Vita Sancti Muhameti: A "No Islam" Timeline
- Thread starter Laskaris
- Start date
The Romans didn't actively persecute anti-Chalcedonian Christians: they lacked the ability to seriously do so, and the imperative was always to find a theological compromise rather than impose Chalcedon by force- that's true right the way from Justin I until Constantine IV. I studied sixth century Egypt for my undergraduate dissertation last year, and it's very noticeable how little is made of the doctrinal split, despite this clearly being a deeply, deeply Christian society.
Is that directed at me?
If it is, then thank you for the offer, but I don't need assistance on any particular subject right now. If I do, I will be glad to let you know.
That's unexpected. I thought Muhammed would unite the Arabs as he did in OTL.
So no Arab conquests makes a HUGE butterfly the size of an elephant.
But why several variants of Christianity in Arabia? If Muhammed was the most influential man among the Arabs his successor might be the head of the most influential Christian community, maybe mostly with religious influence, like Pope of the Arabs or something like that.
As I guess there is no equivalent to Koran or anything like that, so his deeds and words are saved mostly by the word of mouth. But I guess he did hear the voice in his head and shared it with his followers? Did Muhammad remarry? Or did he become celibate?
I think that is the end of the old Arabian polygamy...
As for the Muhammed Christianity:
Are his Christian religious books (the Bible and New Testament) in Greek? Or did he manage to translate them into the Arabian language? What is the language of his Christianity liturgy?
If you said that the majority of Arabia became Christian it means that mostly it was Muhammad's Christian followers?
Persia seems to be the sick one among the two great superpowers. The Turks in the North-East, the Romans and the Arabs might tear apart this Empire. And the Chinese might get involved by the way.
The Eastern Roman Empire on the other hand seems to be the lucky winner in this situation if it plays it's cards well. Would the Romans use some of the Arabs like their Variangian Guard or the like? As the Arabs seem to be the best warriors of the time, their martial qualities are unprecedented.
Wait and see!
We have a tendency to see historic events through the lens of hindsight, i.e. in light of everything that came afterwards. Because of the phenomenal expansion of Islam IOTL, we tend to see Muhammad as this hugely powerful figure. But we have to remember that at the time of his death, the Muslim community was still very young, small and fragile, and the huge successes it would have shortly thereafter were by no means a foregone conclusion.
It is an exaggeration to say that Muhammad "united the Arabs" IOTL. At the time of his death, he had control over the Hedjaz in Western Arabia. He had contacts with, but no control over, other areas of the Arabian peninsula. And there were many Arabs, mostly under Roman or Persian rule, who had not even heard of Muhammad yet. As soon as Muhammad died, there was significant disintegration in the young Muslim community. Tribes refused to pay the zakat tax, pointing out that they had sworn allegiance to Muhammad, but owed nothing to his successor. Several rival leaders started to appear, claiming prophethood. This lead to the Ridda wars, which were won by the first caliph Abu Bakr, thanks in large part to Khalid ibn al-Walid, arguably the best Arab general of his time.
It took quite a bit of skill (and luck) from Muhammad's successors to keep things together and really lay the groundwork for the rapid Arab expansion. And that was with the new religion of Islam, which at least for a while helped overcome the traditional Arab tribalism and infighting. A unifying force the Arabs do not have ITTL.
Please do not jump to conclusions. There will still be Arab conquests ITTL, due to demographic factors that were independent of Islam and are therefore still present ITTL. But the Arabs won't be as unified as they were IOTL, and their conqests will be smaller as a result.
Religious movements have a tendency to split. IOTL, the Muslims split into Sunnis and Shiites less than fifty years after Muhammad's death. And ITTL, we don't even have a homegrown Arab religious movement, but several Christian churches in the region - Chalcedonian, Miaphysite, Nestorian - potentially vying for the Arabs.
But I don't want to give too much away yet. Rest assured, your will know the answers to your questions when you read the next updates.
You see, the favorite game of the Arabs for thousands of years was infighting. If some of the Arab tribes or cities became stronger the others felt threatened or just jealous and strike in the back. So if you have half a dozen of independent Arab tribes and confederations they just start squabbling among themselves the moment they go out of the Arabian peninsular.
Let us imagine that one or two Arab tribes invade the Roman Empire. What will be the first thing the Romans do? Correct! The Romans will send some gold to the other Arab tribes among whom there are definitely some old ancestral rivals of the invading Arabs - and these Arabs will be happy to attack the invaders from behind.
This system worked for two thousand years. Why will it not work now?
Actually the Arabs do not need any gold from the Romans to attack and plunder the lands of the Arabs which went to conquer the Roman province. That is the first thing which comes to mind when an Arab sees unprotected lands of his old neighbor/enemy who is gone for invasion.
And it does not matter if there are more Arabs due to demographic pressure - they just will fight harder with each other.
The same would happen if the Arabs invaded Persia. The Arab infighting is an old sacred tradition, you cannot just wave it aside like that.
It would stop any Arab invasion. Unless you unite at least half of the Arab tribes into something which might qualify at least as some sort of loose confederation.
Well, there is another scenario if you do not want to make an Arab confederation. The Romans might get together a sizable force of the Arab warriors from various tribes for money and promise of loot and plunder in Persia and probably for the lands to settle on. As the first caliphs did in OTL. And these Arabs together with the imperial army breaks into Mesopotamia.
After the first victories the Arabs might understand that they are the force to be reckoned with and rebel against the Emperor or just get independent without open rebellion and found a new Arab kingdom.
Or you might find another way to make the Arab expansion look realistic, I guess.
On the other hand the Arabs might invade the ERE during some religious unrest to help their co-believers...
All the "barbarian" peoples neighbouring the Roman Empire had a long tradition of infighting. Nonetheless, some of them (like the Franks, Goths, Slavs etc.) eventually organised well enough that, due to demographic pressure and Roman weakness at the time (shortage of taxes, army manpower), they were able to overrun large parts of the Empire. If it can happen in Gaul or the Balkans, it can happen in the Near East as well.
In any case, I am not going to "wave aside" anything. I suggest you just wait for the next few updates, and then you are most welcome to provide criticism of what I write. That will lead to a more productive discussion than criticism of what you think I am going to write.
Last edited:
You see, that is of course a personal opinion of mine, but the West Roman Empire "fell" only because of the Huns - the Huns pushed a bunch of "infighting squabbling (mostly German) tribes" and they overwhelmed the Empire. That is speaking about Franks and others.
So that was an outside outer force that impacted them. As Arabia is peninsula that won't work here.
If the Huns had not pushed these infighting tribes they would have continued squabbling on the border of the Empire for a few hundred years, I guess. And yes, the WRE was severely weakened at this period.
As for the Goths - they definitely do not qualify as "infighting tribes" as they are big, well, I dare say huge tribal confederation(s). Actually I'd go so far as to call them "kingdom(s)". They had long history of being united and had armies bigger than the Arabs of the first khalifs had.
So the Goths do not qualify either.
As for the Slavs:
You'd be surprised but they did not have a history of infighting. At least we have no such information. They were quite friendly among themselves and preferred fighting against outsiders. But that does not matter as again their most spectacular conquest happened when they were subjugated by the Avars, a strong united polity.
My point here is -
If we have a bunch of infighting tribes on the border of the Empire(s) there are very few possibilities for them to occupy part of the Empire(s)
1) if the Empire is weak, in Civil wars or just in deep crisis
2) if the infighting tribes are united for a period of time and stop their squabbling
3) if there is an outer force which pushes the infighting tribes like the fire in the forest pushes the scared animals in the direction of the imperial border
I am sorry but I do not see anything of the above in this ATL Arabia. So I am a bit skeptical about them conquering parts of the Empire.
Good point.
I'll wait.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Given the connection with Aksum/Ethiopia, one possibility
Given the connection with Aksum/Ethiopia, one possibility would be a Hejaz that focused more toward the sea, than towards the interior of the continent, I'd guess...
Perhaps the "Hejazian" state is more of a thalassic one? The southwest corner of the Pensinsula (today's Yemen) would presumably be an inviting target...Socotra, as well, perhaps...
South to Zanzibar?
Best,
Given the connection with Aksum/Ethiopia, one possibility would be a Hejaz that focused more toward the sea, than towards the interior of the continent, I'd guess...
Perhaps the "Hejazian" state is more of a thalassic one? The southwest corner of the Pensinsula (today's Yemen) would presumably be an inviting target...Socotra, as well, perhaps...
South to Zanzibar?
Best,
Sabot Cat
Banned
This looks like a really promising timeline! I'm going to be eagerly following because I've long heard this idea discussed but rarely tackled~
My question though: What language was Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Arab Christianity originally written in, in-universe? I'm assuming Modern English was butterflied away entirely.
My question though: What language was Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Arab Christianity originally written in, in-universe? I'm assuming Modern English was butterflied away entirely.
I think it would be wise not to cite modern TTL references without being extremely vague. It would contain the poor butterflies from expanding to awesome levels.This looks like a really promising timeline! I'm going to be eagerly following because I've long heard this idea discussed but rarely tackled~
My question though: What language was Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Arab Christianity originally written in, in-universe? I'm assuming Modern English was butterflied away entirely.
Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
What happened to this thread?
Welcome to the forum!
To answer your question, after taking a look at his most recent posts, it seems that he rarely posts, with bursts of activity one day and a long pause extending for over half a year.