In the long run, seems pretty likely, unless the mess in Iran cuts the trade routes.
No Islam - Effects in 7th & 8th Centuries
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
In the long run, seems pretty likely, unless the mess in Iran cuts the trade routes.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
This happens to be my favorite possibility. Among other things, it means Coptic East Africa now has an even more direct route to the Mediterranean, and combined with our PoD expanding their presence on the Arabian peninsula, that means they may well become great beneficiaries of the Indian Ocean Trade.
Does this overreach still crash (latter 8th Century) China's demographic and/or institutional strength as cataclysmically as happened OTL? Because if not, the Fullness of Tang is still in top shape come 800, which gets to the interesting ideas we're talking about.
I think more doctrinal diversity than OTL, but fewer clear institutional boundaries.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Are you referring to the split of Chalcedonian Christianity between the Catholic West and Orthodox East? Because that mostly comes later than our window of discussion -- though now that I think of it, the 8th Century did see tension between the Bishop of Rome and Constantinople over the whole Iconoclasm thing.
However Iconoclasm would most likely not happen without the Arab Conquests as the entire reason it started in the first place was due to the poor state the Empire was in during the 8th Century. There might be some Iconoclast heresy at some point, but I doubt it would be as disasterous as in OTL and would probably not be sponsored by the Imperial court.
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
So does this mean the Visigoths and Franks de facto fall (or stay) under the religious influence of Constantinople, similar to how the Bulgars and Russians did later OTL? And if the Visigothic Kingdom does manage to hold together TTL, could they lay the groundwork for a later reunification with "Rome"?
It's difficult to say as removing Islam changes Western history almost completely. However if I were to take a few educated shots in the dark I would guess this would depend entirely on how Rome does in this timeline. If they do well and continue to hold a firm grasp on the Mediterranean the Western Kingdoms will maybe continue to serve as psuedo tributaries to Constantinople, if the Empire does poorly the Western Kindoms would probably exploit their weakness by seperating themselves atleast politically. I'd say a Charlemagne type ruler is quite unlikely though, as a more powerful Rome will have the military and economic power to challenge any Imperial Pretender's claims, not to mention that Constantinople would have a better hold on Italy in this timeline which would completely butterfly any sort of Papal Coronation.
I also certainly don't see the Lombards taking Rome at any point in this timeframe, considerinig they couldn't even take it from the severly weakened Exarchate of Ravenna in our timeline.
It was just one of many paths I think Egypt might take. I agree that it's definetly not the most likely, but if religious pressures become tough enough they might try something akin to the Popes secession from the Empire at some point if Imperial power is weak and over a long time they might transorm from a Patriarchal state to a proto-Egyptian state.
People often overlook that Copts in the 7th Century before the Arab Conquest were already being persecuted quite badly. If things get bad enough in a worst case scenario the Patriarch wouldn't have too much trouble establishing autonomy/independence, as the Patriarchate of Alexandria was arguably the richest of the Patriarchates at the time.
Again this is a worst case scenario, I think it's far more likely the Romans hold onto Egypt (albeit with a loosened grip) due to it's economic importance. But you never know with all these butterflies.
Last edited:
Deleted member 67076
I dunno, I always have thought if the religious pressures get too much than an Alexandrian revolt would more than likely try to conquer the rest of the empire rather than break away. They hold the money, the manpower and a good portion of the fleet.
Even in India, Buddhism was still a major phenomenon - the Pala Empire in Bengal was Buddhist up until the twelfth century, for instance. And with a 570 AD POD, Harsha's empire, the last great Indian Buddhist empire. could easily have a clear successor, and that would probably save Buddhism from being absorbed into India without leaving an even bigger and longer-lasting impact on Hinduism. When the Bhakti movement spreads north, you could very well see devotees of the Buddha emerge, writing hymns to him!
Anyways, the biggest effect on Indian history that this would have is that Turks would probably invade India sooner and with larger waves of migrations, without Islam to beckon them towards the Middle East. As such, you'd probably see Turkic khanates emerge, more powerful than the various Delhi Sultanates and co., and they'd also not be very Persianate in culture, assimilating like the Indo-Scythians before them. So, overall, Indian culture is a lot less Persian in nature. Which butterflies a whole lot of Indian culture.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Plus they'd have Makuria as potential allies, and there's the question on whether and how the Arabs make an impression.
Speaking of which, I don't think we got around to how Arabia would be affected in the short term by our PoD.
Alpais was born about twenty years after the latest possible PoD (death of Muhammed in 632, and then people forgetting about him instead of making a religion). Charles was born 55 years after 632. That is heaps of time for even a little butterfly to get in the way and prevent his birth.
The Franks at least never really cared about Constantinople. Rome, when they felt like it, but not really Constantinople.
Re the Visigoths, they probably won't stay together long enough to join the ERE (and I doubt they would go a quarter of the way to trying). They were a pretty ugly mess by 710 IOTL, otherwise the Muslims wouldn't have managed to crush them so quickly. Without a unifying force for Christendom (such as the Muslim threat), there wouldn't be any reason to join the ERE even if they could manage it.
Luitprand, Aistulf and Desiderius all had the military capacity to take out the Papal guard, which was really only a token force. The only thing that stopped them was the threat of the Franks, who had the capacity to kick the Lombards in the teeth (see 774 campaign for a demonstration of this). Because the Karling line doesn't happen in this TL, and the Merovingians probably stay useless, the Lombards could have Rome if they wanted it enough.
Charlemagne got lucky. His brother's death, His father's death when he was young (well, 21 is young for a king), Iconoclasm making a nuisance of itself, the fact that the Vikings and Saxons were being quiet (at least outside of their own territory), the fact that Irene was a woman...
Without that chain of events, not to mention that Charlemagne was extremely able in his own right... forget it.
Arabia in 650 would be like Arabia in 550 - a bunch of tribes wandering around the desert doing pretty much nothing to impact the world in a major way.
- BNC
There were clearly population pressures in Arabia in that era (see the Ma'rib Dam), so to say the Arabs won't be doing anything just seems wrong to me. How will the Arab tribes not be in any way be like the Germanic tribes yet in another area? There already were Arab foederati before Islam. I don't see how the further migration of Arab tribes isn't going to majorly impact things, especially when they're right on the boundary of the Byzantine and Persian world, with further potential of migrating into other places like Egypt, North Africa, etc. I'm just going to assume that if the Vandals and Goths could migrate to Spain and North Africa, so can the Arabs. No, they won't have the same effect the Germanic tribes did on the world, but the impact the Arabs will have on the borders of both Rome and Persia is definitely important.
Wouldn't Constantinople pretty much fill in the void of the Karlings in this timelines though?
Persia in particular isn't at all my area in expertise, so I can say very little on the specifcs there.
However, a quick look through wikipedia places the size of the migration at 50,000 people, across an area stretching from East Africa, through Egypt and to Mesopotamia. 50,000 is the size of a large medieval army, so it certainly would not be unnoticed, however an army is usually concentrated in a small space, whereas the migration is anything but concentrated. Probably comparable in magnitude to the very earliest "barbarian" migrations into Rome in the early 3rd century: they're there, and locally they are a bit of a nuisance, but they don't impact the wider world significantly.
Yes and no. Constantinople can complain and insult the Lombards as much as it likes. It can't easily pull together a 30,000-man army and storm into Italy the way the Franks could - geography and technology of the time don't allow that, at least to the extent of it being worthwhile. Also, Constantinople didn't think that much of the Pope at the time, while to the Franks he was God's sole representative or something, so there is substantially less motivation to intervene.
- BNC
Well, I mean Rome aren't planning to retake Italy entirely, they don't need to field a huge 30,000 man army to merely defend the tiny strip of land between Rome and Ravenna. Not to mention that without the Arab Conquest they would have more room to fight back against Lombard incursions, they would also have absolute naval dominance in the Mediterranean.
Also, I mean it is Rome we're talking about here. The Empire isn't going to just let their ancient homeland fall when they now have troops to defend it.
Anything less than something like 20k-30k risks the Lombard force being bigger and hence able to defeat them. Also, the "tiny strip" is a pretty ridiculous shape to try to defend. If you defend Rome, Ravenna is open, and vice versa. If you defend both equally, whichever the Lombards attack will not have enough troops to defend it.
It is rome, but this is also alt-8th century Rome. It isn't able to just ignore all of its frontiers, and because of no Islam, there is something that doesn't like Rome right on its border, known as Persia. Also, Bulgars, Avars, Khazars etc can't be totally ignored either. Pulling a Lombard-proof force isn't possible for such a far away campaign.
Remember that I'm considering a "Lombardy goes full force in its attempt to take the city of Rome" situation. Whether or not this situation would arise is too dependent on ATL personalities and politics that we can't predict, but an Aistulf-like character combined with the lack of a Karling or similar could be enough to make it occur. However, it is totally possible that the exact opposite would happen instead. I'm only saying that if Lombardy wants Rome, it will get it if it doesn't have to worry about Franks. The ERE would be fighting on a relatively far-off location (relative to its supply centres), Lombardy is just a couple of days riding away.
- BNC
Well the Ma'rib Dam was symptomatic of the pressures but not everything. The 6th and 7th century seems to have climate anomalies along the lines of those immediately before and at the start of the Little Ice Age, as well as those in the 17th century. There is a theory that the rise of Islam was aided by this (in addition to many other things, like the fall of Teotihuacan). The rise of Islam was at the hands of Arab tribes given direction and unity. Arab tribes are still going to migrate, because Arabia isn't sufficient enough for them. I'm not sure it would be as big of a crisis as the Germanic migrations (or Huns, etc.), but it's clearly something which has more than local potential.
I'd like to say Egypt hires Arabs to fight against the oppressors in Constantinople, but that seems rather fanciful.
But without the guidance of a leader such as Muhammed's successors, they are much less likely to do so in one great push or in a warlike manner, hence why I compare it to the early migrations into Rome around the early 3rd century. Without a specific direction ("Go North, all of you!"), they will also be a lot more dispersed and so the effects will be lesser in magnitude, over a greater area.
- BNC