AHC : Christian Arabia

Hi, I believe that "Christian Arabia" cannot be a goal in itself. Arabia (peninsular) had been a backwater since the beginning of time and it is therefore unlikely that anyone would be interested in conquering the most hostile desert known to man just for the fun of it. Arabia before oil has really nothing to offer ...

However, Arabia can remain Christian (it was a majority Christian area by the time of the Arab conquest, albeit not necessarily orthodox Christian) and Christianity can develop deeper roots there as a byproduct of a PoD occurring elsewhere in the Middle East.

While Arabia certainly is peripheral to the Roman and Iranian worlds, I'm not sure that southern Arabia and modern day Oman really have nothing to offer - at the very least a lot of trade flowed through the region. Certainly nobody will be conquering the interior, but the question is more a question of what the best way to make and keep the majority of the Arabian population Christian.

I'm not convinced we ever reached a majority Christian Arabia in OTL. Christianity was common, sure, and well known, but indigenous pagan traditions were as well, and I'm not sure how deep penetration of the Christian religion was pre-Islam. Large Jewish and pagan populations likely existed in many regions, especially in the south, and Christianity's roots in the region seem pretty weak. Indigenous monotheism was also not unknown.

My timeline might not be the best example, as in my timeline Arabia is split between Jews, Buddhists, Christians, and a cult that blends Christianity, paganism, and Buddhism into a heretical melting pot of madness. :p (although said cult is on the decline)

P.S. Welcome back f11222, I missed both your timeline and your comments on mine. :)
 
I like the idea of a time line where either the Ghassinids conquer the Lahkmids or viceversa, and then starts spreading south using support from both Rome and Persia, both trying to buy influence, Rome to maintain the vassal's loyalty, and Persia quietly trying to subvert it. Then, whoever the kingdom thinks will win the next war it sides with, getting a small portion of Mesopotamia or Syria for its troubles if it chooses correctly and it's help is notably important. Then, it just keeps moving south, using slaves from war to build aqueducts, using the aqueducts as a lure for southern people's to move north, increasing population, economy, and manpower for war, and a reason to continue south as raiders inevitably begin toattack the new infrastructure for loot and supplies from the south. The south of Arabia becomes like Germania to Rome or Comancheria to much of the West/Mexico or East Syria/West Iraq; an area of anarchy where barbarians have a base of operations that must be ended for our home front to have peace from the regular raids.

I don't know exactly how to get the kingdoms "united", but with a little money pumped into it, being used for infrastructure and investment rather than being lost to corruption, and a lot of luck, I could see a minor empire forming in the north of the peninsula and slowly spreading south. This could be a fascinating tl, I think I'm gonna do some reading on potential pods.
 
I like the idea of a time line where either the Ghassinids conquer the Lahkmids or viceversa, and then starts spreading south using support from both Rome and Persia, both trying to buy influence, Rome to maintain the vassal's loyalty, and Persia quietly trying to subvert it. Then, whoever the kingdom thinks will win the next war it sides with, getting a small portion of Mesopotamia or Syria for its troubles if it chooses correctly and it's help is notably important. Then, it just keeps moving south, using slaves from war to build aqueducts, using the aqueducts as a lure for southern people's to move north, increasing population, economy, and manpower for war, and a reason to continue south as raiders inevitably begin toattack the new infrastructure for loot and supplies from the south. The south of Arabia becomes like Germania to Rome or Comancheria to much of the West/Mexico or East Syria/West Iraq; an area of anarchy where barbarians have a base of operations that must be ended for our home front to have peace from the regular raids.

I don't know exactly how to get the kingdoms "united", but with a little money pumped into it, being used for infrastructure and investment rather than being lost to corruption, and a lot of luck, I could see a minor empire forming in the north of the peninsula and slowly spreading south. This could be a fascinating tl, I think I'm gonna do some reading on potential pods.

I'm not sure that was in the capability of either the Banu Ghassan or the Banu Lakhm to do, and if it was, I'm not sure why Rome or Iran would tolerate that - both would definitely try to contest that. Nor would they just give up territory that easily. Look at where the power bases of the Banu Ghassan and the Banu Lakhm were - and see how difficult it would be for one to assert control over the other.

Build aqueducts? Where? Why? To what end? I'm not certain the building of hydraulic infrastructure is a panacea here. Look at where the power bases of the Banu Ghassan and the Banu Lakhm were - they're both in rather fertile regions, but they're surrounded by desert that even with massive investment would remain marginal at best for agriculture. You're not going to turn the region into a garden easily, and the richer the regions gets the more of a target they'll be for raids from the interior.

You're also seriously underestimating the power and numbers of the Arabian interior, and the "barbarians" who lived there. Nor am I sure why these aqueducts would cause beneficial migrations of people, nor am I convinced any such migration of nomads from the interior would be a positive thing for this hypothetical superstate.
 
The most important question is as always, why the romans should do that. Why should they conquer the Hejaz south of Hegra and the Yemen? Before or after the annexion of Arabia Petrea in 106 AD. Why should they not control that area via treaties with the local cities in the Hejaz and the Kingdom of the Himyar. Like they probably did in OTL.

It seems the indian trade went well after Augustus' failed expedition. Most trade went directly to the egyptian harbors anyways. Also the trade route from the persian gulf to Syria was disrupted seldomly. The trade via the landroute from Yemen to the Jordan and from there to the coast of Syria was already diminishing in nabataean times. In addition there was a sea-route from Yemen to Leuke, whith a roman tax-office. Sea transport was cheaper anyways in ancient times. Nevertheless, ancient sources tell us, that some caravans from Yemen had the size of an army. That does not mean, that they could compete with sea-transport. It is just a hint, that such huge caravans were probably safe.

So it is hard to find a casus belli. The Himyar were interested in undisturbed trade like the romans were. We also do not know, why Augustus sent his legate to Yemen initially. And what was the goal? I doubt it was provincialization. A province Arabia Felix would be against all patterns of roman government in the East during the early principate. And the hillside of Arabia Felix like modern Yemen is a nightmare for every conquering general.

One reason I could imagine is, that the Parthians or the early Sassanids conquer Oman and attack Yemen from there. Earlier than they did in OTL. Now the romans have a reason to defend their allies, deploy troops via the Red Sea and/or the Hejaz-route, and establish outposts and perhaps even colonies. Longterm this might lead to a provincialization of the coast area. But such an parthian/persian attack must happen pretty early. Because romanization followed by christianization and a heavier spread of christianity to the tribes in inner Arabia needs time.

Unfortunately we now end up with the question: Why the Parthians or Sassanids should attack Oman and Yemen that early? For example Vologases I decides to not attack Armenia during Neros reign, but to get the Oman as a kingdom for his younger brother Tiridates. And from there the show begins.
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I can think of three reasons (maybe 4) that the Romans would be interested

1) No middleman on trade, making goods cheaper to import, and reducing losses to India. Once described as "That pernicious land that lacked for nothing and took all our gold". One day I'll find that quote again and attribute it correctly, but I think that reducing the cost of trade in the long term will be worthwhile.

2) Provide strategic depth - controlling Arabia not only protects Syria Palestina, but provides huge strategic depth, whilst denying it to the Persians.

3) Control over Indian Ocean trade. With Arabia under control, the Romans can set up a larger Indian Ocean fleet, which would allow the Romans to cause Persia much more damage in case of war. Pillaging S.Persia and cutting off trade (even in peacetime) - making Persia poorer, weaker, and distracted - that would buy the Romans plenty of breathing space.

(Possible 4th) - Prestige/Piety. The Patriarch of Jerusalem has every reason to bring more Christians under his authority, if only to be a stronger voice in theocratic debates, rather than a poor cousin of Anatolia and Alexandria. Arabia is firmly his jurisdiction. In addition, the prestige of a successful invasion (even if the Romans are chased out decades later after Arabia is Christianised) is acceptable - as it boosts the Emperor of the time, and leaves Arabia Christian.

I think you're right though, a casus belli would be important - and I think a diplomatic incident involving an important Priest would certainly do.

Prospective PoD - Patriarch of Jerusalem visits S.Arabia to petition Himyar, and other local rulers to allow the Church to set up churches. Either a particularly hostile king, or foolish noble (or political sabatour) kills the Patriarch, word gets back the Emperor, who as the Vice Gerent of Christ has a solid reason to invade the region. As soon as any of the S.Arabian Kingdoms are involved, any diplomatic or territorial dispute, young, old, confused, fabricated, can be used to justify further action. In fact, a lack of co-operation from the locals in the Hedjaz could be used as a (poor) justification for invasions to pacify the area, to prevent banditry, or avenge slights.

I might start making some notes for a timeline. Time to get some more detailed books on pre-Islamic Arabia.
 
I can think of three reasons (maybe 4) that the Romans would be interested

1) No middleman on trade, making goods cheaper to import, and reducing losses to India. Once described as "That pernicious land that lacked for nothing and took all our gold". One day I'll find that quote again and attribute it correctly, but I think that reducing the cost of trade in the long term will be worthwhile.

2) Provide strategic depth - controlling Arabia not only protects Syria Palestina, but provides huge strategic depth, whilst denying it to the Persians.

3) Control over Indian Ocean trade. With Arabia under control, the Romans can set up a larger Indian Ocean fleet, which would allow the Romans to cause Persia much more damage in case of war. Pillaging S.Persia and cutting off trade (even in peacetime) - making Persia poorer, weaker, and distracted - that would buy the Romans plenty of breathing space.

(Possible 4th) - Prestige/Piety. The Patriarch of Jerusalem has every reason to bring more Christians under his authority, if only to be a stronger voice in theocratic debates, rather than a poor cousin of Anatolia and Alexandria. Arabia is firmly his jurisdiction. In addition, the prestige of a successful invasion (even if the Romans are chased out decades later after Arabia is Christianised) is acceptable - as it boosts the Emperor of the time, and leaves Arabia Christian.

I think you're right though, a casus belli would be important - and I think a diplomatic incident involving an important Priest would certainly do.

Prospective PoD - Patriarch of Jerusalem visits S.Arabia to petition Himyar, and other local rulers to allow the Church to set up churches. Either a particularly hostile king, or foolish noble (or political sabatour) kills the Patriarch, word gets back the Emperor, who as the Vice Gerent of Christ has a solid reason to invade the region. As soon as any of the S.Arabian Kingdoms are involved, any diplomatic or territorial dispute, young, old, confused, fabricated, can be used to justify further action. In fact, a lack of co-operation from the locals in the Hedjaz could be used as a (poor) justification for invasions to pacify the area, to prevent banditry, or avenge slights.

I might start making some notes for a timeline. Time to get some more detailed books on pre-Islamic Arabia.


Can you read Arabic?
 
Used to. Sadly unless I get good translations, I'm going to have to re-learn.


Oh ok well some Arabic book suggestions:

Iqd al-Thameen Fi Tarikh al-Ballad al-Ameen by Taqi al Din al-Makki

Azminah wa al-Amkinah by Ali al-Marzuqi

Hijrat al-Ilm wa Ma'aqiluhu Fi al-Yaman by Ali al-Akwa

All are very good books on pre-Islamic Arabia.
 
Top