AHC: Christian Fertile Crescent and North Africa after the Black Death

The challenge is to come up with a quick timeline where after the Black Death stormed Europe you have some sort of reconquista-ish event with either Orthodox, Catholic or Miaphysite powers conquering all the area previously owned by the Roman Empire(and Iraq). It has to start after 1350 but you can all the centuries you want, I would say up to the 20th century(so no industrial genocide).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Gloss- Here is a try-

Continuously for centuries after 1350, Ming China is investing in maritime and land-based expansionism. The Chinese end up exploring as far as the Cape before the Portuguese round it, and decide they don't want "Firangi" in the Indian Ocean. They explore to the east and south as well.

Even if the Europeans discover the Americas first, the Ming or a vigorous successor dynasty after a quick transition act fastest on the largest scale to settle the American continents.

By the 1500s, China has a quasi-religious ideology of solving social problems through territorial and demographic expansion, and of bringing wilderness into cultivation and "civilization".

On land, the Chinese empire has a policy of containing nomads by settling temperate forest-regions and bringing them into cultivation, which surrounds Mongols with garrisons and leading to gradual Han Chinese expansion north and westward through the most cultivatable and habitable portions of Siberia. The Chinese meet the Russians at the Urals.

Expanding into many areas where rice cultivation is not possible, the frontier chinese food package involves more wheat, millet and soybeans.

West Europeans still advance in sailing and gunnery technology and their internal markets develop. The Europeans are still the first to claim the Caribbean, Central America, Venezuela, Colombia, southern Mexico and the easternmost coast of North America.

Thus development of European capitalism still benefits from precious metals influx and tropical plantations. Europeans can still slave raid as far south as Angola before clashing with Chinese outposts.

However, from their early and massive starts in California, Oregon, Washington, Peru and Chile, the Chinese demographic steamroller ends up controlling South America south of the Equator or Amazon and North America west of the Appalachians, in addition to the Cape of Africa.

Basically, Chinese preemption of "empty" or less populated temperate lands leaves the Europeans much shorter of land for settlement colonies.

At the same time, China is not an invincible, world absorbing state. At some point during its expansion it is going to have hiccups, and have a change of dynasties. China is supremely uninteresting in getting involved in what the Christians and Muslims do to each other. On the Eurasian mainland, the Chinese don't really give a darn what happens west of the Urals, Caspian and straits of Hormuz. Christian and Muslim military technology also makes any Chinese involvement there more painful and costly.

Buoyed by the Atlantic economy and sugar plantations, European growth picks up in the 1600s. Europe's advantages over the Islamic world really begin to get decisive in the late 1600s. In addition to more capitalism and proto-industry, Europe has more water, lumber, metal and food resources to compete with.

In the 1700s, with expansion to lands of settlement like most of the Americas, Australia, southern Africa and Siberia, the least difficult arena for European imperialism is the Muslim Mediterranean. Russian and Central European "Holy Leagues" bring an early end to the Ottoman Empire, claim the Caucasus and Balkans and in following generations conquer Asia Minor. In the West Mediterranean, Spanish and French and Italian states crush the Barbary pirates earlier and occupy the coastal ports of North Africa. Eventually this spreads to the Levant. By the early 19th century, Russian or European (mostly Catholic, but maybe with some Protestant participation is a Reformation analogue occurs) political rule extends through all former Roman territories and possibly into Iraq, western Persia, all Arabia and Ethiopia.

There are European "colons" in all these occupied areas, and although Muslim resistance is valiant, European demographics and technological edges turn earlier coastal enclaves into a continuous colonized zone.

Europeans may improve their terms of trade in the Sinified areas and may improve their access, but except for small batches of traders, farmers or adventurers, no similar colonization is attempted where Chinese developed the area first.
 
The French had plans to conquer Egypt and Syria in the 1770s which were derailed by their participation in the American Revolution. If they backed off and focused on building a new empire in the Near East, this is somewhat possible.
 
I'd like to award this thread the "most likely to be a horrific genocide" award of 2017.

I know it's early, but by 1350 you're looking at a Middle East where Islamic society is deeply entrenched and in many places represent a substantial majority. And somehow I don't think a slow boiling non-industrial genocide is really all that better - and that's what would be necessary.

I find this line of questioning horrific for the same reason I find the Years of Rice and Salt horrifying. Basically for the sake of a plot point you have to accept the "in-universe" annhiliation of whole cultures and peoples just for the sake of a hypothetical. Furthermore, the fact that a whole section of the world in the OP's question is reduced to "areas previously owned by the Roman Empire" seems to speak to a certain ativism in the line of questioning.
 
I'd like to award this thread the "most likely to be a horrific genocide" award of 2017.

I know it's early, but by 1350 you're looking at a Middle East where Islamic society is deeply entrenched and in many places represent a substantial majority. And somehow I don't think a slow boiling non-industrial genocide is really all that better - and that's what would be necessary.

I find this line of questioning horrific for the same reason I find the Years of Rice and Salt horrifying. Basically for the sake of a plot point you have to accept the "in-universe" annhiliation of whole cultures and peoples just for the sake of a hypothetical. Furthermore, the fact that a whole section of the world in the OP's question is reduced to "areas previously owned by the Roman Empire" seems to speak to a certain ativism in the line of questioning.

It's no worse than supposing the Nazis won WWII or the Confederates won the Civil War. A great deal of alternate history relies on the consideration of horrific events and scenarios.
 
It's no worse than supposing the Nazis won WWII or the Confederates won the Civil War. A great deal of alternate history relies on the consideration of horrific events and scenarios.

I know. I just wanted to acknowledge the horror of this because it seemed no one else had. I generally only enjoy Confederate/Nazis timelines that admit and acknowledge how awful those states and institutions are.
 
I know. I just wanted to acknowledge the horror of this because it seemed no one else had. I generally only enjoy Confederate/Nazis timelines that admit and acknowledge how awful those states and institutions are.

In my opinion, historical analysis should be separate from moral readings. That is at least how I was taught to investigate.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Is genocide even a real option here? Regardless of moral considerations - which should be obvious to any sane mind - I doubt any European power would have either the ability or the will to do such a thing. Conquer? Yes. Colonise? Sure. Oppress? Count on it. But to actively go all over the place with an active "convert-or-die"-mentality... that just seems incredibly stupid.

Sure, Europeans did try to convert the native population of the Americas. So the idea of spreading Christianity by force cannot be said to be absent or something. But let's keep in mind: Europeans converting Native Americans mostly had to do with being able to take the (resources of the) New World and control the native population. (And the effect of disease and the technological disparity really helped make such things possible at all). Compare that to the islamic world, which was clearly a match for Europe in many (if not all) ways. To actually carry out some kind of vast "reconquista" or "neo-crusade" aimed at retaking basically everything the Romans ever owned... is bizarre. That's not even talking about any converting etc. -- just the conquest itself. Which European power could carry it out? In OTL, such a thing never completely happened. The Ottomans held out until the 20th century, and even afterward, Turkey was an independent state. Even though European powers conquered and held their respective parts of North Africa, Arabia, the Levant and Mesopotamia... there was never any kind of effort to "retake the lands of Rome" or something like that. Even the fascists in Italy, who boasted of such things, were thinking of territory. They never even thought about trying to forcibly convert all muslims present in that territory. (This should be a major hint: if it's so far out there that even Mussolini just never considered it, that says a lot...)

Basically, just to carry out the conquest, you'd need a very powerful European state or coalition of states. Even if this were to arise... as soon as the Americas get discovered, it's going to become clear that spending energy there will be more profitable. And even if this is somehow averted, and some European power/coalition spends insane amounts of energy in this "reconquista"... there will be no mass conversions. The earlier it happens, the more likely it will be that energy will be expended to convert people, yes. Which will result in a Christian minority that will become the de facto elite, aiding the Europeans in governing the muslim majority. That's all any European conqueror will want. Career advancement will simply be made impossible for non-Christians, which will prompt (some) conversion. Sure.

But to then go about trying to convert everyone? It would take a ridiculous effort, no matter how you try to do it. You could try to force all children to be raised in Christian schools, but that in itself would be difficult, andwould demand a vast education infrastructure etc. -- a kind of education infrastructure that for the longest time didn't even exist in Europe itself. So far more likely, you'd forcibly convert city-dwellers, but engender burning hatred against your regime, and remain unable to convert anyone outside your direct control.

Hypothetically, given a few hundred years, you could gradually force conversion on increasingly large numbers of people. But the energy and money and effort expended on this would be ludicrous. And genocide, basically, is not an option. It would turn the whole thing into a fight to the death... and that costs even more. So even if someone is insane enough to want it... cold reasoning still prohibits it.

All in all, it's just not worth it. Never has been. Even in an age when religious concerns were much more front-and-centre, and even if somehow the whole conquest takes place... the Europeans doing the conquering will put local elites of converts in place, and will try to get muslims to convert by closing certain social options to muslims and opening them to christians. They might well do what many muslim rulers have done, and tax non-Christians (instead of non-muslims, obviously, as these muslim rulers did). This will have a slow and gradual effect, certainly. But at "best", the result will be a sizable Christian minority by the 20th century.
 
Is genocide even a real option here? Regardless of moral considerations - which should be obvious to any sane mind - I doubt any European power would have either the ability or the will to do such a thing. Conquer? Yes. Colonise? Sure. Oppress? Count on it. But to actively go all over the place with an active "convert-or-die"-mentality... that just seems incredibly stupid.

Sure, Europeans did try to convert the native population of the Americas. So the idea of spreading Christianity by force cannot be said to be absent or something. But let's keep in mind: Europeans converting Native Americans mostly had to do with being able to take the (resources of the) New World and control the native population. (And the effect of disease and the technological disparity really helped make such things possible at all). Compare that to the islamic world, which was clearly a match for Europe in many (if not all) ways. To actually carry out some kind of vast "reconquista" or "neo-crusade" aimed at retaking basically everything the Romans ever owned... is bizarre. That's not even talking about any converting etc. -- just the conquest itself. Which European power could carry it out? In OTL, such a thing never completely happened. The Ottomans held out until the 20th century, and even afterward, Turkey was an independent state. Even though European powers conquered and held their respective parts of North Africa, Arabia, the Levant and Mesopotamia... there was never any kind of effort to "retake the lands of Rome" or something like that. Even the fascists in Italy, who boasted of such things, were thinking of territory. They never even thought about trying to forcibly convert all muslims present in that territory. (This should be a major hint: if it's so far out there that even Mussolini just never considered it, that says a lot...)

Basically, just to carry out the conquest, you'd need a very powerful European state or coalition of states. Even if this were to arise... as soon as the Americas get discovered, it's going to become clear that spending energy there will be more profitable. And even if this is somehow averted, and some European power/coalition spends insane amounts of energy in this "reconquista"... there will be no mass conversions. The earlier it happens, the more likely it will be that energy will be expended to convert people, yes. Which will result in a Christian minority that will become the de facto elite, aiding the Europeans in governing the muslim majority. That's all any European conqueror will want. Career advancement will simply be made impossible for non-Christians, which will prompt (some) conversion. Sure.

But to then go about trying to convert everyone? It would take a ridiculous effort, no matter how you try to do it. You could try to force all children to be raised in Christian schools, but that in itself would be difficult, andwould demand a vast education infrastructure etc. -- a kind of education infrastructure that for the longest time didn't even exist in Europe itself. So far more likely, you'd forcibly convert city-dwellers, but engender burning hatred against your regime, and remain unable to convert anyone outside your direct control.

Hypothetically, given a few hundred years, you could gradually force conversion on increasingly large numbers of people. But the energy and money and effort expended on this would be ludicrous. And genocide, basically, is not an option. It would turn the whole thing into a fight to the death... and that costs even more. So even if someone is insane enough to want it... cold reasoning still prohibits it.

All in all, it's just not worth it. Never has been. Even in an age when religious concerns were much more front-and-centre, and even if somehow the whole conquest takes place... the Europeans doing the conquering will put local elites of converts in place, and will try to get muslims to convert by closing certain social options to muslims and opening them to christians. They might well do what many muslim rulers have done, and tax non-Christians (instead of non-muslims, obviously, as these muslim rulers did). This will have a slow and gradual effect, certainly. But at "best", the result will be a sizable Christian minority by the 20th century.

Christian could try. The have 700 years from the POD to work that out. Will 700 years be enough to change a culture ? Maybe ?
 
Is genocide even a real option here? Regardless of moral considerations - which should be obvious to any sane mind - I doubt any European power would have either the ability or the will to do such a thing. Conquer? Yes. Colonise? Sure. Oppress? Count on it. But to actively go all over the place with an active "convert-or-die"-mentality... that just seems incredibly stupid.

Sure, Europeans did try to convert the native population of the Americas. So the idea of spreading Christianity by force cannot be said to be absent or something. But let's keep in mind: Europeans converting Native Americans mostly had to do with being able to take the (resources of the) New World and control the native population. (And the effect of disease and the technological disparity really helped make such things possible at all). Compare that to the islamic world, which was clearly a match for Europe in many (if not all) ways. To actually carry out some kind of vast "reconquista" or "neo-crusade" aimed at retaking basically everything the Romans ever owned... is bizarre. That's not even talking about any converting etc. -- just the conquest itself. Which European power could carry it out? In OTL, such a thing never completely happened. The Ottomans held out until the 20th century, and even afterward, Turkey was an independent state. Even though European powers conquered and held their respective parts of North Africa, Arabia, the Levant and Mesopotamia... there was never any kind of effort to "retake the lands of Rome" or something like that. Even the fascists in Italy, who boasted of such things, were thinking of territory. They never even thought about trying to forcibly convert all muslims present in that territory. (This should be a major hint: if it's so far out there that even Mussolini just never considered it, that says a lot...)

Basically, just to carry out the conquest, you'd need a very powerful European state or coalition of states. Even if this were to arise... as soon as the Americas get discovered, it's going to become clear that spending energy there will be more profitable. And even if this is somehow averted, and some European power/coalition spends insane amounts of energy in this "reconquista"... there will be no mass conversions. The earlier it happens, the more likely it will be that energy will be expended to convert people, yes. Which will result in a Christian minority that will become the de facto elite, aiding the Europeans in governing the muslim majority. That's all any European conqueror will want. Career advancement will simply be made impossible for non-Christians, which will prompt (some) conversion. Sure.

But to then go about trying to convert everyone? It would take a ridiculous effort, no matter how you try to do it. You could try to force all children to be raised in Christian schools, but that in itself would be difficult, andwould demand a vast education infrastructure etc. -- a kind of education infrastructure that for the longest time didn't even exist in Europe itself. So far more likely, you'd forcibly convert city-dwellers, but engender burning hatred against your regime, and remain unable to convert anyone outside your direct control.

Hypothetically, given a few hundred years, you could gradually force conversion on increasingly large numbers of people. But the energy and money and effort expended on this would be ludicrous. And genocide, basically, is not an option. It would turn the whole thing into a fight to the death... and that costs even more. So even if someone is insane enough to want it... cold reasoning still prohibits it.

All in all, it's just not worth it. Never has been. Even in an age when religious concerns were much more front-and-centre, and even if somehow the whole conquest takes place... the Europeans doing the conquering will put local elites of converts in place, and will try to get muslims to convert by closing certain social options to muslims and opening them to christians. They might well do what many muslim rulers have done, and tax non-Christians (instead of non-muslims, obviously, as these muslim rulers did). This will have a slow and gradual effect, certainly. But at "best", the result will be a sizable Christian minority by the 20th century.
But the Americas give resources as well while also necessing some, I´d try and go with no Ottoman Empire, you free up the Balkans and have a room to create some Orthodox powerhouse there, also Georgia, Nubia, Ethiopia. You have room outside Western Europe to act.

Also I find this idea that conversion is impossible quite weird, it did happen and at some periods even fast, be they Muslim or Christians. To add on top of that, the idea that it would be "unwanted" is quite anhacronistic as well, this is the time just after the Levantine and Nordic Crusade and the time of the Reformation after all.
I'd like to award this thread the "most likely to be a horrific genocide" award of 2017.

I know it's early, but by 1350 you're looking at a Middle East where Islamic society is deeply entrenched and in many places represent a substantial majority. And somehow I don't think a slow boiling non-industrial genocide is really all that better - and that's what would be necessary.

I find this line of questioning horrific for the same reason I find the Years of Rice and Salt horrifying. Basically for the sake of a plot point you have to accept the "in-universe" annhiliation of whole cultures and peoples just for the sake of a hypothetical. Furthermore, the fact that a whole section of the world in the OP's question is reduced to "areas previously owned by the Roman Empire" seems to speak to a certain ativism in the line of questioning.
The same situation is what the Arab found themselves in, Christianity or at least Hellenic and Persian civilization was quite entrenched there for a millennia as well. This idea that you can discuss alternate history without any sort of event that we 21th century internet dwellers would find morally questionably is quite naive.

Also no, you can´t just go around and suppress conversation because of ungiven offense and paranoia.

Christian could try. The have 700 years from the POD to work that out. Will 700 years be enough to change a culture ? Maybe ?
Well given the Arabs ruled the land for that amount of time, yes.
The French had plans to conquer Egypt and Syria in the 1770s which were derailed by their participation in the American Revolution. If they backed off and focused on building a new empire in the Near East, this is somewhat possible.
Isn´t that a bit too late? What if you remove the Ottomans, making it potentially an easier target earlier?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Christian could try. The have 700 years from the POD to work that out. Will 700 years be enough to change a culture ? Maybe ?

I find this idea that conversion is impossible quite weird, it did happen and at some periods even fast, be they Muslim or Christians. To add on top of that, the idea that it would be "unwanted" is quite anhacronistic as well, this is the time just after the Levantine and Nordic Crusade and the time of the Reformation after all.

The same situation is what the Arab found themselves in, Christianity or at least Hellenic and Persian civilization was quite entrenched there for a millennia as well.

Well given the Arabs ruled the land for that amount of time, yes.

I'm not saying that it cannot hypothetically happen. I'm saying that it would be far more costly than could ever be justified by anyone remotely sane, especially since the discovery of the Americas (which is going to happen at some point, even if Columbus doesn't get his expedition) is going to make far more interesting areas of exploitation available.

Conversion did happen, and sometimes rapidly. Sure. But that tended to either be highly regional and/or directly related to other developments. (For instance: Anatolia. Not just conquest, but also migration of Turkic peoples into Anatolia, and thus demographic alteration. I don't see a mass European migration into North Africa happening, really.)

Also, I think it's not very correct to compare a situation in the seventh and eighth centuries (Arab expansion) with a situation centuries later.

Now, to be clear: Christians may well want to convert every single muslim and/or (re)take all sorts of vast areas... but they don't want it enough to incur the bizarrely high costs that holding those regions is unlikely to ever pay back. That in itself rather makes a campaign of conquest unlikely. It makes a campaign of conversion even more unlikely. Taking certain areas is of course very possible, and given such a more modest conquest, conversion als becomes more realistic. (In fact: expulsion of die-hards unwilling to convert just becomes more realistic, too.)

But who is going to actually try to retake all the vast areas you mentioned, @Gloss? You actually indirectly address a relevant factor: the Reformation, you say. That's right. The Reformation. which is just one example of many conflicts within Europe. Any power trying to essentially retake everything the Romans ever held is going to not need to worry about rivals in Europe attacking the motherland. Which European power could do this? I do not realistically see a perspective for it. It's not like the various powers of the islamic world are pushovers. You're going to fight the equivalent of a world war here. So who can be so secure that this can be done, while not risking European rivals exploiting the situation? I can think of no European power that could do it.

As for conversion: absent demographic factors, which played a key role in the overwhelming success of both the Arabic and the Turkic conquests... I'd suggest looking at the Balkans for a realistic outcome. There are muslim majority regions there, and overall the muslim minority is certainly present. But even though the Balkans were held by the Ottomans for centuries... they did not become majority muslim.

Perhaps there is some possibility for a demographic element - namely mass migration of Christian Europeans into the relevent areas, essentially displacing the muslim population and/or overwhelming them to such an extent that conversion can be realistically enforced - but I do not see it. Without this kind of demographic factor, I do not for one second believe that islam would have initially spread as successfully as it did. And without that factor, I do not see Christianity suddenly sweeping back in.
 
Last edited:
We certainly had mass state conversions in the old world in OTL. Protestantism in Europe, Catholicism in Spain and the Philipines. This idea that it can't be done with 700 years to play with in the Muslim world is ridiculous.

Your best option is to have different powers take different bits. The Spanish in the Maghreb. A resurgent Greece along the Med coast. Russia in Turkey. Perhaps an Egyptian Coptic revival sponsored by other powers. Perhaps then some Levantine native ruler converts to avoid war from those surrounding him. You would need a bunch of major PODs but it is not impossible.
 
I'm not saying that it cannot hypothetically happen. I'm saying that it would be far more costly than could ever be justified by anyone remotely sane, especially since the discovery of the Americas (which is going to happen at some point, even if Columbus doesn't get his expedition) is going to make far more interesting areas of exploitation available.
Not the entirety of Europe can be occupied in America, actually less than a half of it can. And you have more than Europe there.

Converstion did happen, and sometimes rapidly. Sure. But that tended to either be highly regional and/or directly related to other developments. (For instance: Anatolia. Not just conquest, but also migration of Turkic peoples into Anatolia, and thus demographic alteration. I don't see a mass European migration into North Africa happening, really.)
Turkic migration contributed to 10% at best, at least of Turkic people, not sure about Arabs or Levantine. Also there is nothing weird with Europeans migrating to North Africa, many did IOTL both in the 19th century and during the Crusade. Of course also as pirates working for the local countries against the Spanish and also as inhabitants of the Coastal cities.

Also, I think it's not very correct to compare a situation in the seventh and eighth centuries (Arab expansion) with a situation centuries later.
Now, to be clear: Christians may well want to convert every single muslim and/or (re)take all sorts of vast areas... but they don't want it enough to incur the bizarrely high costs that holding those regions is unlikely to ever pay back. That in itself rather makes a campaign of conquest unlikely. It makes a campaign of conversion even more unlikely. Taking certain areas is of course very possible, and given such a more modest conquest, conversion als becomes more realistic. (In fact: expulsion of die-hards unwilling to convert just becomes more realistic, too.)
But the more you conquer, the less powerbases there are to counter you back and the more conversion would be easier given less foreign forces being able to rally dissidents.

But who is going to actually try to retake all the vast areas you mentioned, @Gloss? You actually indirectly address a factor: the Reformation, you say. That's right. The Reformation. Just one example of many conflicts within Europe. Any power trying to essentially retake everything the Romans ever held is going to not need to worry about rivals in Europe attacking the motherland. Which European power could do this? I do not realistically see a perspective for it.
You don´t need one country that goes and takes all the land, you can have neo Byzantine in Western Anatolia, Georgians in Eastern Anatolia and mayyyybe in Iraq(Georgia had more people than Iraq in this era!). Infighting could be possible but it doesn´t really prevent any of this from happening.

As for conversion: absent demographic factors, which played a key role in the overwhelming success of both the Arabic and the Turkic conquests... I'd suggest looking at the Balkans for a realistic outcome. There are muslim majority regions there, and overall the muslim minority is certainly present. But even though the Balkans were held by the Ottomans for centuries... they did not become majority muslim.
Well because the Austrians and Russian conquered the area and also is not fair to look at the Balkans only, that would be like looking at the most inland areas in this "reconquista" scenario, those would obviously be more Muslim than elsewhere. Anatolia and Thrace are also obvious places that got converted, plus modern demographics have been influenced by the 19th century rebellions.

Perhaps there is some possibility for a demographic elememt - namely mass migration of Christian Europeans into the relevent areas, essentially displacing the muslim population and/or overwhelming them to such an extent that conversion can be realistically enforced - but I do not see it. Without this kind of demographic factor, I do not for one second believe that islam would hve initially spread as successfully as it did. And without that factor, I do not see Christianity suddenly sweeping back in.
Let´s say you need immigration. The demographics of North Africa and Egypt in this era was not that favourable, more so in the eve of the industrialization. France in 18th century had easily alone more population than the entirety of the area I´m mentioning(Levant, Iraq, Maghreb and Egypt) or at least around that level.
 
Last edited:
We certainly had mass state conversions in the old world in OTL. Protestantism in Europe, Catholicism in Spain and the Philipines. This idea that it can't be done with 700 years to play with in the Muslim world is ridiculous.

Your best option is to have different powers take different bits. The Spanish in the Maghreb. A resurgent Greece along the Med coast. Russia in Turkey. Perhaps an Egyptian Coptic revival sponsored by other powers. Perhaps then some Levantine native ruler converts to avoid war from those surrounding him. You would need a bunch of major PODs but it is not impossible.
Russia in Turkey? That´s weird, I´d go with Armenians or Georgians.

Egyptian coptical revival is highly unlikely if not outright impossible without European, Nubian or even Ethiopian direct military intervention.
 
In my opinion, historical analysis should be separate from moral readings. That is at least how I was taught to investigate.

Full disclosure - I think I misconstrued the original premise. I thought we had to make the whole Middle East Christian, not just "conquered by Christian powers." My utter misunderstanding and then continued misunderstanding was the reason why I reacted as I did. Colonial enterprise happens all the time, and indeed I'm writing a timeline that features genocides, colonialism, and general oppression in all sorts of varied forms. I'm not opposed to discussing or engaging with those topics by any means - I totally misunderstood and apologize for that.

I wanted to address that the acts required to make the Middle East entirely Christian through colonialism would be awful, a fact that I thought raharris glossed over in his post. Upon re-reading, I realize I misunderstood the goal and intent.

Such a colonial project is far more possible in the 18th century and onwards, I should mention.

In this case, the literal answer to this question is OTL, after WWI. Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Libyia, Algeria, and Morocco were all under the control of European states with majority Christian populations and citizenry. If you need it to happen before the 20th century rolls around, just change the impetus for WWI. The Europeans will jump at the chance to put the Middle East under their mandate.

I also don't think you can entirely separate history from value judgments, but that's another debate, and one I'd prefer not to get into in this thread - it doesn't seem to be the place for that tangent.
 
Full disclosure - I think I misconstrued the original premise. I thought we had to make the whole Middle East Christian, not just "conquered by Christian powers."
Technically that IS indeed the goal but only without industrial or mass genocide, if it´s not possible then the other goal is fine as well.

Such a colonial project is far more possible in the 18th century and onwards, I should mention.
Wouldn´t not having a Ottoman Empire make it easier? I mean the Mameluks were totally wrecked by the Portuguese alone on the seas and the trade distruption was what allowed the Ottomans to take over, now a ambitious assault on Egypt in the early 16th century is not feasible but if you don´t have a Ottomans then there aren´t many Islamic powers in Mediterraneans, making a takeover easier.
 
The French had plans to conquer Egypt and Syria in the 1770s which were derailed by their participation in the American Revolution. If they backed off and focused on building a new empire in the Near East, this is somewhat possible.

Could you expand on this more? I've never heard about these plans before. .
 
Top