Ways for the Islamic World to have kept up technologically?

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:



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.


The Ottomans for reasons equal to that of the Abbasid were too late, at this point there is no process of reforming that can save them from Russia with their population base and relative levels of market activity. Japan on the other hand which succeeded, had going for itself an isolated yet dense and highly educated populace able to make leaps and bounds economically. The Ottomans, on the other hand are the progeny of Islam, a massive state with its unifying power being massive statist intrusion which moves quite slow in terms of creating economic opportunity. They based their entire state originally from the same premise, massive state entity, enriching capital territory instead of allowing a decentralized zone to uplift equally the necessary means to create bases and centers for taxation. Further it is too late, simple industrialization this early is meaningless, as the Qing and subsequent Chinese dynasties and oddly the Ottomans discovered. The mode you are proposing happened in otl, it just had no effect, the Ottomans and the Arab world by this point was doomed to be subject to Russia and then France & Britain. Yes, the Ottomans could've done better, but at this point they are finished. Just look at how heavily the Ottomans relied on Europe for its real power, this is indicative of the weakness created in the Arab world, a hollow shell. What I am proposing is through changing the economic and social hegemony of the early Islamic period, this can be reversed to a more equitable position.

In relation to food and colonialism, it is clear through my reading that it was not the initially meagre gains from the new world that created this system which again Europe became the hegemony. As I said, it is the creation of the mind set which is; Capital is the main and ultimate moving factor in any and every society. This ideal would lead to eventual enlightenment and secularism which then produced the greatest technological growth in human history, the Arab skipped this development due to its original history as I have outlined. All I propose, is a change in Islamic society from its otl economic history to one of more similar nature to either Japan or Europe, which either will stay within close range to Europe (think Russia) or easily transition like Japan, surely this isn't difficult to understand.

However, I will await your full response before I give any more heavy arguments on colonialism vs the development of capitalism (as in the system by which is the opposite of mutual aid or theocentrism, the ideal of the accumulation of capital as the sole societal goal).
 
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.

Fair enough. And I take your point - especially if it was an 'exile' state, there wouldn't be the same kind of give-and-take.

That said, one could argue that to establish an Islamic state in the New World one wouldn't need a regular stream of colonists from the interior - correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC while Christian realms had no problem with enslaving even people who converted to Christianity, in medieval and early modern Islamic states it was utterly forbidden to enslave other Muslims and in some if a slave converted they had to be manumitted. I only mention that because it occurs to me that while European colonisers went all-out to exploit the Natives unpleasantly, it might be quite different for Islamic colonisers - that within a couple of generations, converted Native Americans would be citizens of equal standing within the new realm.

Though that's getting off-topic. Sorry.

Regarding the OP, I found this in Bruce Munro's stuff on deviantart. Granted, it's not 'keeping up', it's more 'catching up really fast' (Egyptian Meiji kind of gives it away :p ), but still...:

http://quantumbranching.deviantart.com/art/An-Egyptian-Meiji-330420883
 
Fair enough. And I take your point - especially if it was an 'exile' state, there wouldn't be the same kind of give-and-take.

That said, one could argue that to establish an Islamic state in the New World one wouldn't need a regular stream of colonists from the interior - correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC while Christian realms had no problem with enslaving even people who converted to Christianity, in medieval and early modern Islamic states it was utterly forbidden to enslave other Muslims and in some if a slave converted they had to be manumitted. I only mention that because it occurs to me that while European colonisers went all-out to exploit the Natives unpleasantly, it might be quite different for Islamic colonisers - that within a couple of generations, converted Native Americans would be citizens of equal standing within the new realm.

Though that's getting off-topic. Sorry.

Regarding the OP, I found this in Bruce Munro's stuff on deviantart. Granted, it's not 'keeping up', it's more 'catching up really fast' (Egyptian Meiji kind of gives it away :p ), but still...:

http://quantumbranching.deviantart.com/art/An-Egyptian-Meiji-330420883

This may seem like wishful thinking based on theg*ddam*hoi2fan's theory, BUT: Say, in theory, that Maghrebis and Andalusi muslim exiles found colonies in the new world. Then the Reconquista happens and suddenly millions of muslims and jews are being persecuted/deported from their homeland. Now, I think that they would likely join their cultural relatives and stream into the new world. This doesn't immediately solve the population problem, but give it some time, and watch as the Europeans begin their colonial enterprise, and thereby persecute the natives. The Andalusi colonists, however, have been on the wrong end of this persecution before, and thus invite/align themselves with the interests of those who are in a similar situation. Given that it was natives with western assistance that the west used to conquer much of the New World, having a "western" power taking the contrary side in each conflict sounds like an excellent idea- and, I have no doubt that converts will begin streaming in of their own volition, in addition to the possibility of Islamic spread akin to that found in South East Asia, with Muslims learning native languages for trade, settling in native communities, allowing themselves to be assimilated but raising their families with the faith and maybe also with both languages. It was very effective in SEA, albeit it was two-three centuries of effort.

If this whole thing is a success, I think it could also serve to be a wake up call for the rest of the Islamic world, at least to establish trade relations with their new and comparatively friendlier (as opposed to OTL) neighbours across the atlantic.
 
Fair enough. And I take your point - especially if it was an 'exile' state, there wouldn't be the same kind of give-and-take.

That said, one could argue that to establish an Islamic state in the New World one wouldn't need a regular stream of colonists from the interior - correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC while Christian realms had no problem with enslaving even people who converted to Christianity, in medieval and early modern Islamic states it was utterly forbidden to enslave other Muslims and in some if a slave converted they had to be manumitted. I only mention that because it occurs to me that while European colonisers went all-out to exploit the Natives unpleasantly, it might be quite different for Islamic colonisers - that within a couple of generations, converted Native Americans would be citizens of equal standing within the new realm.

Though that's getting off-topic. Sorry.

Regarding the OP, I found this in Bruce Munro's stuff on deviantart. Granted, it's not 'keeping up', it's more 'catching up really fast' (Egyptian Meiji kind of gives it away :p ), but still...:

http://quantumbranching.deviantart.com/art/An-Egyptian-Meiji-330420883

It depends. I would be less inclined to see any serious large scale conversion, likely Mexico would look like India or West Africa, a Muslim elite ruling over a vast non Muslim/non Dhimmi majority. The reason for this is that Muslim one offer less tax and as you said usually cannot be enslaved just the same as Dhimmi, thus a large amount of pagans will be kept unconverted thus allowing for continued slavery and wider control.
 
It depends. I would be less inclined to see any serious large scale conversion, likely Mexico would look like India or West Africa, a Muslim elite ruling over a vast non Muslim/non Dhimmi majority. The reason for this is that Muslim one offer less tax and as you said usually cannot be enslaved just the same as Dhimmi, thus a large amount of pagans will be kept unconverted thus allowing for continued slavery and wider control.
Have you considered perhaps that such a rising polity may not rely as heavily on slavery as the rest of the Islamic world? Muslims in Southeast Asia were not in the business of slavery, they were in the business of spice- granted, the product is not the same in the new world but new world goods are incredibly lucrative just as spice is. Once the Manila galleon or some other such trade relation is established across the specific, these hypothetical colonies will not only be able to export new world Mexican goods, but also begin planting spice plantations. I think they'd also then begin their own ventures into the Atlantic slave trade (and this is without the same reasons that the Europeans were forced to do it IOTL- those also still stand).


You know, I'm starting to really like this idea...
 
Top