What if Mohammed had never existed?
- Thread starter Bmao
- Start date
Maybe, but maybe not too. A strong Empire could possibly lead to an earlier revival, perhaps in the ninth or tenth century.
Straha
Banned
You also forget that no mohammed means no ottomans. Withotu the ottomans coming in and taking constantinople the byzantine scholars of that citry wouldn't all end up in Italy. Sure a byzantine *renassiancxe coudl start put it would likely be after 1700 or 1800.chunkeymonkey13q said:
Why does Constantinople have to fall? I think that an intact and powerful Empire would be just as good at eventually spreading learning than a bunch of successor states. Look at what the Byzantines accomplished in our timeline. If that wasn't stifled by defeat after defeat, they could have done much more for the world.
Straha said:
The Renaissance began in the 1300s, well before the fall of Constantinople.
You could argue that the Renaissance was inevitable following the economic revolution of the eleventh century.
The Arab/Isamic Empires of the Late 900's thru the 1500's forced a large number of tribes coming from the plains of Asia to accept Islam. Without Islam culture and Military power, would there be any Western States in Europe, because of large number of Babarian invasions. Would there be any trade with the East/China or India with Europe.
However, given the number of possible mercs to be paid off with land, I can easily see them both expanding at the expense of thier (former) overlords. The Lakminids could easily take lower Mesopotamia, while a smart Gassanid ruler can readily finess an empire from Damascus to Mecca.Imajin said:
HTG
Constantinople
Banned
Meh, Byzantium and irish monks really did save quite enough. Islam is not essential for an advanced world. The Renissance was not necessary in the Eastern Roman Empire, as they really had passed on the Dark Ages, mean the period between c. 500 and 800. No total collapse.
Constantinople said:
The Irish monks did little on the larger scale of things. They helped save some books to get stolen by the Vikings later on and the Carolingian Renaissance fell apart quickly enough. The Arabs and Byzantines did a lot more to save Greco-Roman works.
The Visigoths converted to Catholicism under King Reccared in 589, more than a century before the Muslims arrived. So, no Religion wars between Franks and Visigoths.Ruthlesstyrant said:
On the Byzantines, they had constant problems against Sassanid armies, Middle-East rebellions and Arab razzias in modern-day Jordan. Only a new "Ethernal Peace" and a new Belisarius could bring back the Byzantines to Spain, but it was very improbable. By the early 700s, the Visigoths wiped out the Byzantines even from modern day Ceuta, in North African coast.
The Visigoths had actually a good half feudal, half Roman army by the time. Their only weakeness was that the Monarchy was elective rather than hereditary. This caused many royal assassinations and civil wars, like the war between the new King Roderic and King Witiza' son Agila that started in 710. Agila was outnumbered and without external intervention he never could win the war against Roderic. He never would called for Byzantine help because there was still the rememberance of another Byzantine intervention in 552 that ended in treason and led to the Byzantine occupation of Andalusia. However, he called for another traditional mercenaries, the Franks, but Childebert III refused gold for his help and asked for the province of Septimania (modern Languedoc). Agila didn't accept.
Then Agila and the other Witizans asked for help with the third option, the Muslims, and ironically this ended with the biggest treason in Visigothic history and the anexation of the Iberian Peninsula to Ummayad Caliphate.
Without Muslims, there could not be third option, because the Berbers only would be a bunch of tiny and weak tribes. The possible consequencies are two:
1- Agila newly asks for the Franks and accepts the anexation of Septimania. However, at this time Franks were not very strong as under Clovis or Chalemagne reigns. The war would be extended for many years, devastating north-east Spain, but I think that Roderick would be emerged victorious due to geography (just see the Pyreenees + Ebro River natural double wall). However, Septimania would be annexed by the Franks anyway.
2- Agila resigns. This have two variants:
2.a. Agila is executed along his major supporters or
2.b. Agila becomes another man of Roderic's Army in his campaign against Basque rebels.
Later, it's possible that a strong King like Roderic introduced the hereditary monarchy, like King Liuvigild (569-586) was ready to do. The following is an interesting alternate Iberian Peninsula, unified and ruled by a Germanic dinasty but withouth any "Dark Age" like other Western European states. The Visigoths kept many knowledge from their Roman precessors and had great intellectuals like Isidore of Seville, for instance.
I think that this surviving Visigothic kingdom would supported Charlemagne's campaign against Lombards due to their Catholic faith, but never would be an ally of the Franks.
Sorry for possible grammatical mistakes, English is not my native language.
Tocomocho said:
Your English is impeccable. Nothing to worry about there.
Also excellent post.