Islamic World - advice requested

After ditching an alternate WWI timeline (thanks for the very polite and detailed criticisms for those who made them), I have decided to try something I find more interesting - an Islam-dominated world (both socially and politically). I know what I want to do, but I am really struggling to get a decent divergence - preferably not a Rice and Salt scenario. I obviously do not want all the work done for me, but any pointers would be welcome. I have bought some second-hand books on the Ottoman Empire and so on, but any advice at all welcome.

The best I can come up with is that Charles Martel is defeated at Tours, leading the Caliphate to gain French territory and continue to expand (to quote Gibbon)

"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet"

[Old fashioned and anti-Islamic, but it suggests historians thought Islamic expansion possible, although I would have it slower - although given the rate of later Ottoman conquest and assimilation in the Balkans, perhaps this is not utterly absurd]

I like this divergence, as I have it all planned out, but will it work?

And so on. I will not say any more as that will spoil the timeline if I pull it off - is this OK?

PS: Sorry about this, but as you can see I am incredibly new and felling my way in very gently.
 
Last edited:
Victory in France seems good. It all went well there, it seems plausible that Islam could expand west instead of east. But if Islam becomes dominant in Europe then it would very likely happen at the expense of expansion in the east.
 
Could work, and only limited to the south of France. If you try take all of France and Europe in brief time, the lines of supply and control extend to far from Al-Andalus to have a plausible scenario and more permanent occupation.

IMO, a historically plausible limit of Arab expansion in Europe would have the south of France and Italy

An alternative, after Tours (independent if the Arabs win or not) is to defend and consolidate the coast of southern France since it provides a good base for further military actions. Historically at Narbonne was controlled by the Arabs for a long time.
 
I think that's very interesting idea but wouldn't the siege of Constantinople be a better POD? (As it's not even clear was the battle of Tours anything else than a glorified raid.) Taking Constantinople could lead Arabs taking Balkans and later Russians adopting Islam giving Islam much better position. You could combine this with a big attack to France where the Caliphate defeats Franks (alternate Poitiers).
 
Thank you very much - two scenarios appear to be evident:

Arabs defeat Martel and the focus of the Caliphate shifts west. Occitania gained by the Arabs, future expansion into Italy. I like this one a lot - it is not a strict Islamic World, but a much more Islamic world, and some VERY interesting alternate history.

Arabs take Constantinople and the Balkans, possibly also triumphing in Europe - comprehensive victory. Also good, although I wonder how they will manage with supply - both are very valid and interesting.

Opinions?
 
Thank you very much - two scenarios appear to be evident:

Arabs defeat Martel and the focus of the Caliphate shifts west. Occitania gained by the Arabs, future expansion into Italy. I like this one a lot - it is not a strict Islamic World, but a much more Islamic world, and some VERY interesting alternate history.

Arabs take Constantinople and the Balkans, possibly also triumphing in Europe - comprehensive victory. Also good, although I wonder how they will manage with supply - both are very valid and interesting.

Opinions?

My opinion is that defeating Martel is probably the better bet. IMHO, taking Constantinople in the 670s will bog down the Arabs in Balkan warfare, and greatly slow the pace of their advance across North Africa and Spain. You could still certainly get an Islamic dominated world in this scenario, but it wouldn't reduce Christianity vastly.

Better to have Arabs on the Atlantic, ready to discover the Americas when the time comes. Christianity can still survive east of the Rhine and in the ERE, but once the New World is discovered, Islam has it all locked up.
 
Right-ho - first map (very draft) handing Occitania (and a bit more, I put the northern border at where I estimate Tours to be, apparently there was a very wealthy shrine there, and after the defeat I assume the troops will raid Tours and hold the ground they have won up to then, but given the battle took place in October, will probably stop in the winter) to the Umayyads.

PS: Many thanks, Islamic America is a great idea (I had it as well, but thanks, I will credit you and all the other suggestors [sorry for my rotten spelling])

PPS: May I let this thread run for a while before putting up a proper timeline thread?

World in 733


EDIT:
Borders retconned to follow the Loire better.

@ Filo - I fear our two ideas converge a lot - will you accept my good faith that I do not intend to plaigarise, and came up with this with help before i read yours (e.g. Islamic Italy).
 
Last edited:
Just the first post for vetting before this goes up as a timeline proper.



In 750, the Umayyad Caliphate, one of the largest empires the world had ever seen, the first Caliphate of Islam, and the foremost military power of its day, set out across the Pyrenees, with a force estimated as high as fifty thousand men, under the command of the great Abdul Rahman al Gafiqi. They were faced and defeated at Tours by another Dark Age giant – Charles Martel, mayor of the palace in the Frankish state, repelling Islam’s furthest advance over the mountains and into Western Europe.

What if they triumphed and the banner of the Prophet was raised on the Loire?

Before the Battle of Tours, Frankish forces arranged themselves in a defensive phalanx on a wooded hill – a good position, as it hid the size of their army – which was smaller than the Caliphate forces. Martel had no heavy cavalry, and relied entirely on Frankish infantry – well trained and hardened – and a mass of irregular levies.

Abdul Rahman had a larger force of heavy cavalry, which had earlier inflicted a heavy defeat on Odo of Aquitaine and plundered southern Gaul. His army broke up to loot, and attacked fairly late in the year, due to the need to grow crops to eat.

On the day itself, after a few days of skirmishing, Abdul Rahman decided to send a force of cavalry to assess the Franks – they discovered that a high slope would have to be advanced up in order to reach their positions. However, with winter approaching, an attack had to be made. Several charges of Arab horsemen were repulsed by the Franks, until one of the attacks that broke through the square managed to get through, and kill Martel, although they were repulsed afterwards. The Frankish irregulars panicked and fled down the hill into the Umayyad army, where they were massacred, before encirclement forced the Franks still on the height to come down, where they were killed.

[I believe this fairly closely follows history – the Arabs did indeed break through several times, and I believe it is fairly plausible one may have managed to kill Martel and break morale]

The battle of Tours was the heaviest defeat yet inflicted on Christendom – irreplaceable Frankish troops were lost and a military genius killed. Furthermore, with an interregnum in Francia and the Regent dead, the Kingdom was plunged into chaos.


The Umayyads advanced as far as Tours, where with the advancing winter, and sustained by supplies looted from the city, they settled down to wait.

PS: Any advice on what ot do with Francia? I suggest Carloman becomes Mayor of the Palace (he was not very interested in political affairs being more of a religious man,according to wiki at least) and the Umayyads resume their campaigns, Francia falling in the 750s, with the stronger Pepin the Short departing east of the Rhine to shore up what was left, meaning Charlemagne as king after he dies of a de facto Germany - a plausible reason for Umayyad expansion to cease facing a man as talented as them , perhaps some fighting along the Rhine before a status quo is reached along the river, Charlemagne then expands his German Kingdom eastwards.
 
Last edited:
Top