@metalinvader665
Do you think Middle Eastern and North African bodies of water are prone to drought because of recent news or historically? Historically, water in those areas was very carefully managed and, although not having as much rivers as Europe, still had plenty. Hydroelectric power in this circumstance would be feasible.
Yes, that's pushing it: none of the realistic Islamic powers had necessary numbers (and quite a few other things) for colonization of the whole Europe.
5. If you look at actual possible PoDs, you would need Europe at its absolute nadir, say AD 900. Then have the Muslim world undergo rapidly the industrial, scientific, agricultural revolutions. But then the problem would be to get the Muslims to totally displace and exterminate the Europeans (and taking the arable land for Muslim ME settlers) as opposed to just ruling them. So we need a virulent strain of radical Islam that kills everyone who refuses to convert being the de fact ideology in ME in conjunction with industrial/scientific/agricultural revolutions, plus a Europe that is more hard-core Christian than they were in AD900, refusing to convert, and then the Muslims feeling justified to kill tens of millions.
If you want the Christians to oppose Islam: Would alcohol and pork be enough of a reason?
This is the perfect quote to describe colonialism.
On the topic of European colonization. It is ASB unless Europe is Africa levels of advancement.
If the 10.9 million people of Great Britain in 1801 could maintain their huge empire, it doesn't seem so unlikely a comparable Islamic power might do the same. Oman managed to rule Zanzibar and a large swathe of the African coast despite having a small population.
Economic systems and approaches of colonialism in Western sense and Ottoman conquest are different. Both had their slavery market though.Do the Ottomans count? They invaded and occupied South Eaery sysstern Europe for 400 years.
@alexmilman
I was implying an Islamic conquest of the Byzantine Empire. If the Rashiduns eventually dissolve and the Balkans are sufficiently Islamic, we could see an Islamic successor state in the Balkans.
This successor state would colonize Western Europe.
We can also a sufficiently advanced and powerful North African successor state conquer parts of Southern Europe.
If Al-Andalus survives we could also see the colonization of Europe as well (although whether or not it would be colonization and not conquest remains unclear). A strong Arabian successor state such as Oman or Yemen could also make a forte into Northern Europe quite easily.
You mean full of states, empires, confederations, complex economies, and an active set of participants in the global econony- just like Europe was?This is the perfect quote to describe colonialism.
On the topic of European colonization. It is ASB unless Europe is Africa levels of advancement.
Don't forget The nomad pastorialist population that lived in the fringes of the agricultural complex, like The Finns,Tartars,cossacks and otherYou mean full of states, empires, confederations, complex economies, and an active set of participants in the global econony- just like Europe was?
Don't forget The nomad pastorialist population that lived in the fringes of the agricultural complex, like The Finns,Tartars,cossacks and other
Farmers living in cities they weren't, until forced by externalizar powersAre you saying that the Finns and the Cossacks were nomadic?
Farmers living in cities they weren't, until forced by externalizar powers
Okay, how do You define The Cossacks before The XVII Century and The Finns before The XIV century if not as nomad people ?Most of the farmers do not live in the cities but this does not make them nomades.
Here a blond Green eyed mongol girlYou know you've hit rock bottom when you're dropping cherry picked pictures as markers of racial and ethnic identity to argue for or against new age definitions of colonialism. Quick, somebody post a picture of blonde Kazakhs or red-haired Uighurs.
Okay, how do You define The Cossacks before The XVII Century and The Finns before The XIV century if not as nomad people ?
Okay, how do You define The Cossacks before The XVII Century and The Finns before The XIV century if not as nomad people ?
As settled farmers and pastoralists neighbouring actual nomads (sami and nogays/bashkirs/kalmycks respectively)?
I wouldn't define even 16th c. Tatars as nomadic.
Here a blond Green eyed mongol girl
![]()