You see threads a lot of times talking about a Muslim France or a Muslim Italy (the last of which I find eminently plausible, but that's beside the point). A lot of these seem not to take into account overextension and what have you. So, to get the board's opinion; how much of Europe could have become Muslim in the early-to-high middle ages and remained so into the present day?
How much of Europe could be Muslim, realistically?
- Thread starter TheLordProtector
- Start date
All of it.
It's not about the caliphates owing all of europe, it's about no serious christian empire emerging (because the franks don't take off and byzantine gets destroyed and kiev goes jewish, ect.) so that the cultural and religious centres of europe are muslim. and then you have thousands of years for that influence to spread into the pagan and christian areas unchallenged like it did in africa and asia, where muslim religion outspread the area of caliphate rule.
Without Christianity, Islam will never exist.
Answering the OP's question, if there is a victory at Tours, the Caliphate might be able to conquer parts of southern France and will most likely conquer all of Spain as a result. At the East, I guess if there is a victory at one of the Arab sieges of Constantinople, Greece may fall and as a result, the Balkans will become Islamic as well. Islam may travel northward and -a very big if - but Russia may convert to Islam, meaning that there is an Islamic Eastern Europe. But this occurring is extremely iffy.
Last edited:
I worded that badly. I mean no serious christian empire being left at about 750. So byzantine falls, the frankish empire doesn't form, ect.
I think it's plausible to have a europe in 800-850 where only small powers are christian and the rest are pagan or muslim without really extending the direct reign of the caliphate that much further.
Islamic Gaul is basically a big no-no. Arabo-Berbers simply didn't have enough forces or even motivation doing so, while Franks being unified at this point, enough to fight back efficiently as they did IOTL.
At best, you could see a bigger part of Southern Gaul (southern Aquitaine, part of Provence) being taken over temporarily (well it was IOTL, but more than just one year or two ITTL), but it would most likely wouldn't last.
There's a similar issue with Italy, although a more important presence in Late Carolingian era is more plausible. Basically, between Franks and Byzzies, a full-fledged Arabo-Islamic conquest isn't going to be that realistic.
A slower conquest of southern Italy with a weakened Francia and Byzantium, however...
You could see emirates (more or less tied up with Fatimids) being created in Calabria, Puglie, even Campania. But the same problems that plagued Al-Andalus or Sicily (such as lack of manpower, political and strategical isolation) are still going to appear.
It's not going to be easy, but I think it's possible for an earlier Islamic presence in Balkans, that wouldn't get rid of Byzantium per se, but could take on Thracia or even IOTL Bulgaria without being totally impossible.
Eventually a Muslim presence in what is now Southern and Central Russia is doable (but depends on ERE being importantly weakened).
I would think that a Khazar Khanate sticking up to its conversion to Islam, contrary to OTL, could be an interesting religious pole, eventually converting southern slavic emporiae.
Bulgars, on the other hand and if the M-E trade proove mre incitative than Constantinople, could deal (but it would be much harder) with Northern Slavs.
It would fit well with a TL where Constantinople is far less attractive, due to a more warring region.
Basically, the more important obstacle for a greater Arabo-Islamic dominance are Arabo-Islamic structures : still largely tribally and ethnically divided, based on successful raiding for what matters to funding expeditions, with a relative numerical inferiority when it comes to conquered people (and that clearly played a role on religious division with Sh'ia, Kharidjism, etc.). But as long it's "working" you can't simply get rid of them.
It seems a bit convenient to say the truth. Byzantine empire resisted well even in the VIIth century, enough to lives on. Frankish takeover was more or less a given by the VIIth century as well (mostly due to its presence over new trade roads, a wealthy kingdom and common structures)...
I'm not sure having a PoD that conveniently "delete" every big player in the region is that plausible myself.
B-29_Bomber
Banned
I would say in an alt-world that looks somewhat like OTL, perhaps Iberia, with Southern France being a focal point for a reconquista. Maybe you could have a greater presence in Southern Italy, but that won't last long.
Europe would have been Muslim if Umayyads Win Battle of Tours and Siege of Constantinople That would make Europe Muslim
TFSmith121
Banned
The WRE and ERE controlled both and that didn't
The WRE and ERE controlled both for some fairly lengthy periods of time and that doesn't seem to have been enough to immediately make all of Europe Christian, however.
Turning points generally are not.
Take a longue durée point of view; little bit more than one or two battles going on...
Best,
The WRE and ERE controlled both for some fairly lengthy periods of time and that doesn't seem to have been enough to immediately make all of Europe Christian, however.
Turning points generally are not.
Take a longue durée point of view; little bit more than one or two battles going on...
Best,
First of all, I would like to say that my knowledge of Europe during this period outside the Islamic world (as in the what was happening internally around Europe, outside Andalus)is not very strong, however I will contest that if given time and a large period of time, the potential for an entirely Islamic Europe is possible if certain criteria are made, without using wandering Sufi (India/Malaysia).
To begin with I will give the religious justification for war against Europe through constant wars meant to keep the enemy smothered, as the Umayyad did to the Byzantines, which was ended with the more melo and heavily Mu'Tazila influenced Abbasid Khilafah. Before I give this know that I am giving the interpretation of the Umayyad and am in no way making this for the entire Ummah (if your a Muslim) and the way you see Allah is between you and Allah.
Quran 2:216
"Fighting is prescribed to you and ur dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike that which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Most people know these Surahs, unless asked I will not quote further from the Quran.
Bukhari 52:73
"Allah's apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is in the shadow of the swords'."
Personally one of my favorites from the Hadith. Still, there is a wealth I could recite, but unless asked I will refrain.
The ideology however is clear, the Umayyads prescribed to the Hukm (ruling) that Jihad is a continuous struggle both physically and mentally against those whom cause Fitnah (discord) among the people of the Earth. This is an obvious ruling and is justified by all the Ulema, however where the difficulty starts is the interpretation of what is Fitna and what classifies as Fitna among the people. Is Fitna caused by oppression and tyranny or by Shirk and Kufr Akbar? The latter was taken by the Umayyads. By this I am saying; that the Umayyads said, that if a Christian ruler calls his people to the worship of one other than Allah, than he is causing Fitna, and must be warred against until he desists and pays Jizya or converts. Furthermore, this calls for a continuous system of war.
With that said, the will was there, the problem you have is disunity within the Ummah and massive discontent in the Middle East. Beginning with the Shurha revolts then the various Shia revolts, Murjia revolts, somewhat (in comparison) anti-jihadi Turkish Wilayet and the influence of the Mu'Tazila.
If these mishaps can be avoided and the Khilafah is able to take more than it did in otl leading to local Wilayet becoming independent following the fall of the Khilafah and continuing in Jihad can technically overtime victory overtake the rest of Europe.
That being said this may be highly implausible, I would say it is still possible given numerous wanks to the Umayyad or Rashidun.
To begin with I will give the religious justification for war against Europe through constant wars meant to keep the enemy smothered, as the Umayyad did to the Byzantines, which was ended with the more melo and heavily Mu'Tazila influenced Abbasid Khilafah. Before I give this know that I am giving the interpretation of the Umayyad and am in no way making this for the entire Ummah (if your a Muslim) and the way you see Allah is between you and Allah.
Quran 2:216
"Fighting is prescribed to you and ur dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike that which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Most people know these Surahs, unless asked I will not quote further from the Quran.
Bukhari 52:73
"Allah's apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is in the shadow of the swords'."
Personally one of my favorites from the Hadith. Still, there is a wealth I could recite, but unless asked I will refrain.
The ideology however is clear, the Umayyads prescribed to the Hukm (ruling) that Jihad is a continuous struggle both physically and mentally against those whom cause Fitnah (discord) among the people of the Earth. This is an obvious ruling and is justified by all the Ulema, however where the difficulty starts is the interpretation of what is Fitna and what classifies as Fitna among the people. Is Fitna caused by oppression and tyranny or by Shirk and Kufr Akbar? The latter was taken by the Umayyads. By this I am saying; that the Umayyads said, that if a Christian ruler calls his people to the worship of one other than Allah, than he is causing Fitna, and must be warred against until he desists and pays Jizya or converts. Furthermore, this calls for a continuous system of war.
With that said, the will was there, the problem you have is disunity within the Ummah and massive discontent in the Middle East. Beginning with the Shurha revolts then the various Shia revolts, Murjia revolts, somewhat (in comparison) anti-jihadi Turkish Wilayet and the influence of the Mu'Tazila.
If these mishaps can be avoided and the Khilafah is able to take more than it did in otl leading to local Wilayet becoming independent following the fall of the Khilafah and continuing in Jihad can technically overtime victory overtake the rest of Europe.
That being said this may be highly implausible, I would say it is still possible given numerous wanks to the Umayyad or Rashidun.
Caesar Biden
Banned
Well, muslim control of Europe just needs to reach critical mass before it spreads to the rest of it. For example, Scandinavia could very easily be converted to Islam if surrounded by Muslims.
You need A. Conquest of the Romans, which leads to a major muslim presence in the Balkans. From there, their influence can spread into Russia, Hungary, and the Steppes, making those eventually wind up Muslim. Then, you need B. No state like the Carolingians controlled to arise, and for the Arabs to do consistently better in Western Europe, which allows them to slowly but surely take over Southern France.
In this scenario, if they can somehow take over Italy after consolidating their hold over Sicily, the Balkans, and Southern France, dominoes are going to start falling, and Europe will become Muslim. It'll be a stretch to get there, though.
You need A. Conquest of the Romans, which leads to a major muslim presence in the Balkans. From there, their influence can spread into Russia, Hungary, and the Steppes, making those eventually wind up Muslim. Then, you need B. No state like the Carolingians controlled to arise, and for the Arabs to do consistently better in Western Europe, which allows them to slowly but surely take over Southern France.
In this scenario, if they can somehow take over Italy after consolidating their hold over Sicily, the Balkans, and Southern France, dominoes are going to start falling, and Europe will become Muslim. It'll be a stretch to get there, though.
A native Islamic State in Europe
The maximum permanent Islamic influence in Europe would Iberia, Sicily and Septimania, the European regions that were dominated OTL.
It would be necessary to make The Islamic presence there being permanent.
In principle have not been strong and effectively conducted Frank Kingdom either civil war or a weak dynasties that successfully confront Islamic raids.
Without the Franks for help, the Duchy of Aquitaine should become a vassal and ally of the new power, probably lost all Gascony, Septimania and Provence at least they would take up the mouths of the Rhone, which was the limit of his forays in OTL.
This situation would lead to the possession of the Bay of Biscay with its ports which in turn would lead to isolation in their mountain strongholds of Cantabria and independent Astures, reduced to banditry and without much future influence due to its isolation and the Basque country gradually Islamized under Muslim government, completely surrounded.
What would be dangerous is the situation in Italy, almost isolated from the rest of Europe and with its constantly attacked and looted by Muslim incursions permanent coastal cities.
*This situation persists long enough that would determine the Reconquista would not happen for his conversion and eventual incorporation into the Islamic state or maybe others would follow the evolution of recently converted in similar geographic environments of the World Islamic ethnic groups, making the Islamization of Iberia at least, a irreversible process.
If Al Andaluz was stable at least as long as OTL traders may see colonies of the Emirate established in Lyon, Bordeaux and Paris to receive and send trade caravans and perhaps in London and Bruges, besides maybe fight trade wars with the*Hanseatic League, protected and backed them by the prestige of the Emirate and the power of their fleets and armies.
The interesting thing of this is that the other traditional Islamic way of expansion through trade, which could achieve what the force of arms could not be achieved would open.
But more importantly, even if eventually the emirate would have collapsed already fulfilled its historic role to incorporate a native Islamic State in Europe permanently to the European political order.
The maximum permanent Islamic influence in Europe would Iberia, Sicily and Septimania, the European regions that were dominated OTL.
It would be necessary to make The Islamic presence there being permanent.
In principle have not been strong and effectively conducted Frank Kingdom either civil war or a weak dynasties that successfully confront Islamic raids.
Without the Franks for help, the Duchy of Aquitaine should become a vassal and ally of the new power, probably lost all Gascony, Septimania and Provence at least they would take up the mouths of the Rhone, which was the limit of his forays in OTL.
This situation would lead to the possession of the Bay of Biscay with its ports which in turn would lead to isolation in their mountain strongholds of Cantabria and independent Astures, reduced to banditry and without much future influence due to its isolation and the Basque country gradually Islamized under Muslim government, completely surrounded.
What would be dangerous is the situation in Italy, almost isolated from the rest of Europe and with its constantly attacked and looted by Muslim incursions permanent coastal cities.
*This situation persists long enough that would determine the Reconquista would not happen for his conversion and eventual incorporation into the Islamic state or maybe others would follow the evolution of recently converted in similar geographic environments of the World Islamic ethnic groups, making the Islamization of Iberia at least, a irreversible process.
If Al Andaluz was stable at least as long as OTL traders may see colonies of the Emirate established in Lyon, Bordeaux and Paris to receive and send trade caravans and perhaps in London and Bruges, besides maybe fight trade wars with the*Hanseatic League, protected and backed them by the prestige of the Emirate and the power of their fleets and armies.
The interesting thing of this is that the other traditional Islamic way of expansion through trade, which could achieve what the force of arms could not be achieved would open.
But more importantly, even if eventually the emirate would have collapsed already fulfilled its historic role to incorporate a native Islamic State in Europe permanently to the European political order.
Last edited:
It's worth mentioning, that in regions North of Pytrenees, the actual Arabo-Berber presence as meager, to the point being extremely localized. We're talking one, at best two garrisons in the 730's, the rest being entierly under Christian rule, under tractations.
Thing is, by the time Arabo-Berbers conquered Spain, Francia was already under Peppinid domination since the late VIIth century. The 714-718 war was more about which branch of the sippe would dominate and whatever Charles, Chilbdrand or Drogo, he would have an unified Francia with him.
Which opens the problem of the Arabo-Berber actual presence : their numbers were eventually quite limited, and they had to rely, more you went north, on Christian nobles (the Gothian nobility remained basically unchanged). Which means that at the first opportunity, these princes would have the structures and ressources to topple the Islamic domination, as it happened in Cantabrian highlands.
Really, the conquest of Spain was made within a really precise context where differenciation between Arabs and Berbers only grew (and with much mutual hostility), where the Islamic West was de facto largely autonomous (the Syrian djuns in Spain were basically refugees from the Berber Revolt of 740)*
*In fact, most of Islamic outposts north of Pyrenées after the 750's were largely independent, and while acknowleding emiral/caliphal authority, were acting on their own
I stress the problem of the Berber Revolt : by 710's, it was bound to happen and mostly delayed by the raids in Europe. It had a critical role as Berber were the main military force of the Islamic West, and not only deprived Arabo-Andalusians from a directly avaible pool (a constant of Arabo-Andalusian geopolitics was their relation with Maghrib) but efficiently cut them from Arabic reinforcements.
IOTL, it allowed Asturo-Cantabrian nobles, in spite of their obvious weaknesses, to take full control of the highlands up to Galicia, with the abandonement of border garrisons.
As I said above, I really think a larger islamization of Europe have to pass trough Eastern Europe and a strong control over Mediterranean basin, "surrounding" Western and Northern Europe from all parts (and especially depriving it from its "missions lands"), generally weakening the resistances rather than some grand military victory.
I'm wondering if it's possible that at some point Russia could have been Muslim majority and willingly chosen it as their official religion. If Islamic conquests in other parts of Europe were going extremely well, Islam could have some prestige behind it in Russia that it didn't have before.
Greater Persian influence north of Khiva. Rather than convert to Orthodox Christianity, early Russian rulers convert to Islam due to pressure from the East, rather than West. This leads to a more Persian cultured Russia, and possibly leads to the conversion of places such as Lithuania, Poland, and Moldavia as well. Germany and probably Scandinavia will still go christian due to western influence.
Faeelin
Banned
It would seem to me that, if the raids continued, this would delay the civil war (and perhaps butterfly it entirely). IMO the Civil Wars were about who would get the profit from Al-Andalus after the booty from raids dried up; in the absence of Tours, wouldn't the raids continue?
I do think the best bet is Constantinople falling in the 7th or 8th centuries.
It is, but needs more than one PoD.
Basically, you need to make the Islamic trade presence along Volga lasting longer than it did IOTL before it was waning due to the Abassid economical decline of the IXth century.
Having a stronger, more cohesive Muslim caliphate on Middle-East at the same time you have a weaker Byzantine empire could do it.
I would think that having Khazars sticking up to its conversion to Islam, contrary to OTL, and eventually becoming a religious center converting other turkic khaganates as Bulgars of the Volga and southern slavic emporiae/tribal states would be a good opportunity.
Islamic prestige against Constantinople (no need to conquer it, but maybe to bypassit or even weakening it enough to make it a relatively secondary political/trade point) would probably help a lot to score conversions points along Volga or even Dniepr. (Conversion of Danubian Bulgars would be perfect on this regard).
But...raids did continued IOTL. Military defeats in 721 or 732 never prevented them to resume right after, as pointed out by the huge raids of 725 or 736.
And they continued so after the 750, without resolving at all the ethnic issues in Al-Andalus, after that Ummayyads get Arabo-Andalusian shit together (in 780's, for exemple).
And we certainly don't know all of these.
It's eventually, on a military point of view, less the capacity of Arabo-berbers to lead raids, that projecting their forces too far with a fairly limited number : 732 Aquitain campaign was well made, but was less about plunder than making a political point against Aquitains and Franks ("Don't ally with revolted Berbers and acknowledge our supremacy in these regions")
Remember that the Duke of Aquitaine was as well Duke of Gascons on both parts of Pyrenees.
I'm afraid that is not what appears : it's really about a general religious (kharidjist) and ethnic driven revolt, not only in Al-Andalus (if something, it was an echo chamber of what happened in North Africa).
Basically, Berbers while converted were at best treated as second-class Muslims, still subject to be taxed as non-Muslims by local wali, and generally as dirt. Mutinies of Berber garrisons as in eastern Pyrenees in 729-731 (that indirectly caused the 732 campaign in Gaul) points about the general tensed situation.
If something it was less about sharing Arabo-Andalusian wealth (altough it certainly played a role, with Berbers that settled down, being sent to the less interesting parts of the peninsula), that raiding political entities trying to get transformed into fiscally-funded ones on the base of an huge ethnic prejudice.
Giving how mismanaged was 710's siege, even with someone as skilled as Maslamah, I'd put my bet on the VIIth century (let's say, no Greek Fire. It wouldn't solve the issue, but could help on the long run).
There was also often ethnic prejudice against the Muladi population (native Iberian converts) who were treated very poorly, barred from high positions in government, etc. This didn't become as much of an issue until the 10th century when Muladi made up a greater proportion of Muslims, but it was already a problem in the 8th.
Actually, even Muladi were better treated than Berbers (there's mentions, admittedly during the Fitna, of anti-Berber pogroms, for exemple).
Now, I wholly agree that Al-Andalus knew a more radical ethnic prejudice than most place in Arabo-Islamic world, in no little part due to being "cut" of the core of it. But Muladi were less barren from high positions than being totally dependent of the emiral will, essentially for bypassing arabic nobility.
The endless revolts of the late IXth and Xth points how much Mulai were, indeed, in search for more political acknowledgement (up to, and that's a rarity in the Arabo-Islamic world, converting back to Christianism as for Ibn Hafsun).
It essentially became a problem with a conjunctions of issues : economical crisis (due, partially, to the decline of silver mines), reinforcement of the Christian presence in the peninsula (Ibn Marwan allying himself with Asturians, for exemple) and the rivality of a strong Berber power in Africa (remember that Ibn Hafsun acknowledged Fatimid suzerainty)
tenthring
Banned
For the same reasons Rome couldn't conquer and hold the middle east, the empires of the middle east probably couldn't conquer and hold central and western Europe.
In addition to the strain on bureaucracy and administration, the simple fact is that all these empires are based on certain ruling economic and military principles. For the Romans it was heavy infantry. For the Middle East it was always cavalry, especially light cavalry. Once you get too far into the other guys territory everything is in there advantage.
Which is why most of the conflict regions have always been in and around the Mediterranean. The logistical and economic advantages of controlling the Med would allow someone to project force into the other guys backyard, but once you get too far from the sea your back to the problem of having an army and culture not built for the place your invading.
In addition to the strain on bureaucracy and administration, the simple fact is that all these empires are based on certain ruling economic and military principles. For the Romans it was heavy infantry. For the Middle East it was always cavalry, especially light cavalry. Once you get too far into the other guys territory everything is in there advantage.
Which is why most of the conflict regions have always been in and around the Mediterranean. The logistical and economic advantages of controlling the Med would allow someone to project force into the other guys backyard, but once you get too far from the sea your back to the problem of having an army and culture not built for the place your invading.