Well, using a PoD I'm familiar with, if the Byzantines lose their war with the Sassanians in 628 and subsequently got through the same decline that the Sassanians did IOTL, I do not think they'd be a problem for the Arabs to conquer.
It would be relatively easy for the Arabs to convert the Greeks to Islam with such an early PoD (1000 + years for conversion). Once converted, I can easily see the Muslim Greeks exerting an immense cultural pull over the rest of the world, similar to how the Persians and Persianates did IOTL. They'd probably schism off from mainstream Islam because of their linguistic, cultural, ethnic, geographic et cetera differences. Seeing as their closer to Europe and were already more scientifically advanced to start with, they'd probably be much more scientific and forward-minded too.
Well, using a PoD I'm familiar with, if the Byzantines lose their war with the Sassanians in 628 and subsequently got through the same decline that the Sassanians did IOTL, I do not think they'd be a problem for the Arabs to conquer.
It would be relatively easy for the Arabs to convert the Greeks to Islam with such an early PoD (1000 + years for conversion).
Once converted, I can easily see the Muslim Greeks exerting an immense cultural pull over the rest of the world, similar to how the Persians and Persianates did IOTL. They'd probably schism off from mainstream Islam because of their linguistic, cultural, ethnic, geographic et cetera differences. Seeing as their closer to Europe and were already more scientifically advanced to start with, they'd probably be much more scientific and forward-minded too.
And of course, rebellions will have no effect.
Over the course of nearly 1500 years, they will be as Islamic as Lebanon, at minimum.
Why would they schism off from Islam any more than Iran - which was mostly Sunni for most of OTL - did?
Number one, for geography. The Azeri region, of modern Iran and Azerbaijan, as well as Tabaristan both had high Shi'ite population (Because of the Alavids, a Shi'ite dynasty). Its no coincidence they were the hardest to reach for the Arabs, to re-sunnify.
Orthdoxy (small o but you can't see it) is not dependent on homogeneity among the peoples following it.
Fair point.
And more scientifically advanced than who? More forward minded than who?
Then the rest of Europe (But I don't what that has to do with anything).
////////////////////////////////////////////
Again, 1500 years of Muslim rule will have no effect? Every ex-Roman territory captured by the Arabs is now Muslim, even Egypt and Northern Africa, which were some of the earliest places to become Christian in the first place. Rebellions would have an effect in the short term, but would inevitably be quashed. Constantinople + Greece are two jewels the Muslims would never want to lose. Greece is no Spain and doesn't have the problems associated with it (being on the extremities of the Muslim world, no racial tension in the conquering classes et cetera), so a Reconquista is not likely.1) Again, rebellions will have no effect?And what about Armenia (as an example of an area ruled over by nonChristians without being converted)?
Why not? It seems likely. After all, most of the other territories conquered by the early Caliphates stayed Muslim. With the ERE out of the picture, their only serious regional rival is the Kingdom of Hungary. The Arabs aren't weak. They're not going to grab the Queen of Cities and her hinterland and just let it slip from their grasp permanently.Why are we assuming that this area is definitely controlled by Muslims for so long?
Well. You've got the fact that Greece would be in constant contact with the Europeans, they'd be kept in wind of European ideas and ideologies that would certainly influence them. You've got the fact that the Greeks have a very distinct culture and language, which would accelerate anti-Arab sentiments to that (or even further) of the Persians pre-Shu'ubiyya. Yes, you do have the geographic split. You've got the differences in attitude towards various things (the attitudes towards women, towards food and drink et cetera).2) Again, Iran has largely been Sunni. There has to be a better reason than geography for people deciding to adopt a contrary view - sure, it's possible that they might - but its equally possible that this interferes with maintaining control.
Armenia spent a lot of time bouncing back and forth between Muslims, Byzantines, and various local Christian dynasties until the 1300s/1400s and maybe even later, though, and was very often not under any one power's firm control. I rather have the impression that any muslim power capable of controlling Constantinople is going to be rather less tenuous, although I could well imagine it being politically independent. That doesn't mean that it will definitely not Islamize, of course, but it does mean that it would likely need to be not as firmly held by whoever's holding the territory to not islamize I suspect.1) Again, rebellions will have no effect?And what about Armenia (as an example of an area ruled over by nonChristians without being converted)?
@ Elfwine Of course rebellions will factor in, and maybe a reason for the Schism. For example, let's say that there is a lot of rebellion in Greece (Or Rum as it would be called by Arabs) so the Rashiduns/Umayyad/who ever decide to finance Sufi missionary activity in Rum. The Sufis use syncretism to win over the population (Perhaps they put emphasis on the virgin Mary and go easy on the Alcohal ban) similar to what happened in Albania. Now that they have caused a divide, as they move further away from Sunnism, they differ on other opinions, such as that prayers can be said in any language and that they do not need to pray towards Mecca, only to the nearest holy place.
Thus we have a Schism in place, all in Greece alone.