The Roman Empire is undeniably the most powerful nation in the Mediterranean, controlling Anatolia, Italy, The Balkan Peninsula, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa. However there was one moment in history when the empire seemed on the verge of losing everything, Islam had risen in Arabia and attacked the empire and Persia, but despite the weakness of the empire after years of war with the Persians they managed to rally and push the Arabs back out of their territory. The persians fell but over the next few centuries Arabia was conquered (though it eventually became an independent republic in the 1600s AD) and the Romans made their dominance over persia clear later on. But what would have happened if the Arabs had managed to defeat both the Romans and the Persians? How woud this effect the history of the mediterranian and the rest of the world?
DBWI: What if the Roman Empire lost against the Arabs?
- Thread starter JustinianTheGrand
- Start date
Then persia beats them, almost no way around it. The muslims were formidable but had little in terms of numbers so one of the empires would win regardless.
And Rome didn't "assert dominance over persia later," Perisa collapsed for internal reasons and Rome yoinkd Mesopotamia. Persia from then on orientated itself east and south into Yemen and india.
But if the Romans fall, then the age of exploration Would come later. Otl the Europeans spent ages trying to get around it, especially after they conquered Italy again in the 1300s after it broke away a few decades after Justinian I died.
At first the Europeans were hostile and bigoted to the matives of the lands they conquered/colonized, but eventually they phased this out so long as you were Christian, not unlike the old western empire. Was it perfect? No. Countless died for little more than gold and maybe jesus. But considering the Hispanic Empire holds Iberia and land in mexico down to Argentina and Prydain* has had Native Chesapeakite* nobility since the 1300s? It's not bad.
Ooc: prydain is what I'm guessing an Anglo-Saxon led Britain would be called more or less. They also control ireland, Norway and Denmark because honestly I think the Anglo-saxons repelling the vikings and conquering them instead is great- what better way to stop invaders than conquering them.
Chesapeakite is basically just what they call native americans. Hispania is also in charge of Ghana ttl.
And Rome didn't "assert dominance over persia later," Perisa collapsed for internal reasons and Rome yoinkd Mesopotamia. Persia from then on orientated itself east and south into Yemen and india.
But if the Romans fall, then the age of exploration Would come later. Otl the Europeans spent ages trying to get around it, especially after they conquered Italy again in the 1300s after it broke away a few decades after Justinian I died.
At first the Europeans were hostile and bigoted to the matives of the lands they conquered/colonized, but eventually they phased this out so long as you were Christian, not unlike the old western empire. Was it perfect? No. Countless died for little more than gold and maybe jesus. But considering the Hispanic Empire holds Iberia and land in mexico down to Argentina and Prydain* has had Native Chesapeakite* nobility since the 1300s? It's not bad.
Ooc: prydain is what I'm guessing an Anglo-Saxon led Britain would be called more or less. They also control ireland, Norway and Denmark because honestly I think the Anglo-saxons repelling the vikings and conquering them instead is great- what better way to stop invaders than conquering them.
Chesapeakite is basically just what they call native americans. Hispania is also in charge of Ghana ttl.
Dolan
Banned
Maybe it would be Egypt and North Africa who get Islamized instead of South East Asia and China?
The Roman-Ethiopian Alliance beating back the Arabs effectively put a Western roadblock to the spread of Islam. Sure, Persia would eventually fall and adopt Islam themselves, and so does parts of India. But without the Romans keep pressuring Arabs from The West, there will be little to no incentive for Islam to spread Eastward instead of... into Africa?
Sure, it's awkward now, People in the West thinking that Qur'an was written in Chinese and the numerous rather racist jokes about how Chinese hates pork and alcohol. But maybe in alternate timeline, the stereotype of hating alcohol and pork would stick on... maybe Turkish Nomads, Berbers, or Kushites?
The Roman-Ethiopian Alliance beating back the Arabs effectively put a Western roadblock to the spread of Islam. Sure, Persia would eventually fall and adopt Islam themselves, and so does parts of India. But without the Romans keep pressuring Arabs from The West, there will be little to no incentive for Islam to spread Eastward instead of... into Africa?
Sure, it's awkward now, People in the West thinking that Qur'an was written in Chinese and the numerous rather racist jokes about how Chinese hates pork and alcohol. But maybe in alternate timeline, the stereotype of hating alcohol and pork would stick on... maybe Turkish Nomads, Berbers, or Kushites?
By the way, most of China’s lower classes are still not Muslim.
Also, remember that Islamization of SEA and China was a result of traders converting to the religion peacefully and then overthrowing or subverting Confucian governments.