Ways for the Islamic World to have kept up technologically?

I think European monopoly on colonialism, meaning an ridiculously huge amount of resources, productive and financial, fueling their society.
That probably did more for European domination than Ottomans (For instance, Mughal Empire did good until its final crisis.) and you'd have either to limit it, or having Arabo-Islamic world pulling something similar.
I think you mean colonization of the Americas, because Europe did not have a monopoly on colonization per se; Qing Chinese colonized extensively. But the difference was that places colonized by the 18th-century Chinese (in upland Southeast Asia, mostly) had far less resources than the Americas, were inhabited by people accustomed to Chinese diseases and the practices of the Chinese state and were generally more numerous, and finally was mostly rugged terrain. Eventually by the 1780s the frontier was saturated, and with no space to expand into, rural society in internal frontiers grew poorer and conflicts with indigenous populations severer - leading to both the indigenous Miao revolt and the ethnically Chinese White Lotus revolt by the 1790s. By contrast Europe's own frontier - America - was much larger and richer and consistently provided a much better base for development than the Chinese frontiers.
 
No, I meant European colonisation on Americas, but as well Africa and Indias (even if it became obvious, critically for the latters, in the XVIIth as aformenetioned).

Letting aside Americas, as we certainly agree on their importance on European development, one can't ignore that Sudanese gold, salt, slave, etc. trade was largely hijacked (at the exception of eastern Africa) by European powers and merchants.
Similarly, the European dominance over a growing part of South-East Asia (notably Eastern Indias in the largest sense) weakened economically the great powers of the region.

While we're not talking about an economical monopoly, the colonial monopoly (China's presence in outer provinces in Qing China didn't lead to a pre-industrial development of their economy, at the contrary of American or Eastern Indias industries*, for instance) greatly helped Europe, in Americas or Asia.

Of course, and excuse me to stress this point again : it doesn't becomes obvious before the XVIIth century.

*That admittedly destroyed the pre-industrial and manufacturial capacities of, say, India. But that's not the point, which is that manufactural capabilites such created functioned on behalf of European economies.
 
one can't ignore that Sudanese gold, salt, slave, etc. trade was largely hijacked (at the exception of eastern Africa) by European powers and merchants.
Yes, coastal West African turned to Europe rather than NA, leading to the decline/death of large empires like Songhay and the reorientation of West African states to the sea. But I think you agree trade with Africa (for which manu of the terms were set by Africans until the 19th century, as seen by the king of Asante forcing the Dutch in the Gold Coast to engage in business with him) in itself would not have made Europe so dominant.
Similarly, the European dominance over a growing part of South-East Asia (notably Eastern Indias in the largest sense) weakened economically the great powers of the region.
How so? The great mercantile power in the South China Sea - the Chinese merchants - thrived before and after European intrusion, and their success was dependent on the fluctuation of Chinese regulations rather than Europe. The Dutch attempted and failed to hijack South China Sea trade, and Europe, along with Japan, fed rather than weakened China's trend towards extreme mercantilization and urbanization by readily supplying seemingly endless silver.

While we're not talking about an economical monopoly, the colonial monopoly (China's presence in outer provinces in Qing China didn't lead to a pre-industrial development of their economy, at the contrary of American or Eastern Indias industries*, for instance) greatly helped Europe, in Americas or Asia.
Chinese colonization did lead to economic development. Colonization of interior frontiers (i.e areas within Chinese territory but sparsely populated or not inhabited by Chinese) in Huguang (the middle Yangtze) led to a rise in cultivated land by 310.2% in two centuries, allowing Huguang to export food despite a rising population, thus allowing the lower Yangtze to continue its extremely commercialized economy without major food issues. But as I said, internal frontiers and the Chinese southern frontier had a limit that the Americas did not.

Of course, and excuse me to stress this point again : it doesn't becomes obvious before the XVIIth century.
I would say more the mid-18th century that it is obvious, actually. In 1700 China and Europe would have been roughly at parity in terms of living standards or even some of the sciences (China was certainly ahead in linguistic reconstruction) - even with the military, at this point the Qing banners probably had more cannons per 1000 soldiers than European armies, even if Chinese cannons were worse in quality.
 
Personally, I lump the Mongols and Timurids together. After all, thats how the Timurids saw it. And, majnly, I'm thinking the immense loss of life and destruction of property/infrastructure that they all left in their wake.

As for the Abassids, lets not forget that they were not a continent-spanning empire by the time the Mongols arrived, but just a rump state in Mesopotamia.


I am quite aware of the affairs in the Abbasid state during this period and in fact it's entire history. It's size at this point doesn't matter, it was in a recovering position, however that doesn't mean that Iraq hadn't already fell from its high point. Once Iraq was the dominant area of civilization during the reigns of the Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians, all of which was the high point, the Abbasid period and its subsequent fall and the final death blow to put an entity and a entire land's history was given by the Mongol hordes, it was a timely end, the Abbasids were probably the luckiest state on the block they likely should've been taken out earlier. To sum it up, the fall of the Abbasids was simply the end to the saga of falling and massively declining Iraqi states going all the way back to the times of Sumer.


The massive loss is overestimated, the countryside which is far more important than the city itself and the Sawad was ravaged long before the Mongols in the 9th century during the Anarchy of Samarra and subsequent rebellions such as the Zanj rebellion and the end to the plantation economy of Iraq. The events of the 9th century was the final collapse in the lands of ancient lands corresponding to Iraq and from there on out the Abbasids and the land the lorded over was crawling into the 14th century, the Mongols put them out of their misery and improved Iran during the Ilkhan era.

The Timurid's were far different than the Ilkhans which conquered the Abbasids, completely different entity. Timurids were more akin to the Chagatayid than the Ilkhans and thus had a different mode of operation and different style of rule. Further, Timur incorporated more brutal forms of warfare on the people of Iran and Anatolia than the Mongols and fought more varied opponents, crushing Islamic states in many different areas (near every state east of the Mamluks, and west of Bengal).
 
Well to give an easy summary of what I said:
1. The Islamic golden age essentially had no beginning nor end. Thus my view is the continual golden theory in which the period of cultural and technological sophistication continued until the beginnings of the faltering of the Ottomans state.

2. Europe out paced the Islamic world due to their own achievements and process rather than a collapse in the Islamic world. The fault of Islam was the failure to fully adopt capitalism and market economies in the same manner as Europe, this conjugated with the New World caused the situation we see today, a relatively defeatist attitude amongst the Arab world with a nostalgic and conspiratorial outlook.
 
Well to give an easy summary of what I said:
1. The Islamic golden age essentially had no beginning nor end. Thus my view is the continual golden theory in which the period of cultural and technological sophistication continued until the beginnings of the faltering of the Ottomans state.

2. Europe out paced the Islamic world due to their own achievements and process rather than a collapse in the Islamic world. The fault of Islam was the failure to fully adopt capitalism and market economies in the same manner as Europe, this conjugated with the New World caused the situation we see today, a relatively defeatist attitude amongst the Arab world with a nostalgic and conspiratorial outlook.
You know, Ahmad al-Mansur was planning a colonization of the New World. If I figured out how such a thing might succeed, would that possibly help? I mean it's a far cry from bringing capitalism to the Islamic world but it should create wealth or trade contacts?
 
You know, Ahmad al-Mansur was planning a colonization of the New World. If I figured out how such a thing might succeed, would that possibly help? I mean it's a far cry from bringing capitalism to the Islamic world but it should create wealth or trade contacts?

Doubtful. The movement to improve the economy in the Islamic world and the actual improvement of certain ideas, must occur within the Mid East, a sliver of land in America won't add much and it is far too late, Morocco does not have the eminence or population base to influence any other Islamic powers outside of Ifriqiya.
 
Doubtful. The movement to improve the economy in the Islamic world and the actual improvement of certain ideas, must occur within the Mid East, a sliver of land in America won't add much and it is far too late, Morocco does not have the eminence or population base to influence any other Islamic powers outside of Ifriqiya.
What do you think could be done? The law on business partnerships is clear- what is the basis for it? Could it be changed/be butterflied into another form? (This is fortuitous, given you're probably the best person to ask about this on this whole site).
 
Doubtful. The movement to improve the economy in the Islamic world and the actual improvement of certain ideas, must occur within the Mid East, a sliver of land in America won't add much and it is far too late, Morocco does not have the eminence or population base to influence any other Islamic powers outside of Ifriqiya.

Somewhere around these parts, there was a TL about refugees from Muslim Spain establishing a realm in the Americas - they managed to do it earlier than the region was discovered OTL, IIRC, so they managed to get more than a sliver. Would a suitably large Muslim realm in resource-rich (and gold-rich, depending on what part) America be in a position to a) grow and keep up technologically and b) encourage the rest of the Muslim world to do likewise?
 
Somewhere around these parts, there was a TL about refugees from Muslim Spain establishing a realm in the Americas - they managed to do it earlier than the region was discovered OTL, IIRC, so they managed to get more than a sliver. Would a suitably large Muslim realm in resource-rich (and gold-rich, depending on what part) America be in a position to a) grow and keep up technologically and b) encourage the rest of the Muslim world to do likewise?

It depends, an Islamic state say based out of Mexico could resemble say the Mughal empire on a smaller scale. If such a state can form with a large enough population base, I suppose it is possible for it to keep up with the Europeans in terms of advancement. However I am skeptical that it can affect the rest of the Islamic world. The reason Europe benefited so much from colonization was the number of states so well situated, the Islamic world literally has only Morrocco and Algeria, etc with the ability to easily migrate there, unfortunately these are also the smallest population bases in all the lands of Islam, thus weakening the quantity of migrants. Conversely Europe has its largest population bases in the direct way to populate the new world. It would take a huge movement of people from the interior of the Arab world, problem is that no one will go or make it across the Sahara for this journey, it is not cost effective.
 
What do you think could be done? The law on business partnerships is clear- what is the basis for it? Could it be changed/be butterflied into another form? (This is fortuitous, given you're probably the best person to ask about this on this whole site).

The best plan of action would simply be greatly weakening the power of the state in the Arab world, making a more decentralized nations thus allowing the ideas of capitalism to develope instead of rigid statism mixed with Sharia as seen by our history. Simply making very weak central governments or a feudal system more akin to Europe would likely get the results needed.
 
The best plan of action would simply be greatly weakening the power of the state in the Arab world, making a more decentralized nations thus allowing the ideas of capitalism to develope instead of rigid statism mixed with Sharia as seen by our history. Simply making very weak central governments or a feudal system more akin to Europe would likely get the results needed.
That sounds . . . incredibly difficult. If anything, as Islamic history progressed, even more emphasis was put on the power of the state and in absolutism- what with those foreign blooded sultans clamouring for legitimacy and so fourth.
 
That sounds . . . incredibly difficult. If anything, as Islamic history progressed, even more emphasis was put on the power of the state and in absolutism- what with those foreign blooded sultans clamouring for legitimacy and so fourth.


Agreed. Once the Ottoman state became pre eminent, the creation of a capitalist/pro economic populace, became highly unlikely. I could see in all
honesty a few situations in which a society of merchants could come into being:

1. A continued system of governing in which tribal entities held more power but was more locally contained so as to avoid the constant warfare if the Umayyad. So like an Umayyad like state that covers less area and is less militaristic. This could eventually lead to a capitalist class forming in cities like Dimshaq, Antioch, Halab, etc... As well development would be less centered around individual capitals but sir was around effectively.

2. After the destruction of the Abbasid state (relatively), the Middle East remains Balkanized and the Saljuk state doesn't form. This allows for Iraq to possibly form a more equitable means of controlling its land and Iran is not left behind economically. As well, the Fatimid state remains powerful and due to the nature of the state in staying out of personal affairs (relatively), would encourage more economic growth in Syria than the subsequent Saljuk, Crusaders, Zengid, Ayyuib, etc...

3. An unlikely situation in which the Burji Mamluks remain powerful in Egypt/Levant. The Ottomans remain in their position and are see more as a Euro entity rather than a hegemonic empire. Though I see no reason why the Ottomans won't bite the Burji at this point. Also the Safavids are a double edged sword, it'd probably be best to butterfly them and allow Iran to be Balkanized, perhaps as vassal states or such of the Burji. Though unfortunately, I feel this is too late for a 360 spin, and Europe already has a massive head start at this point, aka Portugal.
 
Agreed. Once the Ottoman state became pre eminent, the creation of a capitalist/pro economic populace, became highly unlikely. I could see in all
honesty a few situations in which a society of merchants could come into being:

1. A continued system of governing in which tribal entities held more power but was more locally contained so as to avoid the constant warfare if the Umayyad. So like an Umayyad like state that covers less area and is less militaristic. This could eventually lead to a capitalist class forming in cities like Dimshaq, Antioch, Halab, etc... As well development would be less centered around individual capitals but sir was around effectively.

2. After the destruction of the Abbasid state (relatively), the Middle East remains Balkanized and the Saljuk state doesn't form. This allows for Iraq to possibly form a more equitable means of controlling its land and Iran is not left behind economically. As well, the Fatimid state remains powerful and due to the nature of the state in staying out of personal affairs (relatively), would encourage more economic growth in Syria than the subsequent Saljuk, Crusaders, Zengid, Ayyuib, etc...

3. An unlikely situation in which the Burji Mamluks remain powerful in Egypt/Levant. The Ottomans remain in their position and are see more as a Euro entity rather than a hegemonic empire. Though I see no reason why the Ottomans won't bite the Burji at this point. Also the Safavids are a double edged sword, it'd probably be best to butterfly them and allow Iran to be Balkanized, perhaps as vassal states or such of the Burji. Though unfortunately, I feel this is too late for a 360 spin, and Europe already has a massive head start at this point, aka Portugal.

I think that you and a lot of other people in this thread are kind of narrowly focused. The (many) reasons for the "rise of the West" are complex, multifaceted, and feed into each other in a virtuous cycle. Talking about how the Muslims just need to adopt Capitalism is simplistic IMO. For one example, it doesn't fix how inherently crappy the land in much of the Middle East had become over the centuries while agricultural innovations and New World crops caused European land to get better and better. Furthermore, I am doubtful of the 3 ways you list to encourage Capitalism. The development of Capitalism throughout the decades is another complex and multifaceted process intimately tied to the European setting. For example, a major fuel for the rise of merchant power and economics was colonialism and the urgent need to trade with the East. This doesn't work for states in the Islamic World because they're in a very different situation socially and geographically and economically and etc. I think that these kinds of broad structural changes to the course of history is precisely what AH is very ill-suited for.

Thus, I think talking about how the rest of the world can "keep pace" with Europe is a bit of a lost cause. A more fruitful endeavor IMO would be to have a POD late in the game when the other states realize how outmatched they are. For example, the Ottomans were at there lowest point around the turn of the 19th century and Napoleon was a wake up call. There were some excellent reform efforts despite the large number of inherent and imposed handicaps. Have them win the 1877 war and I think there's a very convincing case to be made that they could thrive.
 
Thus, I think talking about how the rest of the world can "keep pace" with Europe is a bit of a lost cause. A more fruitful endeavor IMO would be to have a POD late in the game when the other states realize how outmatched they are. For example, the Ottomans were at there lowest point around the turn of the 19th century and Napoleon was a wake up call. There were some excellent reform efforts despite the large number of inherent and imposed handicaps. Have them win the 1877 war and I think there's a very convincing case to be made that they could thrive.

While I agree with your logic, this is just a blatant ignorance of the thread. And it's uninspired- there are already many large, complete timelines exploring Ottoman resurgence, which this exact POD. I am trying to create competitors for Europe. It does not necessarily have to be a capitalist competitor, but you cannot just say that the rise of the West is multifaceted and then cite the singular factor of agriculture- I would like to remind you that while agriculture in the Western Islamic World was degenerating, it used to be the best- Europe, by comparison, was poor, and improving.

One might argue that a main factor was Ottoman reliance on their classic gunpowder weapons instead of innovating- POD's could be made along those lines. One might also argue that failure to adopt the printing press played a big factor- That can be so easily changed as well. I was sort of nodding along before but now I'm adamant- there's some key things here that people just aren't getting- maybe they're being too dismissive of it, or maybe it's because I can count all the experts on the subject here with one hand. But I'm no longer convinced of any of the arguments presented so far- that includes the Western Capitalism argument and the Lost Cause argument. I actually can't believe I just played along with the former- I must be sleepy. I forgot the cardinal sin of paramountcy- pretending that it actually exists.
 
I think that you and a lot of other people in this thread are kind of narrowly focused. The (many) reasons for the "rise of the West" are complex, multifaceted, and feed into each other in a virtuous cycle. Talking about how the Muslims just need to adopt Capitalism is simplistic IMO. For one example, it doesn't fix how inherently crappy the land in much of the Middle East had become over the centuries while agricultural innovations and New World crops caused European land to get better and better. Furthermore, I am doubtful of the 3 ways you list to encourage Capitalism. The development of Capitalism throughout the decades is another complex and multifaceted process intimately tied to the European setting. For example, a major fuel for the rise of merchant power and economics was colonialism and the urgent need to trade with the East. This doesn't work for states in the Islamic World because they're in a very different situation socially and geographically and economically and etc. I think that these kinds of broad structural changes to the course of history is precisely what AH is very ill-suited for.

Thus, I think talking about how the rest of the world can "keep pace" with Europe is a bit of a lost cause. A more fruitful endeavor IMO would be to have a POD late in the game when the other states realize how outmatched they are. For example, the Ottomans were at there lowest point around the turn of the 19th century and Napoleon was a wake up call. There were some excellent reform efforts despite the large number of inherent and imposed handicaps. Have them win the 1877 war and I think there's a very convincing case to be made that they could thrive.

I do not think that it is a narrow view that I am purporting, I am speaking on era's far before colonialism an ways for the Arab to advance in a way that in the end puts them in a more equitable playing field with Europe. No state will benefit from the same factors that Europe did, obviously, however, the development of a rigid merchant class and individualism in the Arab world would start the move to secularism and the eventual values that truly set Europe apart from the world.

Further, I disagree with your assessment in colonial influences on the growth and creation of capitalism and toward the eventual move to the need of Capital over mysticism, which is what Europe brought to the forefront which the world across lacked. For instance, we start to see due to decentralization inherent in European systems of feudalism lead to the creation of the Hanseatic League, Novgorod, Venice, Genoa, etc... Merchant classes who operated less and less without complete control by the religious authority or the government. All these started long before colonialism, again due to a progression of feudalism into capitalism, dialectical materialism dictates this progression as did the ideas of Marx and later thinkers who connected the creation of capitalism to a move from the nature of feudalism to the creation of a new class, being self made merchants in opposition to the previous power, nobility.

Arabs missed out on this progression, it started as a monolithic mega entity with borders too large to spread effectively and a state large and imposing, which by the Abbasid period began removing individual rights and curtailing merchant classes previously common amongst the Jahil period. In the short run, Arabs benefited from this and dominated the landscape but overtime the system of monolithic statesmanship and the slow erosion of voluntary market practices made it to where eventually the Europeans who while suffered short term, benefitted in the long run, very interesting indeed.

In terms of land value brought up, it depends on the area. Much of this is essentially caused by modern perceptions combined with climate change, the land value and population base prior to the late Abbasid period was not particularly small and not was desertification near the level today with rapid climate change. Egypt for instance was extremely rich before it was mismanaged by monolithic mega states such as the Ayyuib, Abbasid, Banu Hilali, etc.. Yes major cities where built in Fustat-Qahirah, but usually at the cost of farmland and agrarian growth, Europe did not see this due to feudalism and the decentralized nature of their system. Give this to the Arab world and desertification will not occur at such a level and likely the areas will sustain more in comparison. Also, the evidence of Roman censuses has Egypt at a very large populace and large crop production. As well, butterfly the Abbasid's silly ruling and it is foreseeable for Iraq to remain a large population base, albeit not like France, but that is not necessary.
 
The Zanj Rebellion is a decisive victory on behalf of the rebels. Within a few years, the Abbasids are either forced to ban slavery, or overthrown by a new dynasty, which promptly abolishes slavery. This creates a new period of economic and social development.
 
The Zanj Rebellion is a decisive victory on behalf of the rebels. Within a few years, the Abbasids are either forced to ban slavery, or overthrown by a new dynasty, which promptly abolishes slavery. This creates a new period of economic and social development.

Possibly, this would be easier with a progression than outright removal which may not be feasible. Either way, a Zanj victory and survived rebel movements balkanizing the land is good for the development of the Mid East in the long run.
 
While I agree with your logic, this is just a blatant ignorance of the thread. And it's uninspired- there are already many large, complete timelines exploring Ottoman resurgence, which this exact POD. I am trying to create competitors for Europe. It does not necessarily have to be a capitalist competitor, but you cannot just say that the rise of the West is multifaceted and then cite the singular factor of agriculture- I would like to remind you that while agriculture in the Western Islamic World was degenerating, it used to be the best- Europe, by comparison, was poor, and improving.

One might argue that a main factor was Ottoman reliance on their classic gunpowder weapons instead of innovating- POD's could be made along those lines. One might also argue that failure to adopt the printing press played a big factor- That can be so easily changed as well. I was sort of nodding along before but now I'm adamant- there's some key things here that people just aren't getting- maybe they're being too dismissive of it, or maybe it's because I can count all the experts on the subject here with one hand. But I'm no longer convinced of any of the arguments presented so far- that includes the Western Capitalism argument and the Lost Cause argument. I actually can't believe I just played along with the former- I must be sleepy. I forgot the cardinal sin of paramountcy- pretending that it actually exists.

Why is it ignorance? You asked "is it possible for the Islamic World to resume the illumination that it had before and that the European sphere had just begun with a POST-renaissance pod?". The answer is yes the Ottomans could in the 19th century.

Yes I know it's uninspired. In the previous few weeks I still brought in up in threads on this board twice to people that didn't know. How am I supposed to know you didn't want it if you didn't mention that you didn't?

The agriculture was one example. I specifically said so just to prevent people saying that I was citing a singular factor! Look:

For one example, it doesn't fix how inherently crappy the land in much of the Middle East had become over the centuries while agricultural innovations and New World crops caused European land to get better and better.

This is in response to John giving Capitalism as a way for the Islamic World to keep pace. I mean I specifically added the "one" part in because apparently people don't get that an example is an example when you call it an example. This happened before :noexpression:. What am I supposed to say?

I never argued against the bolded part of your quote so I'm not sure why you're saying it? Doesn't the fact that I mentioned them degenerating and improving imply that they were better and worse respectively? The point is that it's a major factor and one that introducing Capitalism doesn't effect. Which still stands.

I would both disagree that the examples you listed are main factors and that plausible POD's could be created for them. My belief is that on a macro scale, human choice doesn't really matter. Even when ATL states look really strange to our eyes, they still play out macrohistorical trends. Conventional POD's can't really change that.

@John7755 يوحنا : I shall respond to your post when I get the time within this week. A bit pressed for time right now to give a proper response.
 
Top