Obviously a very big question, but I do think it's possible to think about the broad outlines. Would it likely have been completely christianised? Would more small local religions have survived and in bigger numbers? What about Zoroastrianism? And what would be the impact on Christendom? Does the concept of 'the West' even emerge without a contrasting religious region next to it?
What would the religious and political identities of the Middle East be like without Islam and the Arab conquests?
- Thread starter Happy Nihilist
- Start date
Furry Fractal Multitude
Banned
Complete Christianization in the Roman held regions, and some Persian held regions like Armenia and Caucasian Albania was already almost done by the time the Arab Conquests. Iraq, Kurds and the the Sassanid Iran remained Zoroastrian with various Traditional religions.
New religions could potentially rise later, without the Arab Conquests. Byzantines will indeed leave the same vacuum after the plague, Slavic expansions and the new threats by the Slavic and Avar states, even without the Arabs. This could leave it open for new religions and political movements to begin in the Levant and Egypt.
Alternatively Sassanid Persia was weakening rapidly. They would have likely collapsed sooner or later, hence replaced by a new Political and Religious movement, that could either be Turkic or Iranian, in the beginning. Most likely that Zoroastrianism would have been overshadowed and assimilated into a new movement. That leaves several possibilities for the Political and Religious makeup of the Middle East in the Modern Era.
New religions could potentially rise later, without the Arab Conquests. Byzantines will indeed leave the same vacuum after the plague, Slavic expansions and the new threats by the Slavic and Avar states, even without the Arabs. This could leave it open for new religions and political movements to begin in the Levant and Egypt.
Alternatively Sassanid Persia was weakening rapidly. They would have likely collapsed sooner or later, hence replaced by a new Political and Religious movement, that could either be Turkic or Iranian, in the beginning. Most likely that Zoroastrianism would have been overshadowed and assimilated into a new movement. That leaves several possibilities for the Political and Religious makeup of the Middle East in the Modern Era.
kholieken
Banned
ME would be heavily Christians outside Iranian plateau. Local religions likely disappear with Christianity dominate political and commercial states. Mountainous region might have their idisyncracies, but would suffer same fate as Krampus, becoming folklore no longer religion.
Zoroastrianism, if managed to survive, would be limited to Iranian plateau. Christianity would spread to Mesopotamia, Assyria, Caucasus, and Elam. Spreading among tradesmen and craftsman in cities first, then spread to country.
The West would be enlargened, covering all Christendom surrounding Medditerranean. It still would have contrasted with surrounding pagan lands, and distant civilization like India and China.
Zoroastrianism, if managed to survive, would be limited to Iranian plateau. Christianity would spread to Mesopotamia, Assyria, Caucasus, and Elam. Spreading among tradesmen and craftsman in cities first, then spread to country.
The West would be enlargened, covering all Christendom surrounding Medditerranean. It still would have contrasted with surrounding pagan lands, and distant civilization like India and China.
We are talking about almost a thousand years worth of butterfly effects from this POD so anything that could reasonably happen could happen. I can talk about some macro-scale things in certain regions but smaller things like what peoples or dynasties would rule and where are completely beyond me or anyone, really. It's all up to the writer of a timeline.
Brief declaimer though, the Turkic migrations are going to happen. Butterflying Islam away doesn't change that. A nomadic empire showing up in the region at least once is almost a certainty and can throw everything I'm about to say into chaos, especially in Persia.
A brief refresher on early Christianity because it is very important to what I have to say. Christianity was divided into five episcopal sees called the Pentarchy, the capitals being Rome, Constantinople for Eastern Rome, Alexandria for Egypt, Antioch for Syria, and of course Jerusalem. This was a resilient system and even under Islamic rule it endured, so I expect it to play a massive role in the region without Islam. These centers of Christianity will be jockeying for influence and will be trying to subordinate each other. What does this look like in practice? Lots of war and nation building. Christians in TTL may consider themselves as a sort of family, however they will see the different types of Christianity as almost as different religions. Even in OTL Christians have not hesitated to spill blood over semantic differences and it would be even worse here.
Constantinople/Rome/Byzantium: What else is there to say? The Empire of the region. The second most powerful See in Christianity, powerful enough that it could challenge the Papacy itself at times. Would be by far the most important state in the region. It also has very real institutional issues because the emperor is so powerful that regicide is very lucrative way to get the job. Plus to this is upward mobility, downside is political instability. The systematic issues the Empire suffered in OTL would be just as bad in TTL, or even worse because of the lack of the existential threat the Caliphate posed to both the State and its religion. It is the maker of history here, and what will happen to the region would be a consequence of what would happen in times when it is weak or reasserting its influence when it is strong .
Alexandria/Egypt: This is an interesting one. Alexandria is far enough away from Rome and Constantinople that it will be able to assert it's independence and this has ramifications on Egypt. Egypt had been under Greek rule for several centuries at this point and the upper class was thoroughly Hellenized. Coptic was still an important language though. I'd say there is a almost 50/50 chance that Coptic would reassert itself as the language of Egypt once more as a form of Copt reactionary movement against Constantinople, Rome, or both. The other 50% is Egypt becoming Greek. Greeks had ruled for several centuries after all, what's stopping them from ruling for several centuries more? In that case, just like how Egypt in our OTL was Arabized, in TTL would be Hellenized. I will stress this does not mean the Egyptian Identity disappears though. Egyptians could be culturally Greek, speak Greek, and still think of themselves as Egyptians first. I think it would also all but guarantee Greek would split into multiple languages, like what happened to Latin and Chinese.
Antioch/Syria: Another interesting one . Think of this one as a clash between the Hellenized Anatolian Greeks and the Semitic inhabitants of the Levant and Mesopotamia. Constantinople can assert as much authority over either region as it wants, and while some Hellenization will happen, this region will stay mostly Semitic. Over time I think kingdoms and nations could gain their independence in this region as a type of cultural backlash against Hellenization.
Jerusalem: The one everyone will be fighting over. Constantinople might try annexing it but when one of it's many civil wars happen over the regicide of the month, I think it would be tempting for Rome to try to assert its influence here. There would be a lot of pilgrims, much more than OTL. While pilgrimages are not mandated in Christianity like they are in Islam, the City of Cities being under Christian control means there would be centuries to develop a culture of pilgrimages. Jews would probably not be welcome. Christians would consider Jerusalem to be their city and would resort to violent means to keep it.
Persia: This is the real wildcard. After the Great War of 602-628 the Sassanid's were screwed. The massive political chaos that occurred is only what I could describe as the end of a dynasty. The Sasanians will not be sticking around, but who is going to replace them? It could be a cadet branch, a Persian House, or a nomadic invader. All of these are plausible, and all of these could plausibly follow after that dynasty falls. Zoroastrianism could stick around, it will need make reforms though so that it could conceivably attract and convert Christians to this Neo-Zoroastrianism. Or Iran could become Christian itself over time, with modifications made to make it attractive to Zoroastrians. This Persianate Christianity could end up pretty weird and be considered heretical by Nicaean Christianity. Buddhism was popular in Eastern Persia, perhaps it could have been spread West and Neo-Zoroastrianism is a weird syntheses of Christianity and Buddhism. I can't say much more, Persia is a blank slate.
Arabia: Goes Christian with almost 100% certainty. Even before Muhammad's time, Christianity had made it as far south as Yemen and crossed over into Abyssinia. The pagans would stick around for a couple of generations and may end up adopting some weird forms of Christianity that could stick around for a while. Arabia does lend itself well to tribalism. As for the Arab tribe's themselves, some would travel North like OTL. However they would end up assimilating into where they settle down and Arabization would be pretty minor.
Brief declaimer though, the Turkic migrations are going to happen. Butterflying Islam away doesn't change that. A nomadic empire showing up in the region at least once is almost a certainty and can throw everything I'm about to say into chaos, especially in Persia.
A brief refresher on early Christianity because it is very important to what I have to say. Christianity was divided into five episcopal sees called the Pentarchy, the capitals being Rome, Constantinople for Eastern Rome, Alexandria for Egypt, Antioch for Syria, and of course Jerusalem. This was a resilient system and even under Islamic rule it endured, so I expect it to play a massive role in the region without Islam. These centers of Christianity will be jockeying for influence and will be trying to subordinate each other. What does this look like in practice? Lots of war and nation building. Christians in TTL may consider themselves as a sort of family, however they will see the different types of Christianity as almost as different religions. Even in OTL Christians have not hesitated to spill blood over semantic differences and it would be even worse here.
Constantinople/Rome/Byzantium: What else is there to say? The Empire of the region. The second most powerful See in Christianity, powerful enough that it could challenge the Papacy itself at times. Would be by far the most important state in the region. It also has very real institutional issues because the emperor is so powerful that regicide is very lucrative way to get the job. Plus to this is upward mobility, downside is political instability. The systematic issues the Empire suffered in OTL would be just as bad in TTL, or even worse because of the lack of the existential threat the Caliphate posed to both the State and its religion. It is the maker of history here, and what will happen to the region would be a consequence of what would happen in times when it is weak or reasserting its influence when it is strong .
Alexandria/Egypt: This is an interesting one. Alexandria is far enough away from Rome and Constantinople that it will be able to assert it's independence and this has ramifications on Egypt. Egypt had been under Greek rule for several centuries at this point and the upper class was thoroughly Hellenized. Coptic was still an important language though. I'd say there is a almost 50/50 chance that Coptic would reassert itself as the language of Egypt once more as a form of Copt reactionary movement against Constantinople, Rome, or both. The other 50% is Egypt becoming Greek. Greeks had ruled for several centuries after all, what's stopping them from ruling for several centuries more? In that case, just like how Egypt in our OTL was Arabized, in TTL would be Hellenized. I will stress this does not mean the Egyptian Identity disappears though. Egyptians could be culturally Greek, speak Greek, and still think of themselves as Egyptians first. I think it would also all but guarantee Greek would split into multiple languages, like what happened to Latin and Chinese.
Antioch/Syria: Another interesting one . Think of this one as a clash between the Hellenized Anatolian Greeks and the Semitic inhabitants of the Levant and Mesopotamia. Constantinople can assert as much authority over either region as it wants, and while some Hellenization will happen, this region will stay mostly Semitic. Over time I think kingdoms and nations could gain their independence in this region as a type of cultural backlash against Hellenization.
Jerusalem: The one everyone will be fighting over. Constantinople might try annexing it but when one of it's many civil wars happen over the regicide of the month, I think it would be tempting for Rome to try to assert its influence here. There would be a lot of pilgrims, much more than OTL. While pilgrimages are not mandated in Christianity like they are in Islam, the City of Cities being under Christian control means there would be centuries to develop a culture of pilgrimages. Jews would probably not be welcome. Christians would consider Jerusalem to be their city and would resort to violent means to keep it.
Persia: This is the real wildcard. After the Great War of 602-628 the Sassanid's were screwed. The massive political chaos that occurred is only what I could describe as the end of a dynasty. The Sasanians will not be sticking around, but who is going to replace them? It could be a cadet branch, a Persian House, or a nomadic invader. All of these are plausible, and all of these could plausibly follow after that dynasty falls. Zoroastrianism could stick around, it will need make reforms though so that it could conceivably attract and convert Christians to this Neo-Zoroastrianism. Or Iran could become Christian itself over time, with modifications made to make it attractive to Zoroastrians. This Persianate Christianity could end up pretty weird and be considered heretical by Nicaean Christianity. Buddhism was popular in Eastern Persia, perhaps it could have been spread West and Neo-Zoroastrianism is a weird syntheses of Christianity and Buddhism. I can't say much more, Persia is a blank slate.
Arabia: Goes Christian with almost 100% certainty. Even before Muhammad's time, Christianity had made it as far south as Yemen and crossed over into Abyssinia. The pagans would stick around for a couple of generations and may end up adopting some weird forms of Christianity that could stick around for a while. Arabia does lend itself well to tribalism. As for the Arab tribe's themselves, some would travel North like OTL. However they would end up assimilating into where they settle down and Arabization would be pretty minor.
Last edited:
I think this is thinking too much OTL terms. The OTL concept of the papacy, with its seat in Rome, may never fully develop, and consequently there may never be a schism.
ITTL Jerusalem will most likely remain part of the East Roman Empire and the patriarch of Constantinople will have enormous prestige, being seated in the most important city in Christendom, and having jurisdiction over the holiest city (Jerusalem). The bishop of Rome may be the leading church official in the western lands, but will have a difficult time claiming to be the singular head of the church, if he even tries.
Last edited:
My view, perhaps controversial, is that Christianity was far less powerful in the Middle East than what is assumed by most people. According to what is gathered from Islamic sources, Christianity was not that powerful in Mesopotamia and Christian institutions of power had relatively minimal effect on the Arab ruling elite, whether in Syria, Egypt or in Iraq; whereas the Persianate ideals and concepts of power had enduring impacts on Islamic culture and would most notably provide the basis for the more long lasting Islamic states that emerged later in the high and late middle ages. Islamic histories mention how large numbers of 'polytheists' were forcibly converted across Iraq, especially in the south and this conforms with what we know was rapidly an Islamic majority all across the region. Manichaeism also was still very much active and important at the start of Islamic conquests and it likely expanded in the period of Sassanid turmoil as official persecution by Sassanid authorities lessened or became impossible due to lack of central governing power from Cteshipon, even in nearby areas.
In my view, the religious makeup of the region will not be determined by 'civilization' or by anything of that nature, but by numbers and by which people are the more martial. Therefore, my view is that as time moves forward, this power dynamic will most likely shift eastward, with the religious ideology and cultural identity of a Perso-Turkic migrant population, empire or group coming to increasingly dominate the region. Therefore the religion or cultural identity will be variable to a large degree on what occurs in the east. The Roman Empire will have the difficult position of maintaining its power against potential dangers.
OTL, the Roman Empire in the east seemed ill equipped for an eastern migratory threat and were instead built to resist and combat a relatively tame foe in the various iterations of Eranshahr that it faced. Eranshahr, whether Arsacid or Sassanid had a general policy in my estimation of: gather loot from the west and defend against the east. Eranshahr therefore primarily engaged in raiding expeditions, sacking cities and looting the countryside. However, Roman response to the Arabs was less than satisfactory and Arab pastoralists following the victory over Romans, came to dominate the region in terms of space and over time, marginalize the former Roman subjects and or convince those of the highest tiers of that group to convert to Islam by the Abbasid period. Roman institutions then in Anatolia appeared weak and fragile in response to an even more intense and fearsome migration of Turks into Anatolia and in a relatively short period of time, vast expanses of Anatolia, once a heartland of Christendom, were transformed into a Turkic paradise. Such an occurrence could occur without Islam and with a different religion.
In my view, the religious makeup of the region will not be determined by 'civilization' or by anything of that nature, but by numbers and by which people are the more martial. Therefore, my view is that as time moves forward, this power dynamic will most likely shift eastward, with the religious ideology and cultural identity of a Perso-Turkic migrant population, empire or group coming to increasingly dominate the region. Therefore the religion or cultural identity will be variable to a large degree on what occurs in the east. The Roman Empire will have the difficult position of maintaining its power against potential dangers.
OTL, the Roman Empire in the east seemed ill equipped for an eastern migratory threat and were instead built to resist and combat a relatively tame foe in the various iterations of Eranshahr that it faced. Eranshahr, whether Arsacid or Sassanid had a general policy in my estimation of: gather loot from the west and defend against the east. Eranshahr therefore primarily engaged in raiding expeditions, sacking cities and looting the countryside. However, Roman response to the Arabs was less than satisfactory and Arab pastoralists following the victory over Romans, came to dominate the region in terms of space and over time, marginalize the former Roman subjects and or convince those of the highest tiers of that group to convert to Islam by the Abbasid period. Roman institutions then in Anatolia appeared weak and fragile in response to an even more intense and fearsome migration of Turks into Anatolia and in a relatively short period of time, vast expanses of Anatolia, once a heartland of Christendom, were transformed into a Turkic paradise. Such an occurrence could occur without Islam and with a different religion.
The interesting question here is the split between the sees that adopt the Councils of Chalcedon and those that don't. OTL Rome and Constantinople did, and those outside of the Roman sphere largely didn't. Will Arabia become a competition between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians?
Hm. Interesting take on the religious makeup of the Middle East, on what would change and what could remain the same.
On the other hand, what about Armenia and the Caucasus, which was an early adopter of Christianity and seemed to resist Islam IOTL? I mean, following your line of thought, Armenia was probably an exception to the rule, being a Roman client and thus within the Roman sphere, resisting the Persianate ideals of the rest of the region.
Also, what would happen to the Arabs in this scenario where they somehow remain contained in their peninsula?
Furry Fractal Multitude
Banned
Interesting. So, can we say that in the long term, the religious makeup of Mesopotamia would be something like a Religion that is started by a Persian-Turkic confederation that conquers and controls the region?
But as far as Western Syria, Anatolia, Armenia, Egypt, Libya, Northwest coast of Arabia (the region where the new city called NEOM is coming up), and likely many other parts like Southern Hejaz, I don't think it would be anything but Christianity or any of its derivative, considering the possibility that there is a new Christian derived religion that gathers many converts.
Islam IS a religion derived from Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. So what we are thinking of as "Christian derived religion" will likely be an "Alt Islam".
Last edited:
Armenia is a bit unique and its adoption of Christianity was to do with the creation of a bastion against the excesses of Eranshahr, especially the Sassanid enforcement of its type of Zoroastrianism. Armenians also were a people who had a very stalwart and defensive posture towards foreigners and this would allow them to maintain distinctiveness and become too big of a pain to be forcibly cajoled into anything beyond reason until WWI.
Islam did generally dominate the Caucasian mountain ranges, both by conversion of the majority there who were pagans and by the expansion of Turkic peoples (which I do not necessarily identify Islam-Turkic as wholly the same thing in this case). Georgia maintained Christianity as it had already had this religion and sought to resist the tide of conquests on its sides, especially from the Seljuk Turks and its successors. Indeed, had the Ottomans had not existed and or not defeated the Safavids generally in geopolitical machinations, I would suspect that Shi'a Islam might have eventually been established as a firm plurality or majority in Georgia under the aegis of Georgian submission to the Safavid empire.
The Arabs are likely to expand regardless, the Sassanid are collapsing and the Eastern Roman Empire is brittle. The result may be a sort of situation like the otl Bronze Age collapse, where pastoral nomads forge new kingdoms led by tribal confederations out of the formerly powerful sedentary empires. Without the reforms and actions of Muhammad and his successors , we will not have a unified Arab push, but the pushing north of these Arab tribes will likely see some of or most of the Mid East south of the Taurus mountains captured by Arab tribal confederations.
Last edited:
Furry Fractal Multitude
Banned
Interesting. I had experimented with a possibility in the past, on a Facebook group or something.
What if, instead of the Arab tribes (who expanded from the South), there was an expansion of the Georgian tribes from the North? The Roman and the Persian Empires had collapsed due to their continuous warfare, instability, civil strife and plagues, that happened when the "Roman Warm Period" was over.
Could the Georgian Tribal confederations come up with similar religious ideas by merging their Pagan ideas with Christianity, Zoroastrianism and unlikely, Judaism (Judaism was more prevalent and stronger towards the South, ie, Arabia, while Christianity and Zoroastrianism was prevalent alongside Paganism, in the Northern part of West Asia)?
While it is too much to expect them to conquer and settle upto Spain, they might end up gobbling up and settling the lands of the Byzantines that were Greek Minority (Amida, Oshroene, Syria, Judea, Egypt and the Exarchate of Africa). The Georgians could well conquer the entire Persia as did the Arabs and push into Afghanistan, though everything beyond could depend on how well they face the Steppe warriors who were of mostly Turkic and Mongolic extraction, and were fierce fighters, with whom Georgians might not have stood a chance. That might lead to the Turk Shahi (Hindu or Buddhist Dynasty in Afghanistan) staying alive.
The Pentarchy could be successful, since Anatolia, the Levant and North Africa would all be majority Christian. I could also see other religions such as Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism becoming more widespread.
Last edited:
ok so first replies before i do my own take
depends on the pod if the sassanid byzantine war can be averted the slavic migrations are less drastic than the olt but i dont find it likely a new religion comes from levant or egypt central Asia would be a better candidate
i find quite likelier that only a dynasty changes but a new dynasty can change the views of zoroastranisim
you mean the migration of the 10th/11th century due to climate reasons? yeah but that doesn't mean they have the same success as the Seljuks did
i gotta ask which systematic issue as for religious ones the main one will continue to be the monophysite Chalcedonian split
not as likely as you think there is no great power to convert them, only the north and places like Yemen had substantial Christian populations and the north was not the strongest power by 600 ad Mohamed tribe was quite powerful and had by now dominated the trade of central Arabia pagans could stick potentially for centuries even the migrations make things go crazy
i agree with the Mesopotamian part as for institutions the Umayyads based themselves somewhat on the roman empire but then these were old roman provinces but the central buerocracy of Constantinople was never conquered and let's also remember by the time the Arabs conquered the region roman administration was bearly returning to these places after in some instances decades of Persian control still the religion in these places were majority for centuries
I agree with this as well even Buddhism would likely spread to the eastern parts of the empire
i disagree this was not the first wave of Arab migrations and the romans dealt with them since the 4th century and did fine till the 7th were a united Arab attack after a war that nearly caused the empire to collapse brought it down and even then key battles were near misses were the arabs forces nearly suffered defeats.
that was a 2+ century process tho
unlikely the Turks invaded at a time when the empire was suffering from a crisis comparable to what the empire was doing in the years prior to the crisis of the third century, inflation the weakening of the army due to economical problems, the factionalism due to the collapse of the Macedonian dynasty even after manzikert it wasn't the roman army was still there and Anatolia intact it was the following power struggle and the romans quite literally inviting the Turks, so what you are saying is plausible that a new religion forms and gains a lot of political power and expands just as the same time the roman empire is facing a massive crisis but i would say what are the odds that happens both the Islamic invasions and the Seljuk ones were extreme cases of perfect timing and circumstances
i find this more plausible yet not as much i always believe the Kickstarter for the Arab migrations without Islam would be the drought of 638 however I think the germanic kingdom WRE is more likely than the bronze age one where the Arabs would come seeking asylum as the goths did in 376, however, what I disagree is the likelihood of them conquering as much you say it's plausible yeah but the ERE is a better position than the WRE was by 400 ad even after the 602 war it still has its own Arab allies and unless a disaster like Adrianople occurs ( even then Theodosius managed to deal with that in the east and Heraclius is a much better emperor ) i find it more likely that the Arabs raid deep into the roman empire until the roman empire deals with them by offering lands and just battling, Mesopotamia seems just like much better target due to the empire falling apart and lacking the lakmid buffer.
alright here goes my views
Immediate ones:
Persia: the Sassanid empire is on its way to collapse even without the Islamic invasions the Sassanid civil war of 628-632 was Weakened by the Turkic raids and Arabic raids, the governors leaving the families hating the royal house and the shah being puppet I find it more likely a cadet branch of even one of the Parthians houses take powers but after a period of civil war not too dissimilar after the ilkhante collapsed however unlike the ilkhnate there will be no timur to unite Iran, the Iranians even under these conditions from 628 to 632 were not conquered by the Turks, in reality, the western Turkic khaganate even without Islam is already entering a period of decline
The roman empire: Call me out for my bias but I think it is very likely things will go well for rome for the most part Iran is suffering a period of instability and the avar khaganate is also suffering instability from their failed attempt at the siege of Constantinople and Samo running around, Heraclius for all his real flaws and the empire exhausted will be seen as a legendary figure so much so that his compromise of the miaphysite and Chalcedonian churches will hold as no one would really pose a challenge on neo Scipio's popularity, Heraclius would spend the rest of his rule dealing with the establishing the east and maybe dealing with some slavs in the Balkans, assuming Constans II is stillborn the empire will be in the great hands under an ok-ish soldier emperor and very competent administrator after Heraclius and its quite likely the empire starts dealing the Balkans way sooner compared to the otl
Arabia: a wave of Arab migrations still occurs my belief is that the drought of 638 would cause a dominion effect pushing tribes north as the Arabs battle each other and arrive in rome and Persia seeking asylum or invading as the invasions occur later up to a decade later than the olt IMO it would give the romans extra time to recover and deal with the Arabs migrations that would come from all around the borders not saying it would be easier to deal with them but unless something goes horribly wrong like Valens the romans could deal with this, the Persians, on the other hand, will likely not have recovered and a wave of migrations would spell disaster for Yazdagered III, it's quite likely the migrations die down at some point during the 7th or maybe last till the 8th century, Arabia would become a melting pot with Jewish, Christians and paganism which would last longer even with migrations altering the tribes.
central Asia: the lack of a caliphate most likely means tang expansion further in Transoxiana maybe as far as the Oxus river since Tibet would be the only competitor in central Asia this brings Buddhism further west and with the Sasanids being too weak to stop it and the tang being tolerant central Asia becomes a melting pot of the Zoroastrianism of the Sogdians, Buddhism, tengrisim, Manicheism and Eastern Christianity.
North Africa: Christianity continues to expand the donatist church survives for a little while longer unless more people adapt to it, the Berbers also start consolidating more as they were doing before the arrival of the caliphate this would mean new challenges and allies for the Byzantines in my timeline i took the most unlikely route and made the Berbers forger their own empire
western Europe: doesn't deal with Arabs pirates and for Italy its quite likely souther Italy gets unconquered and there is a possibility all of Italy is reconquered by the Byzantines , the Visigothic kingdom also will likely collapse
Immediate ones:
Persia: the Sassanid empire is on its way to collapse even without the Islamic invasions the Sassanid civil war of 628-632 was Weakened by the Turkic raids and Arabic raids, the governors leaving the families hating the royal house and the shah being puppet I find it more likely a cadet branch of even one of the Parthians houses take powers but after a period of civil war not too dissimilar after the ilkhante collapsed however unlike the ilkhnate there will be no timur to unite Iran, the Iranians even under these conditions from 628 to 632 were not conquered by the Turks, in reality, the western Turkic khaganate even without Islam is already entering a period of decline
The roman empire: Call me out for my bias but I think it is very likely things will go well for rome for the most part Iran is suffering a period of instability and the avar khaganate is also suffering instability from their failed attempt at the siege of Constantinople and Samo running around, Heraclius for all his real flaws and the empire exhausted will be seen as a legendary figure so much so that his compromise of the miaphysite and Chalcedonian churches will hold as no one would really pose a challenge on neo Scipio's popularity, Heraclius would spend the rest of his rule dealing with the establishing the east and maybe dealing with some slavs in the Balkans, assuming Constans II is stillborn the empire will be in the great hands under an ok-ish soldier emperor and very competent administrator after Heraclius and its quite likely the empire starts dealing the Balkans way sooner compared to the otl
Arabia: a wave of Arab migrations still occurs my belief is that the drought of 638 would cause a dominion effect pushing tribes north as the Arabs battle each other and arrive in rome and Persia seeking asylum or invading as the invasions occur later up to a decade later than the olt IMO it would give the romans extra time to recover and deal with the Arabs migrations that would come from all around the borders not saying it would be easier to deal with them but unless something goes horribly wrong like Valens the romans could deal with this, the Persians, on the other hand, will likely not have recovered and a wave of migrations would spell disaster for Yazdagered III, it's quite likely the migrations die down at some point during the 7th or maybe last till the 8th century, Arabia would become a melting pot with Jewish, Christians and paganism which would last longer even with migrations altering the tribes.
central Asia: the lack of a caliphate most likely means tang expansion further in Transoxiana maybe as far as the Oxus river since Tibet would be the only competitor in central Asia this brings Buddhism further west and with the Sasanids being too weak to stop it and the tang being tolerant central Asia becomes a melting pot of the Zoroastrianism of the Sogdians, Buddhism, tengrisim, Manicheism and Eastern Christianity.
North Africa: Christianity continues to expand the donatist church survives for a little while longer unless more people adapt to it, the Berbers also start consolidating more as they were doing before the arrival of the caliphate this would mean new challenges and allies for the Byzantines in my timeline i took the most unlikely route and made the Berbers forger their own empire
western Europe: doesn't deal with Arabs pirates and for Italy its quite likely souther Italy gets unconquered and there is a possibility all of Italy is reconquered by the Byzantines , the Visigothic kingdom also will likely collapse
So one thing to examine is what the religious identities of the region where before the Arabs. There was Christianity and Zoroastrianism, but those weren't the only religions. You have Mandaeism, Judaism, Manichaeism, the Sabians(assuming that they weren't one of the other groups), as well as people who still clung to the various polytheistic faiths. Both Judaism and Mandeaism still exist, so is likely that they would still exist without the Arab Conquests. Manicheanism did die out in the region, and of course the Sabeans are well mysterious and few know exactly what they were. There were also IIRC gnostic traditions around before the conquests as well.
One thing I wonder is what was the religious identity of the Kurds, and what would it be without Yazidism coming about?
One thing I wonder is what was the religious identity of the Kurds, and what would it be without Yazidism coming about?
Last edited:
Well if we mean the whole middle east heraclius was if some sources are to be believed gonna get rid of all Jews in Palestine but I don't think he would actually go through with his plans for this
even if he did a hadrian style genocide of the Jews in Palestine, by this point Judaism was beyond just the Levant. You had the Exilarch in Mesoptamia, the Haymont community in Ethopia, the Yemmenite Jews, and Jews in the rest of Europe.
though if there is a collapse of the Sassanians I do wonder what would happen to the Exilarch and the Jewish community there.
Originally he supposedly wanted the conversion of all the empires Jews but even Palestine would be to much imo so the worse I see it some pogroms and outlawing Jews from major cities in the holy land with the occasional masacre / forced conversion and expulsion to other provinces so we might see the birth or growth of some Jewish communities in the Mediterranean heck some Jews might so go Arabia
A looser Christendom is definitely a possibility, with Western Christendom remaining a separate backwater for a while.
For that matter, polytheism could survive in Arabia.
Jewish Persia! Jewish Persia!
It most likely does even the quarysh is defeated in the njad it could survive for centuries
If the Byzantines reconquer Italy again it's likely that western Christianity changes a lot heck a united Italy means the papacy doesn't get the freedom it got in the otl