Effects of a "No Islam" Scenario on Europe?

Hello all
I was curious about how a region like Europe that was largely seperate from the Muslim world would develop over the coming centuries?

For a POD I'm going to assume that Mohammed simply doesn't start preaching this 'new' religion and lives out a regular life,(or maybe he's never born idk) but the Arabs still spread into the nearby areas, similair to the Germanic migrations.
As you can imagine this is a scenario involving many different areas, including
  • What happens to Spain without the Arab conquest? Would the Visigoths be conquered by the Franks or Moors? Or could they somehow survive?
  • Do the Franks(Especially the Carolignians) still come to power? If so, then how different are there conquests?
  • Who wins Italy, Byzantines or Lombards? I personally doubt that the Franks will be involved since they probably won't be the Pope's defenders.
  • What becomes of the Balkans? The Ottomans are butterflied so do they fall under native or Byzantine authority?
  • What happens to the Slavs and others in Eastern Europe? How affected are they without a major Middle Eastern slave market? Do the Turks become more integrated into their societies?
  • How affected are Germany and Scandinavia? Do the Vikings still go raiding and trading?
  • What about the British isles?
  • How about the Jews? Does antisemitism still rise in the west, even without the crusades?( I doubt any pope would be able to call together squabling europeans to retake the holy land even if it's ruled by Nestorians.)
  • Finally, how different is Christianity? The Arabs likely adopt the native Christian faiths of their conquered lands, so all of the pentarchy survive. This combined with a more well-off Byzantium means that the Pope in Rome probably won't ever become as dominant as in otl correct?
Have fun.
 
Do the Franks(Especially the Carolignians) still come to power? If so, then how different are there conquests? The Franks were united as an entity under Clovis I before Muhammad was (probably) born. I don't see No Islam effecting their conquests or politics much initially for the first century or so.

What happens to Spain without the Arab conquest? Would the Visigoths be conquered by the Franks or Moors? Or could they somehow survive? Afraid I'm a little out of by depth on this one. IIRC the Visigoths were pretty disunited so that they could be an easy target. On the other hand, I don't know if any of their neighbors would want to bother conquering them outright in this scenario, as they are already Christian-though if they choose what a neighbor deems the "wrong kind" of Christianity, that could be a causus belli for conquest.

Do the Vikings still go raiding and trading?
-Most definitely. Without the unified slave market created by the Muslim empires, the Vikings may not be as drawn southeastward into Kiev as they were IOTL, but the economic impetus for trading and raiding still occurs. This includes Norse settlement of the British isles. Perhaps more Scandinavians will come to Britain ITTL, and so England is more likely to be permanently unified under Danelaw.

How about the Jews? Does antisemitism still rise in the west, even without the crusades?-Anti-semitism has roots to the Roman era, it definitely rises (or is reborn) in almost any scenario sadly.

What happens to the Slavs and others in Eastern Europe? How affected are they without a major Middle Eastern slave market? IIRC, controlling the slave market drove political centralization in Eastern Europe (see my comments on Kiev) so we may see more decentralized societies their.

Do the Turks become more integrated into their societies? With the Turks, it's most likely that they will eventually integrate into the societies they eventually migrate into since that's what generally happened with Central Asian nomad empires. The fact that it didn't happen IOTL with the Turkish conquest of parts of Eastern Europe is an artifact of the cultural struggle/memetic war/whatevs between "Christendom" and "Islam". But with the butterflies it's hard to tell. Perhaps a social impetus for a caste system where the Turks do not integrate at all with the peoples they conquer develops, though there isn't really any reason that should happen beyond that it makes an interesting story.
 
- The Visigoths tended towards disunity, so let's say they manage to keep a semblance of a united kingdom until the Franks invade/a bad king takes the helm/the Romano-Berbers or Vikings or Magyars invade/whatever, after which Iberia falls apart in small states and statelets akin to Italy (or the taifas for that matter). The states gradually start coalescing, especially around the larger rivers. I'd expect a maritime republic centred around Lisbon, trading with Britain, the Netherlands and perhaps Northwest Africa, one or two major ones on the Spanish Mediterranean coast (say Barcelona and Valencia) and an Andalusian state at least. While there is always a possibility someone will mimic what House Capet did (a 100-years War analogue with Romance Morocco in the role of England, Andalusia in the role of Normandy, Galicia in the role of Gascony, Aragon in the role of Burgundy and Toledo claiming leadership over the entirety of Spain does sound awesome), it seems more likely that for a long time Spain will remain merely a geographical expression, until and unless nationalism makes an appearance and someone goes on to unite Iberia.

- Without a strong opponent to the south, the Franks might make more of an effort to conquer (more of) Spain. At some point, they'll be unable to hold onto their transpyrenean territory. The changes in Francia itself compared to OTL shouldn't be major.

- The Byzantines should be a lot stronger if they don't lose Egypt and the Levant, but there were religious issues simmering and the eternal rivalry with the Persians would persist. OTOH, the Lombards really weren't all that impressive to me. I'd say the Lombards and Byzantines keep fighting with inconclusive results, until the Slavs decide that with Byzantium being relatively stronger, Northern Italy makes for a more tempting target. The Slavs being the Borg of this era as far as assimilation goes, Veneto might go Slavic in this timeline. Perhaps all of transpadan Italy save for Piedmont if the Lombards are really weak and a lot of Slavs decide to head there instead of the Balkans. So let's say Lombardy, Liguria, Emilia-Romagna and Veneto get a Slavic majority, either ruling themselves or under the rule of a coastal Romance elite as happened in OTL Dalmatia, while south of the Po Byzantium holds Sicily and Southern Italy and the Lombards hold some territory too. We could very well end up with an Italy where the concept of the Italian never comes to be.

- Continuing on from the previous point, fewer Slavs move to the Balkans, more of the people who do move there get assimilated at some point, Byzantium does better overall. No Slavic majority in Macedonia and Bulgaria, a far smaller Slavic influence in Bosnia and Serbia. Avars and other Turkic speakers don't seem numerous enough to dispace Greek as the lingua frnaca, these areas either go Slavic or remain Greek. The Magyars probably follow a similar path as OTL, the Turks could end up in Anatolia, Pannonia, or even the Balkans by way of the lower Danube; they assimilate most likely.

- Germany sees little difference. Their Slavs are staying put and Francia will continue to push eastward, albeit slower and less thoroughly. The stem duchies might coalesce in the absence of a Frankish hegemony, leading to a situation not unlike the one in England around this time. The vikings will focus a bit less on the Black Sea and a bit more on the Mediterranean, which is still a cultural whole ITTL. More Mediterranean adventures like the one in Sicily perhaps. Greater settlement on the northern shores of Germany, as happened in England. Viking Hamburg becomes rich.

- The British isles could go either way really, enough Nordic people may move to this version to Germany that the Danish yoke is lighter or more people, including native inhabitants from Saxony (how's that for irony) decide to settle there due to increased North Sea trade. Don't see any other group from mainland Europe take Britain the way the Normans did, though never say never. Some sort of England based around London will probably come into existence at some point, possibly with a rival English state to the north.

- Antisemitism continues to exist, with the cycle of tolerant rulers offering refuge and intolerant ones expelling the Jewish people persisting. Someone might pull a Khazaria, who knows.

- I'd find it hilarious if the five cities of the Pentarchy have several different iterations of Christianity as their favoured religion. Let's say Catholic Rome, Orthodox Constantinople, Coptic Alexandria, Nestorian Jerusalem and Armenian Antioch. Only for the Pope to go in a snit and decide to form a better Pentarchy, say one consisting of Rome, Carthage, Santiago de Compostela, Lyon and some city in Germany most likely. Without the pressure from Islam, we could very well see more heretical movement in Christendom, especially in those areas far from the Mediterranean which is still the beating heart of civilisation for Europe and the parts of Africa and Asia which used to be part of the Roman sphere.
 
Even if the kingdom of Clovis I endures, the lack of Charles Martel and Charlemagne means no Carolingian Renaissance, which has massive implications for Europe.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Vikings,Franks,Goths,Slavs,British Isles won't be much different from OTL. They come from a region untouched by Christianity or Islam in their period of invasions and would still invade the way they did without Islam and have their kingdoms. Only difference I think is that we would see a Greek or Germanic populated North Africa and parts of Spain. Ottomons would convert to Christianity and join the Byzantines probably or remain an independent Catholic or Orthodox kingdom in the Middle East. Caucasus would be Pagan and Christian. Jews IMO,could take refuge in the Zoroastrian Persia if they don't feel secure in Europe. Germanic Visigoths and Vandals treated them with respect so they could also be in a higher proportion there. Byzantine Jews could move probably to the Zoroastrian land of Iraq if they faced too much persecution in Byzantium or alternatively to Visigothic or Vandal Kingdoms but Zoroastrian Iraq being more nearer,they would choose it probably. Syria,Jordan border lines would be the borders where Christian Europe sphere meets the Zoroastrian sphere.
 
Key things:

North Africa remains Christian, and thus an extension of Europe.

Christianity spreads south from North Africa to the Sahel (as Islam did OTL); Mali/Timbuktu is a Christian outpost.

Egypt remains Christian, Ethiopia remains in contact with the Christian "mainland". Sudan is Christian, and Christianity spreads south to Zanzibar.

Invaders from the steppe become Christian. OTL the Magyars did; ITTL the Turks will also, as will the Mongols/Tatars (if they ever show up).
 
Key things:

North Africa remains Christian, and thus an extension of Europe.

Christianity spreads south from North Africa to the Sahel (as Islam did OTL); Mali/Timbuktu is a Christian outpost.

Egypt remains Christian, Ethiopia remains in contact with the Christian "mainland". Sudan is Christian, and Christianity spreads south to Zanzibar.

Invaders from the steppe become Christian. OTL the Magyars did; ITTL the Turks will also, as will the Mongols/Tatars (if they ever show up).
Any chance of Zoroastrian/Manichean realms doing better or the religions spreading further than OTL? IIRC they weren't big on proselytizing. What of Rajasthan, they might expand west and fight it out with Persia.
 
North Africa remains Christian, and thus an extension of Europe.


With the Mediterranean and adjacent lands unoccupied by a hostile culture, trade would've remained higher than in the OTL. Notwithstanding the Viking raids I think that would've mitigated the loss of wealth which caused central states to wane and the local barons to take over. Europe would've been less medieval or less feudal.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
North Africa would be either fully Germanic like Germany/Britain/Sweden or Romance like the France although I doubt the latter. Egypt would be a combination of Greeks,Coptics and Western Europeans IMO. Levant would be partially Greek,a large part Semitic/Middle Eastern and some other European like Slavic/Germanic/Romance/Hungarian.
 
DoDpol.png

Do not know what will happen for sure, but this a map for my non-islam timeline Dunes of the Desert at 800AD
 
North Africa would be either fully Germanic like Germany/Britain/Sweden or Romance like the France although I doubt the latter. Egypt would be a combination of Greeks,Coptics and Western Europeans IMO. Levant would be partially Greek,a large part Semitic/Middle Eastern and some other European like Slavic/Germanic/Romance/Hungarian.

There's no way North Africa would Germanize. It would be Romance on the coasts and Berber in the interior with the last dying gasps of Punic interspersed in there.
 
Even if the kingdom of Clovis I endures, the lack of Charles Martel and Charlemagne means no Carolingian Renaissance, which has massive implications for Europe.
I don't know if Martel is butterflied for sure, Islam didn't reach western Europe until the invasion of Hispania in the 710s, and by then Charles was alive and next in line for succession. Although the battle of tours won't happen, he could still possibly gain support and stability by invading one of their neighbors. It could be the Visigoths, Bavarians, or Saxons, or someone else. From there the rulership could pass down like otl to Pepin and Charlemagne. Regardless, Monastic tradition in western Europe and better connections to the east via the Mediterranean means that both this and the Italian Renaissance won't ever happen, but they may not be needed.

Wouldn't even Western Middle East become an extension of Europe?
Essentially everything west of the Zagros will be part of the western world. Although, the concept of the west and Christendom may never evolve. A white or European exclusive identity will almost certainly never exist.

In regards to some of the other topics,
  1. Since the HRE is likely butterflied does that mean Germany and Italy could potentially be unified much earlier?
  2. Do serfdom and feudalism still come about? Without the economic pressures from the Muslim control over the Mediterranean, it may not. Although since feudalism has its roots in late Antiquity, it could still come about in some form.
  3. A Slavic-Latin Italy sounds pretty interesting. So do the Greeks and Illyrians/Albanians remain dominant in the southern Balkans?
  4. If the Berbers convert (likely for economic reasons) they could probably spread Catholic Christianity to the Sahel Kingdoms and in east Ethiopia could become a regional power in the Indian Ocean network. Furthermore, both they and any Christian state/s that evolve in Arabia could spread Christianity(Coptic, Syriac, or a mix) among the Swahili coast. So does Christianity have a better chance of spreading deeper into Africa than Islam did? (By deeper I mean coastal kingdoms in West Africa like Benin, South African states like Zimbabwe and Malawi, and kingdoms around Lake Victoria)
  5. How does better connections and expansion of Christianity into Africa affect racial relations between Europeans and Africans? I doubt any widespread idea of Europeans being superior to Africans could evolve since this came out Europe being the main unisolated place of Christendom. Does a massive slave trade of Africans still occur, both in the East and West?
  6. Finally, does the St. Thomas community have a better chance of spreading across the southern tip of India and Sri Lanka? Or is there not much relation?
 

Philip

Donor
I don't know if Martel is butterflied for sure, Islam didn't reach western Europe until the invasion of Hispania in the 710s

The POD is about a century before then. The randomness of genetics virtually guarantees he is butterflied away.

Since the HRE is likely butterflied does that mean Germany and Italy could potentially be unified much earlier?

There is no guarantee that romantic nationalism is arise to drive unification.

If the Berbers convert (likely for economic reasons) they could probably spread Catholic Christianity to the Sahel Kingdoms

Christianity was spreading through the Berbers since at the third century with Carthage being a major center of Christianity at the time.
 
Thing is, this would probably not butterfly away the discovery of the new world. You see, the mongols would be a lot, LOT more powerful without the resistance of the Muslims. Europe would then be blocked off 200 year earlier meaning that by the time the mongols collapse ITTL (around 1400) european powers would likely have a much bigger power-base in America than even Europe itself.
 
Which facet of Islam empowered resistance to the Mongol invasions?
The mamluks were the first defeat for the mongols. Without them, the mongols would have had the chance to probably take north Africa, which would be terrifying. Islam was a lot more centralized than Christianity historically, so ITTL there would be no resistance from the "Coptic Kingdom"
 
Top