A different Islam

The difference between our perceptions is simple to explain. You are a self-admitted Byzantophile while I am a (henceforth self-admitted) Byzantophobe.

In my view, China and Byzantium share the following characteristics:

- An aloof Emperor surrounded by myriad scheming servants and eunuchs.
- A bureaucratic form of statecraft.
- A succession of dynasties with generally violent transitions between one and the next.
- A constant struggle against outside invaders
- A superiority complex based on the idea that everyone else is a "barbarian"
- A highly developped ideology-cum-religion rooted in a class of litterate scholars and justifying the status quo (Orthodox Christianity, Confucianism).
- An army headed by professional generals (as opposed to feudal lords), always at risk of claiming the throne if they become overly successful.

I believe this is enough to warrant at least a comparison ...

If the comparison is deemed close enough, I believe it explains why I think Byzantine culture does not have a Weberian influence on its subjects. A China-like empire is fundamentally risk-averse. From its own point of view, it already has everything one can possibly desire. So the focus is on trying not to lose what one has rather than take risks to obtain better or more things. Only territorial expansion obtained through war and in already well known areas is deemed a risk worth taking.

Furthermore, the constant intrigue that surrounds the person of the emperor breeds mistrust among the upper classes. This is not a climate conducive to investment in risky private ventures. Such things require a higher level of trust to develop; one like the one which slowly appeared when protestantism spread throughout northern Europe.

I don't know much about the Byzantines, so I can't say if they have these characteristics that you're ascribing but a few of your stereotypes are overly-broad generalizations.

- Quite a few Emperors were involved in conflict, and others were actively involved in running their government. Eunuchs were significant but their importance shouldn't be overstated. For example, in the Tang Dynasty during the time of your point of divergence, they weren't that significant.
- Again, it depends on your time period. During the Tang, the government wasn't dominated by bureaucrats yet. A lot of power was held by military-oriented nobles.
- As for dynasties, some dynastic changes weren't short, violent transitions, but long protracted affairs. Some of these lasted for over a century, but they grew shorter later.
- Constant is a strong word, but this is otherwise true.
- A lot of times, yes, but the Tang Dynasty wasn't one of those times. Even in other time periods, the Chinese had no problem with adopting
- Confucianism is actually almost backwards, constantly looking back to the periods of the early Zhou period. Its religious aspects shouldn't be exaggerated, but I can understand the argument.
- This is one of those things that are true at one point, but mostly not. I can only think of a few times where professional soldiers managed to take the throne or where in a position to, so this is a rarity as opposed to a norm.

Also, discussing a "risk-averse" China ignores the historical expansion that it did undertake.
 

fi11222

Banned
This is pretty interesting. My main objection is too much continuity. Once things reach the point you want them, they freeze. This is particularly implausible with your Ebionite Muslims, who if they are really as dynamic as you say are going to be fairly mutable ideologically and probably not a cohesive bloc. To name just one thing, the shift from being traders to setting up settler states is an enormous one and should cause all sorts of cultural changes and pressures.
I agree entirely. This is just a rough sketch so far. And I am using names that everybody knows and keep things rather static in order to make explanations easier. If I go ahead and develop this TL more fully, it will be much more fluid and evolving.
 

fi11222

Banned
The idea of the constantly intrigue ridden imperial court is a largely untrue stereotype that was invented by Germanic and Italian historians who had no interest in representing the eastern empire fairly (thus the reason for its stupid title as the "Byzantine" empire), really the stereotype only holds true (atleast in terms of being worse than anyone else in the world) in a few highly specific instances very late in the life of the empire. Protestantism had little to do with ending this either, it had much more to do with the decline of absolute monarchy and aristocratic control in general.
We will agree to disagree then. I believe Max Weber was right when he proposed that it is the specific ethical qualities of protestantism which made capitalism, and hence the industrial revolution, possible.
 
We will agree to disagree then. I believe Max Weber was right when he proposed that it is the specific ethical qualities of protestantism which made capitalism, and hence the industrial revolution, possible.

Ugh, there are still people who believe that garbage? "the protestant work ethic" is nothing but orientalist tripe with no basis in rational thought beyond naked cultural chauvinism and a deep misunderstanding of how capitalism and the industrial revolution actually developed.
 
Last edited:

fi11222

Banned
Ugh, there are still people who believe that garbage? "the protestant work ethic" is nothing but orientalist tripe with no basis in rational thought beyond naked cultural chauvinism and a deep misunderstanding of how capitalism and the industrial revolution actually developed.
Is it still chauvinism if I believe that the same principle can apply to a mixture of arabs and ethiopians ?
 
Is it still chauvinism if I believe that the same principle can apply to a mixture of arabs and ethiopians ?

I'm not implying you're a chauvinist, I'm stating the author you cited was one. More than anything else its just inconsequential and a massive oversimplification of centuries of cultural, economic, and government development.
 
We will agree to disagree then. I believe Max Weber was right when he proposed that it is the specific ethical qualities of protestantism which made capitalism, and hence the industrial revolution, possible.

That's difficult, because you'd have to account for the non-industrialization of Protestant Scandinavia until the 1950s and the rapid industrialization of Catholic France. Plus none of that matters a whit when you apply it to Muslim societies. Weber's theories aren't easily transmutable. They apply specifically to Europe at a certain time, and were wrong even so.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
In the 930s, a muslim-ebionite colony is founded in South Africa. Contrary to the previous trading outposts, this is one is for settlement. Yemen and the Ethiopian highlands are overpopulated and there is good farmland to be had in South Africa. (any idea about how this colony could be named ?).

I think you are overestimating the capacity of such a state to found settler colonies so far away. The Cape is about 2000 miles away. This is a lot of distance for ongoing settlement. Settlers are going to be far away from any kind of support, and it will be a very long time before the local tax base could support any defense which means it is a huge cost for any government. Furthermore, the Muslim-Ebionite do not have a decisive technological advantage against the natives of the Cape. Keep in mind that IOTL, the Moroccans weren't even able to hold their conquests in Mali in the 1600s. Any such colonies are likely to collapse or become absorbed into the general population.

You might introduce Islam to the native people, and eventually as cities form there could be a small trading population, but I don't see settler colonies being viable.

In the 1220s, traders from muslim-ebionite South Africa reach Byzantine Morocco by the Atlantic route.

Why would they want to do that? What possible trade goods could they get from Morocco which would justify the risk and expense? IOTL, the Europeans were going for gold and spices which were unavailable to them. Byzantine Morocco has none of that. Any trading goods the Muslim-Ebionites could want would be available through normal Mediterranean trade through Egypt and the Red Sea.

Furthermore, I think you are discounting the difficulties in sending ships so far. The Portuguese explorations IOTL relied on having nearby bases in the Canaries and Cape Verde. It took substantial time to figure out how to navigate the difficult seas around Cape Bojador. Several voyages were needed simply to keep marking progress along the African coast. And finally the best way to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. This took over a hundred years of sustained royal patronage by Portugal. Yet you are saying this is done more than two and half centuries before Bartolomeu Dias with much less technology.

In 1350 a muslim-ebionite South African ship blown west by a storm discovers Brazil.

If so, they must likely never return - gone from history like the Vivaldi Brothers.

If you are looking for plausibility, I think you need to think and read more about how far such a society could expand across Africa.
 
This is not a climate conducive to investment in risky private ventures. Such things require a higher level of trust to develop; one like the one which slowly appeared when protestantism spread throughout northern Europe.
Private enterprise of all kinds flourished in the Byzantine Empire to about the maximum level possible considering the technology. At least from 900-1250 or so when the political situation had deteriorated enough to severely hurt the economy.

Also something I meant to say is that I think your summation of the Visigothic kingdom is flawed.
 
If the comparison is deemed close enough, I believe it explains why I think Byzantine culture does not have a Weberian influence on its subjects. A China-like empire is fundamentally risk-averse. From its own point of view, it already has everything one can possibly desire. So the focus is on trying not to lose what one has rather than take risks to obtain better or more things. Only territorial expansion obtained through war and in already well known areas is deemed a risk worth taking.

Honestly thats also not really correct, the Roman outlook has never been truly insular. They have always either been looking outside their borders either for expansion or through extracting tribute from the Persians. Rome and China really where just inherently different states for most of their history.
 
Honestly thats also not really correct, the Roman outlook has never been truly insular. They have always either been looking outside their borders either for expansion or through extracting tribute from the Persians. Rome and China really where just inherently different states for most of their history.

Yeah. Byzantium (used to refer to the era where it was centered on the Bosporus, and thus old Byzantion) only superficially resembles China, and the "Roman way" in general is anything but like the Chinese model.
 
Top