I've been contemplating an AH where Mecca defeated Mohammed's army and as a result Islam died out before it could flourish- what would be the likely course civilization would have taken in such a scenario?
... but I'm sure we'll find some other reason to add them back to the body count.
It's an interesting question, and there's really no clear-cut answer.
First, it's important to look at the shape of the Arabian Peninsula without Mohammed. While Mecca and environs are still pagan, the previous century was defined by conflict between Christian Ethiopians and several Jewish Arabic kingdoms. To make a long and complicated story short and overly simplified, Ethiopia is sort of on its way up, and hasn a better than even shot at owning the entire Arabian Peninsula when all's said and done. The Persians won't like it, but the Persians and Byzantines have just exhausted one another in a series of bloody conflicts.
Byzantium is likely to lose Egypt and Syria; that's almost inevitable at this point. Neither the Persians nor the Byzantines really have the energy to hold Egypt, and the monophysite majority would like to be independent. So it's quite possible they break away and eventually take the greater Syria region with them. Of course, there's a chalcedonian population, but more on them in a minute.
As for a Christian-based religion coming to dominance in the east: there are 2 realistic possibilities: Nestorian Christianity, which is already spreading along the silk road at this point, and Manicheanism, which seems to have been the preferred religion of groups as far east as the Uyghurs before they converted to Islam. Since competition between the 2 was already ongoing, let's keep that dynamic in place for the foreseeable future, but possibly have manicheanism win out with the Turks, Mongols and other northern steppe peoples, while Nestorianism is a minority faith in these groups, but quite popular with traders and makes modest in-roads into China. You could have Persia convert to either, or neither, depending on your preference.
As for Europe: by this time it's predominantly Catholic, with the last Arian kingdoms among the Goths having long since converted. The big exception are the Lombards, who are starting to make their presence felt. The Exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage might have more staying power here: Ravenna could eventually face competition from the Franks, though whether the Carolingians take power without Tours is an open question. Carthage could face some problems from an independent Egyptian state based out of Alexandria, which brings me back to the Egyptian Chalcedonians who would likely have left Egypt for the nearest friendly orthodox region: the exarchate. Given that infusion, and the fact that the berbers probably won't want to ally with Egypt, Carthage could retain its independence, but is going to be increasingly distant from Constantinople as time goes on.
I think it's an interesting idea and look forward to seeing where you take it.
Okay this is a single, one off idea but the previous post just struck me. Are there religious sects in Mesopotamia that might be able to capitalize on Sassanid/Byzantine weakness, thus creating an independent state in the region? Could Nestorianism or Monophysitism be used to rile up the Aramaic speaking natives of the region to a large enough degree that they unite under a common cause and manage this? Maybe forming alliances with influxes of migrating Arabs?
Arabic unity made expansion inevitable, a unity created almost single handedly by Muhammad and his successors. Without their unity, it really didn't matter how hurt Persia and the Byzantines were, they wouldn't have been nearly the threat they would have been, and would more likely be employed as mercenaries and allies instead - as they were before this point. Break their unity, easy without Muhammad, and unless you assume a similar analog at a similar time then the Arab expansion is effectively butterflied. Steppe Hordes of central Asia have always been massive and disruptive, but Temujin and his Mongol Horde are exceptional. While you would, perhaps, get a united Arabia, you will never get another Muhammad unless you intentionally make an analog out of it.Some sort of Arab expansion out of Arabia is inevitable by this point - the Byzantines and Persians are at their lowest points, with the latter collapsing before Arab interference, and population growth in the Arabian peninsula had left it overpopulated. However, if the Arabs do not have the same ideological force they did in OTL, it is possible that Byzantium at least might be able to integrate them into the empire like they did with the Slavs in the Balkans.
In the longer term, it wouldn't surprise me if the split between Constantinople and Rome is even more drastic with the two faiths being considered completely different faiths by the present day.
teg
The reason why Islam proved to be such a strong influence is that it is an internally consistent system of belief. So, even when it was brand new, it fit like a glove. This is why in the vacuum of Islam, we are likely to see another large, theologically consistent belief system in time take its replace, the main candidate being Nestorian Christianity.
Manicheeism was only a belief system of the elite, and Zoroastrianism and other isms were small and regional. At this time Nestorianism already spread from Egypt to India and China. THey had a Pope in Baghdad. Simple inertia would bring the Arabs under conversion just as the Nordics, Poles, and Russians all converted under a brand of Christianity over the next six centuries. But that's the thing...it might take another 600 years for these peoples to convert.
So, the Arabs, until their conversions, might simply be the Middle Eastern analogue of the Vikings. Without a coherent ideology to fight behind they won't be as successful (they'll be lucky to make it to Spain), but they will definitely go far, sack a lot of cities, intermarry with the locals like the Germanic tribes.
How are you defining theological consistency? I just don't see Nestorianism having the same mass appeal as Islam. Historically very few Arabs converted to it, and I'm not sure it would be willing to undergo the adaptation necessary to become appealing to the Arab population.
Manichaeism is a religion of the elite? Where? It's a religion of a variety of Central Asian and Chinese people, but by the 6th century it's rather limited in its scope in the Near East, as far as I know. Less a religion of the elite and more a religion of a few scattered Syriac holdouts.
Also, your analysis discounts indigenous monotheist movements. Even without Muhammad, I think you could make the case for a variety of monotheist cults spreading in the time period of his life. The thing is, that pagan people don't just inherently convert themselves to Christianity by "inertia" - rather they do so when there's some direct benefit to them. Sure, a hypothetical Arab leader who conquers Mesopotamia is likely as not to convert to the local religion, and the same goes with a conqueror of Egypt or Syria. But I'm not seeing the route which spreads Christianity into the interior, and there's plenty of time for a different homegrown sect, be it heretical or a different religion entirely, to emerge.
The biggest problem with your analysis is predicting anything 600 years in the future with any degree of certainty. By that point, literally anything could have happened, up to and including some radical monotheistic version of Tengri-worship conquering most of the known world under a hereditary succession of prophet-shaman.![]()
The concepts of Islam, were in general used by Arabs long before Muhammad, such as the concept of security pacts, rules on women,
Actually, wouldn't a lack of Islam mean that the situation for women in that area of the world would remain unfavourable? I read that when Islam emerged, it was fairly revolutionary in that it strengthened and improved women's rights. Like, prior to Islam, a man could divorce his wife for any reason, but under Islamic law it was only for divorce and even then it had to be proven conclusively.
How are you defining theological consistency?
I just don't see Nestorianism having the same mass appeal as Islam. Historically very few Arabs converted to it...
Everywhere. Only the rich can afford the initiations, tutoring, and time to speculate about their stomach fluids (which is very important in Manicheeism).Manichaeism is a religion of the elite? Where?
Also, your analysis discounts indigenous monotheist movements.
The biggest problem with your analysis is predicting anything 600 years in the future with any degree of certainty.
By that point, literally anything could have happened, up to and including some radical monotheistic version of Tengri-worship conquering most of the known world under a hereditary succession of prophet-shaman.![]()