From Islam's inception to roughly the 1500s, the Islamic world and the Christian world appeared to be going down the same path. Yet for some reason nations such as England, France, Spain, and many others colonized much of the world while Oman and perhaps the Ottomans are the only two who somewhat embraced colonization(the Ottomans controlled a region of Indonesia called Aceh while Oman controlled parts of East Africa). Why did this change occur and what would happen if it didn't exist?
Challenge: Find a way for the Islamic world to be as dominant as their Christian rivals
- Thread starter LibPrime
- Start date
To delay Renaissance refugees to Italy and 'reform' the protestant reformation so that instead of a single somewhat monolithic entity opposing church you have multiple protestant sects who call each other heretics just as much as they call Catholics. Also a big maghrebi state which takes nascent Grenada under its wings can do wonders. I feel Ottoman help for Maghreb would be too late and too far and even successful it would not result in muslim americas.
Also no 're'reconquesta but a politically fractured Iberia with a strong Maghreb can result in some parts of new world embracing islam( note : islamic colonization was a tricky affair and composed ofvastly diverse types from the Christian ones).
Couple that with an ideology that puts emphasis on following Muhammad ( pbuh) Original teaching about treatment of slaves. While not abolitionist this will make slavery costlier hence giving a drive for industrialization in some parts of Islamic world.
These are basically what I'm attempting to do in my TL.
Also no 're'reconquesta but a politically fractured Iberia with a strong Maghreb can result in some parts of new world embracing islam( note : islamic colonization was a tricky affair and composed ofvastly diverse types from the Christian ones).
Couple that with an ideology that puts emphasis on following Muhammad ( pbuh) Original teaching about treatment of slaves. While not abolitionist this will make slavery costlier hence giving a drive for industrialization in some parts of Islamic world.
These are basically what I'm attempting to do in my TL.
Different Interests, plus Europe got into plutocracies/aristocracies and Oligrarchies were able to band together better the post-Abbasadis Islamic ones(I could call the Ummayds oligarchs when Abbasids were more in the plutocratic mold), Ottomans own internal issue(their own system was their undoing) didn't help either.
Or Ummayds keep their shit together and get the whole peninsula
In the first part of the period, Europe has the advantage of having huge masses of forest, that can be cut down for timber and converted to new, fertile land for agriculture, fueling economic expansion.
But the real divergence comes post-1750, where Europe has the benefit of constitutional, representative government and new forms of corporate organization, creating mass capital accumulation and the industrial revolution. Unfortunately many of these innovations contradict the Sharia, so you need the Islamic world to become less devout in some way.
But the real divergence comes post-1750, where Europe has the benefit of constitutional, representative government and new forms of corporate organization, creating mass capital accumulation and the industrial revolution. Unfortunately many of these innovations contradict the Sharia, so you need the Islamic world to become less devout in some way.
I must say I disagree about the two cultures we’re going down the same path to 1500. the Islamic world in my view was in slow decay from their initial expansion and until the Mongols burned down Baghdad even with some regional expansion, when Islam saw a new wave of expansion under Turko-Persian groups, until the European states overtook them military around 1700.
Western Europe on the other hand started as a post-collapse culture and lived in the ruins (often literal) of the Romans. Slowly these bands of glorified bandits rebuilt and from the 8th century, their culture began expand into parts of Europe untouched by the Romans. This domestic expansion lasted until 1400. Interesting while Europe was innovated and urbanized in the late medieval period it also saw a population decline caused by a climatic shift.
Just because two cultures weren’t able to overrun each other, doesn’t mean they follow the same path.
I think that Austria and the Ottomans really show the difference between Muslim and Christian states in this period. The Ottoman thrived as long as they were able to expand and getting new subject they could
[1] timeline idea, the Ottoman collapse in the 16th century and a Muslim dynasty establish itself in Budapest, maybe it could expand further into Europe.
[2] with the introduction of American crops the Ottoman Balkans should have been growing. The only European population declines seen in this period were caused by incredible destructive wars like the 30YW, Time of Trouble and the Deluge.
Last edited:
How would you suggest the Islamic world to thrive similar to Christendom?
.....That was already the case. Like the Lutherans were more than happy to crack down on Calvinsts and Anbaptists whenever they showed up in their lands and it wasn't until Cromwell that religious toleration was extended to all Protestants in England.
Perhaps it could persist for a longer period and result like Hussite civil wars.
It lasted up to the late 1600s. I am not sure how it can possibly last longer than that.
Idk man I think it was only historically speaking very recently that the Islamic world stopped being competive and that may not continue to be the case.
Most of Islamic history they were Christian Europe's main competitor.
Most of Islamic history they were Christian Europe's main competitor.
Industrialisation is what really sealed the deal for Europe. Whilst it is not possible to overrun Europe in this regard it is possible to have an industrialised Islamic world able to compete with Europeans on a decent term. I think the poor farming conditions of MENA region would spur agricultural technologies which in turn would blossom into something akin to industrial process, not necessarily a revolution.
It isn't so much agricultural techniques, it's sheer manpower and effort to (re)build irrigation networks and build new dams for water storage. For instance, European colonialism in the Middle East built several new dams such as the Aswan Low Dam, and the independent Middle Eastern states continued to build new hydropower projects. Some of these could likely be built in reduced forms using technology available to the 15th-19th century Middle East.
Industrialization is certainly possible. Certainly Mughal India, Persia etc had the basics for it.
But so did several European places. Having the potential for industrialization and actually having it are two different things. The industrial revolution in Europe, didn't happen in France or Spain or Italy, as one might have thought, but on a soggy little island on the arse end of Europe.
And don't underestimate the devastation wrought on ME Agriculture by the Mongols. They destroyed millennia old irrigation infrastructure.
Last edited:
I don’t think you can reform the Islamic World as a whole, the founding experience of Islam versus Christianity forced them down separate paths. Christianity spend the first centuries in the shadows and then it came on the top, Nicene Christianity had to deal with being overrun by Arian Christians and later saw it core territories fall to Islam leaving it with mostly the frontier of Christendom.
Islam on the other hand arrived on the scene as a invisible conqueror, which created the biggest empire the world had seen at that point going form the Atlantic to India.
While Christians tried to make laws based on religious dogma, they had limited material to work with, Jesus spoke against Old Testament laws. Islam on the other hand which became a state while Muhammed still lived had plenty of material to work with in creating laws.
This meant that later Muslim had to deal with laws made to deal with being a warring tribal confederation on the Arabic peninsula dealing with subjugated populations and rival tribes and lost legitimacy by not following these laws. Interesting because the Shia Muslim had experience of being subjugated, their states seem to have been more willing to adapt and gain legitimacy by keeping their population safe from their Sunni neighbors. As such I think individual Muslim state would be better able to adapt to Christian expansion by being Shia instead of Sunni. If the Ottoman had been Shia their political power in the Muslim world would have been weaker, but they would likely have been better able to shift to a less exploitable tax system and could have established a more centralized clergy, who could enforce the state ideology on all Muslims of the empire.
Extend the Islamic Golden Age by making the Abbasid Caliphate's height of power last about 50 years longer than IOTL (a competent ruler or two could accomplish this easily), so it outlives Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and the Mihna is successful. This will cause the scientific form of Islam, which argued along the lines of "the best way to understand Allah's plan for Earth is to understand the Earth itself, therefore studying natural science is the best way to study Allah," to dominate the Islamic world even after the Abbasid Caliphate eventually falls.
Were they not as competitive? The Ottomans were knocking on the doors of Eastern Europe for a time. The Moors were knocking on the doors of France until Charles hammered them back. The Muslim world held vests areas of Southwest Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, and Eastern Africa. I would argue highly competitive. Just Europeans/Christian world were beat them at the "world domination game."
I think the question and thread should be changed to more along the lines of "How can we get the Islamic world to rise to the dominate power in the world instead of the Christian Western world.
I think the question and thread should be changed to more along the lines of "How can we get the Islamic world to rise to the dominate power in the world instead of the Christian Western world.