AHC: Make Islam extinct or a minor religion... with a PoD after the muslim conquests.

Is it possible? I mean, in theory, much stranger things have happened, like the the whole Muslim Conquests for example.

I was thinking possibilities, and maybe a really resurgent Eastern Roman Empire, or the Mongols convert to Nestrorianism or Budhism, and conquer the whole Middle East? I guess the easy way out is to create a new even more viral religion that replaces it.

Share your ideas please.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
Have the Arabs never brake out of Arabia by bejng defeated by the Persians or simplr infighting. There are lots of different battle between the Byzantines and Muslims that could have been lost by Islam and boom Islam is contained to the sparselt populated Arabian Desert where a small conquesr can disrupt everything.
 
By after the conqeusts you mean it happens after the Muslims have conquered everything from Spain to the Indus? It would take a massive screw job of epic proportions. Not only would it require the Byzantines to come roaring back, it would need an early Reconquista, a rebellion in Central Asia, a Coptic coup in Egypt, a Zoroastrian revival in Persia, a Berber revolt, and an ongoing Muslim civil war. It doesn't need to happen all at once, but in a relatively short amount of time, say within one hundred years of each other. While conceivable, it wouldn't be very plausible. Perhaps if the Abassids fail to overcome the Umayyads in 750, but usher in a long period of civil war instead that fragements the Islamic polity.

It would be a lot easier if the POD was during the Conquests that would prevent most of that. Then a resurgence by the Byzantines and/or Persians would throw the Muslims back into Arabia where the defeat causes extreme loss of prestige and mass apostasy. The easiest POD would be Abu Bakr losing the Ridda Wars, and Islam remains an extremely minor sect around Mecca and Medina.
 

fi11222

Banned
Has anyone tried to think about a monophysite/messianic refoundation (or split) of the Byzantine Empire.

One reason why Islam was able to beat the Byzantines is that they were weakened by centuries of infighting over christology. The areas that fell to Islam first (Syria, Egypt) were heavily monophysite.

Would a monophhysite emperor have fared better against Islam? Let us consider the following scenario.

- Heraclius dies in 629 (instead of 640) on his way to bringing back the True Cross to Jerusalem
- His son, Heraclius Constantine (Constantine III in OTL) ascends the throne.
- Persuaded by the Persian/Armenian/Arabic advisers of his father, the young emperor (17 years old) decides to set up his capital in Jerusalem instead of going back to Constantinople in order to capitalize on the enormous religious enthusiasm generated by the victory over the Persians.
- He choses a new titulature which makes him a sort of vice-Messiah on Earth, e.g: "Davidos Alexandros Konstantinos Basileus para Christos" (David Alexander Constantine sub-Christ King, any help from Byzantinists welcome to make this sound better)
- He makes sweeping concessions to the Monophysites, like authorising the trisagion with "who died for our sins on the cross" in liturgy.

The magic of having a new quasi-god on Earth generates a huge popularity boost which enables the new emperor to silence potential troublemaking churchmen and to enact the military and fiscal reforms required to rebuild the Empire from the devastations of the Persian wars.

When the Muslim military challenge comes, the army is united behind a charismatic young emperor and therefore avoids the hesitations and coordination problems experienced in OTL, notably at Yarmouk.
 
Has anyone tried to think about a monophysite/messianic refoundation (or split) of the Byzantine Empire.

One reason why Islam was able to beat the Byzantines is that they were weakened by centuries of infighting over christology. The areas that fell to Islam first (Syria, Egypt) were heavily monophysite.

Would a monophhysite emperor have fared better against Islam? Let us consider the following scenario.

- Heraclius dies in 629 (instead of 640) on his way to bringing back the True Cross to Jerusalem
- His son, Heraclius Constantine (Constantine III in OTL) ascends the throne.
- Persuaded by the Persian/Armenian/Arabic advisers of his father, the young emperor (17 years old) decides to set up his capital in Jerusalem instead of going back to Constantinople in order to capitalize on the enormous religious enthusiasm generated by the victory over the Persians.
- He choses a new titulature which makes him a sort of vice-Messiah on Earth, e.g: "Davidos Alexandros Konstantinos Basileus para Christos" (David Alexander Constantine sub-Christ King, any help from Byzantinists welcome to make this sound better)
- He makes sweeping concessions to the Monophysites, like authorising the trisagion with "who died for our sins on the cross" in liturgy.

The magic of having a new quasi-god on Earth generates a huge popularity boost which enables the new emperor to silence potential troublemaking churchmen and to enact the military and fiscal reforms required to rebuild the Empire from the devastations of the Persian wars.

When the Muslim military challenge comes, the army is united behind a charismatic young emperor and therefore avoids the hesitations and coordination problems experienced in OTL, notably at Yarmouk.
There's a theory that one reason why so many people in those outlying provinces turned Monophysite was because that wasn't the Emperor's favoured creed, as a way of showing & strengthening more local loyalties: If that's true then turning the emperors Monophysite might actually result in many of the Syrians, Copts, and Armenians, switching to yet another version of Christianity instead...
 
Top