Deleted member 97083
OOC: The POD was in the 500s or so. It was established already that parts of Arabia remained pagan until the 1100s.
DBWI non-Christians capture Jerusalem
- Thread starter Galba Otho Vitelius
- Start date
Wasn't the Justinian Plague a major factor, why the Arab conquest succeeded because of the unaffected Arabian peninsula ?
Ok, Holy stones and other regional goddesses or the fate of the three goddesses in Araba Felix .Then maybe Tengriist Turks capture Jerusalem ?Oh, the thread is around 500, then maybe the White Huns or the Gok-Turks ?
I think it means "surrender" in the Arabic language. No jokes or comparisons to our Frankish comrades, please, nor any references to 1979.
Vuru
Banned
There was an interesting TL about such a thing
In it all the attempts failed, as the christians got too incompetent, real handwavy stuff, and the world ends up quite weird
mmmmm, well there was that one incident in 1448 when Erik Ragnarsson sailed though the straits of marmara via the black sea and went on a raiding spree in Sicilia, Africa and Mauritania. Theoretically, if he disembarked at Acre he could have taken Jerusalem.
Well, "surrender" to God is a large part of some Arab denominations of Christianity, most notably the Mehbooballahi denomination. It's something that comes from pre-Christian times.
I don't, however, see how polytheistic, or Christian for that matter, Arabs could conquer Jerusalem. They'd have to go through Aramaic and Syriac peoples who were better at war, and more settled, than them. Unless you have an Arab pull a Turk, it's pretty much possible, and in this case, you'd probably see the Arabs adopt local customs and language, just like how the Turks were incorporated as a Buddho-Astika subcaste of the Kshatriyas.
OK, so, what if the Arabs create a new monotheistic religion (let's call Islam for the lulz) and then convert Persia to that religion? After that, I guess that islamic Persia could take Jerusalem.
Arabs conquer Persia? What? How do a bunch of nomadic tribes take on an old, powerful, empire like Persia and win?
Err, I should probably point out that the whole "Nomadic tribes conquer giant empire" shtick, has been pulled in the past. Specifically, in Greater Moravia during the 960's. Khazars just showed up our of nowhere and conquered all of Bohemia, Moravia and former Roman Gaul. Despite trying, no power was able to oust them successfully, they had to be assimilated into the greater population. Now, if Rome were to try and reclaim western hispania or Gaul, and failed, then it could leave them weak enough for the Mauryan remnant or King Hadistura (Most recognised name of the man who created Iunhadistan.) who was just beginning his conquests in Nubia at this time, to break through border defences and go on a raiding spree throughout the empire , including presumably Jerusalem.
I don't really see why people are obsessed with this Arabia idea so much. They are a bunch of individual city states, with power lying with the merchant classes not the backwards camel warriors in the interior. Merchants are always going to favour peaceful relations and wouldn't be stupid enough to go to war with the Roman Empire. Persia staying non-Christian or some new cult emerging in the Balkans or Egypt would make more sense. They would actually have a shot at doing it. Maybe a nationalist Egypt or Persia returns to their pre-Christian faith?
They could unite under the new religion. Couple that with a period of political and economic instability in Persia and it might be doable. They don't need to hold it for too long. Just have them stay long enough so they can convert a large portion of the population and then you can have some sort of new Persian empire which subscribes to the new religion pop up.
Persians convert from Zoroastrianism? That's even more implausible that your Arab Alexander the Great scenario.