Your timeline is progressing nicely, orthodoxy is getting to be the popular version of Christianity.
Muslim Europe, 732 A.D.
- Thread starter Delvestius
- Start date
- Status
Delvestius
Banned
Thanks!
Everybody, please tell me your thoughts on this idea:
Without the Teutonic Knights or a unified Hungary (both non-existent, because they were formed by the Catholic Church in the OT, which is virtually nonexistent in this AH, save for Ireland) ), there is nothing from stopping the Mongols (at least initially) from conquering further west until they hit Muslim Germany.
This is my thought, and unless there are any flaws with it that's where I'm heading next.
Everybody, please tell me your thoughts on this idea:
Without the Teutonic Knights or a unified Hungary (both non-existent, because they were formed by the Catholic Church in the OT, which is virtually nonexistent in this AH, save for Ireland) ), there is nothing from stopping the Mongols (at least initially) from conquering further west until they hit Muslim Germany.
This is my thought, and unless there are any flaws with it that's where I'm heading next.
Well there be a christian comback in the 13th-15th centuries or will the arabs and mongols conquer the north?
Or will the mongols just kick the crap out of everybody
?
Or will the mongols just kick the crap out of everybody
?Delvestius
Banned
Well there be a christian comback in the 13th-15th centuries or will the arabs and mongols conquer the north?
Or will the mongols just kick the crap out of everybody
I feel that if the Mongols conquer the north, which seems likely at this point, this would delay an Orthodox power (basically Russia) from rising by a few centuries.
As for Catholicism, I believe at this point, no matter how the early parts of the timeline work themselves out, the Western Church is pretty dead by the eleventh or twelfth centuries, except in Ireland and some French provinces.
Byzantium as a mongol tribute state?
i keep hearing that the mongols will just outright try to conquer Byzantium because of its riches. why would the mongols settle for making them a vassal?
not that they can actually take Constantinople. that isn't possible, and the mongols, resourceful they are, cant conquer every bit of land there.
(note: i have no idea if the Byzantines are on equal grounds with the mongol troops, or lose badly. in my timeline, its Equal.)
i keep hearing that the mongols will just outright try to conquer Byzantium because of its riches. why would the mongols settle for making them a vassal?
not that they can actually take Constantinople. that isn't possible, and the mongols, resourceful they are, cant conquer every bit of land there.
(note: i have no idea if the Byzantines are on equal grounds with the mongol troops, or lose badly. in my timeline, its Equal.)
Delvestius
Banned
In OT, the Byzantines were in fact a tribute state to the Mongols. Perhaps the difference between that and vassal significant, but I don't personally. They both represent a subjugated state that will be punished if they fail to comply. At any rate, the Byzantines supplied the Mongols with an unbelievable amount of riches under threat of Invasion.
I believe that if dedicated, the Mongols could have most definitely starved out Constantinople, but this would have taken a much greater amount of manpower than they would have been willing to spare. They were better off sacking the rest of Europe, such as Poland and Hungary. Although no other region had as much to pillage, it ended up being more beneficial. I liken it to the "would you rather have a million dollars or a dollar doubled every day for a month" example. Having regular tribute from the Byzantines was considered a bonus, but I'm sure if the Greeks refused to pay up, the Mongols would of held to their word.
Delvestius
Banned
As far as Military units go, the Byzantines had an impressive force of heavy cavalry (The Katephractoi) and veteran spearmen, as well as numerous Turkish and Slavic mercenaries. However, no force of the time could have matched the skill of a Mongol horseman. They were simply the best of the age, and there was a good deal more of them then there were of the Byzantines, or anyone else for that matter.
Last edited:
well, that means ill have to change my timeline. again. the Byzantines beat the mongols, barely, but it was enough to change their mind.
better a tributary state, than lose a couple hundred thousand soldiers defending their nation.
better a tributary state, than lose a couple hundred thousand soldiers defending their nation.
Faeelin
Banned
This is misleading, and I don't think true tbh. It was the largest army, but there were plenty of armed warriors in Europe at the time. Surely you don't think the Franks were less militarized than they were in the 5th century?
The Umayyads don't have unlimited manpower; as we can tell because they failed to try another major raid into France, or to take Constantinople after defeats. They have limited power projection.
And the Franks just sit there and wait for death? I don't know, man. I feel like your criticisms of Crusader Egypt apply here, except you're putting the Arabs in charge of invading a cold dank place full of Franks.
A century later the Carolignians were able to launch sustained, multiyear campaigns, including staying overwinter, to defeat the Avars and Saxons. They managed to retake Catalonia from the Arab states, smash the Avars, invade Italy, and take Saxony. Let's not count them out.
(A shame it's so hard to get a route between the Saxons and the Arabs. I could see them converting).
Also, Faeelin, you seem to find every opportunity to argue with me lately
It's what I do.
Delvestius
Banned
Faeleen, assuming their Army is routed after their defeat in 732, I don't think they have much of a choice but to sit there. We're talking about a lightning-quick army of horse archers and outriders against a primarily Infantry based military. Mistakes were made, people were underestimated, and that is how the Franks were victorious. If the Arabs had engaged with skirmish and ambush tactics rather then open combat, or even relied heavier on their skirmishers and archers, I feel that no force without sufficient cavalry to match could have destroyed the Arab army, and that is what this AH is going off of.
Plenty of armed warriors in Europe? Ok? This does not mean they would be able to coordinate. even Charlemagne's Marchfields were pushing the limits of what the Franks could confidently field.
You seem to be assuming that there weren't any other raids. Following Poiters there was another massive attack in the early 740s; the Umayyads were not kidding around. However, the Berber Revolt stopped this initiative in its tracks. then the Abbasids came around and they had a different policy regarding Byzantium(which was gaining power) and the greater Arab World. The Umayyads of Cordoba essentially checkmated any chance of the Abbasids to attack the Franks again. The Umayyad way consisted of a large army of Berbers and Arabs attacking the land. Once conquest was confirmed they would send excess Yemenis and part of the Syrian army to assist them and cement the Caliph's rule. Beyond the Fertile Crescent the Amirs and the like were the ones who used local resources. When the area was conquered the Umayyads found a convenient way to siphon out the population growth of Syria and the Yemen.
The Franks are a fair minority in this area. There was a particular reason that al-Andalus had few revolts: An extremely tolerant prosperous regime combined with the fleeing of the nobility, the only ones to care, to either Frankland or the north. This is going to be applied in Firanj as well. I do not see why the peasants of Aquitaine and Burgundy really give a damn if they're under saracens or not as long as there isn't a higher tax and they aren't forced to convert by the sword, both extremely unlikely in a regime that is a very small minority. Many may even welcome the Arabs in areas such as Aquitaine and Gascony, areas that never liked the Frank pushing of levies for countless irrelevent wars. When you realize the life of the miserable Provencal peasant will get better under a regime which will have the money to engage in massive irrigation projects, the rebuilding of cities and the rebirth of commerce revolt seems less likely. Now, revolts later as the Jizya becomes less and less is more likely, but by this time there is a significant amount of Frankish muslims.
The main problem will be the Franks of the north, which I have not discounted. Unlike Al-Andalus which has practically no enemies besides meddling 'Abbasids, Firanj will have to deal with Austrasia, Neustria and the Lombards. However, you have to remember that Austrasia and Neustria are extremely unlikely to agree to a common front, especially considering that Neustria feels the regaining of its former lands in al-Firanj is a high priority. The Neustrians are likely to be subjected to severe raiding around the marches, generally during the warmer summer months. Their children taken into slavery and their farms pillaged, They are not going to have a happy existence at all.
Sorry for any spelling errors; I'm on a crappy computer.
Faeelin
Banned
I would agree they were the product of a centralized state, but... so? They were there and being fielded.
How'd that work for them? I was under the impression the Berber result was related to the end of easy raiding and the aftermath of Tours, actually. Lack of loot causing an economic crisis and all that?
Clearly Umayyad resources (and Abbassid) weren't bottomless. If they were, why did they stop invading after a defeat?
Well, we know that the Carolignian economy also saw significant growth, albeit routed on the North Sea and not the Mediterranean. So...
Why wouldn't Austrasia and Nuestria agree on a common front? They were franks.
Charlemagne fielded far more troops than had been capable under Charles, many of which were drawn from the southern regions.
What? The Berber revolt was an entirely unrelated incident to Tours. Poiters was a tiny benchmark to the Arabs. It wasn't mentioned in contemporary accounts at all and when they finally did mention them a few decades later when they acknowledged that dar al-islam wasn't going to to get to Frankland, they never placed the battle highly, since they didn't see it as the definitive point of defeat. The Berber revolt was the result of extremely harsh policies by the Umayyad governor of Ifriqiya which included breaking the Edict of Umar and overtaxing them as though they were not people of the book. This was the beginning in a series of unfortunate events which spelled the end of the Umayyads following the death of Hisham.
Except they didn't, as I said. Their invasion in the 740s was proof that they really didn't have a problem with sending more men. Their resources were not bottomless, but they had enough to spare to garrison the already large army there(30,000 to 60,000).
Can you really compare the Carolingian economic improvements to those of al-Andalus? I don't think you can, and the unfortunate fact was that the Viking raids nipped this new trading network in the bud.
And..? The Austrasians and the Neustrians are two different kingdoms. This isn't Northern Spain, where the remaining nobles and little statelets had to cling to each other to life; Neustria is bruised but Austrasia is essentially untouched and would prefer if the Arabs and Neustrians are busy killing each other while they attack Saxony and Frisia. Neustria has little options but to attack the Arabs or waste time and resources on attacking the Bretons or some-such. Austrasia is likely to be off campaigning against the Saxons.
Delvestius
Banned
Language map is done. To come, the maps of American colonization and Population density 1600 A.D.
I'm just wondering how Islam in Al-Franj, Al-Manya, Al-Scandinafia and Al-Kalmara would be like. How much would it have in common with Sunni Islam as we know it. How strictly would aniconism be enforced, how strictly dietary laws. Would artists be allowed to paint portraits or illustrate anatomic books, would peasants be permitted to keep pigs and and eat pork. How would ramadan be practised in northern Al-Kalmara (where the sun does not set in the summer and not rise in the winter months). Would certain christian traditions be incorporated in a syncretistic manner like the celebration of the birth of the prophet Isa bin Maryam or his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection and ascension. Would 13th and 14th century mosques in Al-Franj and Al-Manya feature pointed arches, pointed stained glass windows and flying buttresses while those in Al-Scandinafia and Al-Kalmara would be build in brick-gothic-style. Would there be a muslim reformation at some point with the qur'an translated into local tongues? And if so, would the supporters of the true faith in the heartland of islam call for a jihad against those barbarian apostates in Al-Franj, Al-Manya, Al-Scandinafia and Al-Kalmara? And most important, to what extent would local languages be influenced or even replaced by arabian, to what extent would arabic script replace Latin?
Last edited:
Snake Featherston
Banned
If the Muslims win Tours that's not going to produce an Islamization of all of Europe. The Muslims at this phase weren't about converting the masses they ruled, and any such Muslim dynasty would last as long as the Arian dynasties that succeeded the Roman Empire in the West did and be as meaningful in terms of religious impact. If Western Europe did become Muslim the form of Islam there would be as different from Sunnism as Islam in Bangladesh or Malaya is from the standard in the Middle East or Pakistan. The Muslims would also not try to convert *everybody* as Islam *does* have a place for non-Muslims in a state ruled by Muslim dynasts.
- Status