Ethnic makeup of Mesopotamia and Levant without Islam

[CommieScum]

What would the ethnic makeup of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and.. Iudaea be without Islam? Also parts of Turkey and Iran. This is assuming no other great Arab power bursts from the region either, but normal migration of Arabs is fine. I would also assume that the ERE/Persia domination of the region continues for a while. Ofcourse it's impossible to predict this accurately, but I am just interested in your takes. Religiously I assume the region would mostly be Christian/Jewish, but I have no idea what happens otherwise.

 

[Fatt Shea]

The region of Syria, Iraq and eastern Arabia (Qatar area) would still be speaking Aramaic, which was the language of Jesus. Zoroastrianism would also survive. Jordan the Sinai, the eastern Egyptian desert and eastern delta and parts of Judea may be Arabic speaking as Arabs had a presence there since the Nabateans (who built Petra) and it continued to be ruled by the Ghassnids. The levant would also have Greek speakers due the presence of the eastern Roman empire and Greek would be the language of prestige in the western levant. In Iraq we will see the same thing with Persian. The christian’s of the area would be miaphysite like Ethiopia is and this would be its own major branch of christianity like how orthodox is today. As for the Turks and Kurds I am not sure.

 

[Lalli]

It is indeed hard to predict but Jordan/Israel/Lebanon area would be probably mostly Aramaic speaking. Perhaps there would be too high numbers of Jews and other minorities. Mesopotamia would be either mainly Aramaic or Persian speaking and on northern part would be populated by Kurds. Syria would be probably mix of Greeks and Aramaics. Anatolia would be mainly Greek and Armenian assuming that there is not Turkic invasions.

Religiously Middle East would be mainly Christian with small Jewish minority. Persia might remain as Zoroastrian unless converted to Christianity instead Islam.

 

[Stellar_Lights]

I will come to the religious changes, later. The thing is, to avoid this, there needs to be an Economic and Technological Renaissance in the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires that actually increases the population of the region in their empires that ALSO causes large Social, Institutional, Intellectual and other changes, in which case the Arabs aren't dealing with the same two empires of the OTL. This is because the main factor in the Arab conquests of the Middle East wasn't just Islam, which was just a culmination of a variety of social movements that were happening in that society, but a population explosion in that region likely caused by the fact that these weren't touched by the Political instability , Plagues and Wars, to the same extent as the empires, and also the fact that there was a Climatic shift in those ages, which caused a havoc in Europe, but might not have touched the Arab regions.

Let's just say that the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires DID manage to do the above and survive. The reasonable change would be that the Western Levant would be Aramaic and Canaanite speaking (latter in pockets), while having a large Greek speaking ethnic minority, or even a Greek proportion nearing 50% due to a variety of reasons. Then you might have a presence of other Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic languages like South and East Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, Caucasian (who are all Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic (ByzCat here on) in this timeline), in scatterings, because an empire consolidating power so much would indeed have a lot of intertwined relations with neighbors.

Come to the Eastern Levant: Like say, Syrian Desert and Jordan (outside the Greek dominated North and a few Canaanite speaking cities on the Edge of the valley). These would be majority North Arabic speaking. However, not the Hijazi Arabic of the Modern World. They would be Arab Christians.

Move into Mesopotamia: Arabs would be an important and a large part of the population mix which then also has a huge mix of Persians, Kurds, Jews, various Turkic peoples, Gypsy and Gypsy-like tribes, Arameans/Mesopotamians, etc. Armenians and Caucasians have a small presence, too. This region is under the Sassanid Empire or it's successor until the Modern Age.

Religion in the Levant would obviously be overwhelmingly Christian, but we cannot comment about the sects/Churches/etc. Arabs would be overwhelmingly Christian in the North, with Pagan Arabist cults beginning from Jordan to the South, into Hejaz, where of course, Judaism and Christianity would also be a part of. Arab Paganism doesn't die off, because their role in the trade in a continuing Antiquity, and the Sassanid Buffer would help them. Further into Arabian Peninsula would see various diverse tribal cults incorporating elements of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

Religion in Mesopotamia would be very complex. Persians would be Zoroastrian of course. The Arabs would be a mix of Pagan, Christian, Zoroastrian and other. Judaism would have an important presence in the cities. Pagan and Native cults could be prevalent among the Assyrians/Semitic Mesopotamians and similar with the Kurds. Hinduism will indeed have a small presence, mainly followed by the Gypsies, Jatts, Sindhis and other ethnic groups that come under the empire. Buddhism could be prevalent among the Turkic peoples along with Tengrism and Zoroastrianism. All this assuming that no large scale religious movement happens in the Sassanid Empire. Also, there will be other Iranian peoples of the North and the Northeast, not just Persians and Kurds. And of course, since the empire has a hold on Sogdia and Bactria, you will likely have a small scattering of those people, too, who likely follow Buddhism. Nestorianism, all the while, is prevalent among all ethnicities, to an extent.

 

[CommieScum]

Kurds

Were they present in the region in the 7th century?

 

[goodol' turan]

Religion in Mesopotamia would be very complex. Persians would be Zoroastrian of course. The Arabs would be a mix of Pagan, Christian, Zoroastrian and other. Judaism would have an important presence in the cities. Pagan and Native cults could be prevalent among the Assyrians/Semitic Mesopotamians and similar with the Kurds. Hinduism will indeed have a small presence, mainly followed by the Gypsies, Jatts, Sindhis and other ethnic groups that come under the empire. Buddhism could be prevalent among the Turkic peoples along with Tengrism and Zoroastrianism. All this assuming that no large scale religious movement happens in the Sassanid Empire. Also, there will be other Iranian peoples of the North and the Northeast, not just Persians and Kurds. And of course, since the empire has a hold on Sogdia and Bactria, you will likely have a small scattering of those people, too, who likely follow Buddhism. Nestorianism, all the while, is prevalent among all ethnicities, to an extent.

What about the Manicheans

 

[Stellar_Lights]

Were they present in the region in the 7th century?

There were indeed the ancestors of the Kurds. The Medean descended Northwest Iranian tribes who existed towards the Anatolian Steppe. The Medean and Caucasian mix descended Northwest Iranians form the Caspian Iranians, who are the Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Old Azeris, Tats, etc. Parthian descended Iranian peoples also exist to the East. So, yes. The Parthian communities will exist, too.

They may not be called Kurds in this timeline, but they exist. These likely follow Zoroastrianism or an Iranian Nature Worship cult along with Christian minorities.

What about the Manicheans

They will likely get assimilated by Zoroastrians and Christians. But are likely to survive in small pockets alongside Buddhists.

 

[Lalli]

What about the Manicheans

I can't see them surviving even without Islam. Christians would definitely persecuted them and Zoroastrianism would just absbord them.

 

[Silver01]

I will come to the religious changes, later. The thing is, to avoid this, there needs to be an Economic and Technological Renaissance in the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires that actually increases the population of the region in their empires that ALSO causes large Social, Institutional, Intellectual and other changes, in which case the Arabs aren't dealing with the same two empires of the OTL. This is because the main factor in the Arab conquests of the Middle East wasn't just Islam, which was just a culmination of a variety of social movements that were happening in that society, but a population explosion in that region likely caused by the fact that these weren't touched by the Political instability , Plagues and Wars, to the same extent as the empires, and also the fact that there was a Climatic shift in those ages, which caused a havoc in Europe, but might not have touched the Arab regions.

the little ice age of justinian time was long over by 630, in fact quite the very opposite the same climate change that would help the decline of aksum coast in the 6th century began also affected arabia hence why the aksumite in yemen had to spend so much money due to the great drougth during abraha rule, by 638 i the Otl the arabs were faced with a massive drougth that medina just ran out of food, now imo these would be the triggers for arab migrations but that changes the arabs to being more like the goths in 376.

Move into Mesopotamia: Arabs would be an important and a large part of the population mix which then also has a huge mix of Persians, Kurds, Jews, various Turkic peoples, Gypsy and Gypsy-like tribes, Arameans/Mesopotamians, etc. Armenians and Caucasians have a small presence, too. This region is under the Sassanid Empire or it's successor until the Modern Age.

mesopotamia at least the south is one of the few regions i can think that could become arab the local majority of the Assyrian people were not the head and did not have the best relationship with their persian overlords that and depending on the pod khosrow II has alienated powerfull tribes like the bakr also the in otl the arabs inside of mesopotamia joined the caliphate against the sassanids even before their main army was crushed in 636 you did not see that with the ghassanids and other tribes loyal to rome.

 

[Silver01]

Religion in the Levant would obviously be overwhelmingly Christian, but we cannot comment about the sects/Churches/etc.

the costal greek cities would be chalcedonian and the interior likely stays as it had been up until then miaphysite by the time of the arab invasions this was the case with true monophysites and other groups being smaller and footnotes.

 

[Silver01]

As for the Turks and Kurds I am not sure.

for the turks it really depends on the pod the sassanids defeated the turkic empire in 580s and conquered back a great part of transoxiana, taking samarkand and many sogdian cities if the pod is before the great war of 602 then the persians could stay with this meaning some areas like sogdia remain zoroastrian and if the turks migrate they could convert how ever if the pod is after the war the sassanids will loose the lands of central asia with no real rival tang dominion would be easier so in that case i think buddhism wins out.

 

[Stellar_Lights]

the little ice age of justinian time was long over by 630, in fact quite the very opposite the same climate change that would help the decline of aksum coast in the 6th century began also affected arabia hence why the aksumite in yemen had to spend so much money due to the great drougth during abraha rule, by 638 i the Otl the arabs were faced with a massive drougth that medina just ran out of food, now imo these would be the triggers for arab migrations but that changes the arabs to being more like the goths in 376.

Justinian died in 565 AD. Arab invasions began in 629 AD. Arab population had exploded since the beginning of the Christian era, itself. There were several rises of Arab empires in the meantime, with Nabateans of Jordan and then, Queen Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire, before the Arab conquest of the Levant. As a matter of fact, the Palmyrene Empire was a "Mini version" of the Islamic Arab expansions that happened later. Climate changes affected Europe by displacing and unsettling the peoples throughout the Steppes, along with destabilizing the tribes bordering the Northern borders of the Empire. The resulting Huns and the percolating effects were the main cause of the downfall of the Roman Economy and the populations, because the formerly semi settled Forest steppes became too dangerous or cold, displacing several tribes in waves, contributing to the decline and the reboot of the Empire. Of course, could have been avoided if the Roman Empire really tried to. But it didn't happen.

Arab populations had kept increasing, and they were unaffected by these changes. They kept developing Political sophistication and Social Movements, evolving machineries to enable larger feats, instead of being disunited and tiny tribal bands at the beginning of the Christian era. Islam was a culmination of these, AND the contemporary elements of the then. Plagues likely didn't hit the Arabs hard, as it did to the Greeks and neither did the repeated wars hit them as badly as it did to the Byzantine Empire.

Drought that you mentioned might be one motivating factor.

 

[Silver01]

Justinian died in 565 AD. Arab invasions began in 629 AD. Arab population had exploded since the beginning of the Christian era, itself. There were several rises of Arab empires in the meantime, with Nabateans of Jordan and then, Queen Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire, before the Arab conquest of the Levant. As a matter of fact, the Palmyrene Empire was a "Mini version" of the Islamic Arab expansions that happened later. Climate changes affected Europe by displacing and unsettling the peoples throughout the Steppes, along with destabilizing the tribes bordering the Northern borders of the Empire

as mentioned , replying to this and also the fact that there was a Climatic shift in those ages, which caused a havoc in Europe, but might not have touched the Arab regions. the last climatic shift was the little mini age of 540s by 629 it was long gone so this was not a factor during 630 for the arab conquest.

Arab populations had kept increasing, and they were unaffected by these changes. They kept developing Political sophistication and Social Movements, evolving machineries to enable larger feats, instead of being disunited and tiny tribal bands at the beginning of the Christian era. Islam was a culmination of these, AND the contemporary elements of the then. Plagues likely didn't hit the Arabs hard, as it did to the Greeks and neither did the repeated wars hit them as badly as it did to the Byzantine Empire.

the population boom while good for some but not all areas became sophisticated mohamed tribe and how they took over the trade after a war just prior to islam yes, yemen being devestated by plagues and drougths ? no also mass movements were not anything new arabia and migrations were still occuring at the eve of islam

islam was a culmination but you make it sound like it was invevitable or larger trend when tribal politics and warfare was still common example Al al-Ghawth and Al Jadila fought against each other in the 25 years again my point is an arabia with out islam their migration instead of being a military invasion would be more like the germanic tribes who for the most part at first wanted assylum in the empire .

 

[Arkenfolm]

It's really difficult to say because the area was incredibly multiethnic and nearly always incorporated into a larger empire and there had been dramatic shifts in language and ethnicity in the relatively recent past i.e. the assimilation of Akkadian speakers by Aramaic speakers due to Aramaic speaking peoples being scattered everywhere.

My assumption is that neither the Byzantines nor the Sassanids will hold onto the land for very long. The environment was too destabilised in those centuries and would cause mass migration of Arabs from the south. Both the Byzantines and Sassanids are fighting invaders to their north as well. The latter empire will probably crumble entirely and probably eventually be reunited by either Arabs or Turks.

Two big problems with region. First, it's not very secure since it's at the crossroads of the Old World. Second is that it's heavily dependent on irrigation. Soil salinity is a concern, drought is a concern, and maintaining the canals is a concern. When the government could no longer do so or when the irrigation was disrupted like after the Mongols and especially Timur, it sank into a backwater. Both would be a good reason why Syria tended to be ruled from Egypt (or Turkey) and even Syria-based dynasties like the Ayyubids relocated to Egypt.

But overall if you ran the simulation of history 1,000 times, you'd probably see in most histories the majority group were Aramaic-speaking peoples who probably are the middle class in a country whose founders and elites are Arabs or maybe Turks. Probably they practice a form of Christianity separate from Constantinople. If something broadly similar to OTL social trends occurs, then they'll formalise a single Neo-Aramaic language. Otherwise they'll speak languages from what is a diverse language family and use the liturgical language of their church. I won't give this group an ethnic name because in all likelihood there would be at least two since it would be tied to whichever religious identity they had.

Notable minorities would be Arabs--mostly on the fringes and in the desert since they have a particular lifestyle--and Greeks--mostly in the cities. Persians would also be a minority in Mesopotamia, associated with various Persia-based states and practicing Zoroastrianism. Jews and Samaritans would hold a large presence as well. Armenians would be present in the northernmost areas and also as urban communities. Kurds would be present, but a much smaller minority than OTL since they expanded in part by destroying or assimilating Armenian and Aramaic-speaking people.

They will likely get assimilated by Zoroastrians and Christians. But are likely to survive in small pockets alongside Buddhists.

Why? They were a plenty successful religion on their own, and there's no real reason for why they would be absorbed into another faith unlike China where the similarities to Buddhism ensured they would become little more than a sect of Buddhism in the long term. Zoroastrianism itself would change quite a bit when the Sassanids and their centralised priesthood is no longer a factor.

 

[Andristan]

ersians would also be a minority in Mesopotamia, associated with various Persia-based states and practicing Zoroastrianism

Persians and other groups in the East, were, in a minority, Nestorian and seeing as the Nestorians made it to China in OTL with the Arab invasion, we could, perchance, see more Nestorians as the biggest religious minority in the Sassanid empire.

 

[Silver01]

My assumption is that neither the Byzantines nor the Sassanids will hold onto the land for very long. The environment was too destabilised in those centuries and would cause mass migration of Arabs from the south. Both the Byzantines and Sassanids are fighting invaders to their north as well. The latter empire will probably crumble entirely and probably eventually be reunited by either Arabs or Turks.

north as in the caucasus? really? in the otl by 630 the western turkic khagante was by 630 on death spiral the khazars would not emerge until circa 650 and in even with multiple rebellions and loose control over armenia the khazars did not attack in the 7th century with just one exception in 655 were minor contigents helped the byzantines its not until 680s we see the first khazar raids to the region.

Two big problems with region. First, it's not very secure since it's at the crossroads of the Old World. Second is that it's heavily dependent on irrigation. Soil salinity is a concern, drought is a concern, and maintaining the canals is a concern. When the government could no longer do so or when the irrigation was disrupted like after the Mongols and especially Timur, it sank into a backwater. Both would be a good reason why Syria tended to be ruled from Egypt (or Turkey) and even Syria-based dynasties like the Ayyubids relocated to Egypt.

we would be forgetting the umayaads syria did not have much denigration or climate crisis on the 8th century tempeture began to rise but nothing that destabilized the region, persia while the cost of cannals would be an issue but it was not until the 9th century that soil salinity became an massive issue to the point souther mesopotamia got abandoned by the 10th century ironiclly enough if the canals can get repaired with out baghdad and the higher population southern mesopotamia does not get abandoned until later.

 

[Arkenfolm]

north as in the caucasus? really? in the otl by 630 the western turkic khagante was by 630 on death spiral the khazars would not emerge until circa 650 and in even with multiple rebellions and loose control over armenia the khazars did not attack in the 7th century with just one exception in 655 were minor contigents helped the byzantines its not until 680s we see the first khazar raids to the region.

No, as in Europe. Byzantium in this era faced a constant stream of conflicts on their northern frontier which eventually collapsed. Fighting those groups takes away resources from fighting the Arabs in Syria/Persians in Mesopotamia.

we would be forgetting the umayaads syria did not have much denigration or climate crisis on the 8th century tempeture began to rise but nothing that destabilized the region, persia while the cost of cannals would be an issue but it was not until the 9th century that soil salinity became an massive issue to the point souther mesopotamia got abandoned by the 10th century ironiclly enough if the canals can get repaired with out baghdad and the higher population southern mesopotamia does not get abandoned until later.

Soil salinity was a problem in Mesopotamia since ancient times. It's part of why cities like Uruk were abandoned.

 

[Silver01]

No, as in Europe. Byzantium in this era faced a constant stream of conflicts on their northern frontier which eventually collapsed. Fighting those groups takes away resources from fighting the Arabs in Syria/Persians in Mesopotamia.

ah because i said north to both of them and i though you meant the even though i would also say constant? i guess it depends on the pod the avar khagante following the siege of constantinople in 627 entered a period of decline especially when samo started to expand his empire and it was not till 670 when a very diminished avar khagante would finally stabilize, the bulgars did not show up in the region till 674 and even in our timeline Constantine could have won the battle of ongal had he not left, as for the slavic tribes already in the area they were not expanding anymore by 630 not till the arabs showed up, and even then as seen by how Constans II, Constantine IV and justinian beat the tribes in greece and macedonia respectively while they can take attention away i dont think it constant stream of conflict if the otl the empire ignored them and nearly every time they went on campaing against them they defeated them.

Soil salinity was a problem in Mesopotamia since ancient times. It's part of why cities like Uruk were abandoned.

this is true but there is a specific reason why this went to this during abbasid times is because it build up over time, to quote a persian historian i know and asked the very question why did not occur early her answer was ctesiphon was a lot smaller, really in addition, the salination of the rivers was a lot less bad in part because the sasanians started the intensive irrigation system so they got in while the goings were good.

essentially southern mesopotamia was likely going to face this in any timeline maybe if the abbasids did not get a crisis it could have lasted longer but persia nor arab mesopotamia in this timeline would put any were near the pressure of bagdad on the area

 

[CommieScum]

Very interesting. I thought of this topic while thinking about Bronze Age Mesopotamia and how odd it is that all of that is almost a monolithic culture now. But I guess the region was even by then rather dominated by Aramaic. A couple questions about OTL. Does Aramaic have influences on Modern Arabic? And in what part are the modern inhabitants of the region migrants from Arabia rather than assimilated?

 

[Stellar_Lights]

as mentioned , replying to this and also the fact that there was a Climatic shift in those ages, which caused a havoc in Europe, but might not have touched the Arab regions. the last climatic shift was the little mini age of 540s by 629 it was long gone so this was not a factor during 630 for the arab conquest.

Yes, I am telling you that this Mini Ice Age is not the only factor in this event. It is likely a tiny factor. It influenced in a way that Europe (where Byzantine Empire was headed), couldn't cope very easily with it, but the Middle East, specially the Arab lands starting from Syria into the Peninsula, was less affected. The population explosion of the Arabs and their slow development and advancement, had happened in phases since the start of the Christian Era. Also the fact that Sassanid Empire also faced Central Asian invasions intermittently, around the same time when there were Climate related droughts in East Asia (this happened before Justinian, just before the collapse of WRE). Arabs were mostly shielded by all this, and also, the trade and their influence with the neighbors helped them grow, along with other changes.

islam was a culmination but you make it sound like it was invevitable or larger trend when tribal politics and warfare was still common example Al al-Ghawth and Al Jadila fought against each other in the 25 years again my point is an arabia with out islam their migration instead of being a military invasion would be more like the germanic tribes who for the most part at first wanted assylum in the empire .

Arab population increased from the start of the ADs to the 7th Century. In the 7th Century, after having lived with the Byzantines and the Sassanids, AND developing enough institutional sophistication within their tribes, they pulled off the conquest, after a Unification. Why and how this is supposed to have happened is to be debated. Was it a drought? Was it Tribal warfare due to the increasing population? I don't know if Islam was inevitable or not, but the Unifying forces picked some aspects suitable, later on. When the conquests began, it was still Generic Abrahamic Monotheism to unify the tribes, not Islam, which would emerge in the Umayyad Era. The unified tribal confederations did sense the opportunity to pick on the declining empires, and found their luck. Full consolidation of the rival Arab tribes likely happened well later, as there were always rival factions.