Arab Conquests Without Islam

Simple question. Is there a consensus here on whether an Arabia that was politically united by the early 7th century in a world without Islam would have either

1) A similar drive for conquest, and
2) Whether they would have been as successful without Islam, either in the short term (physically conquering as much land as the early Muslims did) or long term (preventing reconquest from the Byzantines and others over the centuries).

Would the answer be meaningfully different depending on whether one substitutes Islam with orthodox Christianity, a more off-brand version of Christianity, Judaism (say you spot the Himyarites a Great Man of the Julius Caesar caliber who staves off Axumite conquest and sets the stage for his kingdom conquering Arabia), or pre-Islamic Arabian paganism?
 
I think it would be succesful insofar as Arab populations would install themselves as the ruling class over many of the surrounding regions, and the overpopulation in the homeland is largely solved. Now, without Islam, I don;t think you're going to see much expansion beyond an initial wave, nor will you see any wide-spread Arabization.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Yes, I believe the Arab conquests would have still occurred as they did in OTL. Although the invasion of Hispania would have never occurred and the Arab hold over North Africa would be most likely limited.

Both the Eastern Roman and Persian Empires were weakened by a truly epic war which lasted thirty years. Although religiously I believe things would remain status quo as they were in OTL before the emergence of Islam.

In the former provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Arab rulers would convert to whatever religion the local population believed in a couple of generations. Of course Arabic would replace Aramaic as the main spoken language in the Levant and Mesopotamia, although Aramaic would remain a liturgical language.

The Arab empire would be overthrown in a century or so by a new Zoroastrian Persian Empire, the Empire would likely be split up between the New Persian empire in Egypt, Levant and Mesopotamia and whatever Arab dynasty which was overthrown establishing a state in North Africa. Essentially the whole Arab conquests would be seen as just another barbarian invasion.

Things get really interesting when the great Turkic migrations occur, it is very likely they would convert to Christianity (of the Nestorian sort). Then Central Asia would become predominately Nestorian Christian.
 
Last edited:
Both the Eastern Roman and Persian Empires were weakened by a truly epic war which lasted thirty years. Although religiously I believe things would remain status quo as they were in OTL before the emergence of Islam.

In the former provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Arab rulers would convert to whatever religion the local population believed in a couple of generations.

What about in the case of an Arab empire spreading a non-Chalcedonian version of Christianity, perhaps something that didn't exist IOTL? All other factors being equal, would the new ruling class be more or less likely to convert to mainstream Christianity than the OTL Muslim rulers?

What about a Jewish Arab empire - after all, there were large Jewish populations in the Near East and Egypt at the time.
 
What about a Jewish Arab empire - after all, there were large Jewish populations in the Near East and Egypt at the time.
Judaism is an intensely tribal religion. This is even more true in the Dark Ages before Rabbinic culture would truly begin to achieve impressive and universalist heights. There's not much there for an Arab. Christianity, whether it be Chalcedonian or not, will almost certainly predominate.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
What about in the case of an Arab empire spreading a non-Chalcedonian version of Christianity, perhaps something that didn't exist IOTL? All other factors being equal, would the new ruling class be more or less likely to convert to mainstream Christianity than the OTL Muslim rulers?

What about a Jewish Arab empire - after all, there were large Jewish populations in the Near East and Egypt at the time.

That is a possibility, however there would be a pressure for the Arab ruling class to convert to what ever religion was dominant in the areas they ruled, Jewish Arab empire would be a possibility for a century or so. However if say the Jews in the Empire are going to be advantaged that is going to create both a Christian and Zoroastrian (or newly Christianized Persians) uprising. Therefore the Arab Empire would collapse anyway with an resurgent Zoroastrian Persian Empire and the Byzantines taking over everywhere East of Libya.

Although things could become interesting in North Africa where the a lot of the Berbers could convert to Judaism, there were Jewish Berber tribes in OTL. There a Jewish state could emerge which could span into Hispania (where the large Jewish community would welcome the invaders with open arms).

Although such a state would very probably likely practice a policy of religious tolerance, with both Jews and Christians being administered under their own laws. Also the language of administration, science and philosophy would be Latin (for the Christians) and Hebrew (for the Jews). Although immigration of Jews from the Middle East (fleeing both Byzantine and Persian persecution) would change the language of the Latin speaking areas to a dialect of Arabic (with a large number of Hebrew loanwords).

In North Africa the large majority of the population would eventually be Jewish, with Judaism becoming a distinctly Berber religion. While the rest are Latin Christians who would eventually speak a vulgar Latin language similar to Sardinian. In Hispania the situation would be opposite to that of North Africa. The reconquista is going to have a very antisemitic overtone, it would not be surprised that many Jews would flee to Central and Eastern Europe and North Africa.
 
Last edited:
I always thought it would be interesting if the Arab Migrations not only adopted local religions but also languages. You see a bit of it in the variety of dialects Arabic has evolved into, but suppose that a pagan Arab Migration is what we're looking for, and that they sweep into Egypt, Iberia, Levant, Mesopotamia, North Africa and Persia.
  • Egypt is easy, with the Coptic Church, Coptic language and a history of self-rule and kings evident. A sort of Pharaohnism come early, perhaps?
  • Iberia and North Africa is a mixed bag. There's the Arian, Catholic and Donatist Christian histories, but the above suggestion of Jewish Berberism has me interested in the possibility of a Jewish North Africa. Of course, I'm also interested in a Punic language revival. Perhaps Carthage comes again, but this time Jewish? Jewish Iberia is less convincing, and has me dreading the idea of an ATL Reconquista. Certainly Jewish communities across Europe are gonna be heading south in short order once these ALT Andalusians cross into Aquitaine.
  • Levant has Aramean, Greek, Jewish and Phoenician communities to one degree or another. Aramean culture and language may well win out, with a neo-Aram replacing Bilad-a-Sham. Maybe a neo-Phoenicia splinters off later. Miaphysitism in Egypt and Levant could be very likely, creating sister kingdoms against the Byzantine Empire?
  • Mesopotamia has the Nestorian Church, and sizeable Arab and Assyrian communities. This might be one of the stronger Arab communities, or the Assyrians might win out as the stronger component of the society. Kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, anyone?
  • Persia is obviously Zoroastrian heavy, and any Arab conquerors would probably integrated in generations ala the Turks as an elite citizenry. Persia would probably retain a heavy influence in the region, and the neo-Arab kingdoms in the region might return to being clients or outright oppose it. The Persian language will of course survive as OTL, but probably have less in the way of Arabic influences.

And certainly Arabic itself will quickly evolve and change in the written form without the impressions of the Quran. As for other regions...

No Islam in Central Asia or India has me wondering how much bigger Nestorianism or Zoroastrianism might get. Ethiopia certainly is gonna have an easier time dealing with the likes of Somalia and Yemen, and might replace the Arab trade voyages of Africa and Asia.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Amazed no one has mentioned Zenobia. That's one of the easiest way to get widespread Arab conquests without Islam.
 
In the former provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Arab rulers would convert to whatever religion the local population believed in a couple of generations. Of course Arabic would replace Aramaic as the main spoken language in the Levant and Mesopotamia, although Aramaic would remain a liturgical language.

If the Arabs assimilated into the religious culture of the Near East, then they'd inevitably adopt the main spoken language and liturgical language which was Aramaic. Linguistic Arabisation would be limited to the fringes of the area like in Late Antiquity.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
If the Arabs assimilated into the religious culture of the Near East, then they'd inevitably adopt the main spoken language and liturgical language which was Aramaic. Linguistic Arabisation would be limited to the fringes of the area like in Late Antiquity.

Actually there were Arab kingdoms before the advent of Islam in Mesopotamia and the Levant, namely the Ghassanids and Lakhmids. Also the relationship between Aramaic and Arabic is pretty close, therefore Aramaic would transition into Arabic into the spoken language in both these regions. However Aramaic would remain a liturgical language of course.
 
Actually there were Arab kingdoms before the advent of Islam in Mesopotamia and the Levant, namely the Ghassanids and Lakhmids. Also the relationship between Aramaic and Arabic is pretty close, therefore Aramaic would transition into Arabic into the spoken language in both these regions. However Aramaic would remain a liturgical language of course.

They were there, yes, but that's what I mean by "on the fringes" since those states were in the transitional region between the Arabian Peninsula and the Near East. But I'm not convinced that an Arabic ruling class would necessarily mean the majority of the population abandons what was the main language of the Levant since the Assyrian Empire, especially given the prestige of the Syriac Church. I'd say the continued existence of Aramaic speakers in the modern Levant is telling.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
They were there, yes, but that's what I mean by "on the fringes" since those states were in the transitional region between the Arabian Peninsula and the Near East. But I'm not convinced that an Arabic ruling class would necessarily mean the majority of the population abandons what was the main language of the Levant since the Assyrian Empire, especially given the prestige of the Syriac Church. I'd say the continued existence of Aramaic speakers in the modern Levant is telling.

That is what I would argue due to religious differences, which would not occur in this timeline. Although Aramaic would remain a language for liturgical purposes. Because the Arab empire would very highly make Arabic into an official language.
 
Last edited:
That is what I would argue due to religious differences, which would not occur in this timeline. Although Aramaic would remain a language for liturgical purposes. Because the Arab empire would very highly make Arabic into an official language.

The majority of literate people in such a state would be either Greek or Aramaic-speaking clergy (I'd assume) and nobility. If you are an Orthodox Christian state in that region, no matter your background as Arab nomads, isn't much reason to use anything but either of those two as the language of administration when that's what the majority of literate people speak as well as the majority of illiterate people, and there already is an administration both secular and religious which has been using those languages for centuries. Yes, there was a lot of migration from the Arabian peninsula, but I doubt it would be enough to assimilate the entirety of the Levant to anything like OTL.
 
Amazed no one has mentioned Zenobia. That's one of the easiest way to get widespread Arab conquests without Islam.

We're not talking about the 3rd century though. We are talking about the 7th century Arab conquests and whether they would have happened without Islam.

As for the OP. I think it is possible that a non-Islamic Arab conquest would have been more like the Avar/Bulgarian conquest of the Roman Balkans with a centralized Arab state never emerging except in a few cases such as Egypt and even then only emerging gradually.

teg
 
We're not talking about the 3rd century though. We are talking about the 7th century Arab conquests and whether they would have happened without Islam.

As for the OP. I think it is possible that a non-Islamic Arab conquest would have been more like the Avar/Bulgarian conquest of the Roman Balkans with a centralized Arab state never emerging except in a few cases such as Egypt and even then only emerging gradually.

teg
Which to me, means they wouldn’t be able to get nearly as far as the Arabs did otl. The Persians and Romans would more easily be able to recover and strike back against various different bands of Arab raiders then a united force out for conquest. So, I think large scale conquest for the Arabs is out of the question.

Without Islam, they wouldn’t unite, and disunited( assuming for some reason large scale bands of them start invading and attacking the Persians and Romans right after the great war) I don’t see them as a potential threat to the long term survival of either empire.
 
Without Islam, they wouldn’t unite, and disunited( assuming for some reason large scale bands of them start invading and attacking the Persians and Romans right after the great war) I don’t see them as a potential threat to the long term survival of either empire.
I mean religion isn't the only way great tribes unite under a singular leadership. Roman and Middle Eastern history is filled with tribes migrating in where they weren't previously. Germanic tribes, Hunnic tribes, Scythian tribes, Turkic tribes, the Mongolians...
 
Arabia before Islam and before even Christianity was a melting pot of faiths, and ideas. Zoroastrianism, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, Christianity, Judaism/ the Jewish tribes. Pretty sure they worship Hindu Gods due to the Indian communication routes and still some worship the Babylonian Gods. The list goes on. Mecca itself worship a Pagan Allah, and his daughters, Al-lāt, Al-‘Uzzá and Manat. (Which they was also their own thing.)

You could flip a coin, and have a major religion come busting out of Arabia down the line around the '3 Sisters', or Jewish Arabs, or something.

Lacking that, it would look like far more along the line of the Germanic Migration in which the Arabs cultural assimilate with the local people.

Either way, you give the Eastern Romans a serious blessing without the Muslim Invasions and Tang China will be the big boss in Central Asia. (And Europe would be a serious question without the threat of Islam knocking on their door to unite them.)
 
Last edited:
Which to me, means they wouldn’t be able to get nearly as far as the Arabs did otl. The Persians and Romans would more easily be able to recover and strike back against various different bands of Arab raiders then a united force out for conquest. So, I think large scale conquest for the Arabs is out of the question.

Without Islam, they wouldn’t unite, and disunited( assuming for some reason large scale bands of them start invading and attacking the Persians and Romans right after the great war) I don’t see them as a potential threat to the long term survival of either empire.

There is an argument to which the Arabs were united and how the tribes were simply invading as allies and with agreed upon allies born from the Riddah War. If the Sassanids failed to defeat the Muslim forces despite having logistical and numbered advantages, then I do not understand why the Sassanids automatically gain victory over the Arabs. It should be noted that the entire Muslim armies at the genesis of conquest, were only 5-20 years earlier, Traditional Faith Arabs....
 
Personally, I'm not sure it'd be something that interests a politically united Arabia, or at least internal politics may get in the way.

Say you have a politically united Arabia, but practising up-to 4+ different faiths. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Pre-Islamic Arabic faiths.

The Christian community may significantly object to invading the Romans, the Zoroastrians the same with the Persians, etc.

So the question is what would bring all four groups together for war, or a majority of them? Trade is making them wealthy, and they can certainly emigrate - and lord knows there is plenty of work as mercenaries for either the Persians or Romans.

More likely, IMO - is they'll wait to be woo'd. From any perspective Syria or Mesopotamia are great conquests. If the Romans are quicker off the mark, they could offer the Arabs significant gold to jointly invade Mesopotamia, giving them the south - and the Romans the North. I personally think this would lead to a long-term political capital in al-Hirah.

Alternatively, the Persians may be quicker off the mark, leading to Syria and Egypt falling, leading to a similar rise for Damascus.

The key here is I'm assuming without Islam you don't have religious unification.

It would be different IMO if they were united - the religion of choice making a difference.

Orthodox Arabs, with the Patriarch of Jerusalem as their Patriarch, may be a strong ally - and supplant Aksum as an ally for the Romans.

If Zoroastrian, I would expect the reverse.

Judaism IMO makes Arabia an ally for the Persians, in order to reclaim Jerusalem, with Egypt a natural following conquest.

I have no knowledge of Arabian Paganism, so... *shrug*.
 
Top