AHC: Islamic Byzantine Empire

The last few weeks I've been playing a good deal of Crusader Kings II, partially explaining why I've been taking a break from my Amalingian TL. While playing my most recent scenario as an Irish dynasty, I was horrified/bemused to see that an Islamic dynasty had managed to secure the Byzantine throne and were busy converting the population to the Sunni faith. Two centuries later, the Orthodox Church has been almost entirely overwhelmed and the Holy Roman Empire just had repulse a Sunni jihad for Sicily.

Now, before anyone speaks up; I'm very aware that strategy games (even amazing ones like CKII or the rest of the Paradox line) do not always lead to the most realistic alternate history scenarios. But, that being said, the entire thing got me to thinking:

Would it have been possible (perhaps not likely, but possible) for a native Greek dynasty to come to power in the Byzantine Empire which embraced the Islamic faith and went about converting the Greek people to that faith.

A secondary question: even if the Byzantines go Islamic, I suspect that they would come to embrace a version of the faith which would be unique to the Greek speaking world. 1) the faith would need to adapt to the Greek culture if it was to truly take hold and 2) from a political standpoint, it would be in the best interest of the dynasty to differentiate itself from the faith embraced by the Caliphate. And so, how would a Greek Islam develop?
 
Well it would be interesting to see an Islamic Roman Empire, the basis of which being the Roman population of the East Empire and including the elements of the Roman Empire that survived in the East and not an Ottoman Empire which was on the basis of the Turkic dynasty adopting Romanish culture and bureaucracy.
 

Deleted member 67076

How about the Byzantines fall to the Arabs in the 670s, only to have a dynasty break away during the collapse of the Ummayads. Much like the Abbasids and the Persians, the reliance on Roman administration leads to a rapid Hellenization of the state, but the faith remains. Also, let's say that due to the Sultan being related to the old nobility, he claims the mantle of Roman Emperor and works hard to preserve that image, including conscious adoption of cultural practices the Romans did that act as another piller of Romanization.

Isn't that just the ottomans i mean they did claim to be the sultan of rum( rome)

Different language, different bureacratic methods, different government, different emphasis on economics- the Ottomans were an entirely different beast.
 
How about the Byzantines fall to the Arabs in the 670s, only to have a dynasty break away during the collapse of the Ummayads. Much like the Abbasids and the Persians, the reliance on Roman administration leads to a rapid Hellenization of the state, but the faith remains. Also, let's say that due to the Sultan being related to the old nobility, he claims the mantle of Roman Emperor and works hard to preserve that image, including conscious adoption of cultural practices the Romans did that act as another piller of Romanization.



Different language, different bureacratic methods, different government, different emphasis on economics- the Ottomans were an entirely different beast.

That could work, and may be the best way, although I was hoping for the Byzantine Empire to remain largely intact (i.e. no initial conquest and the reestablishment)

I know, at the start, The Orthodox Church viewed Islam as a heresy and not an independent faith. Considering that Emperors occasionally mad efforts to accommodate or even adopt heresy as their own personal faith, would it be possible for a group of Emperors to convert to Islam? Even in OTL one could argue that Islam exerted some influence of Orthodox Christianity (at least if the theory holds true that Iconoclasm was inspired by similar bans in Islam). I suspect, in this case, you may need a less threatening Caliphate; I find it difficult to find any Emperor converting to a faith being held by a primary rival that threatens the very existence of the Empire.
 
That could work, and may be the best way, although I was hoping for the Byzantine Empire to remain largely intact (i.e. no initial conquest and the reestablishment)

I know, at the start, The Orthodox Church viewed Islam as a heresy and not an independent faith. Considering that Emperors occasionally mad efforts to accommodate or even adopt heresy as their own personal faith, would it be possible for a group of Emperors to convert to Islam? Even in OTL one could argue that Islam exerted some influence of Orthodox Christianity (at least if the theory holds true that Iconoclasm was inspired by similar bans in Islam). I suspect, in this case, you may need a less threatening Caliphate; I find it difficult to find any Emperor converting to a faith being held by a primary rival that threatens the very existence of the Empire.

Maybe, at first, Islam should be considered as a christian heresy instead of beeing seen as another religion (this without changing the content of the religion). Perhaps Muhammad isn't welcomed in Mecca and has to finally flee into the ERE which he know from his travels as merchant.

Then, the religion spread through the empire as other religions did since the Rome's foundation. Naturally, the new faith is persucuted by the orthodox church. Maybe even Muhammad (and some of his disciples) are killed, strengthening the religion's fanatism and determination.

After two centuries of spreading, harassment and subsequent attraction and conversion, the Islam finally accomplises what he sees as his mission: a sympathetic emperor (e.g. a former converted army officer) musters the Fourth Council of Constantinople, infiltrated by islamic proselytes, which declares the Qur'an the definitive and last revelation, thus making the "islamic tendency" of Christianity the only allowed version of christian faith - and also cementing the schism between the western church and the "eastern", "orthodox", "islamic" church.

Meanwhile, Muhammad's emigration has avoided notable Arab expansion and the wars between Persia and Byzantium ended in a stalemate, while the Roman empire gains back some Italian territories. Though, after the islamization of the country and the introduction of the idea of a "holy war", the expansion of the empire can maybe be accelerated...
 

I like your idea, but there is a significant issue with it. At the time, Islam was (and still is to an extent) an Arab religion. Part of the reason it spread so rapidly was because it was viewed as pushing through social reform while reinforcing Arab traditions. Muhammad would have a lot of issues pushing a foreign religion on a Hellenic population; even OTL in the Caliphate, for some time it was mostly the Arabs who were Muslims.
 
I like your idea, but there is a significant issue with it. At the time, Islam was (and still is to an extent) an Arab religion.

Hm. The Old testament is actually in hebrew and was later translated into Greek and Latin. This can also be done with the first islamic revelations, if Muhammad want them to spread in the empire. The Greek and Latin terminology is already existing - it's basically the christian one. And then, a hellenised and understandable teaching can spread in the empire's hellenic population.

Part of the reason it spread so rapidly was because it was viewed as pushing through social reform while reinforcing Arab traditions.

What?! Arabs before Muhammad were fanatic polytheists! Much of the Qur'an's content is higly influenced by Jewish and Christian traditions. Neither monotheism nor the chastity nor the prohibition of images were issues supported by the inhabitants of Mecca who had to be forced to accept the muslim doctrin.

And maybe the issue with the social reform could also work in an underpriviliged part of Roman society/empire, e.g. Egypt.

Muhammad would have a lot of issues pushing a foreign religion on a Hellenic population; even OTL in the Caliphate, for some time it was mostly the Arabs who were Muslims.

Remember what Paul and other apostles did to accomodate the Romans with Christianity. Some impopular commands like circumcision or the ban of pork were abolished; also, think of the popularity arianism had in the 4th century - Islam, arianism and other adversaries of trinity have common views on monotheism.
 
I like your idea, but there is a significant issue with it. At the time, Islam was (and still is to an extent) an Arab religion. Part of the reason it spread so rapidly was because it was viewed as pushing through social reform while reinforcing Arab traditions. Muhammad would have a lot of issues pushing a foreign religion on a Hellenic population; even OTL in the Caliphate, for some time it was mostly the Arabs who were Muslims.

Islam was practically Arab religion, but in spirit it has always been intended to be universal revelation. Muhammad was a politician, but part of his reasoning of tolerating non-polytheistic religions was also ideological and personal sympathy.

But yes, Arab culture was the beneficiary of Islamic reform and became its vessel, because well it was born and developed in Arabia. In G.Washington's scenario Islam would undergo sufficient hellenization to follow standard Roman trajectory to power. But faster and frankly more culturally impactful would be imposing it top down from conquering Constantinople.
 
Top