WI: Arab "Genghis Khan" in the 7th century

Well, wouldn't you escape the whole caliphal succession crisis kerfuffle, with people on one side saying Ali is the rightful heir to Muhammad, others putting in support for Abu Bakr? And then you won't have people like Khawarij who don't want caliph at all and will tear the fledgling empire apart and will have to be dealt with before further expansion is possible. I'm not saying that without a religious angle to the invasions there will be no such thing as a succession crisis, but like Genghis, I think there will be enough asabiyyah among the Arabs simply by the virtue of having such strong leadership, and of course having victory after victory will be guaranteed to further fortify cohesion amongst the Arabs.

Arab empire will likely fall apart after the loss of the initial Genghis figure and become divided, and end up adopting religions like Christianity or Zoroastrianism over time, or even other choices like Manichaeanism and maybe other Gnostic religions.

The tribal clan structure of Arab society could also be a detriment to long term cohesion in an Arab empire without a unifying religion, so consider who the ruling clan is and what clans would rather break off or attain some autonomy.
 
Well, wouldn't you escape the whole caliphal succession crisis kerfuffle, with people on one side saying Ali is the rightful heir to Muhammad, others putting in support for Abu Bakr? And then you won't have people like Khawarij who don't want caliph at all and will tear the fledgling empire apart and will have to be dealt with before further expansion is possible. I'm not saying that without a religious angle to the invasions there will be no such thing as a succession crisis, but like Genghis, I think there will be enough asabiyyah among the Arabs simply by the virtue of having such strong leadership, and of course having victory after victory will be guaranteed to further fortify cohesion amongst the Arabs.

Arab empire will likely fall apart after the loss of the initial Genghis figure and become divided, and end up adopting religions like Christianity or Zoroastrianism over time, or even other choices like Manichaeanism and maybe other Gnostic religions.

The tribal clan structure of Arab society could also be a detriment to long term cohesion in an Arab empire without a unifying religion, so consider who the ruling clan is and what clans would rather break off or attain some autonomy.

There was no supporters of Ali that were vocal until the reign of Uthman ibn Affan. Abu Bakr assumed rule mostly without protest, except from Abu Sufyan. Ali ibn Talib, was a foot soldier and a young man, he was in all ways the inferior of Abu Bakr at the time of succession and by far the inferior of Umar.
 
Is it? I recall reading that Afghan devotees tended to syncretize him with Shiva.

Well the Zunbils were not synonymous with Afghanistan. They lived in Zabul and Zwambinar, both near modern Kandahar and the heartland of southern and southeastern Afghanistan. Which then, was separate from the north and central sections of Afghanistan. The north and central were clearly Buddhist and Hindu, in a traditional sense and the Zabul had a syncretic Hinduism with local traditions. The north was thus, much more similar to Kashmir than its south which had a distinct culture from its neighbors and most resembled the peoples of the Sindh or even eastern Iran.
 
So, can we go back to discussing what an Arab Empire which was closer to the Mongol Empire would look like and what it's legacy would have been?
 
There was no supporters of Ali that were vocal until the reign of Uthman ibn Affan. Abu Bakr assumed rule mostly without protest, except from Abu Sufyan. Ali ibn Talib, was a foot soldier and a young man, he was in all ways the inferior of Abu Bakr at the time of succession and by far the inferior of Umar.

I never said this was at the time, but Ali / Abu Bakr divide obviously turned into a major political divide down the line and an even greater and persisting religious divide. But that's not relevant to this thread, the point I was making was that with an Arab Genghis you avoid this sort of religious doctrinal differences stemming from political disagreements and you thus have less infighting among the Arabs. Though the more important question is how big an empire the Arabs can hold without Islam.
 
I never said this was at the time, but Ali / Abu Bakr divide obviously turned into a major political divide down the line and an even greater and persisting religious divide. But that's not relevant to this thread, the point I was making was that with an Arab Genghis you avoid this sort of religious doctrinal differences stemming from political disagreements and you thus have less infighting among the Arabs. Though the more important question is how big an empire the Arabs can hold without Islam.

I disagree, but I lack the interest to enunciate.
 
I never said this was at the time, but Ali / Abu Bakr divide obviously turned into a major political divide down the line and an even greater and persisting religious divide. But that's not relevant to this thread, the point I was making was that with an Arab Genghis you avoid this sort of religious doctrinal differences stemming from political disagreements and you thus have less infighting among the Arabs. Though the more important question is how big an empire the Arabs can hold without Islam.

Pretty big, but not for too long. Most likely, the various branches of the ruling clan of this empire end up splitting off from each other and convert to one or another religion. So we could end up with a Hasemite dynasty of Byzantine emperors, a Persianized Abbasi dynasty of shahanshahs, a Coptic line of Shaybid kings of Egypt, all descended from said Arabian conqueror.

Obviously, the title he'd take wouldn't be Khalifa. Maybe the Arab form of King of Kings or simply the Conqueror. But IDK.
 
The big difference between the Mongols and the Arab Conquests (and people have already said this) is that the Mongols did not have the population boom and subsequent demographic crisis that the Arabs had. D E M O G R A P H I C trends are a bit overrated in alternate history, but it is true that whenever the Arabs went out to conquer on the period they'd bring settlers. So there will be a degree of cultural assimilation to a united Arabdom no matter whether the tribes are united by religion or not.

That being said, maybe a way to "Temujinize" the Arab conquests is a succession war a la Ridda Wars ending inconclusively, with nobody defeated enough to be conquered by the other pretenders to the alt-Caliphate. So there's a couple of successor states, which, depending on where they are, will more or less assimilate into the dominant population - with a Syrian successor region being Romanised, an Iranian one becoming Persianate, a north Mesopotamian one being Assyrianised, etc. But I guess that's more of a diadochi thing than a Mongol thing.
 
So there will be a degree of cultural assimilation to a united Arabdom no matter whether the tribes are united by religion or not.

But it may not be as major as OTL. Yeah, they'd probably assimilate the Mesopotamians, the Syriac, and the other Semitic groups in the area, but if they conquer North Africa, it won't be Arabized to the same extent. Same goes for Khuzestan.
 
Top