What if Mohammed existed & unified people, without Islam?

Keenir

Banned
Finally, I don't understand why the Arabs needed Islam to unify. The Mongols didn't, after all. Its just that any area they conquered would not be inflenced culturally by them.

well, the Mongols got a Great Man {of History} to unite them....Islam got both a Great Man and a New Religion in a single package.

but minus Islam?

well, Mohammed would still be able to get the people of Yathrib (Medina) behind him - he settled a deep dispute in their city, and in OTL, they converted as a gesture of gratitude...in this ATL, would they follow him, sans conversion?

it's a good question, though -- in their eagerness to get rid of the Byzantine yoke, would Egypt and Syria accept the overarching authority of a Great Man, knowing that Byzantium would still be there in a generation - and the Great Man's accomplishment (unified Arabia) might not survive his death*?

* = like with Alexander of Macedon. with Temujin, the Great Man's accomplishments continued for a few generations more.
 
it's a good question, though -- in their eagerness to get rid of the Byzantine yoke, would Egypt and Syria accept the overarching authority of a Great Man, knowing that Byzantium would still be there in a generation - and the Great Man's accomplishment (unified Arabia) might not survive his death*?

* = like with Alexander of Macedon. with Temujin, the Great Man's accomplishments continued for a few generations more.
But would they know this? And in this case they had good chance to become independent under one of his generals.
 

Fatal Wit

Banned
well, the Mongols got a Great Man {of History} to unite them....Islam got both a Great Man and a New Religion in a single package.
but minus Islam?

well, Mohammed would still be able to get the people of Yathrib (Medina) behind him - he settled a deep dispute in their city, and in OTL, they converted as a gesture of gratitude...in this ATL, would they follow him, sans conversion?

it's a good question, though -- in their eagerness to get rid of the Byzantine yoke, would Egypt and Syria accept the overarching authority of a Great Man, knowing that Byzantium would still be there in a generation - and the Great Man's accomplishment (unified Arabia) might not survive his death*?

* = like with Alexander of Macedon. with Temujin, the Great Man's accomplishments continued for a few generations more.
My understanding of it is that the Muslims weren't recognized as a entity religiously distinct from Christianity when they first began their expansion. So, assuming the Arab “Great Man”(or a successor) adopts Christianity, I doubt he will have issues with Syria and Egypt. If the Arabs remain predominantly Pagan, however, they may have some difficulties with subject populations(unless they adopt the religion of the conquered areas, which has been the historic trend of pagan invaders).

Also, Keenir, I believe you are somewhat confused in your historiography. Syria and Egypt were conquered AFTER Mohammed’s death- Mohammed merely consolidated Arabia. Of course, it is possible that the changes resultant from “no Islam” may lead to Mohammed living long enough to lead the campaigns into Syria and Egypt.

Also, I see no reson the Arabs' should find it impossible to maintain unity following Muhammed's death. To make an analogous comparison with the Mongols, the Mongol Empire retained some unity and continued to expand followig Genghis's death- despite the lack of a "religious glue". Indeed, given the religous uprisings that followed Mohammed's death, a case could be made that such unrest would have been avoided if it weren't for Islam.
 
The problem I see here is the significant lack of martial tradition and rampant tribalism among Arabs. Even with an uniting religion, infighting at times paralysed the Arab forces due to tribal differences. Besides, Mongol dynastic and martial traditions were structured and definite. Not so with the Arabs, not to mention they lacked the definite technical advantage Mongols had over their enemies. Arabs, in the OTL, overcame that with ferociousness imparted by the Jyhad philosopy, and Turkish and Persian converts who were way better soldiers. ITTL, Turks and Persians have no reason to treat the Arabs surging north out of the desert as anything but enemies.

If Mohammed lived as long as he did in the OTL, his "empire" would not be much bigger than the Arabian peninsula, and would fall apart within years of his death (even with Islam, many insurgents labelled as "false prophets" in Islamic histories sprung up right after his death. Without the religion to keep them together? It would fall apart, even if any heirs he left behind were geniuses.) In the end, Mohammed would at most be the subject of Bedouin legends, but a mere footnote of Middle Eastern history which would still be dominated by the Byzantines and Persians, at least until the Turks inevitably arrived in large numbers a couple generations later. However, this time, the Turks would be more like Huns of old and Mongols of later, instead of the Saljuk empire builders of the OTL.
 
The main problem is Mohammed himself. He was a merchant, not a tribal chief or an european landed noble, so his prioirities are bound to be different. Without a divine revelation, why (and how?) would an intelligent merchant suddenly try to conquer an empire instead of arranging a monopoly on a trade route or something like that?
 
My question is, without a religion or without something very cohesive like a religion, what was he going to unify them around? What was Mohammed going to unify these people around without religion or something cohesive like religion?

So without Islam, what was Mohammed going to use to unify people?
 

Keenir

Banned
The main problem is Mohammed himself. He was a merchant, not a tribal chief or an european landed noble, so his prioirities are bound to be different. Without a divine revelation, why (and how?) would an intelligent merchant suddenly try to conquer an empire instead of arranging a monopoly on a trade route or something like that?

maybe he tries to gain a monopoly, and ends up with an empire.
 
Which would mean that they leave little of a legacy.

Even with an unifying force like religion, the Mongols left behind a barely civilised ruin where there once was a flourishing empire. With no unifying force, and two invasions, I think the Middle East would be even worse off. On the other hand, unless the Turks go off and sack Constantinople, and the Mongols do the same again (there is no reason why they couldn't, last time they were quite spent when they reached the shores of the Sea of Marmara, due to repeatedly fighting Turks and Islam armies. This time there would be nothing slowing them down: no Khwarazm, no Saljuks, no Mamelukes...) we might have a Byzantine Empire surviving to the present day, or even a Turkish and/or Mongolian dynasty there similar to Kublai Khan in China.
 
If the Arabs hadn't been ready and willing as a culture to put aside (some) of their tribal differences and spiritual traditions in order to assume a greater place in the world, then Muhammed wouldn't have been able to unite them in the first place. The most important part of Muhammed's teachings in the immediately practical sense was to create a fairly clear idea of succession; without that, the Arabs are leaderless after his death but still looking for their place in the sun. Of course, now "their place in the sun" doesn't have to mean or imply "spreading the light of Islam to the entire world".

And they're getting it soon enough. Islam didn't topple the Sassanid empire, the Sassanids managed to do that to themselves through amazing selfishness, incompetence and outright madness in their ruling class. Add the occasional general who came up through the ranks and can see just how screwed up the state is with something like an outsider's perspective, and hilarity ensues. So the Sassanids collapse on schedule; no outsider was expecting this, but Byzantium is bureaucratic, frequently fractious and nearly bankrupt from its recent wars with the Sassanids while the Arabs are able to respond relatively quickly. They graft themselves onto the wreckage of Persia and become its new ruling class, stitching the Empire back together more or less. They have no reason not to adopt Zoroastrianism, Persian culture and perhaps even Persian language, so very soon the different ethnicity of the new ruling class will mean nothing at all. Since they don't have to take over the whole world, though, expansion into Egypt will seem like more trouble than it's worth in the short term, as will the Battle of the Talas River - so papermaking doesn't find its way to the West on schedule.

Byzantium loses Ravenna on schedule. Ravenna was always unprofitable for them, because Rome had never seriously entertained the idea that the other patriarchates were its equals or that the Emperor had any spiritual authority, and the Italians almost universally regard the Byzantines as greedy, corrupt, upstart heretical foreigners. The price of keeping the peace always exceeded the tax revenue generated, and that's without even trying to do anything productive like repair an aqueduct. So the Papacy will still evolve into something pretty recognizable.

Hispania, though, is going to stay Arian and acknowledge the Synod of Toledo as its fount of spiritual authority, not Rome. Rome will try debate, bribery, and a variety of emotional appeals, which will all fail. The question becomes, when will Rome have the muscle to try to bring Hispania into the fold when words have failed? Perhaps this is the first crusade.

You may believe that butterflies prevent Leo the Syrian (Isaurian?) from coming into existence, but I prefer to think that he or someone like him will arrive on schedule. Having demostrated his cunning and ruthlessness on the frontier against the Persians, in OTL there was nothing for it but to promote him to the capital; here, there's a much more suitable (and safer) place for the Emperor to put Leo - the surviving Exarchate of Carthage. Once he has that degree of autonomy, his iconoclastic streak comes out, and after a few years of careful preparation, his ultimatums to Byzantium predictably ignored, he declares the Exarchate sovereign and wins a war of independence. Eventually, Egypt will follow suit - it, too, is overwhelmingly iconoclastic, and now it has a sovereign iconoclastic kingdom neighboring it which may offer (sincerely or not) support in rebellion.

With no Islam, the Turks will still migrate into Imperial territory, but now they will certainly convert to Orthodox Christianity, and attempt to assimilate into Imperial culture. My suspicion is that we see two parallel Christian crusading cultures simultaneously - Rome's will be against heretics, first priority will be Hispania, and then would probably be Carthage and Egypt (much safer targets than the Empire). Byzantium would probably prefer another major drive against the Persians to wars with fellow Christians, and with the Turks in the vanguard I like their odds by this point. Then come the Mongols.
 
Contrary to popular belief, money does not make the world go 'round

The main problem is Mohammed himself. He was a merchant, not a tribal chief or an european landed noble, so his prioirities are bound to be different. Without a divine revelation, why (and how?) would an intelligent merchant suddenly try to conquer an empire instead of arranging a monopoly on a trade route or something like that?

On the first day of class, I always tell my students the following:

Ask a man to fight for money, and he will fight with his body.
Ask a man to fight for his country, he will fight with his heart.
Ask a man to fight for God and he will give up his life, his country, his money and his family in order to fight with his soul.

If Mohamed was smart, he knew that the way to bind people together was to give them a common religion. Whether it was divine inspiration or calculated intent, the religion of the prophet has proven to be very powerful.

However, I think money could have united some people, at least temporarily. Christianity wasn't too firmly established and with the fall of Rome, there were power vacuums everywhere that Rome had been. Mohamed had a lot of the "right place, right time" going for him. I think he could have created a strong trading conglomerate ala the de Medici's.

However, I think its influence would have been very limited and someone else would have been divinely inspired in the wake of Byzantine Empire and a developing Africa. Although who knows what religion that would have been.

One thing to note, Islam did not persecute the Jews or the Christians, just taxed them for not being Muslim. Islam had a strong commercial streak from the beginning and it is one of the reasons that the Moors and the Ottomans were so successful.
 
If the Arabs hadn't been ready and willing as a culture to put aside (some) of their tribal differences and spiritual traditions in order to assume a greater place in the world, then Muhammed wouldn't have been able to unite them in the first place. The most important part of Muhammed's teachings in the immediately practical sense was to create a fairly clear idea of succession; without that, the Arabs are leaderless after his death but still looking for their place in the sun. Of course, now "their place in the sun" doesn't have to mean or imply "spreading the light of Islam to the entire world".

And they're getting it soon enough. Islam didn't topple the Sassanid empire, the Sassanids managed to do that to themselves through amazing selfishness, incompetence and outright madness in their ruling class. Add the occasional general who came up through the ranks and can see just how screwed up the state is with something like an outsider's perspective, and hilarity ensues. So the Sassanids collapse on schedule; no outsider was expecting this, but Byzantium is bureaucratic, frequently fractious and nearly bankrupt from its recent wars with the Sassanids while the Arabs are able to respond relatively quickly. They graft themselves onto the wreckage of Persia and become its new ruling class, stitching the Empire back together more or less. They have no reason not to adopt Zoroastrianism, Persian culture and perhaps even Persian language, so very soon the different ethnicity of the new ruling class will mean nothing at all. Since they don't have to take over the whole world, though, expansion into Egypt will seem like more trouble than it's worth in the short term, as will the Battle of the Talas River - so papermaking doesn't find its way to the West on schedule.

I have to disagree with some of your points - given the right circumstances, it is actually far more likely that the Arabs take over Egypt than that they manage to conquer the Persian heartland.

The majority of the Egyptians and Syrians were Miaphysites who were more or less persecuted by the Byzantine authorities, and thanks to the fact that the recently ended Sassanid occupation lasted so long that so long that an entire generation grew up under Sassanid rule, the majority of the Syrians and Egyptians won't have much love or affinity for the Byzantines.

It is far more likely that the Egyptians and Syrians will accept the foreign and "barbaric" Arab invaders as overlords than that the Persian and almost entirely Zoroastrian population of Persia proper submits those same Arabs.

But if they do pull off a successful conquest of Persia itself (which is admittedly still in the realm of possebility), then it is, as you say, rather likely that the Arabs will adopt the Zoroastrian religion (this way, they might also gain the support from the powerful Zoroastrian priestly class), and they will certainly adopt the Persian language and culture (this happened even in OTL).

However, I do not think that the differences between the Persians and the Arab ruling elite will ever disappear or stop being important, regardless of how much the Arab ruling elite assimilates.

In this scenario, it is far more likely that the position of the Arabs in Persia becomes similar to the position of the Mongols in Yuan dynasty China; an empire ruled by a strongly assimilated elite that is still regarded as foreign by the native population.

..
As for the spread of papermaking into the Middle East and the West; this is indeed likely to be delayed for a bit ITTL, but I really don't think that the absence of the Battle of Talas will have much - if anything - to do with that.

The OTL Sogdians were already quite familiar with Chinese paper, and regarding the fact that they frequently used paper alongside parchment even before the Muslims conquered Sogdiana, it is not unreasonable to assume that the procedure of papermaking was already known to them even before the OTL Battle of Talas.

In fact, I'd even dare go so far as to say that the OTL Battle of Talas may have had nothing to do with the actual spread of papermaking to the Middle East, that the Muslims adopted the procedure from the Sogdians rather than directly from the Chinese, and that the story of the papermaking Chinese prisoners of war is a mere legend.

What's more; with a weak Persia, the Tang will expand their influence into western Central Asia just like in OTL, and if the Persians don't make a strong comeback during the 8th or 9th centuries, then Chinese influence in western Central Asia could actually last significantly longer than it did in OTL.

And that would in its turn result in more Chinese influence in the West, or at least western Asia, and it could very well affect the spread of the procedure of papermaking.

However - exactly how long the procedure of papermaking will spread to the West ITTL depends on how fast paper will be adopted by the Byzantines. ITTL, Byzantium is essentially the only 'eastern' polity that has any real influence in the West.

Hispania, though, is going to stay Arian and acknowledge the Synod of Toledo as its fount of spiritual authority, not Rome. Rome will try debate, bribery, and a variety of emotional appeals, which will all fail. The question becomes, when will Rome have the muscle to try to bring Hispania into the fold when words have failed? Perhaps this is the first crusade.

Wait, what?

Arians have never been a majority in Spain, and Arianism largely remained restricted to the Gothic ruling elite.

Even if the Gothic elite would remain Arian, which didn't happen in OTL and won't happen ITTL either (the conversion of the Visigoths happened decades before the Muslim invasion - keeping the Visigoths Arian would require a secondary POD), they'd still remain a minority ruling over a Catholic and essentially Roman majority.

You may believe that butterflies prevent Leo the Syrian (Isaurian?) from coming into existence, but I prefer to think that he or someone like him will arrive on schedule. Having demostrated his cunning and ruthlessness on the frontier against the Persians, in OTL there was nothing for it but to promote him to the capital; here, there's a much more suitable (and safer) place for the Emperor to put Leo - the surviving Exarchate of Carthage. Once he has that degree of autonomy, his iconoclastic streak comes out, and after a few years of careful preparation, his ultimatums to Byzantium predictably ignored, he declares the Exarchate sovereign and wins a war of independence. Eventually, Egypt will follow suit - it, too, is overwhelmingly iconoclastic, and now it has a sovereign iconoclastic kingdom neighboring it which may offer (sincerely or not) support in rebellion.

To my knowledge, the Iconoclast movement was largely a result of interaction with and influence from Islam, and I do not know of any iconoclastic sentiments, let alone an iconoclast controversy, among the Christians in Egypt.

With no Islam, the Turks will still migrate into Imperial territory, but now they will certainly convert to Orthodox Christianity, and attempt to assimilate into Imperial culture.

I see that you're kinda overlooking the developments in Central Asia, which is not a smart thing to do when trying to predict the migration patterns of the Turks...

ITTL it is quite likely that the Turks come under significant Nestorian influence, as Nestorianism was already fairly well established in Central Asia during the 7th and 8th centuries. And with no Islamic expansion into Central Asia (no Islam, no Samanids, et al), it is not unlikely that we'll see a number of Nestorian Turkic khanates and principalities pop up.

Exactly how successful Nestorian Christianity will be ITTL depends on the circumstances, but it certainly will be one of the major religions in Central Asia.

A successful Turkic invasion of the Middle East could still happen, though TTLs Turkic invasions will propably be very different from their OTL counterparts - and not in the least place due to the fact that the Turkic states ITTL will be very different.

For example; there is no guarantee that there will be an equivalent of the OTL Great Seljuk Empire ITTL (there's quite a difference between the occasional raid into the Khoresan, and a wholesale conquest of Persia, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant, after all), and likewise, it is extremely unlikely that something like the Battle of Mantzikert will happen ITTL, as this battle and its aftermath were the result of a very complex and peculiar set of circumstances.
 
Top