DBWI Egypt an Islamic country

Unlike most countries counqerred by islam Egypt has remained subbornly a Coptic majority country and region through out its history. I don't know quite why efforts to convert the Majority coptic population failed so bad dispite being ruled by an islamic elite from the conquest to Nassers over throw. The country never once became more then 20% muslum at its hight, and during Nassers reign it was a mear 5%.

What caused this? Was it the civil wars between shia and sunni? A more tolerant Egypt? A stubborn Egyptian pride that never quite fell to their conquerers? I do not know but this fact has to have changed world history some how.

So what would our world look like if the great mass of the people of Egypt had converted to Islam how would that change the world?
 
well, for starters you're going to have to have its attempted early conquest succeed. IOTL, the Arabs tried and failed to conquer Egypt in 642, but it was a pretty near run thing. admittedly, the Byzantines losing Alexandria in 642 (as they did in 1006 IOTL) seems pretty unrealistic given the unsophisticated nature of the Arab armies, but I suppose it's possible
 
We would see a further expansion of Islam into Africa, perhaps Islam would even have so many followers that it would comparable to Hinduism.
 

Deleted member 97083

At the time of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates, Islam was pretty much an ethnic Arab religion, so it seems difficult to see peoples such as the Copts or Berbers adopting it en masse.

Maybe if the Umayyad Caliphate had fallen and had been replaced by a "revolutionary" and more egalitarian faction?
 
At the time of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates, Islam was pretty much an ethnic Arab religion, so it seems difficult to see peoples such as the Copts or Berbers adopting it en masse.

Maybe if the Umayyad Caliphate had fallen and had been replaced by a "revolutionary" and more egalitarian faction?

I mean, anything would’ve been better than the Ummayads for the Caliphate. They were so incredibly corrupt and inefficient at their nadir, it’s hard to believe.
 

Deleted member 97083

I mean, anything would’ve been better than the Ummayads for the Caliphate. They were so incredibly corrupt and inefficient at their nadir, it’s hard to believe.
Corrupt and inefficient, yes, but what area of western Eurasia wasn't at the time, with the development of feudalism?

The Umayyads lasted longer than France, and almost as long as the Byzantine Empire. Even though the Umayyads became decentralized and dominated by their own vassals, they maintained the security of their territories one way or another for 1200 years. That is a successful empire in my opinion.
 
Corrupt and inefficient, yes, but what area of western Eurasia wasn't at the time, with the development of feudalism?

It’s all relative, though. Your average European state, say Lombardy, wasn’t having problems like failing to raise an army when a slave rebellion picked up and then being forced to compromise with the freed slaves as a new vassal state. I know, I know, that was an extreme example, but the Middle Period Umayyads, at the very least, were really pathetic sometimes.

The Umayyads lasted longer than France, and almost as long as the Byzantine Empire. Even though the Umayyads became decentralized and dominated by their own vassals, they maintained the security of their territories one way or another for 1200 years. That is a successful empire in my opinion.

You’re counting the post-Restoration Umayyads too, then? Alright, they did a pretty good job keeping a horribly tumultuous region in line for centuries, so I’ll give you that—even if it was through gilded cage bribery of the nobility.
 

Deleted member 97083

It’s all relative, though. Your average European state, say Lombardy, wasn’t having problems like failing to raise an army when a slave rebellion picked up and then being forced to compromise with the freed slaves as a new vassal state. I know, I know, that was an extreme example, but the Middle Period Umayyads, at the very least, were really pathetic sometimes.
I see what you mean, but European states had similar moments, such as when the King of France was forced to cede Armorica to the Vikings, creating Normandy. Or when Frederick Barbarossa tried to cross the Vistula to conquer Wendia and accidentally drowned his entire army.

When the Umayyads had periods of chaos it was indeed bloodier than the average civil war in a European realm, but that's because the Umayyads themselves were able to raise larger forces, and so were their enemies, due to the higher urbanization in the region as well as Bedouin and other semi-nomadic peoples such as the Kurds, who were readily recruited in regional wars.

You’re counting the post-Restoration Umayyads too, then? Alright, they did a pretty good job keeping a horribly tumultuous region in line for centuries, so I’ll give you that—even if it was through gilded cage bribery of the nobility.
I'm counting the post-Restoration Umayyads, because Abd al-Rahman of Sicily was part of the Umayyad dynasty and had a direct line of descent from Marwan II. Abd al-Rahman may have recruited a foreign Saqaliba host to establish himself as the Caliph, but quickly established an Arabized army once he took power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the Umayyads would be to Islam what the old Indian Empire was to Hinduism?

A ruthlessly efficient superpower that spread its faith far and wide, leaving a permanent effect on the world?

Maybe.

EDIT:
I see what you mean, but European states had similar moments, such as when the King of France was forced to cede Armorica to the Vikings, creating Normandy. Or when Frederick Barbarossa tried to cross the Vistula to conquer Wendia and accidentally drowned his entire army.

...I will admit, I forgot about Barbarossa. Touché. And that arguably had wider ramifications—he may well have succeeded in subduing Wendia at that point, which would’ve prevented their rise into republican glory (or inglory, I suppose).

When the Umayyads had periods of chaos it was indeed bloodier than the average civil war in a European realm, but that's because the Umayyads themselves were able to raise larger armies, and so were their enemies, due to the higher urbanization in the region as well as Bedouin and other semi-nomadic peoples such as the Kurds, who were readily recruited into expanding armies.

That’s true, Europe is and always has been a backwater compared to the Mideast and Asia. It’s easy to forget how much more developed Egypt, Arabia, Persia, etc. were compared to European nations even that early on.


I'm counting the post-Restoration Umayyads, because Abd al-Rahman of Sicily was part of the Umayyad dynasty and had a direct line of descent from Marwan II.

Yes, Abd al-Rahman recruited a foreign Saqaliba host to establish himself as the Caliph, but quickly established an Arabized army once he took power.

Yeah, dynastically he was arguably less controversial than some of the wacky inheritances that happened whenever the assassinating got out of hand. Politically, though, he was a complete change. Throwing out noble families, some of which dated back to the Rashidun...there’s a reason parts of Arabia still curse al-Rahman’s name.

And yes, the “vicious” and “violent” foreign army didn’t help. Weren’t some of them Roman and Italian mercenaries, even? He was massively charismatic and he came from the same region, so it does make sense.
 
Last edited:
Top