How much longer would the byzantine & sassanid empires have lasted without the arab conquests?

I think your thinking is too deterministic. With a Pod in 630 you think that nationalism, an idea that was born around 1800 cant be avoided? There are a lot of prerequisits for it to ever appear. It could come sooner, later or not at all. But saying it will come 100% is nonsense. Same for liberalism.

But we have proof that these things already existed prior to their widespread adoption?

The cultural and national identity of Gaul existed long before 630. Same with the Britons, the Visigoths, ect... They changes over time, but you can't argue that there wasn't some sort of national identity prior to 630. The widespread adoption of nationalism was something that took off in the 1700s, but this also coincides with increased standards of living and education to the masses. You can argue when and how it occurs, but Nationalism is going to occur. You only really need those two factors to see it happen.

Liberalism is the same. We can track throughout history that the most liberal in society tend to be the most well off. See Romes Elite. As education and standards of living increases you will reach a point of liberal agitation.

You can argue the how's and why's of these concepts, but I've never seen a professor dispute that these would never occur.
 

Deleted member 97083

But we have proof that these things already existed prior to their widespread adoption?

The cultural and national identity of Gaul existed long before 630. Same with the Britons, the Visigoths, ect... They changes over time, but you can't argue that there wasn't some sort of national identity prior to 630. The widespread adoption of nationalism was something that took off in the 1700s, but this also coincides with increased standards of living and education to the masses. You can argue when and how it occurs, but Nationalism is going to occur. You only really need those two factors to see it happen.

Liberalism is the same. We can track throughout history that the most liberal in society tend to be the most well off. See Romes Elite. As education and standards of living increases you will reach a point of liberal agitation.

You can argue the how's and why's of these concepts, but I've never seen a professor dispute that these would never occur.
And that's just Western examples. You can also look at the Persian identity and how that reformed after the Hellenistic and Islamic conquests with what could arguably be called proto-nationalistic sentiment in the Sassanids and much later Safavids on two occasions separated by over a millennium.

Or the most obvious example of all, China, which has perceived itself as the "Middle Kingdom" or "Central State", inhabited by the Huaxia or Chinese nation for over 2000 years.
 
But we have proof that these things already existed prior to their widespread adoption?

The cultural and national identity of Gaul existed long before 630. Same with the Britons, the Visigoths, ect... They changes over time, but you can't argue that there wasn't some sort of national identity prior to 630. The widespread adoption of nationalism was something that took off in the 1700s, but this also coincides with increased standards of living and education to the masses. You can argue when and how it occurs, but Nationalism is going to occur. You only really need those two factors to see it happen.

Liberalism is the same. We can track throughout history that the most liberal in society tend to be the most well off. See Romes Elite. As education and standards of living increases you will reach a point of liberal agitation.

You can argue the how's and why's of these concepts, but I've never seen a professor dispute that these would never occur.

I should have been more specific. I will not dispute that there were instances in history which we can see as nationalistic. However modern nationalism was a product of the french revolution. Identity before that was most of the time based on religion and/or territory.

Nothing you wrote has convinced me that nationalism in the modern sense - as a widespread and accepted idea, was inevitable to happen in 630. I think that liberalism is more likely but even that is not assured.

However we are getting pretty off topic here so on my part I wont continue this part of the discussion.
 
I should have been more specific. I will not dispute that there were instances in history which we can see as nationalistic. However modern nationalism was a product of the french revolution. Identity before that was most of the time based on religion and/or territory.

Nothing you wrote has convinced me that nationalism in the modern sense - as a widespread and accepted idea, was inevitable to happen in 630. I think that liberalism is more likely but even that is not assured.

However we are getting pretty off topic here so on my part I wont continue this part of the discussion.

That's great, but I don't have to prove to you that Nationalism will happen. We have proof from OTL that it did happen. I've listed the conditions under which it occurred. The French Revolution was not a requirement, it was the end result of centuries of philosophical and economical thought. There is even a great case the Nationalism was a natural evolution of thought.

France as a national identity existed before 630. What about the Iraq Nationalist movements that were taking place prior the Islamic conquest? What about the Judea revolts? There are all nationalist movement, but the chief difference between those movements and modern ones was leadership. Nationalism back then was for the Elite, Modern Nationalism is for the masses. All you need in increased standards of living, education and potentially mass media to be the correct conditions for this to happen.
 
Have to agree with @Tibi088 here. Nationalism, liberalism and atlantic Exploration are no given results.

Don't confuse Nationalism as a modern political ideology with the notion that people who spoke the same language, shared the same faith and had other cultural similarities, too, regarded themselves as belonging to a coherent group with a collective identity. THAT concept is perhaps as old as mesolithic times, and it's absolutely pervasive and probably inevitable, even though more often than not, linguistic, religious and other cultural affiliations are not strictly monolithic and co-extensive.
Romanitas is absolutely the best example of what is NOT akin to Nationalism. Nationalism, as paradoxical as it is for a highly particularist ideology to be so, is a universalist philosophy: it sees nations everywhere, and it has brought nations into political being everywhere, too. Romanitas, on the other hand, tended to make all kinds of ethnic groups disappear and include them under a great umbrella - and yet, if you say this sounds a lot like US Nationalism, for much of the time it didn't go together with political inclusion and participation, so...

Elites are most liberal? They're also most outspoken conservatives. (And a lot more.)

Atlantic exploration, though probably the hardest to butterfly of the three, can still be seriously delayed and be undertaken by entirely different entities and actors and under entirely different paradigms than in OTL with a PoD in the 7th century.
 
Atlantic exploration, though probably the hardest to butterfly of the three, can still be seriously delayed and be undertaken by entirely different entities and actors and under entirely different paradigms than in OTL with a PoD in the 7th century.

Why delayed? Couldn't it just as easily be accelerated?

As far as I can see, it started as soon as there were ships which were up to the job.
 
Have to agree with @Tibi088 here. Nationalism, liberalism and atlantic Exploration are no given results.

Don't confuse Nationalism as a modern political ideology with the notion that people who spoke the same language, shared the same faith and had other cultural similarities, too, regarded themselves as belonging to a coherent group with a collective identity. THAT concept is perhaps as old as mesolithic times, and it's absolutely pervasive and probably inevitable, even though more often than not, linguistic, religious and other cultural affiliations are not strictly monolithic and co-extensive.
Romanitas is absolutely the best example of what is NOT akin to Nationalism. Nationalism, as paradoxical as it is for a highly particularist ideology to be so, is a universalist philosophy: it sees nations everywhere, and it has brought nations into political being everywhere, too. Romanitas, on the other hand, tended to make all kinds of ethnic groups disappear and include them under a great umbrella - and yet, if you say this sounds a lot like US Nationalism, for much of the time it didn't go together with political inclusion and participation, so...

Elites are most liberal? They're also most outspoken conservatives. (And a lot more.)

Atlantic exploration, though probably the hardest to butterfly of the three, can still be seriously delayed and be undertaken by entirely different entities and actors and under entirely different paradigms than in OTL with a PoD in the 7th century.

You absolutely can though, as you agree with exploration. You can change the time, the how and the why, but the probability of these occurring in some way or form is far greater than them not.

Nationalism and liberalism are avenues of thought that in most civilization only occurred with the right conditions. The conditions being standard of living and education. To a degree mass media as well. I don't see any PoDs that can avoid the conditions of this from occurring.

If you look at the chief figures behind the Liberal movements, the majority are from an Elite Background. They rarely come from poor backgrounds. Today we see a complete change due to the level of education and standards of living.

My whole point from the start till now, has been that you cannot avoid these movements from occurring. They might come under different names, hows, whys and end results, but the ideology of Nationalism and Liberalism are almost certain to occur at some point. When they do Autocratic/Multi-Cultural containing empires are going to be hit hardest. Hence why I believe that the two empires, if they survive to this point, will struggle much harder to remain. Combine this with the wealth the Americas will bring, the odds of these empires surviving to present day is going to be reduced.
 
You absolutely can though, as you agree with exploration. You can change the time, the how and the why, but the probability of these occurring in some way or form is far greater than them not.

Nationalism and liberalism are avenues of thought that in most civilization only occurred with the right conditions. The conditions being standard of living and education. To a degree mass media as well. I don't see any PoDs that can avoid the conditions of this from occurring.

If you look at the chief figures behind the Liberal movements, the majority are from an Elite Background. They rarely come from poor backgrounds. Today we see a complete change due to the level of education and standards of living.

My whole point from the start till now, has been that you cannot avoid these movements from occurring. They might come under different names, hows, whys and end results, but the ideology of Nationalism and Liberalism are almost certain to occur at some point. When they do Autocratic/Multi-Cultural containing empires are going to be hit hardest. Hence why I believe that the two empires, if they survive to this point, will struggle much harder to remain. Combine this with the wealth the Americas will bring, the odds of these empires surviving to present day is going to be reduced.
I agree with you that, IF Nationalism and Liberalism arise, that looks like a serious challenge to both a prolonged ERE and an Iranian empire which also controls Mesopotamia at first sight. Although even that isn't a given: look at how much Northern Africa and the Middle East is Arabised IOTL - uniformisation could occur over the course of more than a millennium, and it did under the ERE indeed where various minority languages died out, Christianity was imposed everywhere etc. (even though total uniformity could not be achieved). Also, modern Iran is highly multilingual, yet there's a strong Iranian nationalism. Also, empires can reform. They could liberalise and democratise, too.

Nationalism and Liberalism as we know them have emerged in France and Britain (so has Socialism); everywhere else they're cultural imports (which is not to say that they haven't taken huge genuine developments in other countries - but that only happened later). Rising living standards and education co-occurred and certainly had something to do with their popularisation, as had the existence of centralised statehood, scientific progress and many other things - but this is really so hard to analyse because Nationalism and LIberalism have simply only come into being in Western Europe, and Western Europe went all over the globe, so it's damn difficult to say which traits of Western European societies could have, elsewhere, led to the same kind of ideologies, or if you need all of them.

"Something like it"? Well, now it depends HOW similar or different you allow it to be. The more different from OTL's ideologies it may be, the more likely it is to appear, of course. But then, the question of whether it would tear apart multi-national autocratic empires has to be answered on different grounds...
 
I think nationalism is bound to happen as states progress and centralize. It may not be ethno-nationalism like OTL, but a form of Roman nationalism was already forming OTL. OTL it formed mostly around language, culture and religion. In another timeline it may form around something else, but I think it's sort of inevitable.
 
I think nationalism is bound to happen as states progress and centralize. It may not be ethno-nationalism like OTL, but a form of Roman nationalism was already forming OTL. OTL it formed mostly around language, culture and religion. In another timeline it may form around something else, but I think it's sort of inevitable.

And it is noticeable that when Pagan peoples were converted to Eastern Christianity, they tended to insist on having Patriarchs of their own, rather than being under the Patriarch of Constantinople. This, I would guess, was due to the PofC being too obviously a servant of the Emperor, so that obedience to the one could imply subordination to the other. OTOH, those peoples converted to western Catholicism were reasonably content to be under the Pope, since obedience to him did not imply subordination to a temporal ruler.
 
I agree with you that, IF Nationalism and Liberalism arise, that looks like a serious challenge to both a prolonged ERE and an Iranian empire which also controls Mesopotamia at first sight. Although even that isn't a given: look at how much Northern Africa and the Middle East is Arabised IOTL - uniformisation could occur over the course of more than a millennium, and it did under the ERE indeed where various minority languages died out, Christianity was imposed everywhere etc. (even though total uniformity could not be achieved). Also, modern Iran is highly multilingual, yet there's a strong Iranian nationalism. Also, empires can reform. They could liberalise and democratise, too.

There was an article that talked about the limits of uniformisation. That uniformisation only works within a geographical confine and historical context permitting. I'll link it if I find it. I have no issue with the point here, just that nearly all Empires OTL eventually fell to nationalistic movements. The problem with reforming is too often it involves taking power from the ruling culture and distributing this to others. It's why Parliament inclusive of the colonies in the British Empire would never work. The Empire would no longer be British it would be Indian.

Nationalism and Liberalism as we know them have emerged in France and Britain (so has Socialism); everywhere else they're cultural imports (which is not to say that they haven't taken huge genuine developments in other countries - but that only happened later). Rising living standards and education co-occurred and certainly had something to do with their popularisation, as had the existence of centralised statehood, scientific progress and many other things - but this is really so hard to analyse because Nationalism and LIberalism have simply only come into being in Western Europe, and Western Europe went all over the globe, so it's damn difficult to say which traits of Western European societies could have, elsewhere, led to the same kind of ideologies, or if you need all of them.

Sure. The argument I make is that the wealth generated from the discovery of the Americas allowed for the higher standard of living and education to occur, that in turn facilitated the thinking needed for the moments to occur. I agree it's a lot more complex, but the key indicators appear to be education and standard of living, thought you could include mass media under this. It's why I lean towards these movements defiantly occurring as opposed. We have no framework for a scenario of human history when they don't. All we have is the conditions that they occurred in and even with the butterflies from these two empires, I see no reason why they can't occur here.

"Something like it"? Well, now it depends HOW similar or different you allow it to be. The more different from OTL's ideologies it may be, the more likely it is to appear, of course. But then, the question of whether it would tear apart multi-national autocratic empires has to be answered on different grounds...

My statement was because Nationalism to us could be or mean something different ITTL. You could change nationalism so that it still means this, but you could throw in Unitarianism for example. They movement would still be nationalistic, but it would be wrong to simply call it nationalism.

As to whether it has torn apart multi-national empires, I would like you to point to examples of Empires that exist today that weren't torn apart by nationalist movements.
 
I see no reason why they can't occur here.
Put this way, I wouldn't contradict you. They can - but that's different from saying that they more or less inevitably would.

As to whether it has torn apart multi-national empires, I would like you to point to examples of Empires that exist today that weren't torn apart by nationalist movements.
Depends on how you define Empire. Imperial frameworks changed over time a lot - they are truly something that emerged independently in many different places, and they had different characteristics, and these changed as circumstances changed. Are the US a modern / post-modern empire?
 
One issue that is seemingly being dismissed or forgotten under the western Sassanid front, is the political situation in the east in the next 100-200 years.

In otl, the fall of the Sassanid Empire led to the expansion eastward of the Umayyad forces and the wider dar al-Islam, against various autonomous states, tribes and several rising powers. Over the course of 700-860, these groups were primarily subdued and conquered in the immediate vicinity of the Caliphate and the rest failed to make gains politically. Thus, in the grand scheme, the Islamic influence and thus Abbasid pressure became the strongest, despite the rapid decline of the Abbasid power in the 840s. These three immediate players that the Sassanids will need to deal with are:

1. Gokturks and the various soon to be divided Turkic hordes of many tribes. These in otl, were initially foes on the northern and eastern front with the Abbasid. These groups however were generally divided and unable to resist the Arab forces which preyed upon them in slave raids and various wars of pillage and loot. This policy and pressure surely lowered the power of these Turkic hordes and surely postponed any major Turkic invasion. In otl, the Sassanids already had various relations in the steppe, most especially with their wars with the Hepthalites, whom they defeated with an alliance with the Turkic hordes now propagating across the steppe replacing much of the Iranic steppe hordes previously in vogue since the times of the Assyrians. The Sassanids thus had already dealt with the encroachment of the steppe and dealt with these foes in ways not dissimilar to the Byzantines, that is, alliances with steppe nomads just beside the encroaching horde. This is perhaps the best way the Sassanids can deal with these hordes, whilst invading the steppe with a modestly powerful army to pillage and force the warring nomads further north.

2. Western hordes. These would be those Turkic or otherwise nomadic hordes that would exist in the Pontic Steppe or nearby east. Thus, this would include the powerful Khazar units which began forming into cohesive powers near the end of the Sassanid period and the more fearsome Pechenegs who arrived shortly after the Khazar. In otl, the Umayyad fought extremely costly wars with these Khazar. Khazar entities invaded and broke through the Umayyad defense in the Caucasian mountains and pushed into Iraq, shaming the Caliph and creating a major detriment to the Umayyad morale. Further, the Umayyad invasion of Khazar territory, shows a tale of difficulty, with the Khazar fleeing northward before the Umayyad army's counter invasion. The importance of the Sassanid to maintain this border is important and possibly an alliance with said Khazar is possible.

3. Tibet: The rise of the Tibetan empire is not something that I am particularly versed in, however, the Tibetan empire int he early days of the Umayyad, exerted large influence in the region to make its own gains and counter those made by Islam. Especially Afghanistan, where the Tibetans countered the Umayyad conquest by invading and executing the Umayyad emir; this was soon pushed back by the Umayyad who returned and invaded the Kashmir region. Later, the Tibetans and Abbasid would form what seems to be a pragmatic agreement against the expansionist Tang. In a tl without Islam, the Sassanid will likely be the second largest player in this roulette of the east, between Tibet, Tang and the various Nomadic Hordes, as the Caliphate was and was the eventual victor in this geopolitical struggle.

One interesting scenario I thought of, regarding this eastern maneuvering, is a more robust Tang-Sassanid alliance. Essentially, the Sassanid lessen their posturing in the west, to focus in on the rapidly changing systems in the east; especially in regards to culling the Nomadic threats to the north, by assimilation, extermination and pushing west or northward the threats from the nomads. This is then in conjugation with a Tang push westward to secure the 'Silk Road.' With careful invasions and timing, the two could meet very nearly as bordering. The system then works as the Sassanid roam and protect much of the region from nomadic threats and thus the silk road becomes far more robust than in otl, where it ceased to truly exist. How long this lasts however, is beyond me.
 
Was there already some formal friendly recognition between the two empires that could be used as a base for a strengthened alliance?
I don't find it likely. The Tang wouldn't need help in the West unless a strong power opposed them. The only power which would fit that bill were the Sassanids(or whoever rules Persia at the time). I find it nore likely that the Sassanids would want to get the Tang out of their backyard, and would ally with the Tibetans as the Caliphate did iotl.
 

RousseauX

Donor
And that's just Western examples. You can also look at the Persian identity and how that reformed after the Hellenistic and Islamic conquests with what could arguably be called proto-nationalistic sentiment in the Sassanids and much later Safavids on two occasions separated by over a millennium.

Or the most obvious example of all, China, which has perceived itself as the "Middle Kingdom" or "Central State", inhabited by the Huaxia or Chinese nation for over 2000 years.
China's ethnic identity is the result of a conscious attempt to create said identity in the 19th-20th centuries

If China had fragmented permanently in either the 1600 or 1800s Chinese ethnic identity would probably be like Arab identity today
 
I don't find it likely. The Tang wouldn't need help in the West unless a strong power opposed them. The only power which would fit that bill were the Sassanids(or whoever rules Persia at the time). I find it nore likely that the Sassanids would want to get the Tang out of their backyard, and would ally with the Tibetans as the Caliphate did iotl.

Not necessarily, the Sassanid Empire’s backyard was not exactly the region of Kashgar.

Tibet was only pragmatically aligned with the Abbasid for a short time. Their initial response was to counter the Islamic forces. Once they realized the Muslim forces were converging toward areas the Tibetans sought to see Chinese influence decline, that is when we can assume a pragmatic partnership began. Possibly it was the Tibetans who aided the Abbasid in persuasion of Karluk mercenary, though we do not know.

Despite this partnership, Tibet remained undeniably hostile to Islamic influence and continually countered the Muslim in Afghanistan and Hindustan.
 
Top