Marauding Vikings means peasants needing protection means let's all crowd onto the manor for safety means feudalism. (As far as I can determine.)
AH: A World without Islam Discussion
- Thread starter Grouchio
- Start date
Marauding Vikings means peasants needing protection means let's all crowd onto the manor for safety means feudalism. (As far as I can determine.)
Which then means the ability to support knights which fight off Viking raiders which means . . . y'know, OTL.
Where is LSCatalina to defend feudalism as a rational system when you need him?
The same Vikings who had opened up a new trade network linking extending from the British Isles, through Russia, and contact with Constantinople and the Middle East. The same Vikings who also built cities like Dublin, Novgorod and Kiev.
It should be noted that the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire was due to the division among Charlemagne's sons, the wars over territory between them and their successors, as well as the ambitions of regional counts (and bishops) for greater autonomy from their sovereigns. The setback of the Frankish Empire had more problems than just being plagued by Vikings, who in the long-term, would also aid in western Europe's recovery.
the Treasure Fleets were fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things (and of negligible importance to the Chinese economy). Was it...ehm, grand? Yes. But it ultimately wasn't anything more then a diplomatic tour de force around the Indian Basin, enforcing formal tributary relations (though explicitly not actual: the tributary system was for the most part a formality once you get into the Ming/Qing period, and was dispensed with at need [such as the signing of border/trade agreements with Russia in the 18th century, where Russia was acknowledged as an equal nation in formal writing]).
I mean, they didn't really discover anything (besides bring back exotic goods for the Emperor's pleasure), and the cancellation of the expeditions was expected given the massive cost overruns (and the then-present crises of a nomadic invasion on top of piracy, plus the needs of internal reform in regards to taxation and trade) and of no real effect on Chinese commerce, which still dominated the Indian Basin trade, and afterwards developed thriving overseas commercial communities in places like Manila and Malacca, etc. that last to this day; how else did you think Ming/Qing China was able to import the ridiculous amounts of silver needed to keep up its expansion in its money supply? Chinese merchants remained integral in the regional trade networks even after the arrival of Europeans.
...so basically, I don't talk about the treasure fleets because it wasn't, in the grand scheme of things, impactful (outside of being historically a very cool tale). Also yeah, the Muslim thing.
Last edited:
There were Arab defeats at Roman hands in the early days so I'm tempted to say it may not make an awful lot of difference. Theophanes Confessor, for example, talks about Heraclius' brother Theodore routing an Arab army near Emesa and driving the Arabs away from Damascus.
Indeed, if Theophanes is to be believed, the whole fall of Syria may be understood in a similar way to the fall of Anatolia- Roman armies turning on each other to support a pretender to the throne and allowing the invaders in between them. Why this isn't discussed more I'm not quite sure. I didn't even notice that Theophanes mentions this until I re-read him last night. The joys of having Theophanes as a toilet book.
The quote in question (for the year AM 6126, which is late 634 and early 635AD) reads:
"Baanes' (a general chosen by Heraclius) men rebelled and chose him Emperor, renouncing Herakleios. Then the sakellarios' troops withdrew (the sakellarios in question is Theodore, a brother of Heraclius who had previously had success against the Arabs); the Saracens found an opportunity to join battle. Since the south wind was blowing against the Romans, they were unable to face their foes because of the dust, and they were defeated. They leaped into the Yarmouk river where it is narrow and were destroyed there."
Which is interesting to say the least. Theophanes' wider account has the Arabs capturing Damascus briefly the previous year and advancing deeper into Syria, where they are defeated by Theodore with significant loss of life. Arab reinforcements arrive and inflict a minor defeat on Theodore's troops, which causes Baanes' troops to panic and name their man Emperor. In the confusion, the Arabs are able to mop up these disorganised imperial armies, which may well have been attempting to retreat from Syria.
It's notable that Theophanes certainly had access to Arab and Syriac sources when writing his chronicle. Food for thought, anyway.
This is dangerously racist in feel. Unless it was a mockery of somes's feelings.