AHC/WI: Arabia unites early

katchen

Banned
The Himyarites could do it from Yemen if Axum dosen't conquer them. Himyar starts with Nejran, then Asir, Mecca , Yathrib , moving north through the Hejaz to the Ghassanid Kingdom. Then the Nejd. and then the Lakhmids. Late Antiquity winds up with a Jewish Arabia perhaps all the way to Oman. And maybe turning around and conquering Axum and the Puntland cities.
 
Alexander the Great doesnt die and conquers Arabia as planned. After his death the empire still gets divided and entire Arabia is given to one of Alexander's Generals. He is a peaceful guy and develops Arabia, which manages to survive/stay united untill at least 300AD.
 
Technically, if the whole area is conquered by Rome or Presia, that counts. The penisula is not only united, but also part of a bigger empire.
 
Pre-Islamic Arabia was as diverse than, let's say pre-roman Gaul : diverse tribes not always sharing same origins or exact languages, influence of foreign countries competing (Ethiopia, Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc.)

While benefiting on being on the major trade road to India, it certainly favoured both great focus on coast at the expense of desert seen...well as pretty useless and dangerous and to powerful neighbours intervention that had little interest to see Arabia being united.

Depending how we interpret the "united" it can go to feasible to really unlikely.
If only the coast count, then Persian empires, probably Alexander and maybe Rome (but relativly unlikely as it would force them to stretch their troops to importantly) could do.

An unfication made by Arabs alone seems really hard without inner and external incitatives (aka unifing factors and decline or even asence of foreign intervention).

An unification including desert seems really really hard to do, never having being really made including in caliphal times.
 
The Kinda tribal federation was pretty strong in what is now Najd (more or less it eastern part IIRC) around 300 AD. They are thought to have been an early attempt to unify the Northern branch of Arabs, excluding the powerful sedentary kingdoms of Yemen.
We know that they had a "King" which is unusual for central Arabian leaders and seems to imply a much larger amount of power than customary among nomadic Arabs (or most nomads, really). Whatever exactly the Kinda managed to control, both in territorial extent and actual ability to command obedience, is not really known, but surely above average for Northern Arab groups of the era. The Kinda hegemony (I'm hesitant to call it "kingdom") probably collapsed after 328 AD, when it's only King known by name died (his funerary inscription is the first document we have of the Arabic language).
I am not sure how you can wank the Kinda. Their political structure was probably very loose, which means they would probably collapse everytime the leader dies. OTOH, geographically they dominate the peninsula. They control the deserts and the central land trade routes. If they manage to take and hold Mecca and the other Hijaz cities to their west, they can become filthy rich with trade. This economy could favor some degree of political consolidation. To secure trade, they'll have to establish alliances, control, and contacts north, and they'll become a player in the Byzantine-Persian rivalry.
Then there's the problem of the Himyarites in Yemen. A strong kingdom, but the Kinda are nomads and have the advantage of geography going for them. Moreover, if the Kinda federation expands, it has to include more tribes into its military and political base, and then expansion (with the related revenue) is a very useful way to secure continued loyalty from an increasingly diverse and fractured support. Expansion to the North is a no-go, unless done cooperating with a Great Power against the other. Yemen is the way to go (nice sedentary tax base, really).

This is a stretch, really, but interesting.
 
Pre-Islamic Arabia was as diverse than, let's say pre-roman Gaul : diverse tribes not always sharing same origins or exact languages, influence of foreign countries competing (Ethiopia, Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc.)

While benefiting on being on the major trade road to India, it certainly favoured both great focus on coast at the expense of desert seen...well as pretty useless and dangerous and to powerful neighbours intervention that had little interest to see Arabia being united.

Depending how we interpret the "united" it can go to feasible to really unlikely.
If only the coast count, then Persian empires, probably Alexander and maybe Rome (but relativly unlikely as it would force them to stretch their troops to importantly) could do.

An unfication made by Arabs alone seems really hard without inner and external incitatives (aka unifing factors and decline or even asence of foreign intervention).

An unification including desert seems really really hard to do, never having being really made including in caliphal times.

The very early caliphs seem to have managed, to a point. It didn't went far into the Umayyad era I think, if at all.
 
The very early caliphs seem to have managed, to a point. It didn't went far into the Umayyad era I think, if at all.

It's really debatable they managed to get much more than a nominal acceptence. Nor that they cared that much : why care about bitching Beduins when you can get rich provinces from Byzzies and Persians?
It's quite intereting to see that the two more important factions in Umayyad period are issued from the western margins of Arabia.

It's vague, of course, but the Apostasy Wars can show that Nejd tribes tried to reject Caliphal domination - but not Islam - as far than Muhammad's death. Later, Bedouin recieved stipends for allowance relativly irregularly as not playing a really dyamic role.
You had another documentated revolt in the late VII century (Ibn al-Zubaïr) showing that even in the western shores (while having being favoured by the first Umayyads), Arabs weren't really united.

When you say "to a point" I agree, as long we're talking of a more or less vague point ;) (mostly because of lack of documentation : I wonder if it's a study about it)
 
It's really debatable they managed to get much more than a nominal acceptence. Nor that they cared that much : why care about bitching Beduins when you can get rich provinces from Byzzies and Persians?
It's quite intereting to see that the two more important factions in Umayyad period are issued from the western margins of Arabia.

It's vague, of course, but the Apostasy Wars can show that Nejd tribes tried to reject Caliphal domination - but not Islam - as far than Muhammad's death. Later, Bedouin recieved stipends for allowance relativly irregularly as not playing a really dyamic role.
You had another documentated revolt in the late VII century (Ibn al-Zubaïr) showing that even in the western shores (while having being favoured by the first Umayyads), Arabs weren't really united.

When you say "to a point" I agree, as long we're talking of a more or less vague point ;) (mostly because of lack of documentation : I wonder if it's a study about it)

I vaguely recall about some French orientalist working on it, but actually, there is not that much in the way of primary sources, so our knowledge is probably bound to remain quite limited.
 
Challenge: have the Arabian Peninsula unite around 300 AD.

What happens?

Let's imagine, that the Roman emperor Aurelianus got killed much earlier and did not have time to conquer the Palmerian Empire. The Palmerian Empire of Odenatus or Zenobia might try to conquer the richest parts of Arabia and try to pacify the bedouins.
Well, after some time there might be the great Palmerian Arab Empire stretching from Spain to India. Why not?
 
What was the climate in Arabia like at the time? Was it as dry as today, wetter or dryer? That would have a major impact on the ability of any army to conquer/unify it. I know there used to be civilization in the empty quarter but can't recollect the era it existed.
 
What was the climate in Arabia like at the time? Was it as dry as today, wetter or dryer? That would have a major impact on the ability of any army to conquer/unify it. I know there used to be civilization in the empty quarter but can't recollect the era it existed.

The climate was roughly the same, maybe a bit more favourable to agriculture along the coast due to the "Roman Warm Period" (it allowed by exemple a greater expand of viticulture in northern Europe). the kingdoms of Yemen were particularlt prosperous in this regard ("Arabia Felix")

For the Arabia Deserta, it was mainly a tribal society, the Beduin culture. Maybe it's what you had in mind? The region isn't totally ignored but, still, let pretty much to itself except for what regarded trade roads and their attacks by Beduine riders.
 
Top