AHC: Swap Christianity and Islam

The challenge is, by whatever means necessary, have Islamic nations controlling roughly the territories held by Christian nations in 1500 (Iberian Peninsula, France, British Isles, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Scandinavia, Western Russia, Poland, Ect.) and Christian nations controlling the territories of Islam in 1500 (Essentially the Middle east as far east as India, north africa, the Balkans, Arabia, Eastern Russia, Ect.). The deadline by which the changes should be complete is 1500, and the sect of the areas switched doesn't matter (as in, for Christian Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Nestorian, Coptic, and others are all good, and for islam Shia, Sunni, of Sufi are all fine). Bonus points if you can keep western cultures such as French and English alive after Islamification and Arabain and Turkish culture in tact in the Christianized areas.
 
Islamic victory at Tours would have done the trick, paving the way for an Islamic controlled territory in Western Europe, plus they would be within striking range of Britain if they had conquered France. I'm not sure how the Christians would be entrenched in the Middle East, though a surviving Coptic based kingdom would have helped.
 
Islamic victory at Tours would have done the trick, paving the way for an Islamic controlled territory in Western Europe, plus they would be within striking range of Britain if they had conquered France. I'm not sure how the Christians would be entrenched in the Middle East, though a surviving Coptic based kingdom would have helped.

Iran manages to hold off the Islamic invasion, converts to Nestorian Christianity?

Bruce
 
On the Old Board and probably here, I posted a "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" timeline.

Basically the Byzantine Empire falls to the Avars and Persians, with the survivors fleeing to Italy and North Africa. The overextended Persian Empire splits in half, with the western half falling to the Arabs. The Arabs work their way more deeply into Europe, converting the incoming steppe tribes like the Magyars and Bulgars, but the newly-independent Egyptians hold them at the Sinai.

Eventually a new wave of Nestorian steppe tribes will invade the Middle East and conquer the Holy Cities, provoking a Jihad from the Islamic states of Europe.

You like?
 
On the Old Board and probably here, I posted a "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" timeline.

Basically the Byzantine Empire falls to the Avars and Persians, with the survivors fleeing to Italy and North Africa. The overextended Persian Empire splits in half, with the western half falling to the Arabs. The Arabs work their way more deeply into Europe, converting the incoming steppe tribes like the Magyars and Bulgars, but the newly-independent Egyptians hold them at the Sinai.

Eventually a new wave of Nestorian steppe tribes will invade the Middle East and conquer the Holy Cities, provoking a Jihad from the Islamic states of Europe.

You like?

That's certainly an interesting scenario. You could also have a Christianized Mongol Empire which moves into the Middle East in greater strength than OTL. That prompts an exodus of Muslims out of the ME into Europe, while the Christian Mongols fill in the gaps behind them.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Islamic victory at Tours would have done the trick, paving the way for an Islamic controlled territory in Western Europe, plus they would be within striking range of Britain if they had conquered France..

No. For three reasons.

1)They didn't had enough men. In 750, it's estimated you had maybe 5 000 Arabs and 15 000 Berbers for the whole Spain (with 3.5 Millions of Hispano-Romans incunding Germano-Romans) with Arabo-Berbers from Ifryqia and critically Maghrib joining for some times before returning in Africa.

Gaul had around 10 Millions of inhabitants (with 3/5 north of Loire admittedly, that put the southern population around 4 millions).

And for raiding Gaul, you certainly can't put the WHOLE muslim army out of Spain, 10 000 is the best you can gather.

Even for what they held in Gaul (roughly Septimania) they didn't managed to have more than one town garrisoned (Narbona/Arbûna) with the whole country being under the hands of the Occitano-Roman nobility -mostly from visigothic origin.

2)Tactics.

The usual tactic is first raids to have plunder that happen to allow explore the land. If all things are okay, then they tought about attacking.

They did twice, not only for raiding (as they did in Sens or Tours) but for conquest against Aquitains in 721 and in provence around 735. They failed, big time.

Partially because Franks used foot-based tactics (it's possible, while not prooved, that Charles Martel reused some roman formations) with heavy infantery that was quite useful against light cavalry. Not only that tought, the Aquitains relied much on the light Gascon cavalry.

You have too the terrain : it's one thing to fight in land as southern Spain and Western Africa, it's another to fight in more cold, more foresty, etc.
It's maybe one of the things that explain why they were sucessful for raids in Provence and up to Sens and not towards the Aquitain way.

Then, the Gaul wasn't the Visigothic kingdom plagued by civil war. Aquitaine was quite of a stabilized territory, and Charles Martel reunified a Frankish Kingdom that was only briefly in civil war (his father Pépin II managed to unite it since the end of VII century).

3)Context

The Arabo-Berbers knew that, and if they didn't forgot all hope to take over Franjs, they had more cautious and realist objectives.
Wanting to take revenge on the defeat at Tolosa (often considered as more important than the one at Poitiers for the Arab scholars of MA) they decided to plunder the most rich, most important site in Gaul : St Martin's Basilica.

Almanzor didn't tought a different way when he plundered Compostella : "there's good loot and it would teach them".

A victory at Poitiers is possible, tough would need a POD that could butterfly the expedition. It would end as a raid though, and Arabs would come back with more wealth than OTL.

There's no way it would be enough to butterfly the Berber Revolt of 740 and the subsequent civil wars in Al-Andalus, nor the Abassid Coup. With these events, Al-Andalus wouldn't be in position of attack and invade : good enough if they keep what they had.
 
Byzantines survive , Persia does not allowing Islamic spread into Central Asia converting several Turkic groups that go around the Byzantines and invade Europe through Russia while the Byzantines manage to successfully with the Copts defeat the Caliphate and inspire a Nestorian-lead Revolt in Persia.
 
Byzantines survive , Persia does not allowing Islamic spread into Central Asia converting several Turkic groups that go around the Byzantines and invade Europe through Russia while the Byzantines manage to successfully with the Copts defeat the Caliphate and inspire a Nestorian-lead Revolt in Persia.

But how does Europe become Islamic in that scenario?
 
All very interesting. Merryprankster's idea has potential I think, but Islamic conquest of Europe would take a good deal more than defeating Charles Martel. Maybe the Arabs thuroughly integrate Spain and make lasting gains in Italy and the Western Mediterranean Islands. A surviving northern Byzantium would help I think, since if we are going for 1500 the Ottomans controlled the southern Balkans at that time. Also, maybe a stronger resistance in Persia could make more Arabic groups go west, perhaps enough that North Africa can become more relevant in the western Med.
 
All very interesting. Merryprankster's idea has potential I think, but Islamic conquest of Europe would take a good deal more than defeating Charles Martel. Maybe the Arabs thuroughly integrate Spain and make lasting gains in Italy and the Western Mediterranean Islands.

Again, with which men exactly?
It would necessit to end the conquest of North Africa that was basically achieved in 710. From there, there are two choices:

-Or attack byzantines in Italy, hoping they wouldn't be able to retiliate and that Lombards wouldn't try to use that for streghten themselves. Hoping that the raids made in order to explore Sicily doesn't fail as they are likely to do.
This solution would be more costly in men and wouldn't have even the opportunity to raise a Berber army like in Maghrib.

-Integrate Spain? Again, how can you integrate Spain more quickly with 5 000 Arabs segregating 10 000 Berbers and with 3,5 Millions of Locals?

As said, neither of this would butterfly the fall of Umayyad Caliphate or the Berber Revolt, and the subsequent civil war (or at least disorder) in western Islamic World.
 
There is some evidence that Yazdigerd was a Christian, and one of the reasons he was unable to create a resistance. Also, the Arabs were far more interested in conquering the Romans than the Persians. So, if you somehow manage an early Arab and Persian peace you can free up more Arabs to conquer the Mediterranean. If indeed Yazdigerd was a Christian he might be able to build a Christian Persia that later on leads a crusade to conquer Palestine. That's the recepie to switch Islam and Christianity.
 
Top