Muslim World: The True Faith Timeline

[krieger]

We could see something weird, maybe like that norse catholicism other tl do...

It's definitely a possibility.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Ok, I have been thinking about this and I realised that most of what we knew about europe north of the alps means little to this timeline because that europe here died before been born. The Carolingian empire was the brith of Europe as an actual player in history.

Rise of the Carolingians (c. 732–768)
Though Charles Martel chose not to take the title king (as his son Pepin III would, or emperor, as his grandson Charlemagne) he was absolute ruler of virtually all of today's continental Western Europe north of the Pyrenees. Only the remaining Saxon realms, which he partly conquered, Lombardy, and the Marca Hispanica south of the Pyrenees were significant additions to the Frankish realms after his death.

Martel was also the founder of the feudal system and that marked the Carolingian Empire, and Europe in general during the Middle Ages, though his son and grandson would gain credit for his innovations. Further, Martel cemented his place in history with his defense of Christian Europe against a Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732. The Iberian Saracens had incorporated Berber light horse cavalry with the heavy Arab cavalry to create a formidable army that had almost never been defeated. Christian European forces, meanwhile, lacked the powerful tool of the stirrup. In this victory, Charles earned the surname Martel ("the Hammer").[4] Edward Gibbon, the historian of Rome and its aftermath, called Charles Martel "the paramount prince of his age".

Pepin III accepted the nomination as king by Pope Zachary in about 741. Charlemagne's rule began in 768 at Pepin's death. He proceeded to take control of the kingdom following his brother Carloman's death, as the two brothers co-inherited their father's kingdom. Charlemagne was crowned Roman Emperor in the year 800.[5]

During the reign of Charlemagne (768–814)
The Carolingian Empire during the reign of Charlemagne covered most of Western Europe, as the Roman Empire once had. Unlike the Romans, who ventured to Germania beyond the Rhine only for vengeance after the disaster at Teutoburg Forest (9 AD), Charlemagne decisively crushed all Germanic resistance and extended his realm to the Elbe, influencing events almost to the Russian Steppes.

Charlemagne's reign was one of near-constant warfare, personally leading many of his campaigns. He seized the Lombard Kingdom in 774, led a failed campaign into Spain in 778, extended his domain into Bavaria in 788, ordered his son Pepin to campaign against the Avars in 795, and conquered Saxon territories in wars and rebellions fought from 772 to 804.[4][6]

Prior to the death of Charlemagne, the Empire was divided among various members of the Carolingian dynasty. These included King Charles the Younger, son of Charlemagne, who received Neustria; King Louis the Pious, who received Aquitaine; and King Pepin, who received Italy. Pepin died with an illegitimate son, Bernard, in 810, and Charles died without heirs in 811. Although Bernard succeeded Pepin as King of Italy, Louis was made co-Emperor in 813, and the entire Empire passed to him with Charlemagne's death in the winter of 814.[7]

All this formative events have been butterflied away. I keep making comparations between the conquest and rebirt of Persia and France but there are some holes in that analogy. Persia was among the most ancient cradles of civilizacion and empires together with the likes of Egypt and China. France (and even more Germany) in the year of battle of tours was a fetus with potencial, it had lots of things going for it, but has yet to develop into a pole of power. Persian culture was the one that had the most influence into other islamic cultures in those early years. Heck, Iran influenced other islamic cultures as much as Islam influenced them. The arab conquerors just moving out of the desert were a small and relatively horizontal community and didn't have much in terms of court culture and imperial administration so in the shorts term they borrowed a lot from Iranian (and to a lesser extent eastern roman) culture and laws, but further developing them under their own criteria. France at this point doesn't have much. It was peripheral roman province that suffered some decade since it's collapse, the cities had suffered a long decay and the power is in the countryside. But without Martel the feudal system is more of a result of post roman vacuum, and nobody yet has imposed the power of the feudal lord of Paris as a Primus inter pares of the other barons and dukes in France, so that duty falls to the Emir of Paris. Who probably just controls thinks in the immediate area around Paris. There really isn't much to France to this point. Is at the same level as Iberia. Seriously, the architect of Charlemagne palace was the first architect born north of the alps and he only was that well educated because he was of Armenian origin.

Eudes (also Oto, Odo, Odon) of Metz (742–814) was an architect who lived during Charlemagne's reign in the Carolingian Empire, and is the earliest known architect born north of the Alps. He was possibly of Armenian origin.[1][2][3][4]
His Carolingian architecture with polygonal plans and elaborate elevations of the buildings he created are a reminiscence of the Basilica of San Vitale of Ravenna and late Roman architecture with Byzantine style. It is unknown whether he saw these buildings himself, or only drawings of them.

Bringing Byzantine and Persian architecture is something the arabs can do just fine (maybe even better taking into account the better connection with the orient and also that the arabs appropriated and build upon that scientifically inherence way earlier then then European thanks to the prosperity and power of the cities, in contrast to the European decay).
Regarding what dialect will became "
French" it's worth noting that in the early Middle Ages the most prestigious French dialect was an Occitan one (from Toulouse, I think) and it was the language of poetry and courts. It was only after the cathar crusades were the power of local rulers of occitania was crushed and the parisian king rises above the rest of feudal rulers that the parisian variant became the most prestigious one, and eventually the only language of the elite in France, just like tuscan Italian in Italy.
Regarding the "German" languages, without the HRE is quite likely they consolidate around the different tribes: "Traditional German historiography counts six Altstämme or 'ancient stems', viz. Bavarians, Swabians (Alamanni), Franks, Saxons, Frisians and Thuringians. All of these were incorporated in the Carolingian Empire by the late 8th century. Only four of them are represented in the later stem duchies; the former Merovingian duchy of Thuringia was absorbed into Saxony in 908 while the former Frisian kingdom had been conquered into Francia already in 734. The customary or tribal laws of these groups were recorded in the early medieval period (Lex Baiuvariorum, Lex Alamannorum, Lex Salica and Lex Ripuaria, Lex Saxonum, Lex Frisionum and Lex Thuringorum). Franconian, Saxon and Swabian law remained in force and competed with imperial law well into the 13th century."

This are the German dialects in the 10th century. You can see bavarians, swabians, frisians, saxons, and of course the franks. You can see thuringians in the eastern part of the franconian (it's related but they had a distinct identity and their own tribal law so chances are they further drift away from franconian) and the franconian area of the Netherlands is actually old Dutch:

While the elite of the Imamate is certainly arab speaking most of their followers there (even if early on they may be a small minority) are quite likely old dutchs. May guest if that the region still has some pagans who recent the Frankish conquest (that happened very recently in ttl) and the local christians were left orphans because the recent arab conquest destroyed the structure of the local Catholic Church (kinda like the ottomans in Hungary, when Hungary went calvinist), so you have a bunch a disgruntle exchristianns (who resent the Sunni forces from Paris, that destroyed their old christian social structure) and ex (or actual) pagans who resent the Christian Frankish conquerors and the abuses committed by the sunnis from Faransa (earlier muslim conquerors tended to treat christians quite well but pagans were treated as savages, for ex. in eastern Anatolia some Armenians accepted the new muslim rulers because previously they suffered under the orthodox rulers of Contantinople, the Armenians being paulician dissenters, but the still pagan Kurds where offer nothing and where forced to adopt a monotheistic fait, islam). In this case the weakness of Faransa allowed them to Destry their social order in the Netherlands but where unable to protect power all the way there to build a new order, ensuing a power vacuum. This vacuum (I supposed) was filled by the Zaydi preachers:

The Zaydi madhab emerged in reverence of Zayd's failed uprising against the Ummayad Caliph, Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (ruling 724–743 AD), which set a precedent for revolution against corrupt rulers. It might be said that Zaydis find it difficult to remain passive in an unjust world, or in the words of a modern influential Zaydi leader, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, to "sit in their houses".[4] Zaydis are the oldest branch of the Shia and are currently the second largest group after Twelvers. Zaidis do not believe in the infallibility of Imāms, but promote their leadership and divine inspiration.[5] Zaydis believe that Zayd ibn Ali in his last hour was betrayed by the people in Kufa.
In matters of Islamic jurisprudence, the Zaydis follow Zayd ibn ’Ali's teachings which are documented in his book Majmu’ al-Fiqh (Arabic: مجموع الفِقه‎). Zaydi fiqh is similar to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.[6] Abu Hanifa, a Sunni madhab shaykh, was favorable and even donated towards the Zaydi cause.[7] Zaidis dismiss religious dissimulation (taqiyya).[1]
In matters of theology, the Zaydis are close to the Mu'tazili school, though they are not exactly Mu'tazilite. There are a few issues between both schools, most notably the Zaydi doctrine of the Imamate, which is rejected by the Mu'tazilites. Of the Shi'a, Zaydis are most similar to Sunnis[8] since Zaydism shares similar doctrines and jurisprudential opinions with Sunni scholars.[how?][9]
Zaydis’ theological literature puts an emphasis on justice and human responsibility, and its political implications, i.e. Muslims have an ethical and legal obligation by their religion to rise up and depose unjust leaders including unrighteous sultans and caliphs.[10]
In the context of the Shi'a belief in spiritual leadership or Imamate, Zaydis believe that the leader of the Ummah or Muslim community must be Fatimids: descendants of Muhammad through his only surviving daughter Fatimah, whose sons were Hasan ibn ʻAlī and Husayn ibn ʻAlī. These Shi'a called themselves Zaydi to differentiate themselves from other Shias who refused to take up arms with Zayd ibn Ali.
Zaydis believe Zayd ibn Ali was the rightful successor to the Imamate because he led a rebellion against the Umayyad Caliphate, who he believed were tyrannical and corrupt. Muhammad al-Baqir did not engage in political action and the followers of Zayd believed that a true Imām must fight against corrupt rulers.[11] The renowned Muslim jurist Abu Hanifa who is credited for the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, delivered a fatwā or legal statement in favour of Zayd in his rebellion against the Umayyad ruler. He also urged people in secret to join the uprising and delivered funds to Zayd.[12]
Unlike the Twelver and Isma'ili Shia, Zaydis do not believe in the infallibility of Imāms[5][13][14] and do not believe that the Imāmate must pass from father to son but believe it can be held by any descendant of Hasan ibn ʻAlī or Husayn ibn ʻAlī.

There must be strong anti Umayyad and anti Abbasid sentiment in the Netherlands thats to the conquest, and the rebellious rhetoric of the Zaydi was probably quite attractive to many new converts, and also some christians who wanted a more effective ruler then the weak Emir of Faransa.
Here is a small paragraph about technological advances under the abbasids in their golden age, this technologies will reach Europe centuries earlier thanks to the migration patterns and communication routs:

In technology, the Abbasids adopted papermaking from China.[78] The use of paper spread from China into the caliphate in the 8th century CE, arriving in al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) and then the rest of Europe in the 10th century. It was easier to manufacture than parchment, less likely to crack than papyrus, and could absorb ink, making it ideal for making records and making copies of the Qur'an. "Islamic paper makers devised assembly-line methods of hand-copying manuscripts to turn out editions far larger than any available in Europe for centuries."[79] It was from the Abbasids that the rest of the world learned to make paper from linen.[80] The knowledge of gunpowder was also transmitted from China via the caliphate, where the formulas for pure potassium nitrate and an explosive gunpowder effect were first developed.[81]

Advances were made in irrigation and farming, using new technology such as the windmill. Crops such as almonds and citrus fruit were brought to Europe through al-Andalus, and sugar cultivation was gradually adopted by the Europeans. Apart from the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, navigable rivers were uncommon, so transport by sea was very important. Navigational sciences were highly developed, making use of a rudimentary sextant (known as a kamal). When combined with detailed maps of the period, sailors were able to sail across oceans rather than skirt along the coast. Abbasid sailors were also responsible for reintroducing large three masted merchant vessels to the Mediterranean. The name caravel may derive from an earlier Arab ship known as the qārib.[82] Arab merchants dominated trade in the Indian Ocean until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century. Hormuz was an important center for this trade. There was also a dense network of trade routes in the Mediterranean, along which Muslim countries traded with each other and with European powers such as Venice or Genoa. The Silk Road crossing Central Asia passed through Abbasid caliphate between China and Europe.

Windmills were among Abbasid inventions in technology.[83]
Engineers in the Abbasid caliphate made a number of innovative industrial uses of hydropower, and early industrial uses of tidal power, wind power, and petroleum (notably by distillation into kerosene). The industrial uses of watermills in the Islamic world date back to the 7th century, while horizontal-wheeled and vertical-wheeled water mills were both in widespread use since at least the 9th century. By the time of the Crusades, every province throughout the Islamic world had mills in operation, from al-Andalus and North Africa to the Middle East and Central Asia. These mills performed a variety of agricultural and industrial tasks.[78] Abbasid engineers also developed machines (such as pumps) incorporating crankshafts, employed gears in mills and water-raising machines, and used dams to provide additional power to watermills and water-raising machines.[84] Such advances made it possible for many industrial tasks that were previously driven by manual labour in ancient times to be mechanizedand driven by machinery instead in the medieval Islamic world. It has been argued that the industrial use of waterpower had spread from Islamic to Christian Spain, where fulling mills, paper mills, and forge mills were recorded for the first time in Catalonia.[85]

A number of industries were generated during the Arab Agricultural Revolution, including early industries for textiles, sugar, rope-making, matting, silk, and paper. Latin translations of the 12th century passed on knowledge of chemistry and instrument making in particular.[86] The agricultural and handicraft industries also experienced high levels of growth during this period.[87]

While Faransa sorts itself out Netherlands Imamate will prepare thanks to its more manageable dimensions and borders, more popular government, and access to new crops and techniques of water management. And also probably slave raiding and it's trade. They have plenty of raiding space between the pagans and christians east, and the Faransians south.
This technology probably will see use in the Netherlands much sooner https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/fruit-walls-urban-farming.html (this is a site that I recommend a lot to @Talus I of Dixie if you want to get into alternate history of technologies, they have a good number of useful but underrated ancient technologies that had quite a productive impact in history but where kinda forgotten in historical discussions for not being flashy enough, like for example the Chinese wheelbarrow https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html)

 

[EnvarKadri]

That's why I stated "at least" - with Byzantines weakened and islam with it's eating restrictions not suitable for a harsh climate of the north, paganism has it's chance to survive. Who knows, maybe sort of "reformed paganism" (like prince Vladimir tried to form before he converted to Christianity) could emerge and become main rival for islam. It could be Slavo-Nordic-Baltic analog of hinduism.

I seriously doubt the chances of a pagan reformation. What made hinduism so strong in resisting conversion to islam was its strong social structure aka the caste system. Only in the regions where the caste system was at it's weakest (west Punjab and east Bangladesh) did we see region wide conversion. It other regions we saw whole villages and cities convert and there muslim became big minorities like in karela and Delhi. But never threatened the hindu majority. The slavs don't have such a social structure and can't invent it out of nowhere. It took millennia in India, that's why it was so strong (heck even muslim Indias created their own parallel muslim caste system, such was the strength of the caste social system).
Also India was a far denser a nd bigger society. A world of it's own just by it's demographic dimensions. All of Europe in it's own can compare, much less sparsely populated Eastern Europe.

 

[krieger]

I seriously doubt the chances of a pagan reformation. What made hinduism so strong in resisting conversion to islam was its strong social structure aka the caste system. Only in the regions where the caste system was at it's weakest (west Punjab and east Bangladesh) did we see region wide conversion. It other regions we saw whole villages and cities convert and there muslim became big minorities like in karela and Delhi. But never threatened the hindu majority. The slavs don't have such a social structure and can't invent it out of nowhere. It took millennia in India, that's why it was so strong (heck even muslim Indias created their own parallel muslim caste system, such was the strength of the caste social system).
Also India was a far denser a nd bigger society. A world of it's own just by it's demographic dimensions. All of Europe in it's own can compare, much less sparsely populated Eastern Europe.

But islam is impossible to maintain in harsh climate conditions of Eastern Europe. Pork is most reliable source of meat in EE's forests. Do you think that Eastern Europeans would like to die from famine in the name of some foreign God? Also al-Faransa is a lot more vulnerable to Viking/Magyar/Slavic raids than Francia IOTL.

 

[Nivek]

I seriously doubt the chances of a pagan reformation. What made hinduism so strong in resisting conversion to islam was its strong social structure aka the caste system. Only in the regions where the caste system was at it's weakest (west Punjab and east Bangladesh) did we see region wide conversion. It other regions we saw whole villages and cities convert and there muslim became big minorities like in karela and Delhi. But never threatened the hindu majority. The slavs don't have such a social structure and can't invent it out of nowhere. It took millennia in India, that's why it was so strong (heck even muslim Indias created their own parallel muslim caste system, such was the strength of the caste social system).
Also India was a far denser a nd bigger society. A world of it's own just by it's demographic dimensions. All of Europe in it's own can compare, much less sparsely populated Eastern Europe.

But islam is impossible to maintain in harsh climate conditions of Eastern Europe. Pork is most reliable source of meat in EE's forests. Do you think that Eastern Europeans would like to die from famine in the name of some foreign God? Also al-Faransa is a lot more vulnerable to Viking/Magyar/Slavic raids than Francia IOTL.

We're too early to call about it, those snow/white pirates are still farmers up there and i doubt would be much issue, again if Al-Faransa did develop Faris/Knight on schedule or even early...those pirates would not stood a chance...maybe the worst will be the magyar-slavics...

French" it's worth noting that in the early Middle Ages the most prestigious French dialect was an Occitan one (from Toulouse, I think) and it was the language of poetry and courts. It was only after the cathar crusades were the power of local rulers of occitania was crushed and the parisian king rises above the rest of feudal rulers that the parisian variant became the most prestigious one, and eventually the only language of the elite in France, just like tuscan Italian in Italy.

So we could see/hear something more occitan-meditternean, like an arab like Catalan-esque language?

 

[krieger]

We're too early to call about it, those snow/white pirates are still farmers up there and i doubt would be much issue, again if Al-Faransa did develop Faris/Knight on schedule or even early...those pirates would not stood a chance...maybe the worst will be the magyar-slavics...

I didn't say that they'd be strong enough to conquer entirety of al-Faransa, but I stated that islam is hard to practice with it's food restriciton in places like Sweden, Poland or Russia.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Hay here give me some time that i'll reply to all this information

 

[Silver01]

well i will like to see how saxony figths off the Al-Faransains , still here saxony could be a regional power

 

[Nivek]

Hay here give me some time that i'll reply to all this information

Yeah there a lot to talk before the update

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Frank Stuff

About the development, yes, Faransa is - as you said - a land where the potential is great but the actual power isn't really there (yet). The cultural development of Faransa is actually something that i'll be happy to write about, since, really, the contact between the usual native french and the arab world will make some wonders for cultural advancement, especially in architecture. After all this crazy early years of Faransa, the Tariqids have to put some constructions going isn't? They really doesn't have much control over land far from the centre of power (which, just to remember, isn't Paris, is Lyon) but different from some OTL french rulers later on, they have sufficient authority to effectively rule somewhat. And yeah, you can gamble that "French" will be at the very least much more Occitan than OTL, the initial base of muslim power is in the south after all.

German Stuff

Well, the germans really will divide TTL and i already said it, about the languages specifically i can't say much because it would be spoil something that i have a surprise to y'all, like, some of that divisions will die :>, but i actually was researching a bit about old dutch a time ago, before i began to write the Andalus update (that i expect to post tomorrow).

Dutch Stuff

Yep, actually you discovered the basis of Bakhyia's background, when the ibrahimites placed the stability of Faransa at zero, the power vacuum was intense, and pretty much anarchy followed, what came to put everything together was the ibrahimites pushing north and literally making everything and everyone terrified, like, the pagans are normally terrified by that, but when the ibrahimites showed up that they won't go easy with the christians too, just needed the right zaidi local convert (what mainly represented a form of alliance) and puft Bakhyia was formed, more details in the eventual Bakhyia update

The zaydis are playing the easy mode, with the fairly nice treatment of the local pagans and christians they've a good view, with the effective defense of the communities (the only reason that they rose to power) they (and their Islam) have a good amount of prestige and with the simple (rebellious) nature of zayidism they have (and give to their supporters) the legitimacy of their rule, all of this combines to a really different (and effective) form of gain converts, Bakhyia will be islamized fairly quickly compared to other regions in the history of Islam.

Bakhyia is literally the counterpart of Faransa, all the problems that Faransa have they don't, and all the problems they have Faransa don't, but short-term, the problems of Bakhyia really don't play a lot against them. Still, they're in a literally existential (but low-level) conflict against the saxons in their east, this leads to some cool things like you can raid pagans and make money out of it, but also leads to not-too-cool things like you can be raided and lose money out of it. One thing that i want to really put at attention is that, arabs in the north seas means that intensive contact with the baltic will happen much sooner TTL and this will lead to cool things.

Technology Stuff

You really don't know how i needed those things, you saved me a lot of time and will because i really want to put some cool tech butterflies. Apart from it, you really cannot have a successful dutch analogue without windmills

I seriously doubt the chances of a pagan reformation. What made hinduism so strong in resisting conversion to islam was its strong social structure aka the caste system. Only in the regions where the caste system was at it's weakest (west Punjab and east Bangladesh) did we see region wide conversion. It other regions we saw whole villages and cities convert and there muslim became big minorities like in karela and Delhi. But never threatened the hindu majority. The slavs don't have such a social structure and can't invent it out of nowhere. It took millennia in India, that's why it was so strong (heck even muslim Indias created their own parallel muslim caste system, such was the strength of the caste social system).
Also India was a far denser a nd bigger society. A world of it's own just by it's demographic dimensions. All of Europe in it's own can compare, much less sparsely populated Eastern Europe.

But islam is impossible to maintain in harsh climate conditions of Eastern Europe. Pork is most reliable source of meat in EE's forests. Do you think that Eastern Europeans would like to die from famine in the name of some foreign God? Also al-Faransa is a lot more vulnerable to Viking/Magyar/Slavic raids than Francia IOTL.

We're too early to call about it, those snow/white pirates are still farmers up there and i doubt would be much issue, again if Al-Faransa did develop Faris/Knight on schedule or even early...those pirates would not stood a chance...maybe the worst will be the magyar-slavics...

AFAIK, Russia and Poland (at least) will be a non-issue, because in Russia and Poland, pork isn't really as that necessary than at Germany, and apart from the new-jurisprudency-school solution, we have the Hanafī school that takes in part the customs and practices of the community (heh, exactly because of that the Ottomans - and a lot of the early turk dynasties, actually - supported this school to be the official fiqh or, jurisprudence, of the country, so they can change the little details (like alcohol on wheat) for that.

In Germany (and i think that in Central Europe east of Poland in general) things get hard tough, because pork then turns into a real problem. But the islamic jurists have a way to escape! In the text of the Quran that talks about the prohibition of eat pork, also it's talked that if you really need to eat, isn't unlawful, so...eh, "if y'all forest pagans doesn't have any options, ye can eat that Allah will give mercy for your sins". Ah, other thing, the slavs and the germans already have the heavy plough, what makes it all a non-issue in itself.

About the raiders (especially the vikings), it really depends on the situation of Faransa in the moment they appear, because actually, Faransa has a shield against first-contact nomadic peoples, Bavaria is to the west, Bakhyia to the north, and beyond the Rhine are the other germans. So, unless slavic migration goes unexplainably wild, Faransa has a pretty good position in relations of "do not be invaded by foreigners". And Francia OTL was in truth more exposed to these raids, Faransa just have to bother with what happens in the Rhine, OTL Francia had to bother with like...all of Northwestern Europe? They literally fought the andalusians and the magyars at the same time

well i will like to see how saxony figths off the Al-Faransains , still here saxony could be a regional power

Saxony isn't a threat for Faransa, but certainly is one for Bakhyia, the bigger problem with the saxons are the slavic expansion along the Elbe, but i think that if Bakhyia do not go for try the conquest (i'm not saying that would be easy for the bakhyians to conquer them, nooooooo, just that if the bakhyians try it, their position against the slavs can be threatened much more), they can fare pretty well against the slavs, at least enough to maintain their position.

 

[Silver01]

Saxony isn't a threat for Faransa, but certainly is one for Bakhyia, the bigger problem with the saxons are the slavic expansion along the Elbe, but i think that if Bakhyia do not go for try the conquest (i'm not saying that would be easy for the bakhyians to conquer them, nooooooo, just that if the bakhyians try it, their position against the slavs can be threatened much more), they can fare pretty well against the slavs, at least enough to maintain their position.[/QUOTE]

Well i agree ir took charlagme decades to.win and subdue them and even then he had many advantages compared to bakhyia .

Also the Slavs moving to the elbe ?

Wierd with the byzantine you know I would expect a more southern migtation to tharace and greece .

 

[krieger]

AFAIK, Russia and Poland (at least) will be a non-issue, because in Russia and Poland, pork isn't really as that necessary than at Germany, and apart from the new-jurisprudency-school solution, we have the Hanafī school that takes in part the customs and practices of the community (heh, exactly because of that the Ottomans - and a lot of the early turk dynasties, actually - supported this school to be the official fiqh or, jurisprudence, of the country, so they can change the little details (like alcohol on wheat) for that.

In Germany (and i think that in Central Europe east of Poland in general) things get hard tough, because pork then turns into a real problem. But the islamic jurists have a way to escape! In the text of the Quran that talks about the prohibition of eat pork, also it's talked that if you really need to eat, isn't unlawful, so...eh, "if y'all forest pagans doesn't have any options, ye can eat that Allah will give mercy for your sins". Ah, other thing, the slavs and the germans already have the heavy plough, what makes it all a non-issue in itself.

About the raiders (especially the vikings), it really depends on the situation of Faransa in the moment they appear, because actually, Faransa has a shield against first-contact nomadic peoples, Bavaria is to the west, Bakhyia to the north, and beyond the Rhine are the other germans. So, unless slavic migration goes unexplainably wild, Faransa has a pretty good position in relations of "do not be invaded by foreigners". And Francia OTL was in truth more exposed to these raids, Faransa just have to bother with what happens in the Rhine, OTL Francia had to bother with like...all of Northwestern Europe? They literally fought the andalusians and the magyars at the same time

It is really as necessary as in Germany. Poland literally does have the same climate as most of Germany. The same counts for a forest core of Russia (lands around Moscow and Novogorod), the only part of Russia where pork isn't needed is steppe part, but in Xth century it wasn't even Russia. The point about Faransa not having to fight off Andalusians and sometimes having their support is fully valid, however.

 

[Nivek]

Saxony isn't a threat for Faransa, but certainly is one for Bakhyia, the bigger problem with the saxons are the slavic expansion along the Elbe, but i think that if Bakhyia do not go for try the conquest (i'm not saying that would be easy for the bakhyians to conquer them, nooooooo, just that if the bakhyians try it, their position against the slavs can be threatened much more), they can fare pretty well against the slavs, at least enough to maintain their position.

Saxony isn't a threat for Faransa, but certainly is one for Bakhyia, the bigger problem with the saxons are the slavic expansion along the Elbe, but i think that if Bakhyia do not go for try the conquest (i'm not saying that would be easy for the bakhyians to conquer them, nooooooo, just that if the bakhyians try it, their position against the slavs can be threatened much more), they can fare pretty well against the slavs, at least enough to maintain their position.

Well i agree ir took charlagme decades to.win and subdue them and even then he had many advantages compared to bakhyia .

Also the Slavs moving to the elbe ?

Wierd with the byzantine you know I would expect a more southern migtation to tharace and greece .[/QUOTE]
The Thing Saxony could be the closest thing a germany have ITTL or got absorbed early by Bavaria and the Bakhyia, is very up to the air, or we could see danish going south...the possibilities are endless in that region.

It is really as necessary as in Germany. Poland literally does have the same climate as most of Germany. The same counts for a forest core of Russia (lands around Moscow and Novogorod), the only part of Russia where pork isn't needed is steppe part, but in Xth century it wasn't even Russia. The point about Faransa not having to fight off Andalusians and sometimes having their support is fully valid, however.

There not still Aurochs in Europe? muslim could push to breed those as those are cows and thus halal.

 

[krieger]

There not still Aurochs in Europe? muslim could push to breed those as those are cows and thus halal

There are still aurochs, but they weren't numerous enough to make whole diet out of them.

Also the Slavs moving to the elbe ?

Slavs were already there by the time of POD.

 

[Nivek]

There are still aurochs, but they weren't numerous enough to make whole diet out of them.

Ah well, still the muslim would breed them too, still a shame, the rest the rest of europe would evolve very uniquely(when a vegetarian diet is possible..is hard in europe winters)

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Just coming to say that, the Al-Andalus episode is coming, but probably will be delayed for tomorrow (or after tomorrow) because i want to give y'all again the taste of detailed battles (and now with maps!).

Any comments or questions will be gladly received and answered.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Just coming to say that, the Al-Andalus episode is coming, but probably will be delayed for tomorrow (or after tomorrow) because i want to give y'all again the taste of detailed battles (and now with maps!).

Any comments or questions will be gladly received and answered.

Cool, taker your time. Happy new year.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Cool, taker your time. Happy new year.

Ah, yeah, nearly forgot...

Happy New Year For Y'all!

 

[EnvarKadri]

Ok here comes my first text wall of the year.
Ok, first we have been debating the problem of muslim dietary restrictions in the context of Northern European woodlands. As many have noted Northern European forested areas favored pork as most used source of meat thanks to the woods limiting the lands use for agriculture or for pasture for other animals like cows who also provide milk and plenty of good leather or goats (who kinda share with pigs their ability to it from a variety of sources and also give milk) or sheep (meat and wool). It's also true that big parts of Northern Europe never stoped being mostly covered by forests like previously mentioned Sweden and the parts of Russia corresponding to Novgorod. Vladimir region was also mentioned but that's only partially true, from the Middle Ages to nowadays it has experienced an impressive deforestation, specially in the south, and now a good part of the region is covered by farmlands and pasture. Also Polands was mentioned but this is also partially incorrect, the modern day Poland present wide forelands but the widest are in territories that were traditionally part of german states and mostly populated by germans (but at the point we are in ttl by other western slavic groups, like the sorbs), and why the traditional polish lands had impressive forests they are mostly covered by farmlands and some pastures.
Here is a modern map of European forests:

It's important to know that this current map it's the result of reforestation efforts that started in the 19th century but intensified in the 20th. Here is a gif showing the process of deforestation starting in the 1000 BC and stoping at it's peak in 1850 AD:

The part I am most interested is the 1000 AD were start seeing important reductions in forest area in central Russia (Poland deforestation started much earlier). And finally a bonus map for the reforestation efforts starting in 1900 to 2010 (but only EU countries):

Source of the maps: https://www.tonymappedit.com/deforestation-map-of-europe-animated/
Also a nice paper on prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation in Europe: https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf
The paper is quite good, it's the source for the preindustrial gif and also has other good maps on land suitability for crops or pasture.
So while the pork woodlands zone is quite extensive in norther Europe and will never change in some areas in others can be replaced with farmlands and pastures for other animals. But being able to eat pork or not is mostly a factor that affects a common person choice to convert to islam, a ruler's choice of of religion may be more influenced by geopolitics, trade routes, if the political philosophy promoted by said religion favors the objectives of said ruler, if its moral tenets are politically attractive, or if the empires that support that religion are prestigious and influential.
Also if we follow a model of voluntary conversion similar of that of Mali or Indonesia (no sword involved, local rulers convert and the population eventually follows), a lot of Adat or urf (local customs), tolerance for pagans, and local interpretation and conditioned application of the tenets of the faith in the local circumstances. Although I kinda feel that the local temperament may be more suited for more esoteric or batiniyya (esoteric) forms of islam like the any of the many Ismaili sects (or it's non muslim spinoffs, like the Druze) or the non-jafari twelvers like the alevis or the alawites. "Batiniyya (Arabic: باطنية‎, romanized: Bāṭiniyyah) refers to groups that distinguish between an outer, exoteric (zāhir) and an inner, esoteric (bāṭin) meaning in Islamic scriptures.[1] The term has been used in particular for an allegoristic type of scriptural interpretation developed among some Shia groups, stressing the bāṭin meaning of texts.[2] It has been retained by all branches of Isma'ilism and various Druze groups as well. The Alawites practice a similar system of interpretation.[2] Batiniyya is a common epithet used to designate Isma'ili Islam, which has been accepted by Ismai'lis themselves.[3]"
Here is wiki dump regarding prohibition of alcohol and pork:

The Qur'an in several verses admonishes the consumption of alcohol khamr :

They question thee about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and (some) utility for men; but the sin of them is greater than their usefulness. And they ask thee what they ought to spend. Say: that which is superfluous. Thus God maketh plain to you (His) revelations, that haply ye may reflect. (Al-Quran 2:219)

O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. (Al-Quran 4:43)

O ye who believe! Intoxicants and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed. (Al-Quran 5:90)

At first, it was forbidden for Muslims to attend prayers while intoxicated. In addition to this, most observant Muslims refrain from consuming food products that contain pure vanilla extract or soy sauce, as these food products may contain alcohol. There is some debate about whether the prohibition extends to dishes in which the alcohol would be cooked off or if it would be practically impossible to consume enough of the food to become intoxicated.[1][2]

Substances which are intoxicants are not prohibited as such, although their consumption is.[3] For example, alcohol can be used as a disinfectant[4][5] or for cleaning, but not as a beverage.

The Alevi Muslims of Turkey permit alcohol, unlike many other denominations.[6] Ismaili Muslims are also noted for discouraging, rather than prohibiting, alcohol.[7] The Zaidi and Mutazili sects believe that the use of alcohol has always been forbidden and refer to the Qur'an Ayah (4:43) as feeling of sleepiness and not to be awake.

A fatwa issued in November 2015 permitted the consumption of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages provided that the given beverage contains an amount of 0.5% or the like of alcohol does not entail deeming its consumption unlawful as long as there is no effect of the alcohol upon consumption of the beverage and it does not intoxicate in large quantities.

Khamr (Arabic: خمر‎) is an Arabic word for wine; (the plural form, Khumūr (Arabic: خمور‎), is defined as alcoholic beverages, liquor).[1][unreliable source?] In Islamic jurisprudence, it refers to certain forbidden substances, and its technical definition depends on the legal school. Jurists from the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali legal schools have traditionally viewed it as general term for any intoxicating beverage made from grapes, dates, and similar substances.[2] Hanafi jurists restricted the term to a narrower range of beverages.[2] Over time, some jurists classified other intoxicants, such as opium and qat, as khamr, based on a hadith stating:

The Holy Prophet said: every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is forbidden.[2][3]

Traditions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad indicated that khamr may be made from two plants, the grape-vine and the date palm.[4]

There are some Muslim jurists (particularly of the Hanafi school) who take the concept of khamr literally and forbid only grape-based (or date-based) alcoholic beverages, allowing those made with other fruits, grains, or honey. This is, however, a minority opinion.[5][6]

All alcohol or only wine?

Like Mu'tazila, Hanafi scholars uphold the unlawfulness of khamr, but restrict its definition to fermented juice of grapes[18] or grapes and dates.[19] As a result, alcohol derived by means of honey, barley, wheat and millet such as whisky, beer and vodka are permitted according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, although all forms of grape alcohol are banned absolutely.[20] This is in stark contrast to other schools of Islamic jurisprudence which prohibit consumption of alcohol in all its forms. Though Hanafis trace their liberal view on intoxicants back to Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Mas'ud,[21][need quotation to verify] but, in essence, this conclusion has its roots in the early Basric and Kufic traditions of Islamic legal thinking with its hermeneutic preference for rational reasoning.[citation needed] Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi explains it thus in his encyclopedia of comparative Islamic jurisprudence,

“In their argument by way of reasoning they said that the Koran has explicitly laid down that the Illa (underlying cause) of prohibition of khamr (wine) is that it prevents the remembrance of God and breeds enmity and hatred…[this is] found only in a certain quantity of the intoxicating liquor not in what is less than that; it follows therefore that only this quantity be prohibited..” [22]

This distinction between the legal status of wine and non-grape alcoholic beverages trickled down to Hanafi legal code. Hanafi jurists delineated drinking-related offences into two categories:

1. Drinking grape-derived wine (punishment applicable on drinking “even a drop”).[23]
2. Intoxication from non-grape intoxicants (certainly prohibited from a religious-moral perspective, but may or may not qualify for criminal punishment).[24][need quotation to verify]

As the second category of punishment is specific to the Hanafis (other schools punish drinking regardless of intoxication), they had to come with a legal definition of drunkenness. These definitions ranged from Ibn Qutayba’s ,

“[a drunk is he] whose intellect has left him so he does not understand a little or much (anything at all)” to Ibn Nujaym’s ,“[a drunk is he who] does not know (the difference) between a man and a woman or the earth from the sky”.

Hanafi understanding of Shariah not only permitted adherents to indulge in alcoholic beverages but they could do so up to a near point of total "annihilation".[25]

Punishment
The Quran does not prescribe a penalty for consuming alcohol. Among ahadith, the only reference for punishment comes from one by Anas ibn Malik, (according to Murtaza Haider of Dawn.com in Pakistan) who is reported to have stated that Muhammad prescribed 40 lashes "administered with two palm branches ... for someone accused of consuming alcohol".[14] Saudi Arabian scholar Saalih al-Munajjid also states that a hadith report narrated by Sahih Muslim (3281) from Anas reports that Muhammad flogged someone who had drunk wine with palm branches stripped of their leaves and with shoes.[15][16]

This is not even getting into consumption of alcohol by muslims in places where it was allowed to christian but forbidden to muslims like the ottoman and Persian empires. After all, it was lawful to eat at christian taverns "Food slaughtered by an idolater is forbidden, but food that is acceptable to Jews and Christians is allowed to Muslims as well", so people took advantage of that to drink there.
Now dispute the multiple clear prohibition of intoxication in the Koran and a harsh Hadith based punishment for the practice there was significant rule lawyering among jurists and scholars, and tolerance or promotion of the practice by more heterodox Shia groups, only to justify the consumption of a clearly non vital drug. Now compared to this for pork:

Consumption of pork and products made from pork is strictly forbidden in Islam. The origin of this prohibition is in Surat al-Baqarah:

He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) God has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is most-Forgiving, most-Merciful.

— Qurʼan, Sura 2 (Al-Baqara), ayat 173

There is clearly no punishment and even a clear exception to the rule so I guess lack of attempts to rule lawyering or ignore the prohibition in otl historical muslim lands had more to do with the fact that in those placed pork wasn't wanted or needed anyway:

The cultural materialistic anthropologist Marvin Harris thinks that the main reason for prohibiting consumption of pork was ecological-economical.[10] Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in the Middle East. Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean; and a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem.

It is speculated that chickens supplanted pigs as a more portable and efficient source of meat, leading to the religious restrictions.[11]

Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher and legal codifier, who was also court physician to the Muslim sultan Saladin in the 12th century, understands the dietary laws chiefly as a means of keeping the body healthy. He argued that the meat of the forbidden animals, birds, and fish is unwholesome and indigestible. According to Maimonides, at first glance, this does not apply to pork, which does not appear to be harmful. Yet, Maimonides observes, the pig is a filthy animal and if swine were used for food, marketplaces and even houses would be dirtier than latrines.[12]

Also there is the Pontic Caspian steppe, which has good climate and land for both agriculture and pasture "It is a part of the Palearctic temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands ecoregion of the temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands biome.":

And with a different political history (if a khaganate there consolidates and settles) it can have as much or more population density as forested Vladimir and Novgorod. Of course, reformed paganism, islam or christianity are not the only options, something weird like yazidism (totally new monotheistic religion influencedby islam but based or preexisting beliefs) it's also a possibility. It's late so I will comment on other things tomorrow but remember, all of Res doesn't have to convert to the same religion regardless of who rules it could end quite religiously diverse.
I will go to sleep now, happy new year to you all.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Here are the paper images for historical deforestation and land suitability in case the previous post fails for some reason:
Here again source:https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf
It's a good paper I recommend it.
Ah, fuck it, I am gonna post as video, that may work:
(No, doesn't work either, well, look for the maps in the paper, there quite good, I will solve this tomorrow)