A muslim Europe

Finally, is that plausible ? ;) I mean, what would be the POD, and where Islam would get spread in Europe ? I'm trying to forget the cliché POD of 732 with Charles Martel and his guys.
I'm often thinking about something like some sort of Islamic Carolingian empire/ Islamic kingdom of England... Would that be somehow possible ? :p
 

Winnabago

Banned
If the Byzantines had been royally crushed by the Sassanids, then the Muslims would have a much easier time of conquering the Middle East.

Or, you could have one were Muhammad picks a successor, which would create a tradition of each person picking another person, each technically ordained indirectly by God.

That would probably create a later fracture in the Muslim political state, which means a better chance of a successful invasion of Europe.

Another idea would be for alcohol to be legal in Islam, so the Russians become Muslim instead of Orthodox, though that’s a bit of a stretch.
 
If the Byzantines had been royally crushed by the Sassanids, then the Muslims would have a much easier time of conquering the Middle East.

Though the Sassanids had no true power to crush them, and that would leave the Sassanids as more powerful-especially since royal crushings generally are quick and leave few war problems with the victorious side.

Or, you could have one were Muhammad picks a successor, which would create a tradition of each person picking another person, each technically ordained indirectly by God.

That would probably create a later fracture in the Muslim political state, which means a better chance of a successful invasion of Europe.

This one I like. It's pretty plausible and I support it.

Another idea would be for alcohol to be legal in Islam, so the Russians become Muslim instead of Orthodox, though that’s a bit of a stretch.

I find that less of a stretch that you say it to be-but it would have little impact out of Russia until the XIII or XIV Centuries.
 
The PoD I can think of is Tours-Poitiers, though admittedly the Muslim army there was an overextended, poorly supplied, and really small army compared to the massive Frankish army arrayed against it. Of course, accounts differ, so exact numbers are hard to find.

But yes, the loss of Byzantium earlier in the story would do the trick.

Another PoD would be the death of Umar, the third "Enlightened Caliph". After him, the nation kind of turned on itself with intrigue and politics. Had there been an equally strong leader after Umar, one who would kept a careful but strong hand guiding the nation, it would have helped the Muslims last a few more centuries with their original drive rather than melt into the succession of hereditary caliphates they became.

And again, had Umar survived the attempted assassination attempt (he was killed by a Persian embittered about the destruction of the Sassanid Persian Empire), he might have chosen a better successor than Uthman. Uthman, the Fourth "Enlightened Caliph", was a man of deep faith, but he was also a bit weak-willed, so his clan took advantage of that and put their men in top positions. Of course, it wouldn't have mattered in the long run as the "Enlightened Caliphs" tended to be among the Prophet Muhammad's original circle of closest followers and friends, so 30 years after Umar they would have all died out anyways. But by then, it would be possible for Umar and/or his successor(s) to hammer out some sort of constitution or reform in order to keep a strong, stable Islamic state. One strong enough that it can find ways around Byzantium or managed to take France and possibly Germany and Britain.
 
The PoD I can think of is Tours-Poitiers, though admittedly the Muslim army there was an overextended, poorly supplied, and really small army compared to the massive Frankish army arrayed against it. Of course, accounts differ, so exact numbers are hard to find.

That's not the problem, even at the battle of Toulouse (that was more important strategically and historically), if the Islamic army would have been victorious the Arabo-Berbers couldn't have dominated the lands.

OTL, in Septimania (the wali of Arbuna) the Arabo-Berbers only had a garrison in Narbona. All the other lands were directly under the control of septimanian and christian lords, not because the wali have faith in their loyalty, buy because they couldn't do anything else.

Just take a look at the numbers : in an Iberic peninsula populated by maybe 3 millions of inhabitants, there was around 5 000 Arabs and 15 000 Berbers at the middle of VIII.
And even then, it was very difficult to actually dominate all the territory, and local dynasties as the Banu Qasi maintained their own power.

So, i don't think that they could have dominate, let's say Gaul, that have 8 millions of inhabitants even if they have the double of Muslims people.

No, the most plausible way to have an islamic Europe is a conquest of Constantinople. Here you have numbers, and the proximity with the caliphate's cores would likely help to maintain the effort of islamization and arabization of society.
 
That's not the problem, even at the battle of Toulouse (that was more important strategically and historically), if the Islamic army would have been victorious the Arabo-Berbers couldn't have dominated the lands.

OTL, in Septimania (the wali of Arbuna) the Arabo-Berbers only had a garrison in Narbona. All the other lands were directly under the control of septimanian and christian lords, not because the wali have faith in their loyalty, buy because they couldn't do anything else.

Just take a look at the numbers : in an Iberic peninsula populated by maybe 3 millions of inhabitants, there was around 5 000 Arabs and 15 000 Berbers at the middle of VIII.
And even then, it was very difficult to actually dominate all the territory, and local dynasties as the Banu Qasi maintained their own power.

So, i don't think that they could have dominate, let's say Gaul, that have 8 millions of inhabitants even if they have the double of Muslims people.

No, the most plausible way to have an islamic Europe is a conquest of Constantinople. Here you have numbers, and the proximity with the caliphate's cores would likely help to maintain the effort of islamization and arabization of society.

I agree, the best way to have significant portions of Europe as Islamic is to capture Constantinople at some point, perhaps with a changed First Siege. Additionally I believe Basileus Giorgios has always argued that such a Caliphate would split along Perso-Islamic and Greco-Islamic lines. I think such a split would be beneficial for spreading Islam into Europe, as the Greek Caliphate (as I'll call it) would be able to focus primarily on Europe.
 
Ok, and then ? What would happen after the Greek Caliphate ? I guess they would try to convince Balkanics peoples to convert to Islam, or maybe Russia, as they did in OTL with Orthodoxism :p
What do you think of that ? How could western Europe convert to Islam ?
 
Ok, and then ? What would happen after the Greek Caliphate ? I guess they would try to convince Balkanics peoples to convert to Islam, or maybe Russia, as they did in OTL with Orthodoxism :p
Depend of the era.
Before 700, they wouldn't try to convert them. You see, the fiscal income came mainly from non-islamic peoples and the islamic rulers had little interest to convert massivly the vaniquished lands (at the noticable exception of some local elites).
Even the Umar Pact didn't managed to have a realy conversion movment (in fact, it just encouraged the Arab to treat the converted people as non-Muslims).

Probably you'll have an actual conversion policy only if a christian power, or many christian statelets threaten the Caliphate : then in order to limit the influence of these ones within the Islamic borders thanks to christian polulations, the power would be encline to promote, or force, conversions.

Furthermore, you have to see that Christianity would be still an important part of the identity of such peoples : remember that the countryside of Syria and Palestina was still mainly christian during the Crusades.

The first step to conversion is the arabisation of the slavic and non-greek peoples, just like egyptians, syrians or hispanians were OTL. It's almost mandatory to have an eventual conversion.
For the Greeks, it's different : as what happened in Persia, their converted elites could be powerful enough to promote a conversion that is not only dissociated with arabization but turned against Umayyads.

Finally, you're talking about Russia, etc...I don't thinks that a conquest of Russia or in fact all greek lands is a likely plausibility. Caliphate armies are not infinitly reproducable or expandable and controlling Anatolia and let's say Thracia, Bulgaria, Macedonia would be the best they could have at middle term.

In fact i could see the survivance of christian "rhomanioi" states in Albania, Epire or even Morea that would act much like Galicia, Asturias, Navarra did in Al-Andalus : tributaries states of land that is not worth of controlling but still useful to periodically raid.


What do you think of that ? How could western Europe convert to Islam ?

Quite difficult. Considering as Al-Andalus have almost no conversion power outside within its own borders (and even there, i would think that before the Almoravids, Christian represented still a majority).
And as the Romhanion never had a real influence on latin christianity...

Outside a conquest of the west that would be difficult to do, not to talk about lasting control...I don't see how it's possible directly after the conquest of Constantinople.
That said, if we have a greek-islamic caliphate, it could be done at the long term.
 
Top