No Islam

[Ran Exilis]

I meant that there is very little chance Arabia would become Christian unless it was conquered by the Byzantines.

True - the best way of getting Arabia thoroughly Christianized is indeed through Byzantine or Ethiopian conquest.

And you've got a point with the fact that neither is very likely to happen...

 

[Philip]

But who?

That really depends on who is writing the timeline and what the POD is. Maybe it is Arabs united in the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I dunno. The scale of pilgrimage doesn't seem as great in Christianity at this point as it does in the Islamic world.

It is not as great. But it does not take that much to allow for the exchange of ideas.

I still stand by my comment on things like cotton, sugar, and so forth. They aren't as sexy as gunpowder or the science, but without them ISTM that Europe as a whole is much poorer.

Again, another empire could facilitate this. There is no necessity that it be an Islamic empire.

But how likely is this? Byzantium couldn't count on loyalty from its own subjects in Syria and Egypt; to imagine it ruling Mesopotamia peacably beggars belief, no?

If it is to be the Byzantines, then one would have to suppose reforms in their system. Same for the Persians. But, without the pressure of Islam, it is possible, if unlikely. OF course, I think if Islam did not exist and someone were to write the rise of Islam and its conquests as an ATL, we would calling it highly unlikely as well.

 

[Keenir]

Correct, because of the presence of the Islamic Empire. However, this thread supposes that there is no Islam. Are suggesting that no one would fill the vacuum left?

someone might arise, true...but it might take longer than Islam did.

Yes, if it became safe to travel. They were already coming from the entire Roman Empire. If relationships with other lands were politically improved, they would come from elsewhere as well.

except that political relations can never get as "improved" as that of the entire internal Roman Empire during a time of stability.

heck, there were times when it wasn't the safest thing to do to travel about within the Empire.

 

[rudranna]

The scientific revolution would have gone on but the access of the technologies of gunpowder and other explosives to the west would have been delayed. asia and not europe would have risen then as a global power, with countries like india and china taking the lead. i wouldn't completely agree with the bigger india theory, cause was there a strong enough empire in india at the time of islam's origin. however on the whole the actual contact between europe and asia would have been delayed as the only reason the europeans sought out asia was in search of the wealth that was shown to them by the arabs, so expect an overall delay in the overall cultural and scientific evolution of europe as a whole.while it is the indians that will make first contact with the europeans due to continued knowledge of the roman trade routes

 

[Admiral Brown]

Islam wasn't just an empire that permited the diffusion of Eastern technology towards the West, and who permitted the travels of people, good an ideas from Spain to China's borders.

There's something else: it was something completely NEW. That's why it wasn't afraid of integrating Persian, Greek or Christian knoledges into its own culture. If, let's say, another empire, with a more longstanding tradition had replaced him, they might not be so willing to adapt the cultural advances of the beaten. I picture, for example, a Zoroastrian empire, or, especially, a Bizantium Empire, arriving to India and don't paying attention to it's numerical system, considering it something done in Hindu Temples, an thus, diabolic (something us what the Spanish did in America).

 

[Calgacus]

Islam wasn't just an empire that permited the diffusion of Eastern technology towards the West, and who permitted the travels of people, good an ideas from Spain to China's borders.

There's something else: it was something completely NEW. That's why it wasn't afraid of integrating Persian, Greek or Christian knoledges into its own culture. If, let's say, another empire, with a more longstanding tradition had replaced him, they might not be so willing to adapt the cultural advances of the beaten. I picture, for example, a Zoroastrian empire, or, especially, a Bizantium Empire, arriving to India and don't paying attention to it's numerical system, considering it something done in Hindu Temples, an thus, diabolic (something us what the Spanish did in America).

Any possibility that without Islam, some other entirely new messianic religion would sweep the Middle East? That would be interesting....

 

[Wendell]

This timeline idea has enormous potential, Politics, however, will be important.

 

[LordKalvan]

If there is no Islam, the most likely possibility is that Arabia will become monophysite, like Syria and Egypt. And the Arabs will come boiling out of Arabia, Islam or no Islam: there is an increased population, and both Persia and Byzantium have been weakened by the continuous wars. If the Arabs will manage to conquer as they did IOTL is open to discussion. Probably they will, taking advantage of a power vacuum (and being Monophysites they will even be more easily accepted by the local populations).
Persia can go down as well as it did IOTL: the Sasanids were at low ebb in the 7th century - and there is no reason to believe they will perform better ITTL. Baghdad (or Babylon or whatever) will be again a natural choice as capital of the new empire that will be formed. Which maybe will go down in internecine warfare in a couple of generations, or less. And maybe not. One might argue both ways. However, with the west impoverished by the barbarian invasions, by Justinian ill-fated attempt to restore the empire and by the plague, I would guess that the fertile Crescent gets in any case its hour in the sun. So no major changes, IMHO. Whatever happens is not pre-destined, and God usually keeps aloft from the history of men.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

My goodness, that was certainly poetic!

I'm not sure I agree with it, though. I think I agree that IF Arabia becomes Christian it would probably be monophysite, even if conquered by the Byzantines (Arabs to Byzantines: "Bring it."). But if they do emerge from Arabia in the context of being Christian, they are still moving into "Christianity" - and to me that means they will just become a factor in Byzantine power realities, not a force to overthrow the existing order. That is in fact what the Byzantines thought was occurring. Also, I'm not sure the Arabs could be characterized as "boiling" out of Arabia so much as tentatively poking, and finding the neighbors all dead, moved rapidly in. Once they had Egypt, they were a serious power

Without the unifying dogma of Islam, would not the Arabians have just continued to fight it out at home, and perhaps leak into the Byzantine periphery?

If there is no Islam, the most likely possibility is that Arabia will become monophysite, like Syria and Egypt. And the Arabs will come boiling out of Arabia, Islam or no Islam: there is an increased population, and both Persia and Byzantium have been weakened by the continuous wars. If the Arabs will manage to conquer as they did IOTL is open to discussion. Probably they will, taking advantage of a power vacuum (and being Monophysites they will even be more easily accepted by the local populations).
Persia can go down as well as it did IOTL: the Sasanids were at low ebb in the 7th century - and there is no reason to believe they will perform better ITTL. Baghdad (or Babylon or whatever) will be again a natural choice as capital of the new empire that will be formed. Which maybe will go down in internecine warfare in a couple of generations, or less. And maybe not. One might argue both ways. However, with the west impoverished by the barbarian invasions, by Justinian ill-fated attempt to restore the empire and by the plague, I would guess that the fertile Crescent gets in any case its hour in the sun. So no major changes, IMHO. Whatever happens is not pre-destined, and God usually keeps aloft from the history of men.

 

[Wendell]

Does this premise increase or decrease the possibility of reunion between the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox and Western (Roman) Catholic churches?

 

[Max Sinister]

Sorry, but no advanced math, no scientific revolution. Without Islam, no zero. No zero, no math.

As said: The Islam passed on the concept of zero, but didn't invent it.

Another thing: what about the Jews? I think they would have have a much harder time than in OTL (and that's a lot!), cause Spain would have expelled them much earlier, and they wouldn't have been able to cross to Morocco, cause it would also be Visigoth, probably.

That's the question - without the Muslims sitting in Spain, the Spaniards wouldn't become as fanatic Catholics.

It's was an Islamic Caliph/Emir/Sultan whatever who wanted to heat his baths, actually.

But it was hardly the only time the Library was torched. Already Caesar during the Alexandrine War managed to burn it down.

Perhaps some Christians did, but the scholars did not.
It is an open question, but Julius Caesar is a more likely candidate.

AFAIK all of them burnt the library at some time. At first it was rebuilt, and the books were replaced, but later, well, not.

 

[LordKalvan]

My goodness, that was certainly poetic!

I'm not sure I agree with it, though. I think I agree that IF Arabia becomes Christian it would probably be monophysite, even if conquered by the Byzantines (Arabs to Byzantines: "Bring it."). But if they do emerge from Arabia in the context of being Christian, they are still moving into "Christianity" - and to me that means they will just become a factor in Byzantine power realities, not a force to overthrow the existing order. That is in fact what the Byzantines thought was occurring. Also, I'm not sure the Arabs could be characterized as "boiling" out of Arabia so much as tentatively poking, and finding the neighbors all dead, moved rapidly in. Once they had Egypt, they were a serious power

Without the unifying dogma of Islam, would not the Arabians have just continued to fight it out at home, and perhaps leak into the Byzantine periphery?

Did the Norsemen stayed at home bickering with each other? When their moment came - weak semi-barbarian kinglets squabbling on the ruins of the western empire and Scandinavian population increased they boiled out, and went a-viking from British Isles to Gaul to Rus. IMHO, the Arabs are in a similar position. Given the weakness of both Byzantines and Persians it's their moment of glory. The spark can be some successful raids, or a persecution of monophysites. Or a leader being born.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Did the Norsemen stayed at home bickering with each other? When their moment came - weak semi-barbarian kinglets squabbling on the ruins of the western empire and Scandinavian population increased they boiled out, and went a-viking from British Isles to Gaul to Rus. IMHO, the Arabs are in a similar position. Given the weakness of both Byzantines and Persians it's their moment of glory. The spark can be some successful raids, or a persecution of monophysites. Or a leader being born.

I disagree. Actually the Arabs were not really in similar position with the Norse. Without Islam, there were actually little to none reason for the Arabs at that time to expand. And the Norse were usually just wanted to trade and/or plunder the wealth at wherever place they visited, without any other intention of anything else like, for example, spreading their religion (if I'm wrong about this, I'm still sure they weren't propagating their faith in similar ways of the muslims or christians have done). The religion that the Arabs had just embraced at that time weren't really welcomed by their two huge neighbors at the north, so their leader at that time thought that they had to act fast, before they got crushed first. The invasion on the two empires by the Arabs were actually opportunistic anyway.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I disagree. Actually the Arabs were not really in similar position with the Norse. Without Islam, there were actually little to none reason for the Arabs at that time to expand. And the Norse were usually just wanted to trade and/or plunder the wealth at wherever place they visited, without any other intention of anything else like, for example, spreading their religion (if I'm wrong about this, I'm still sure they weren't propagating their faith in similar ways of the muslims or christians have done). The religion that the Arabs had just embraced at that time weren't really welcomed by their two huge neighbors at the north, so their leader at that time thought that they had to act fast, before they got crushed first. The invasion on the two empires by the Arabs were actually opportunistic anyway.

I don't think Islam provided the reason, it provided one of the conditions, the other being the intense weakness of the Byzantines and Persians.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Doesn't matter. You have to have the open mind to use the idea, and develop it. The Muslims had and did both. Europe HAD been exposed to the idea of a zero number for thousands of years and rejected it. It was Islam that took the idea and developed advanced mathematics with it, and then introduced them to Europe.

As said: The Islam passed on the concept of zero, but didn't invent it.



That's the question - without the Muslims sitting in Spain, the Spaniards wouldn't become as fanatic Catholics.





AFAIK all of them burnt the library at some time. At first it was rebuilt, and the books were replaced, but later, well, not.

 

[Faeelin]

As said: The Islam passed on the concept of zero, but didn't invent it.

No, but mathematics certainly blossomed in the Islamic world.

That's the question - without the Muslims sitting in Spain, the Spaniards wouldn't become as fanatic Catholics.

But they were already persecuting Jews in Spain, to the point of considering takign all their children and baptizing them.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I don't think Islam provided the reason, it provided one of the conditions, the other being the intense weakness of the Byzantines and Persians.

It must because of what I said about spreading out the religion, isn't it? Of course I know that Islam didn't provide the reason. I just wanted to explain that the Arabs in their own time weren't in similar position the Norse were in their own time.

 

[Max Sinister]

@Faeelin: You mean, before 711-18, when the Muslims invaded Iberia?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Iraq will be shared between Christian and Jewish faiths , Iran will be shared between Christianity and maybe Zoroastrism (Parsism) .

True, these faiths have such a great tradition of "sharing" things with one another.

Incidentally, no Islam, no Parsiism - Parsiism is Zoroastrianism as practiced in the Indian diaspora. The Zoroastrians in Iran are not Parsis.

no Sikh

No Islam, no Sikhs period.

, no Tamil Nadu terrorism.

But how does the IRA fare in this timeline? Shining Path?

Seriously, this is a very confusing statement. The Tamil Tigers have NOTHING to do with Islam.

...

Well, this is certainly an interesting thread.

PS I've figured out German keyboards.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Seriously, this is a very confusing statement. The Tamil Tigers have NOTHING to do with Islam.

I've caught you in a lie. The Tamil Tigers have used terror, so they are by definition Muslims. The Sharia is proof of that.