From 1000 AD to 1900, screw Islam as hard as possible. Bonus points if neither Mecca or Medina are majority-Muslim communities by 1900 AD.
Last edited:
Great Idea with the Mongols, but weren't the Turks already Muslim by 1000? if that's true, you'd need them to convert away from Islam, which would be quite interesting.Avoid both the turks and the mongols converting to islam. That would do it. You'd need a pretty solid reason for it, some reason why they'd be hostile to islam rather than receptive to it but the main reason for islam's success was when they were conquered by non muslims the pagans converted rather than the conquered.
Great Idea with the Mongols, but weren't the Turks already Muslim by 1000? if that's true, you'd need them to convert away from Islam, which would be quite interesting.
Thanks.I think Seljuk Bey only became a muslim in 999-1000 and then that spread through the other seljuk turks. If he dies in 1000 and an anti islamic turk takes over, you can avoid the islamisation of the turks.
I think Seljuk Bey only became a muslim in 999-1000 and then that spread through the other seljuk turks. If he dies in 1000 and an anti islamic turk takes over, you can avoid the islamisation of the turks.
Just, checking wikipedia, and the date seems to be 985 for Seljuk's conversion, but this is still many decades before the Seljuks became the dominant Turkish tribe. So, probably be the POD could be a different Turkish tribe (which is not Muslim) coming to predominance instead of the Seljuks.
Another Heraclius perhaps? Heraclius never gets enough love.Basil II fathering a hypercompetent heir who proceeds to curb stomp the Muslim powers.
What about a Basil II?I found Heraclius a bit overrated.Another Heraclius perhaps? Heraclius never gets enough love.
Heraclius does not get attention because of the calamity that happened post the wars. His achievement in winning is unlike anyone else's. Basil was never even close.What about a Basil II?I found Heraclius a bit overrated.
He also lost big time.If he didn't blunder some of the battles during parts of the war with Persia(which he personally commanded),Levant and Egypt most likely wouldn't be overrun to begin with.Regardless he did outnumber the Arabs drastically to begin with.His rebellion also probably aided the Persians.Heraclius does not get attention because of the calamity that happened post the wars. His achievement in winning is unlike anyone else's. Basil was never even close.
Was Heraclius even in actual battles by then? For some reason the Byzantines did not react to the initial incursions by the Arabs. Why did he not respond? Were the armies not in any fit position to mobilise at will? I could not find any information (at least not in Heraclius Emperor of Rome by Kaegi) when I searched. At Yarmuk he was not present himself and the defeat seems to have crushed him.He also lost big time.If he didn't blunder some of the battles during parts of the war with Persia(which he personally commanded),Levant and Egypt most likely wouldn't be overrun to begin with.Regardless he did outnumber the Arabs drastically to begin with.His rebellion also probably aided the Persians.
He was in direct command of the Battle of Antioch with the Persians,which he lost.He also appointed the commanders who fought at Yarmouk.My opinion of him is that he is capable of doing brilliant things but at the same time,he is also capable of fucking up in the worst possible way.This is why I think he's overrated.Was Heraclius even in actual battles by then? For some reason the Byzantines did not react to the initial incursions by the Arabs. Why did he not respond? Were the armies not in any fit position to mobilise at will? I could not find any information (at least not in Heraclius Emperor of Rome by Kaegi) when I searched. At Yarmuk he was not present himself and the defeat seems to have crushed him.
When he took charge almost all of the empire was gone. To be able to build a capable force to fight a defensive war and then take it to the enemy indicates great skill on part of Heraclius and/or ineptness on part of Khusrau and company.
Arabs managing to utterly ruin the Persianss baffles my mind. Reading this time period of history, I find it hard to reconcile the strength of an empire and then the catastrophic losses that followed. Looks like I tend to think of old empires as too capable of holding peripheral areas.
Do you know of any sources that go into detail about the battles themselves? I never find any good books (that do not put a very big hole in my pocket) that gives details about any of these wars that the Romans fought. The short accounts give an impression that the difference between hyper-competence and uselessness is of two or three pages. Very jarring.He was in direct command of the Battle of Antioch with the Persians,which he lost.He also appointed the commanders who fought at Yarmouk.My opinion of him is that he is capable of doing brilliant things but at the same time,he is also capable of fucking up in the worst possible way.This is why I think he's overrated.
Same here.Do you know of any sources that go into detail about the battles themselves? I never find any good books (that do not put a very big hole in my pocket) that gives details about any of these wars that the Romans fought. The short accounts give an impression that the difference between hyper-competence and uselessness is of two or three pages. Very jarring.
A pragmatic ruler with thoughts about the future and reform would be necessary. Pure military force would be necessary to punch the current muslin topdog.