WI Islam had never existed
- Thread starter LNSS
- Start date
With such PoD, virtually anything about European and Mediterranean history would be butterflied.
Islam and Islamic conquest was kind of THE event of Middle Ages.
The immediate consequences (up to the VIII century) would be :
-Persia : Muslim conquest of the Sassanid Empire was really helped by a constant infighting or even civil war. Granted, they could likely recover from it, but I don't think they'll be able to launch a war as they did under Khorso II (that admittedly was the first reason of the decline of Sassanid in first place)
-Arabia : Even without Islam and OTL conquest motivation, Arabs are a potential threat. Neighboring provinces are still under-protected and likely to be raided.
Of course, without politically united Arabia, it's likely their neighbors would split it under spheres of influences as OTL, but with a likely continued Sassanid and Aksumite decline, you'll have eventually a regional domination of indigenous Arabs.
-ERE : While its control on Egypt and Syria was loose, I don't think that the provinces would pose much trouble if emperors continue a tolerant (genuine or not) policy regarding religion. But in the likely case of emperor being more rigorist or more struggling in the N-E of their empire for imposing their religious views...
Finally, it won't change many things about Italy or Western European possessions : Italy was quite troubled even before Lombards and theses are likely to hold firmly their new lands, but not to take more on South (and with Benevento being most likely taken back)
The same for Spania.
Agruably, these gains were partially due to the long lasting Persian War, but the ERE is in the VII exhausted as well and can't really do a counter-attack.
But I think the Byzantines possessions in western Mediterranean would keep being autonomous from Constantinople as they were.
Except that, and possible Arab raids, it's likely that the Empire would face Balkanic and Slavic invasions better than OTL
-Visigoths : As OTL most likely, they would ascend in civil war up to the end of VII century. Eventually a pretender more powerful would emerge, and the kingdom would keep its traditional sphere : Hispania, Western North Africa. Speaking of which...
-North Africa : Mostly Byzantine held, with Berber Kingdoms that slowly Christianize Visigoths and Byzantines. A great asset for Byzantines in their control of Mediterranean Basin.
-Francia : Without Islamic invasion of Spain, it's likely Aquitaine would survive (its existence being based on balance with Visigothic Spain, Wasconia and Francia). It wouldn't prevent the Frankish conquest of Frisia, Saxony or even Avars, that were largely independent of the Islamic threat southwards.
-Christianism : without Islam, without the fall of Visigothic Spain, and with Byzance strong enough to keep the Lombards in Northern Italy : it's likely the popes wouldn't have to call Franks to help against these latters.
While keeping an important influential role in the western Christianity (that was quite different from Greek rites already), the church would certainly be more "national" as OTL (aka, ruled by local clergy under royal guidance).
Something like autocephalous patriarchates, without partiarchs.
Islam and Islamic conquest was kind of THE event of Middle Ages.
The immediate consequences (up to the VIII century) would be :
-Persia : Muslim conquest of the Sassanid Empire was really helped by a constant infighting or even civil war. Granted, they could likely recover from it, but I don't think they'll be able to launch a war as they did under Khorso II (that admittedly was the first reason of the decline of Sassanid in first place)
-Arabia : Even without Islam and OTL conquest motivation, Arabs are a potential threat. Neighboring provinces are still under-protected and likely to be raided.
Of course, without politically united Arabia, it's likely their neighbors would split it under spheres of influences as OTL, but with a likely continued Sassanid and Aksumite decline, you'll have eventually a regional domination of indigenous Arabs.
-ERE : While its control on Egypt and Syria was loose, I don't think that the provinces would pose much trouble if emperors continue a tolerant (genuine or not) policy regarding religion. But in the likely case of emperor being more rigorist or more struggling in the N-E of their empire for imposing their religious views...
Finally, it won't change many things about Italy or Western European possessions : Italy was quite troubled even before Lombards and theses are likely to hold firmly their new lands, but not to take more on South (and with Benevento being most likely taken back)
The same for Spania.
Agruably, these gains were partially due to the long lasting Persian War, but the ERE is in the VII exhausted as well and can't really do a counter-attack.
But I think the Byzantines possessions in western Mediterranean would keep being autonomous from Constantinople as they were.
Except that, and possible Arab raids, it's likely that the Empire would face Balkanic and Slavic invasions better than OTL
-Visigoths : As OTL most likely, they would ascend in civil war up to the end of VII century. Eventually a pretender more powerful would emerge, and the kingdom would keep its traditional sphere : Hispania, Western North Africa. Speaking of which...
-North Africa : Mostly Byzantine held, with Berber Kingdoms that slowly Christianize Visigoths and Byzantines. A great asset for Byzantines in their control of Mediterranean Basin.
-Francia : Without Islamic invasion of Spain, it's likely Aquitaine would survive (its existence being based on balance with Visigothic Spain, Wasconia and Francia). It wouldn't prevent the Frankish conquest of Frisia, Saxony or even Avars, that were largely independent of the Islamic threat southwards.
-Christianism : without Islam, without the fall of Visigothic Spain, and with Byzance strong enough to keep the Lombards in Northern Italy : it's likely the popes wouldn't have to call Franks to help against these latters.
While keeping an important influential role in the western Christianity (that was quite different from Greek rites already), the church would certainly be more "national" as OTL (aka, ruled by local clergy under royal guidance).
Something like autocephalous patriarchates, without partiarchs.
And most empires come to and end, sooner or latter. This is that kind of bad.
Most likely scenario regarding Persia. Though I wonder what the new Dynasty would look like. What religion would become the dominant one in this ancient Empire? I ask because I remember reading that Zoroastrianism was essentially dying out in Persia at this point. So would we see Zoroastrianism undergo a revival, would we the possibility of a Christian Persia or an unknown third option?
Spikey Wikey
Banned
Christian Persia was kind of impossible with the presence of Strong ERE, I'm affraid. Persia will undergo either Zoroastrian revival or gradual conversion into Buddhism.
Most probably what was already growing up and influenced Islam OTL : a religious syncretism mixing judeo-christian and local rites. There would likely emerges as another heterodox oriental church.
Don't forget that Nestorian Christianism was relatively strong in Persia, despite persecutions : while not the most probable event, a Nestorian Persia does have more chances to happen than Buddhism that didn't have roots there OTL.
In such a TL, the relationchip between, let's say, Southern France and North Africa would be much closer than the one that existed OTL after the islamic conquest of North Africa and Spain. Instead of Muslim raids in Southern France, you'd have ongoing trade in the Mediterranean sea.
Culturally, North Africa and Southern Europe would be much closer than IOTL. IOTL they have many similarities, but the religious ddivide was important, and you didn't have muslims trading in Southern France, for instance. But you could have Cartagians traders in that region IOTL, and Syrians freely traveling as far as Ireland, for example.
Christianity as a civilization would still have its center in the Mediterranean sea, not in Northern France, Belgium, the Netherland and the Rhinland.
Culturally, North Africa and Southern Europe would be much closer than IOTL. IOTL they have many similarities, but the religious ddivide was important, and you didn't have muslims trading in Southern France, for instance. But you could have Cartagians traders in that region IOTL, and Syrians freely traveling as far as Ireland, for example.
Christianity as a civilization would still have its center in the Mediterranean sea, not in Northern France, Belgium, the Netherland and the Rhinland.
That is a rather misconception. The majority of Assyrians, who formed the majority of a wealthy border province of the Sassanid Empire were Nestorians, but they were mostly tenet farmers in Iran's own brand of feudalism. There were Iranian Nestorians but not to an extent of a large minority. Though, many of the traders who traded with India for the Sassanids were Assyrian Nestorians. We also see a notable split in the Church of the East by the time of the fall of the Sassanid Empire where the Persian and Pahlavhi speaking eastern Metropolians/Diocese (centered in Rev Aradishir) had more or less seceded from control of the Syriaic Church of the East Patriarch in Selucia-Ctesphion (which included the Indian settlements).
The decline of Mediterranean trade predates the Islamic invasions of North Africa and Spain : it seems that byzantine gold, by exemple, stopped to come in Francia from the beggining of VII century.
While raids were destructive, they were more terrestrial than maritime before the IX century.
Without Islamic invasions, you could even have a more continuing decline of trade in Western Mediterranea (the only fleet worth of mention being the visigothic)
Yes, you had, since the VIII century.
You have early Carolingian testimony of Muslims traders in Maguelonne at the very end of the said century.
Without talking, of course, of the slave trade from North-East Carolingia towards Al-Andalus.
And that's for the earliest period : you can find arab graves in medieval harbours of Northern Mediterranean basin.
It's actually the Byzantine takeover of the Mediterranean trade that diminished the links between North Africa and Western Europe, and arguably, Islamic conquests opened it anew.
Of course, this trade is essentially a Muslim one, and European traders could really emerge in the long-range trade only from the late X century.
But it wasn't much different from Punic, Greek or Byzantine trade in this regard.
I'm not that sure.
1) Christianity isn't a civilization, but managed to adapt itself to these (allowing it to not only survives, but grows).
Western Christianity, fore aforementioned reasons, can even being less focused on his southern part and I even wonder if it could emerges : OTL, Western Christianity seen as a body was essentially a Carolingian-issued concept. Before them, culturally at least, Christian realms were more distincts.
2) The economical expansion and therefore political, social, etc, of northern Europe had already began since the VIII century : long-range trade, more carrying vessels, appearance of maritime powers (Frisia, Norse petty-kingdoms,...).
Being prosperous, but less organised, it was a matter of time before they were being absorbed one way or another by their neighbor.
3) It would maybe more accurate regarding Eastern Christianity, tough. Roads such as Black Sea/Baltic seems to have been greatly influenced by Muslims realms (the number of Abassids coins in Russia is really impressive)
I found a little schema that, while really summarizing the situation, is a good explanation of what happened.
Critically, I'm not really convinced by the explanation of Carolingian fall or Vikings raids being due only due to monetary feature. It can be a partial explanation, tough.
Be careful then, the whole "Trade with Franks trough Baltic" seems an over-simplification. It was more trade with Scandinavians than anything else, the trade with Muslims being more present in western Atlantic and Mediterranea.
(Carolingian silver coins value quite follows andalusian coins, by exemple)
While the vikings raids could have been partially caused by this monetary failure, Carolingians crushing Frisia, the continual infighting in England, threat of frankish expansionism (critically with the political and trade monopolisation of western slavic peoples)
Carolingian collapse as well, can have many reasons critically when monetarisation was quite low and more used in a gift-based microeconomy outside the trade (that seems to have still be dominated in Mediterranea by Jews or oriental traders)
The website I taken this schema from makes some good points, but have a tendency to over-generalize them.
Still, regarding Mediterranean trade, and the North/South relations, it's fairly good, if forget the dialectic tendency of events to feed themselves (by exemple, less trade, decline of Carolingia, less conquests, less slaves, less trade, etc.)
Too much wank and space-filling to be plausible, I think.
Also convergent borders with names and nations that would be likely butterflied.