In OTL the Arab expansion into Syria began in 634, only a few years after the death of Muhammad. Which leads me to wonder what it would have meant if Muhammad had lived to oversee this. Given that he was in his early 60s at the time of his death, and given that death was the result of a fever, I don't see any reason that his lasting another decade is implausible.
I am of course making an assumption here that Muhammad chooses to order such a campaign as Abu Bakr did and sees similar success. Alternatively we could consider as a POD that the earlier battle of Mu'tah(in 629) is a victory for the Arabs, and that the victory encourages Muhammad to authorize further campaigns against them(his fatal fever can then be hand-waved away as the work of butterflies).
So, if we take as a given that the Arabs have the same successes against the Byzantines as OTL, what might the significance of Muhammad being alive be? Surely there will be theological consequences, since the new territories would change the political dynamic and potentially inspire new visions and theological perspectives from Muhammad. Perhaps the tendencies of the early Caliphate towards discouraging converts might be avoided given Muhammad's more egalitarian perspective?(OTOH, being more cynical, perhaps he'd be swayed by institutional pressures to preserve that income. In which case his approval may mean that the Arabist tendencies of early Islam might prove harder to reform). I'm also thinking that whichever city he chooses as the new capital(especially if it's also his place of death) might acquire the status of a fourth holy city of Islam?
Another possibly very major change is that the expansion will have begun before the Ridda wars take place. I'm wondering if we might not see any Ridda wars at all, if Muhammads longer lifespan leads to a clearer succession. I also suspect that the euphoria of having established an empire(and of course the lucrative opportunities thereof) may discourage rebellion.
OTOH if Ridda war analogues do occur against Muhammad's successor, I could see an argument in favour of their being more successful. For starters the caliphate may still be engaged in struggle against the Persians and Byzantines at the time, and so have little to spare for the resubjagation of Arabian territory, which after all is far less of a cash-cow. Also the fact that their capital would no longer be in Arabia, and perhaps that the most loyal Muslims would have abandoned Arabia to participate in the conquests, may weaken their position there.
One possible scenario: while the caliphate is able to conquer Syria and Egypt, the Persians empire successfully thwarts their Mesopotamian campaign(simply through the chips falling differently, as none of the campaigns were as sure thing to my understanding). I'd presume Muhammad would then choose a capital in either the lower Levant or Egypt, with the upper Levant being a frequent point of contention between the Byzantines/Persians/Caliphate in the years to come. Importantly this means the Caliphates hegemony in Arabia will be insecure(it's easier to project power into Eastern and Southern Arabia from the Persian coastline then it is from Syria/Egypt) and perhaps the Ridda war analogues take on the character of a proxy war between the Persians and the Caliphate?
Thoughts?
I am of course making an assumption here that Muhammad chooses to order such a campaign as Abu Bakr did and sees similar success. Alternatively we could consider as a POD that the earlier battle of Mu'tah(in 629) is a victory for the Arabs, and that the victory encourages Muhammad to authorize further campaigns against them(his fatal fever can then be hand-waved away as the work of butterflies).
So, if we take as a given that the Arabs have the same successes against the Byzantines as OTL, what might the significance of Muhammad being alive be? Surely there will be theological consequences, since the new territories would change the political dynamic and potentially inspire new visions and theological perspectives from Muhammad. Perhaps the tendencies of the early Caliphate towards discouraging converts might be avoided given Muhammad's more egalitarian perspective?(OTOH, being more cynical, perhaps he'd be swayed by institutional pressures to preserve that income. In which case his approval may mean that the Arabist tendencies of early Islam might prove harder to reform). I'm also thinking that whichever city he chooses as the new capital(especially if it's also his place of death) might acquire the status of a fourth holy city of Islam?
Another possibly very major change is that the expansion will have begun before the Ridda wars take place. I'm wondering if we might not see any Ridda wars at all, if Muhammads longer lifespan leads to a clearer succession. I also suspect that the euphoria of having established an empire(and of course the lucrative opportunities thereof) may discourage rebellion.
OTOH if Ridda war analogues do occur against Muhammad's successor, I could see an argument in favour of their being more successful. For starters the caliphate may still be engaged in struggle against the Persians and Byzantines at the time, and so have little to spare for the resubjagation of Arabian territory, which after all is far less of a cash-cow. Also the fact that their capital would no longer be in Arabia, and perhaps that the most loyal Muslims would have abandoned Arabia to participate in the conquests, may weaken their position there.
One possible scenario: while the caliphate is able to conquer Syria and Egypt, the Persians empire successfully thwarts their Mesopotamian campaign(simply through the chips falling differently, as none of the campaigns were as sure thing to my understanding). I'd presume Muhammad would then choose a capital in either the lower Levant or Egypt, with the upper Levant being a frequent point of contention between the Byzantines/Persians/Caliphate in the years to come. Importantly this means the Caliphates hegemony in Arabia will be insecure(it's easier to project power into Eastern and Southern Arabia from the Persian coastline then it is from Syria/Egypt) and perhaps the Ridda war analogues take on the character of a proxy war between the Persians and the Caliphate?
Thoughts?
Last edited: