Islam Nonexistant - What Religious Effects?
- Thread starter SavageDays
- Start date
Keenir
Banned
not so sure about that -- the Western Roman Empire didn't need Islam to bring it down.
I think we need to go farther back to make Islam nonexistant.
Here is the POD I propose:
Abraham refuses to sleep with his wife's servant, Hagar. From that, Ishmael, the true father of Islam is butterflied away.
Contrary to popular belief, Muhammed did not create Islam. He was their "final prophet" as appearently prophasized in the Jewish scriptures. (Christian scholars believe that the final prophet was either John the Baptizer or Jesus Christ.)
Without Muhammed, Islam would essentially be like pre-messianic Jews.
Here is the POD I propose:
Abraham refuses to sleep with his wife's servant, Hagar. From that, Ishmael, the true father of Islam is butterflied away.
Contrary to popular belief, Muhammed did not create Islam. He was their "final prophet" as appearently prophasized in the Jewish scriptures. (Christian scholars believe that the final prophet was either John the Baptizer or Jesus Christ.)
Without Muhammed, Islam would essentially be like pre-messianic Jews.
A bit early as POD
.Actually, if I remember well, the arabs before Muhammed were polytheistic (even if the goddess of Sun was especially revered). There were jewish communities in Arabia, but they never paid attention to Muhammed's claims to be the last prophet.
Besides, I think that christians consider Jesus the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
As for the POD, depends if you believe in the Bible or not. Being a sceptic and a kafir, I choose the latter
.A bit early as POD
Actually, if I remember well, the arabs before Muhammed were polytheistic (even if the goddess of Sun was especially revered). There were jewish communities in Arabia, but they never paid attention to Muhammed's claims to be the last prophet.
Besides, I think that christians consider Jesus the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
As for the POD, depends if you believe in the Bible or not. Being a sceptic and a kafir, I choose the latter
All christians should agree that Jesus is the Son of God, as it is a central part of the Christian Doctrine. However, Jesus prophecized the distruction of the jewish temple in AD70.
The other line of thought witch is slightly more popular is that John the Baptizer is the final prophet.
Guys
Catching up after the holidays and nervously putting my foot in the [Great White infested] water – hopefully not my mouth at the same time.
I think the main debate is partly due to differing interpretations of what people mean by certain terms. For instance I think Midgard and Lee are basically saying that while there were periods of instability in the Med during the period of decline that the rise and early conquests of Islam was important as it created a [pretty] permanent division that had a more lasting impact on trade and communications. Instead of occasional wars between rival states or periods of pirate unrest disrupting trade there was a lasting gulf because two radical different [or in many ways similar] but mutually hostile cultures. As such conflict was much more endemic and longer lasting as well as probably more destructive. Is this the case?
If so I would disagree in that I think the key point was the rise to power of Christianity rather than Islam. Its factional nature made a continued empire, covering the entire Med basin virtually impossible, as well as making the inroads of the various Germanic peoples more successful. I think Islam made this markedly worse, as the gulf was even deeper and less chance of even short term peaceful co-existence. Possibly, as someone suggested [Midgard I think?] a stronger eastern empire not hit by repeated attacks from the aggressive new neighbours, might have kept/regained a firmer control on Italy and prevent the rise of Papal primacy in the west. Coupled with the existence of multiple Patriarchies rather than just two it might have muted the extremes of church control and restrictions. Although a very powerful secular empire, although probably never as all-encompassing in the Med as Rome had been might well have added a considerable amount of repression and restriction of its own, aside from religious issues. Markedly more than it did. Therefore, while I agree that the rise of Islam did a lot of physical and human damage to what was left of Mediterranean culture, especially on the northern shores that stayed outside its political control, I’m far from certain that something butterflying away the rise of Islam and also major Arab/successor military states in the south and east would have diminished in either depth or duration the dark ages in Europe. I think Midgard and Lee have either gone a bit far or expressed themselves badly at times in some of their arguments. [Possibly better to say there was a Mediterranean identity which was under attack once the Roman empire splintered but was definitely destroyed when Islam made permanent political division of the historical zone?]
However I’m also concerned about some of the arguments put forward on the other side. Leo, you are very knowledgeable but are you honesty saying that the destruction caused by Muslim attacks, whether by land or sea, and the loss of markets had no effect on culture and economic activity in the Med basin? Or that the same level of destruction and disruption would have occurred if it was only intra-Christian squabbling? That’s what you seem to be saying at some stages?
I think there was a lot of destruction caused/excused by religious conflict. Not clear on what level of attacks European/Christian/Northern pirates/raiders, whatever terms people care to use did on the southern and eastern coasts. [Think the remaining crusader/knightly orders did a fair bit from places like Rhodes and Malta later on]. However there does appear to have been attacks for centuries from the Muslim side. There is not only the direct effect of damage and depopulation but also the indirect ones, of people fleeing from attacked areas, opportunity cost due to military expenditure for defences and possibly also social/psychological as the Muslim world had the upper hand for most of the millennium long struggle.
On the issue of the relative cultures I’m no expert but judging by what I have read, especially admittedly on this board, it does seem that early Islam was more receptive to new ideas or developing old ones than Byzantium. [For most of this period I think the rest of Europe was largely too disrupted and divided to say much on its character but again it seems to been highly hidebound and conservative. Although whether having an alien faith being so much more successful for so long against the ‘true faith’ could have had an affect here]. Don’t think this is any inherent advantage of Islam as it, especially in the more reactionally regions seems to have fallen into the same mindset in recent centuries. [Always think its strange they are often called radical!]. Again the fact that the Islamic world has seen failure so often in recent centuries against the west could be a factor here? A long while ago I read a 1-volume summary of Toybnee’s Study of History and while I think he tried to force too many things to fit his theories I think there is some merit in his ideas on how cultures age and the stages they tend to go through. [Although never accepted his rigid determinism on the issue].
Anyway my thoughts on a very complex issue and hopefully taking some I believe unnecessary heat out of it.
Steve
Catching up after the holidays and nervously putting my foot in the [Great White infested] water – hopefully not my mouth at the same time.
I think the main debate is partly due to differing interpretations of what people mean by certain terms. For instance I think Midgard and Lee are basically saying that while there were periods of instability in the Med during the period of decline that the rise and early conquests of Islam was important as it created a [pretty] permanent division that had a more lasting impact on trade and communications. Instead of occasional wars between rival states or periods of pirate unrest disrupting trade there was a lasting gulf because two radical different [or in many ways similar] but mutually hostile cultures. As such conflict was much more endemic and longer lasting as well as probably more destructive. Is this the case?
If so I would disagree in that I think the key point was the rise to power of Christianity rather than Islam. Its factional nature made a continued empire, covering the entire Med basin virtually impossible, as well as making the inroads of the various Germanic peoples more successful. I think Islam made this markedly worse, as the gulf was even deeper and less chance of even short term peaceful co-existence. Possibly, as someone suggested [Midgard I think?] a stronger eastern empire not hit by repeated attacks from the aggressive new neighbours, might have kept/regained a firmer control on Italy and prevent the rise of Papal primacy in the west. Coupled with the existence of multiple Patriarchies rather than just two it might have muted the extremes of church control and restrictions. Although a very powerful secular empire, although probably never as all-encompassing in the Med as Rome had been might well have added a considerable amount of repression and restriction of its own, aside from religious issues. Markedly more than it did. Therefore, while I agree that the rise of Islam did a lot of physical and human damage to what was left of Mediterranean culture, especially on the northern shores that stayed outside its political control, I’m far from certain that something butterflying away the rise of Islam and also major Arab/successor military states in the south and east would have diminished in either depth or duration the dark ages in Europe. I think Midgard and Lee have either gone a bit far or expressed themselves badly at times in some of their arguments. [Possibly better to say there was a Mediterranean identity which was under attack once the Roman empire splintered but was definitely destroyed when Islam made permanent political division of the historical zone?]
However I’m also concerned about some of the arguments put forward on the other side. Leo, you are very knowledgeable but are you honesty saying that the destruction caused by Muslim attacks, whether by land or sea, and the loss of markets had no effect on culture and economic activity in the Med basin? Or that the same level of destruction and disruption would have occurred if it was only intra-Christian squabbling? That’s what you seem to be saying at some stages?
I think there was a lot of destruction caused/excused by religious conflict. Not clear on what level of attacks European/Christian/Northern pirates/raiders, whatever terms people care to use did on the southern and eastern coasts. [Think the remaining crusader/knightly orders did a fair bit from places like Rhodes and Malta later on]. However there does appear to have been attacks for centuries from the Muslim side. There is not only the direct effect of damage and depopulation but also the indirect ones, of people fleeing from attacked areas, opportunity cost due to military expenditure for defences and possibly also social/psychological as the Muslim world had the upper hand for most of the millennium long struggle.
On the issue of the relative cultures I’m no expert but judging by what I have read, especially admittedly on this board, it does seem that early Islam was more receptive to new ideas or developing old ones than Byzantium. [For most of this period I think the rest of Europe was largely too disrupted and divided to say much on its character but again it seems to been highly hidebound and conservative. Although whether having an alien faith being so much more successful for so long against the ‘true faith’ could have had an affect here]. Don’t think this is any inherent advantage of Islam as it, especially in the more reactionally regions seems to have fallen into the same mindset in recent centuries. [Always think its strange they are often called radical!
]. Again the fact that the Islamic world has seen failure so often in recent centuries against the west could be a factor here? A long while ago I read a 1-volume summary of Toybnee’s Study of History and while I think he tried to force too many things to fit his theories I think there is some merit in his ideas on how cultures age and the stages they tend to go through. [Although never accepted his rigid determinism on the issue].Anyway my thoughts on a very complex issue and hopefully taking some I believe unnecessary heat out of it.
Steve
Why?
The Caliphate of Cordoba was astonishingly powerful and wealthy, with urbanization not seen since (and surpassing) Roman Spain, with extensive trade with the rest of the Islamic world. Even after the Caliphate's fall, the region was sophisticated enough to give rise to luminaries like Averroes.
And play a major (although less major than once thought) role in the transmission of Classical works to medieval Europe.
Perhaps it wasn't as important as Damascus or Bagdhad, but you seem to be unaware of its significance and view it as a peripheral backwater.
I would also suggest that this is a bit of a sample bias; you view Baghdad and Damascus as the heart of Islamic civilization because Muslims still live there, whereas in Sicily and Spain, the populations have been, umm, removed.
Guys
On the actually issue of the OP, i.e. the religious effects if no Islam a few thoughts and questions.
I think without its younger and more aggressive brother Christianity would probably be by far the biggest and most aggressive shark in the water. However I would see it split by continued political and doctrinal divisions which by their nature would be deep and long lasting. That’s why in my previous post I can’t see a lasting revival of a unified empire across the entire Med basin. [I also rather hope not as that could be very unpleasant!] Probably an expansion north and south against ‘pagan’ cultures which lack the cohesion of the Abrahamic faiths. The more it spreads however the more likely it is to splinter further and further, both for political reasons and the difficulty of maintaining communications and a standard doctrine and set of beliefs. Like other thing that Byzantium will face continual problems with holding the predominantly Monotheistic [sp] Egypt and Syria and any military weakness and attack could see them defect. Others have suggested that you might see a big upsurge of Arabs outside Arabia, even without Islam. In which case they could well form new dynasty’s in those regions and probably fairly quickly adopt their faiths.
Zoasterism, from my limiter knowledge, seems to have some of the same strands of authoritarians and importance of doctrine so might well last for quite a while. Especially if seen as the Persian national faith against the threat of Christianity. The Sassanid’s obviously would go down sooner or later. They had been heavily strained by the long and ultimately unsuccessful war with Byzantium and also had the continued threat of nomads from the east. However I think it unlikely that Byzantium would ever be able to lastingly conquer the Persian heartland. Any invasion by nomads from the east would be unlikely to have a more coherent religion that Zoasterism. As such I would see any new eastern conqueror quickly finding it convenient to adopt both the religion and much of the state superstructure of the Persians. As with any culture there would be imports of ideas and systems but at its heart its people would still think of themselves and their culture as Persian. Not sure about the details of the language as Leo raised a point earlier about the differences between written and spoken Persian/Pars[sp] with the former having many Aramaic loan words.
Only exception I could see to this might be if the Khazer’s still go for Judaism and without Islam as a rival this gets adopted by other steppe tribes. Or possibly an eastern Christian group. Either of those, if they conquered Persian might be doctrinaire enough to seek to encourage conversions but faced with the threat from religious rivals unless circumstances are right – i.e. Zoasterism is heavily discredited and the new rulers present their faith skilfully rather than by force, such attempts are likely to be bloody and probably ultimately unsuccessful. Not sure what the prospects for Zoasterism to spread itself that far from the Iranian heartlands as simply don’t know enough about it.
I can’t see Buddhism having a lasting future outside China, where it established a secure niche in the imperial system and some of the neighbouring states. While Islam may not be about to suppress it in parts of central Asia something else, probably a form of either Christianity or Zoasterism will. [On the other hand, while thought of largely as a pacifist theology in the west it has formed the core faith of a number of lasting states in Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, Thailand etc, some quite aggressive, so could be more resilient that I expect. Possibly even a more militant version develops somewhere in response to pressure from western faiths and you see a significant increase of its political strength.
Hinduism I know spread to the Indonesian archipelago and then was largely supplanted by Islam. Without that it has longer to get established and may well proved highly resistant if/when forms of Christianity reach there in strength. Also could prove to be a significant rival to Christianity in east Africa if traders from southern India take it there. Not sure how much further it could spread. Possibly without Islam the Indian heartland will be less disrupted by invasions, although there will still be the steppe nomads periodically coming through. However if a tradition of strong dominant empire’s becomes established in India this could result in cultural and economic conservatism becoming dominant and stifling changes more than OTL. Although possibly periodic waves of people fleeing such empires might form dispersed and more adaptive cultures elsewhere while maintaining the same formal faith.
To be honest, while Islam was destructive to the preceding social and economic structure and frequently very destructive to its neighbours I think without it to challenge Christianity’s primary the latter could occupy a much larger area but stagnate and be mainly concerned with maintaining the status quo and seeking to preserve/obtain doctrinal purity, hence being less than favourable to the sort of social and cultural changes that helped the western scientific revolution and the industrial age. In this world I hence think any such changes would probably come later and possibly the best bet might be some Hindu off-shoot.
A couple of comments on points raised.
a) Without Islam I think there could still be crusades. While the historical ones in OTL were triggered by the Islamic attacks and especially the Seljuk many later ones were directed against non-Muslims, both ‘pagans’ and various ‘heretical’ Christian sects. As such I could see a desire to do such, whether for religious purity or political/social reasons or most likely a combination of the two. Also I have heard that Herculius’s campaigns against the Sassanid’s being described as the 1st true crusade. He is supposed to have pumped up a good degree of religious fervour and also extracted a lot of support, both verbal and economic from the Orthodox churches to wage it.
b) Someone said Herculius considered abandoning Constantinople at the height of the crisis and moving the capital to Alexandria. I had read he was planning on moving it to Carthage?
c) It was suggested that Islam provided a valuable conduit for information to western Europe. What it generated itself, what it passed on from classical culture and what it obtained from further east. This is true and depends on the circumstances as to how easily or not the same progress would have been made without Islam. However I think its role as a conduit is overstated as barring endemic conflict between numerous states there would still be trade and the exchange of ideas and travellers over the region that in OTL was dominated by Islam. [Especially since a strong and unified Caliphate was only in existence for a relatively short period of time]. In fact, given the mistrust and frequent hostility that existed between the two faiths it might be that ideas would travel to the west more easily. [Both because western merchants and travellers could play more of a role themselves, getting direct information and also new ideas might face less resistance if not from the hated enemy].
Steve
On the actually issue of the OP, i.e. the religious effects if no Islam a few thoughts and questions.
I think without its younger and more aggressive brother Christianity would probably be by far the biggest and most aggressive shark in the water. However I would see it split by continued political and doctrinal divisions which by their nature would be deep and long lasting. That’s why in my previous post I can’t see a lasting revival of a unified empire across the entire Med basin. [I also rather hope not as that could be very unpleasant!] Probably an expansion north and south against ‘pagan’ cultures which lack the cohesion of the Abrahamic faiths. The more it spreads however the more likely it is to splinter further and further, both for political reasons and the difficulty of maintaining communications and a standard doctrine and set of beliefs. Like other thing that Byzantium will face continual problems with holding the predominantly Monotheistic [sp] Egypt and Syria and any military weakness and attack could see them defect. Others have suggested that you might see a big upsurge of Arabs outside Arabia, even without Islam. In which case they could well form new dynasty’s in those regions and probably fairly quickly adopt their faiths.
Zoasterism, from my limiter knowledge, seems to have some of the same strands of authoritarians and importance of doctrine so might well last for quite a while. Especially if seen as the Persian national faith against the threat of Christianity. The Sassanid’s obviously would go down sooner or later. They had been heavily strained by the long and ultimately unsuccessful war with Byzantium and also had the continued threat of nomads from the east. However I think it unlikely that Byzantium would ever be able to lastingly conquer the Persian heartland. Any invasion by nomads from the east would be unlikely to have a more coherent religion that Zoasterism. As such I would see any new eastern conqueror quickly finding it convenient to adopt both the religion and much of the state superstructure of the Persians. As with any culture there would be imports of ideas and systems but at its heart its people would still think of themselves and their culture as Persian. Not sure about the details of the language as Leo raised a point earlier about the differences between written and spoken Persian/Pars[sp] with the former having many Aramaic loan words.
Only exception I could see to this might be if the Khazer’s still go for Judaism and without Islam as a rival this gets adopted by other steppe tribes. Or possibly an eastern Christian group. Either of those, if they conquered Persian might be doctrinaire enough to seek to encourage conversions but faced with the threat from religious rivals unless circumstances are right – i.e. Zoasterism is heavily discredited and the new rulers present their faith skilfully rather than by force, such attempts are likely to be bloody and probably ultimately unsuccessful. Not sure what the prospects for Zoasterism to spread itself that far from the Iranian heartlands as simply don’t know enough about it.
I can’t see Buddhism having a lasting future outside China, where it established a secure niche in the imperial system and some of the neighbouring states. While Islam may not be about to suppress it in parts of central Asia something else, probably a form of either Christianity or Zoasterism will. [On the other hand, while thought of largely as a pacifist theology in the west it has formed the core faith of a number of lasting states in Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, Thailand etc, some quite aggressive, so could be more resilient that I expect. Possibly even a more militant version develops somewhere in response to pressure from western faiths and you see a significant increase of its political strength.
Hinduism I know spread to the Indonesian archipelago and then was largely supplanted by Islam. Without that it has longer to get established and may well proved highly resistant if/when forms of Christianity reach there in strength. Also could prove to be a significant rival to Christianity in east Africa if traders from southern India take it there. Not sure how much further it could spread. Possibly without Islam the Indian heartland will be less disrupted by invasions, although there will still be the steppe nomads periodically coming through. However if a tradition of strong dominant empire’s becomes established in India this could result in cultural and economic conservatism becoming dominant and stifling changes more than OTL. Although possibly periodic waves of people fleeing such empires might form dispersed and more adaptive cultures elsewhere while maintaining the same formal faith.
To be honest, while Islam was destructive to the preceding social and economic structure and frequently very destructive to its neighbours I think without it to challenge Christianity’s primary the latter could occupy a much larger area but stagnate and be mainly concerned with maintaining the status quo and seeking to preserve/obtain doctrinal purity, hence being less than favourable to the sort of social and cultural changes that helped the western scientific revolution and the industrial age. In this world I hence think any such changes would probably come later and possibly the best bet might be some Hindu off-shoot.
A couple of comments on points raised.
a) Without Islam I think there could still be crusades. While the historical ones in OTL were triggered by the Islamic attacks and especially the Seljuk many later ones were directed against non-Muslims, both ‘pagans’ and various ‘heretical’ Christian sects. As such I could see a desire to do such, whether for religious purity or political/social reasons or most likely a combination of the two. Also I have heard that Herculius’s campaigns against the Sassanid’s being described as the 1st true crusade. He is supposed to have pumped up a good degree of religious fervour and also extracted a lot of support, both verbal and economic from the Orthodox churches to wage it.
b) Someone said Herculius considered abandoning Constantinople at the height of the crisis and moving the capital to Alexandria. I had read he was planning on moving it to Carthage?
c) It was suggested that Islam provided a valuable conduit for information to western Europe. What it generated itself, what it passed on from classical culture and what it obtained from further east. This is true and depends on the circumstances as to how easily or not the same progress would have been made without Islam. However I think its role as a conduit is overstated as barring endemic conflict between numerous states there would still be trade and the exchange of ideas and travellers over the region that in OTL was dominated by Islam. [Especially since a strong and unified Caliphate was only in existence for a relatively short period of time]. In fact, given the mistrust and frequent hostility that existed between the two faiths it might be that ideas would travel to the west more easily. [Both because western merchants and travellers could play more of a role themselves, getting direct information and also new ideas might face less resistance if not from the hated enemy].
Steve
Leo Caesius
Banned
I'm not sure how you derived that from my argument. I'm merely objecting to the Midgard Hypothesis (tm) that "Islam was the Dark Ages".However I’m also concerned about some of the arguments put forward on the other side. Leo, you are very knowledgeable but are you honesty saying that the destruction caused by Muslim attacks, whether by land or sea, and the loss of markets had no effect on culture and economic activity in the Med basin? Or that the same level of destruction and disruption would have occurred if it was only intra-Christian squabbling? That’s what you seem to be saying at some stages?
As far as intra-Christian squabbling causing destruction and disruption, I'm afraid that Christians have always been their worst enemies in this regard. Likewise, I don't agree that markets were "lost"; Christian Europe did an immense amount of trade with the "Orient" throughout this period, and indeed the decline in this trade after European explorers managed to circumvent the land routes by going overseas has often been cited as one of the reasons for the decline of the Islamic world.
Leo
Probably I was being a bit harsh but it was rather late last night when I was ploughing through the discussion and I was feeling pretty tired [i.e. knackered]. Checking back on the latter bits the only point I could really find from you that I think was way off was. Although I think your clearly mis-representing Midgard in your reply to me. He argues that the rise of Islam made the dark ages deeper and longer. Not sure I agree with that. Is some argument that without Islam as a continued threat modern Europe may never have occurred. However that is different from saying that he argues it was the sole source, which he does not.
I was just getting the impression that people were going from denying that Islam was the sole cause of the dark ages, which is obviously rubbish, to the other extreme of arguing that there was nothing negative about it for the cultures it interacted with and often impacted heavily on. The length and scope of Muslim attacks on Europe made them very destructive. The same might well have applied to other areas such as Egypt and the rest of northern Africa if they hadn’t fallen so quickly under Muslim control. [Similarly admittedly I think if the various Christian states had been stronger and more able to take the initiative they would undoubtedly have raided their opponents similarly. However the point being made is not a moral one of right or wrong but simply of the amount of damage resulting both from the raids and the division of the economic and cultural zone that had developed in previous times]. Although he haven’t stated it clearly I think that’s what Midgard was thinking of by his talk about the ending of the Mediterranean culture. [In theory it could be argued that the Christian/European states also contributed by resisting conquest but that’s not really a logical stance I think].Quote:
Originally Posted by Wozza
I would be tempted to say there are larger changes in the unconquered territories, Asia Minor suffers complete urban destruction thanks to Arab raiding and during the 8th century even Constantinople was pretty deserted. Arab raiding also takes its toll on south-west Europe, but is only one of several factors.
There we go again with the anachronisms. To this I can only respond that you're acting as if history begins in 622 CE. What about the Persians? Did I just dream of Khosrau II's invasions on the eve of Islam?
Stevep
I wouldn't count Buddhism out just yet. A big part of its problem was the fact that it was so extensively based on the monastic communities, but China saw Buddhism develop away from that; I don't think that a similar reaction is impossible in Central Asia, and who knows from there? I think a Manichean pastiche is more likely than pure Buddhism, perhaps, but I could see it making inroads among the Mongols and the rest.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I don't think I've misrepresented him at all - he's made the statement that "Islam was the Dark Ages" many times and each time he has defended it, claiming that he really does mean what he's saying. If you don't believe me, you should follow these two links:
Pirates are pirates. They have been a huge problem in that area since the dawn of recorded history. Mediterranean piracy and the slave trade did not begin in 622 CE. If the various states surrounding the Mediterranean had been stronger in the 7th century, then they could have done something about the pirates, but the fact is that they weren't.
Furthermore, urban civilization was a distant memory in most of North Africa (apart from Egypt) at the time of the Arab Conquest and Egypt had its own identity quite separate from the rest, so I think Midgard's vision of a unified "Mediterranean civilization" on both sides of the sea was already fantasy by the time that the Arabs showed up - in fact, it was dead when Justinian showed up before. If anything, the Arabs merely occupied the non-"Byzantine" parts of the empire.
Furthermore, one could argue that Islam provided Europe with an "Other" against which it defined itself, without which it would be quite different today. I don't think the regions to the south and east of the Mediterranean would have been very different, culturally, if we butterfly Islam away. If anything, Islam didn't do away with the cultures it conquered - it assimilated and synthesized it. That is why once its center of gravity moved out of the peninsula after the time of the Rashidoon (and arguably already in Ali's time), it NEVER returned. So, in the unlikely event that the territories around the Mediterranean remain unified politically and culturally, the result is not going to be very much like modern Europe all around (since anything resembling Europe will have been butterflied away) but rather something more like those "Black Flag of Islam" TLs that pop up from time to time, but without the Islam.
Ah. I stand, or rather sit corrected.
Paying too much attention to what you were saying and obviously not enough to Midgard. Sorry.However the religious divide probably increased this, both by giving an excuse for piracy and deepening hostility. Also by gravely weakening the most powerful single state bordering the Med it made it far more difficult for pirates to be brought under control. Admittedly there would have been a lot more intra-Christian squabbling without the rise of Islam.
Given what you say about it needing powerful states to suppress piracy what was the early Caliphate's view of it? If as your suggesting it was primarily non-religious looting then they as the holders of the richest and most powerful regions would surely have been gravely affected by it. [As opposed to the normal view of get in the history books of it being mainly by Muslim raiders out to gain loot while expanding their religion and probably also some raiding by various Christian groups that doesn't make it into the western history books]. Were there attempts by the Caliphate or regional governers to suppress it generally, either on their own or possibly in co-operation with Byzantium and other states in periods when frontier conflicts were reduced/suspended?
The Iconoclasm/Iconodulism schism would have been prevented because as I understand it that was a direct result of Islam's huge success without icons. Some Byzantine theologians pondered on the success of Islam, and came to the conclusion that worshiping an icon caused the worshiper to revere the image of the person instead of the person, and because people worshiped images of both Jesus and Mary it was similar to polytheism. The spark for the conflict was also from Islam, as it began when some Christians in Muslim land called to the Byzantine Emperor to help them save their icons, he didn't back them in it, and instead began smashing icons in his own empire. In turn this would have led Empress Irene's son to become Emperor instead of an usurper (Nikephoros?), because she, as an iconodule, had his eyes put out when he announced his support of iconoclasm. He probably wouldn't have lasted too long anyway, but it may have prevented Charlemagne from being crowned King of Rome, as that was done because Byzantium had a female ruler...Of course, it might not have, if he was crowned before the son came of age (not sure of the times there).
Since Roman times, Europe has had an Other. For Romans, it was Barbarians in general, but as the people of medieval Europe were the Barbarians, they may have looked at Africans, Hunnic tribes, or Asians as the barbarians.
The Byzantines had an "Other", which was Persia, but as the Byzantines controlled Jerusalem it probably wouldn't incite western Europe to a crusade against Persia...Against the Byzantines, maybe, but the furor probably would have been weaker against them than against Islam.
Perhaps without a semi-unified Muslim Empire, the Mongols, Hunnic tribes, or other nomads would have entered Europe through Persia, and taken Jerusalem. That might incite greater furor, as they wouldn't have had even remotely similar beliefs to Europeans.
Since Roman times, Europe has had an Other. For Romans, it was Barbarians in general, but as the people of medieval Europe were the Barbarians, they may have looked at Africans, Hunnic tribes, or Asians as the barbarians.
The Byzantines had an "Other", which was Persia, but as the Byzantines controlled Jerusalem it probably wouldn't incite western Europe to a crusade against Persia...Against the Byzantines, maybe, but the furor probably would have been weaker against them than against Islam.
Perhaps without a semi-unified Muslim Empire, the Mongols, Hunnic tribes, or other nomads would have entered Europe through Persia, and taken Jerusalem. That might incite greater furor, as they wouldn't have had even remotely similar beliefs to Europeans.
Last edited: