Africa Sans the Islamic Conquests

We've talked about the lack of Islam in the past, and the effects of it. One thing I don't think we've ever explored, though, is the effect on West Africa (and on Europe). In the ATL, West Africa would end up Christian, and Mansa Musa would throw the Italian economy into chaos by the way he showers gold around Rome. Perhaps in the ATL, North African religious fanatics periodically irrupt to overthrow decadent Visigoth states?
 
Without Islam, there's no Mansa Musa to speak of, and overall less important sahelian states in a first time.

Basically, with the set-up of a cultural/economical continuum that for the first time in history, included northern saharian peoples/cities, it represented a boom for transsahelian trade : it basically went from poor to a main trade road.

While rise of entities as Ghana or Kanem-Bornu is a given, and a certain rise of trans-sahelian trade could occur, it would be clearly lesser in comparison of IOTL and would appear slowly with Northern Africa being let aside of the main trade roads (Mediterranean/Persic Gulf/Silk Road)

As for Christianism, while Mauri Kingdom close to Africa were most probably christianized (would it be only trough their relationship with Byzantine Africa), it's not the case for western Northern-Africa, where Berber peoples were more isolated. I doubt that, without a full-fledged effort in the region, you'd have a real motivation to Christianize.

And who could furnish this effort?
Byzantines? They more or less ignored Africa, IOTL, after the conquest and stabilisation of the borders. They could focus anew, but it frankly wasn't the tendency in the VIIth century.

"Decadent" :)rolleyes:) Goths*? They weren't really able to do that : IOTL they mainly enjoyed lip service from some African notables (mostly because these were further from Constantinople) and weren't in capacity to really take on African coasts : Basque threat, anti-dynastic issues.
But for North Africans taking over...
No : as said, these were pretty much isolated and it asked for Arabo-Islamic conquest to unify all of these. A frankish takeover (in a first time) seems more likely.

*Seriously, is this the "Historical Bias Month" and nobody warned me about, or what?
 
While rise of entities as Ghana or Kanem-Bornu is a given, and a certain rise of trans-sahelian trade could occur, it would be clearly lesser in comparison of IOTL and would appear slowly with Northern Africa being let aside of the main trade roads (Mediterranean/Persic Gulf/Silk Road)

I'm not sure I follow; why would it be lesser in ATL?

As for Christianism, while Mauri Kingdom close to Africa were most probably christianized (would it be only trough their relationship with Byzantine Africa), it's not the case for western Northern-Africa, where Berber peoples were more isolated. I doubt that, without a full-fledged effort in the region, you'd have a real motivation to Christianize.

I'm not sure I follow this either. What would make Africa different from the Baltic, the Rus, or Eastern Europe? Christianization and the development of state structures happened everywhere around Europe.

*Seriously, is this the "Historical Bias Month" and nobody warned me about, or what?

I was making a joke about the Taifa states, and also your anguish is my candy.
 
I'm not sure I follow; why would it be lesser in ATL?
The Arabo-Islamic conquest unified, first politically, then culturally/economically northern Berber peoples/states/cities.
For the first time, Mediterranean markets and Sahelian producers were directly tied, and participated to a global trade structure (similar coinage, trade rules or even tools of the trade as camels that were widely used in the region after the conquest).

It allowed easier exchanges whom the main was slave-trade (the need of servile taskforce of Arabo-Islamic states was certainly important for the flourusing of trans-sahelian roads). Without an economical continuum that passes trough North Africa, it's likely that they won't participate as much as they did, unless someone else took the part of the conquerors, but I think it's unlikely.

I'm not sure I follow this either. What would make Africa different from the Baltic, the Rus, or Eastern Europe? Christianization and the development of state structures happened everywhere around Europe.
Well, these are different cases.
Eastern Europe and Rus' basically are due to the Byzantine policy to create clients, or at least allies; and to the economical/cultural influence of the empire.
Without political motivation to do so (as it existed IOTL with Maur Kingdoms bordering Byzantine holdings in Africa) and without byzantine focus on trans-sahelian trade, I doubt it would appear quickly.

As for Baltics, we're largely in a crusade-context associated with political interests. Considering Crusades themselves are so tied to Islam that it's probably butterflied as such ITTL, you may still see expeditions as Charlemagne's against Saxons, but there's again political concerns existed as well.

What would be the political motivation for Byzantines to undergo what would be a ruinous expedition in North Africa (which is mandatory before going for sub-saharian Africa)? IOTL, they had trouble enough stabilizing the border between Africa and Maurs, and more or less disinterested from the province after a while.

Goths may have better reasons, but they wouldn't be able to enforce these for what can be forseen.

Not that I'm saying Christianisation of West Africa wouldn't be possible : it just doesn't strike me as obvious ITTL, for what matter immediate consequences of the PoD.

EDIT : Please note I'm talking of West Africa. You didn't mentioned it in your OP, but relations existed with East Africa, and may continue to flourish. The lack of the aformentioned continuum wouldn't be that problematic, critically with Roman and/or Persian presence in the region that may lead to conversions.
I'd say that you'd have better chance having important states or peoples in Eastern Africa : Horn, Somali, Great Lakes, Zimbabwe, etc.
 
Last edited:
It all depends on how this affects the Romans and the Christianized Berbers. There's nothing stopping them from proselytizing as the centuries go on; in fact, they probably will, possibly converting much of West Africa to Christianity.


As LSC has said, West Africa is going to be a fair deal worse off. LSC seems to know quite a bit more about West Africa at this time than I do, so I can't really do much more than agree with what they're saying.

East Africa is going to be much more connected with the Mediterranean and Roman world. Christian efforts are going to here a far as Christianizing, and Rome may even get involved, at least indirectly, with Indian Ocean trade (which is still going to flourish, but it's going to be a fair bit different). Ultimately, Africa is going to end up mostly Christian with some smatterings of Pagan beliefs, but it's going to take time.

But that's all far into the future, and no Islamic Conquests is such a massive PoD that it's hard to even begin.
 
Top