charlemagne," by Henri Pirenne. Pirenne wrote that Islam, by turning the Mediterranean into a hostile sea, cut Gaul/France off from a large part of the civilized world and caused a pre-Charlemagne decline in the local economy.
 
true how ever north africa beyond egypt was chalcedonian and more latin than greek (refering to areas around carthage even though the lybian bend area was also chalcedonian the persians its quite unlikely for some time as for the levant assuming a turkish group conquers it with out islam who is to say they dont assimilate more?

I mean if the butterflies flap their wings a lot could happen. New Persian dynasty could be much better at securing that territory than the previous ones had been. Roman Africa might be considered part of whatever idea of "Europe/The West/Christendom" eventually develops, but it could also be seen as a peripheral part like Poland eventually would be.

With respect to invading nomadic tribes, it's true they could assimilate but what culture would they assimilate to? That of the majority of the conquered populace or that of the former rulers of the territory who the majority of their conquered populace hates? There would be a strong incentive to play up any differences between the conquered population of the Levant and their former rulers in Constantinople to prevent a fifth column from forming. I'm not saying it's the only scenario but it seems the most likely one.
 
The pre-Islamic Maghreb part of North Africa was close to the Iberian Peninsula and Italy culturally and religiously. Likewise the Levant was in the Byzantine Empire as was Egypt. Barring regional variations, they would be influenced by Mediterranean Europe. Not completely dominated, but definitely in the sphere of influence.
 
I mean if the butterflies flap their wings a lot could happen. New Persian dynasty could be much better at securing that territory than the previous ones had been. Roman Africa might be considered part of whatever idea of "Europe/The West/Christendom" eventually develops, but it could also be seen as a peripheral part like Poland eventually would be.

With respect to invading nomadic tribes, it's true they could assimilate but what culture would they assimilate to? That of the majority of the conquered populace or that of the former rulers of the territory who the majority of their conquered populace hates? There would be a strong incentive to play up any differences between the conquered population of the Levant and their former rulers in Constantinople to prevent a fifth column from forming. I'm not saying it's the only scenario but it seems the most likely one.
Could be even though not likely the sasanid empiren collapse would be situation closer to the collapse of the ilkhanate and who knows what group interal or not wins and when it does it has to deal with rome who despite been exhausted was still under one good ruler and good successors

the turks , the iberians albanians and armenians ( who all rulers became allies of the Byzantine empire after heraclius defeated them ) and the tang to the east so the new dynasty has to wait ( it would not be doing any conquest soon but they later it might be a possibility so yeah

Also assuming the turks come in the 11th century as the otl the Byzantine empire after would have ruled the entire of the levant for 4 centuries more
Parts of the levant were greek speaking with more nearly 5 centuries who is to say this doesn't continue to the south ?

Even assuming if a counter culture develops it's more likely they adopt aramic culture rather they become than imposing a new culture in a climate and place that doesn't suit their lifestyle unlike Anatolia
 
In pre-modern times, waterways are almost always highways rather than walls. So almost certainly yes. In fact, this is the thesis of one of the more influential books on the Early Middle Ages--"Mohammad and Charlemagne," by Henri Pirenne. Pirenne wrote that Islam, by turning the Mediterranean into a hostile sea, cut Gaul/France off from a large part of the civilized world and caused a pre-Charlemagne decline in the local economy.
Pirenne's thesis implies that there was an abrupt severing of a heavily interconnected Mediterranean economy in the seventh century by an unified horde of inexplicably successful islamic invaders. In truth, when the Muslims sallied westward, they do not seem to have encountered much resistance and by the time they reached Spain they were practically waltzing in unopposed.
If the Mediterranean post-Roman world was as interconnected as Pirenne makes it out to have been, the cities of Egypt, North Africa, Italy and Spain would have levied a concerted, organized effort to beat back the Muslim invaders and maintain their stability of trade, but that didn't actually happen. This instead gives credence to the notion that the Mediterranean economic sphere was already in decline and had been since the Vandal invasions or so.

My two cents is that without an islamic invasion and assuming similar developments to our world these areas in the southern Med would end up being seen by the northern Europeans as... not much more familiar than they are in OTL, honestly. The Lebanese Maronites, Armenians, and Amharic Ethiopians are mostly Christian yet not considered any less foreign to Europe than their neighbors. Foreign-ness and familiarity of identity are a primarily political phenomenon, so it depends on what sort of relations these Mediterranean Christian state societies will develop.
 
Pirenne's thesis implies that there was an abrupt severing of a heavily interconnected Mediterranean economy in the seventh century by an unified horde of inexplicably successful islamic invaders. In truth, when the Muslims sallied westward, they do not seem to have encountered much resistance and by the time they reached Spain they were practically waltzing in unopposed.
If the Mediterranean post-Roman world was as interconnected as Pirenne makes it out to have been, the cities of Egypt, North Africa, Italy and Spain would have levied a concerted, organized effort to beat back the Muslim invaders and maintain their stability of trade, but that didn't actually happen. This instead gives credence to the notion that the Mediterranean economic sphere was already in decline and had been since the Vandal invasions or so.

My two cents is that without an islamic invasion and assuming similar developments to our world these areas in the southern Med would end up being seen by the northern Europeans as... not much more familiar than they are in OTL, honestly. The Lebanese Maronites, Armenians, and Amharic Ethiopians are mostly Christian yet not considered any less foreign to Europe than their neighbors. Foreign-ness and familiarity of identity are a primarily political phenomenon, so it depends on what sort of relations these Mediterranean Christian state societies will develop.
???most of the mediterrenian was own by the byzantines and they did put resistance also they reached spain unpossed because there was civil war going on , the muslims did encounter resitance in north africa in fact from the conquest of parts of it in 640s it was not completed till the early 700s the whole of the persian empire resisted less than north africa ,the mediterrenian as whole was declining since byzantuim own much of it and it by the early 630s was not in good state.

"The Lebanese Maronites, Armenians, and Amharic Ethiopians are mostly Christian yet not considered any less foreign to Europe than their neighbors." maybe because they are dominated or surrounded by arab or muslims states?
 
???most of the mediterrenian was own by the byzantines and they did put resistance also they reached spain unpossed because there was civil war going on , the muslims did encounter resitance in north africa in fact from the conquest of parts of it in 640s it was not completed till the early 700s the whole of the persian empire resisted less than north africa ,the mediterrenian as whole was declining since byzantuim own much of it and it by the early 630s was not in good state.
This comment does not really contradict my hypothesis? There was resistance in North Africa, yes, but it came from the Berber tribes of the interior, not from the coastal Roman elites who mostly went over to the Arabs for protection and economic opportunity. Likewise in Spain, the warring factions of the dynastic civil war would have set aside their differences and united around a claimant that'd be able to expel the Muslim invader -- as we know, all that was left of the Christian resistance after Guadalete were just mountain statelets to the north. There must have been dissatisfaction among the elites and the average population of Spain against their Visigothic overlords that resulted in them turning to the Muslims as a party that could offer more in return.
"The Lebanese Maronites, Armenians, and Amharic Ethiopians are mostly Christian yet not considered any less foreign to Europe than their neighbors." maybe because they are dominated or surrounded by arab or muslims states?
Or maybe because we are looking at such things from a rather antiquated and essentialist "civilization clash" perspective. Alternate history boards like this tend to be fond of such preconceived, grandiose notions of history as perpetrated by opportunistic statesmen, when in reality, the "islamic world" is very diverse and European unity tends to get rough around the edges. An undivided Mediterranean Christian world would have been very large and, assuming the development nationalism as OTL, conducive to regional estrangements that would complicate wholesale unity.
 
Last edited:
This comment does not really contradict my hypothesis? There was resistance in North Africa, yes, but it came from the Berber tribes of the interior, not from the coastal Roman elites
consider the fact that the exchart of africa was defeated in Sufetula in 647 yet carthage and the exarch fell in 695... the romans played a big role bigger than most berber tribes ( the south western ones ) and contributed to the berber resitance aiding them ( even though a formal bigger aliance was screwd do to gregory) your downplaying or dare i say flatout ignoring the byzantine role in ressiting the expasion of the caliphate to north africa heck one can argue had it not been for the 20 years anarchy the romans could have held on the parts of africa they governed for more time.

Likewise in Spain, the warring factions of the dynastic civil war would have set aside their differences and united around a claimant that'd be able to expel the Muslim invader
they kind of did many of the rivals (and by some accounts aquila himself ) joined the king to the souther march and betrayed him on the filed for reasons unknow , visiogthic spain was already dealing with problems since before the civil war also there mountian tribes were the only successful resitance
the uyameds sent another invasion with 18 thousand troops, who then defeated Roderick's supporters at Mérida as for the natives and other tribes sure they did not like the visigoths but i have not found anything that suggest they " resulted in them turning to the Muslims" this just sounds like the myth that the copts helped the arabs but in spain.
Or maybe because we are looking at such things from a rather antiquated and essentialist "civilization clash" perspective. Alternate history boards like this tend to be fond of such preconceived, grandiose notions of history as perpetrated by opportunistic statesmen, when in reality, the "islamic world" is very diverse and European unity tends to get rough around the edges. An undivided Mediterranean Christian world would have been very large and, assuming the development nationalism as OTL, conducive to regional estrangements that would complicate wholesale unity.
if anything europe divides on a latin west and greek east as its seperation as for civilization clash its not accurate but people have used it as such in their mythos , things devolp what it meant to be a european has shifted alot in the past 2 centuries alone.
 
Pirenne's thesis implies that there was an abrupt severing of a heavily interconnected Mediterranean economy in the seventh century by an unified horde of inexplicably successful islamic invaders. In truth, when the Muslims sallied westward, they do not seem to have encountered much resistance and by the time they reached Spain they were practically waltzing in unopposed.
If the Mediterranean post-Roman world was as interconnected as Pirenne makes it out to have been, the cities of Egypt, North Africa, Italy and Spain would have levied a concerted, organized effort to beat back the Muslim invaders and maintain their stability of trade, but that didn't actually happen. This instead gives credence to the notion that the Mediterranean economic sphere was already in decline and had been since the Vandal invasions or so.

My two cents is that without an islamic invasion and assuming similar developments to our world these areas in the southern Med would end up being seen by the northern Europeans as... not much more familiar than they are in OTL, honestly. The Lebanese Maronites, Armenians, and Amharic Ethiopians are mostly Christian yet not considered any less foreign to Europe than their neighbors. Foreign-ness and familiarity of identity are a primarily political phenomenon, so it depends on what sort of relations these Mediterranean Christian state societies will develop.
Not really sure about Armenia. I have always considered them as a kind of Eastern Europeans, although, obviously they are geographically part of Asia.
 
Top