WI: From 1000 to 1900, Screw Islam as Hard as Possible

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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
If the Turks aren't Islamized, could they reform Tengrism, or would they convert to another religion? If the latter, which one? Possibly Nestorianism or Buddhism?
 
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.
 
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.

Ah, yeah it seems to be disputed.

I've got a book which places it in 999 and Bukhara but yeah a google reveals a source that says 985 when he was in Jand.

You see the same with the bulgars and christanity, where there's multiple dates for the conversion of various leaders. I'd agree with you, the earlier one is probably the most likely, if he's alreayd living in muslim lands.
 
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.
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.
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
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.
 
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.
Same here.
 
So anyway if you want to screw islam, you either need a) people who in otl converted to islam don't (the turks and the mongols are the big ones here but also the malay and indonesians, the bengali, I think in 1000 you could probably even prevent the swahili and the sahel from converting) or b) non muslims who in otl fought the islamic powers to be more succesful (ethiopia, sudan, the byzantines, the hindu kingdoms in india, the crusaders ect.)

I think given the general importance of the turks from 1000-1900 the easiest way would be to take them off the board.
 
Last edited:
Top