WI Islam had never existed

[Faeelin]

As to be expected whenever you live in a poor realm. A Byzantine Empire that survives in the Middle East would be much wealthier realm with larger and more well developed cities, which could easily create the kind of middle classes that pursue intellectual development. As it was, the Byzantines were quite poor. Urban centers in Anatolia and the Balkans drastically shrunk as food supplies from Syria and Egypt dried up, with Arab raids causing further economic destruction.

But we know what a Byzantine Empire possessing the wealth of Syria and Egypt could and did do, and the efflorescence we see under the Arabs is simply lacking.

As a further point, although it's about as cliche as anything else, many leading Byzantine scholars have pointed out the dearth of sources. It's possible Byzantine intellectuals came up with various concepts at similar times to their Muslim rivals, and probably received knowledge from them from the Muslims themselves at any rate.

We have plenty of Byzantine works; the idea that we're missing some corpus on the scale of the early Islamic intellectual tradition because they were all burned seems a bit farfetched.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I'd like to contribute, certainly.

Please PM me your email address to be added to the project. Any others who want to participate, do likewise!

 

[Arafeel]

I have a hard time seeing a Byzantine agricultural revolution along the lines of the Arab one.

Can i ask why?

 

[Faeelin]

Can i ask why?

A couple of reasons, which I expect pushback on, a couple which I think are hard to rebut:

1) Islam created a unified cultural sphere from India to Spain, and encouraged communication and travel across the region. Hard to see someone making the sorts of travels of OTL's Islamic merchants and explorers, unless you posit a Byzantium that reaches the Indus.

The conquest was also associated with a booming expansion of new crops; hard wheat, sorghum, sugar cane, cotton, eggplants, etc. Imagine Egypt or Sicily without these. How do you get the vitality of OTL's Islamic spain without it?

2) There's some evidence for Arabic agricultural practices diffusing throughout North Africa and Spain; how do they get there ATL? I don't want to overstate this; North Africa in OTL after all was a grain exporter in the late Roman period, but...

3) Frankly, the early islamic world appears more favorable to merchants and trade than the Byzantine state was.

 

[Widukind]

A couple of reasons, which I expect pushback on, a couple which I think are hard to rebut:

I absolutely with points 1 and 3. Especially the first point is important, although there is the fact that the Byzantines and the Sassanids had just fought each other to the breaking point. Without the Islamic conquests, how would they have developed? Their wars had damaged them both; was a period of peace, trade and internal reforms out of the question? Not entirely, I think. Empires have reformed before, bringing them back from the very brink. The fact that the Islamic conquests hit the Sassanids (and the Byzantines, for that matter) when they were weak makes it look like their decline was inevitable. I have my doubts as to that.

Nevertheless, without Islam, there would not have been, as you say, a unified cultural sphere from India to Spain. Communication and travel across the region would be reduced compared to OTL. The region would initially be less favorable to merchants and trade, sure. I just think that might change eventually, given some time.

But then there's your second point. Sure, the Islamic conquest was associated with a booming expansion of new crops. No doubt. But when you say "North Africa in OTL was a grain exporter in the late Roman period", that's a huge understatement. Egypt was the biggest exporter of argicultural produce in the region for a very long time. After the Islamic conquest? Not so much... in fact: not at all. I've been given to understand that there's evidence that the conquest destroyed irrigation networks that had served for hundreds of years, which were not restored for a very long time. Same thing in the region that's Tunesia nowadays. Used to be a major grain exporter. Vandal conquest? Didn't impair that a single bit. But when the muslims came... it just stopped. Somehow, they managed to damage the whole agricultural infrastructure. So I'll have to disagree with point 2. On the whole, Islamic conquest was not a good thing for agriculture. On the contrary.

Of course, that is relatively minor; points 1. and 3. adequately prove your point.

 

[Thoresby]

I'd heard differently for Tunisa and Egypt. Apparently one of the side effects of having North Africa politically separate from Italy and Constantinople for the first time in 700 years was that food exports went through the floor dropping food prices in North Africa and setting off a population boom, so Egypt was producing the same amount of grain but it was feeding Alexandrians rather than Romans or Constantinoplans (is that the right word).

 

[Arafeel]

1) Islam created a unified cultural sphere from India to Spain, and encouraged communication and travel across the region. Hard to see someone making the sorts of travels of OTL's Islamic merchants and explorers, unless you posit a Byzantium that reaches the Indus.

See, this looks to be a little to much deterministic for my taste. Made easier sure, but there was trade before the Arab conquest. And its not like that cultural sphere developed over night, its was quick, but still took a substantial time to develop.

There's some evidence for Arabic agricultural practices diffusing throughout North Africa and Spain; how do they get there ATL? I don't want to overstate this; North Africa in OTL after all was a grain exporter in the late Roman period, but...

I did a J-store dive on the Arab Agricultural Revolution last night, and while Watsons thesis has stood more or less unopposed since the 70`s, there has been some critique on this the last couple of years ( i can send you some articles if you want)

3) Frankly, the early islamic world appears more favorable to merchants and trade than the Byzantine state was.

I really doe not know enough about Byzantine trade policy, but would the rise of trade have to be linked to state action? Why could we not see smaller trade focused trade states or groups?

 

[LSCatilina]

I really doe not know enough about Byzantine trade policy, but would the rise of trade have to be linked to state action? Why could we not see smaller trade focused trade states or groups?

For the VI/VII centuries, the trade was already a long-range one, both in North Sea and probably as well in Mediterranea.
Turning it in a short-range trade seems hard : it's not about state action rather than market for traded goods (basic products tended to not be traded, while richer ones were favored).

 

[Arafeel]

For the VI/VII centuries, the trade was already a long-range one, both in North Sea and probably as well in Mediterranea.
Turning it in a short-range trade seems hard : it's not about state action rather than market for traded goods (basic products tended to not be traded, while richer ones were favored).

As well as there being trade in the Indian ocean and the silk road yes. But i cant really see why the growth of trade is based to the rise of the Arab state. That it easier i have no issue with, but a precondition...

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I'd heard differently for Tunisa and Egypt. Apparently one of the side effects of having North Africa politically separate from Italy and Constantinople for the first time in 700 years was that food exports went through the floor dropping food prices in North Africa and setting off a population boom, so Egypt was producing the same amount of grain but it was feeding Alexandrians rather than Romans or Constantinoplans (is that the right word).

After the 610s, grain production in Egypt collapsed, because it wasn't really necessary any more. Landowners switched to cash crops, largely flax.

 

[LSCatilina]

As well as there being trade in the Indian ocean and the silk road yes. But i cant really see why the growth of trade is based to the rise of the Arab state. That it easier i have no issue with, but a precondition...

New conquests and establishment of new states opened new markets for such products. More than new markets, it allowed the development of trade roads unused so far, as Volga.

As it was said above, the existence of a large cultural/economical ensemble going from Atlantic to Silk Road allowed it. And yes it was quick : since the beginning of VIII century, you can assume the Arabo-Islamic world is a thing.

I repeat then what I answered you, it does have nothing to do with a state action. Arabo-Muslims traders used the old roads, created such due to the appearance of new markets (the conquest feeding a gift micro-economy that provoked a market for luxury products, a bit like Carolingian conquests did)

The continuing takeover of Byzantium in Mediterranean basin, without appearance of said conditions, would lengthen this.

 

[LSCatilina]

I'd heard differently for Tunisa and Egypt. Apparently one of the side effects of having North Africa politically separate from Italy and Constantinople for the first time in 700 years was that food exports went through the floor dropping food prices in North Africa and setting off a population boom, so Egypt was producing the same amount of grain but it was feeding Alexandrians rather than Romans or Constantinoplans (is that the right word).

For Tunisia, according Abdallah Laroui, the decline of agriculture was already begun during the late Byzantine period in Africa. He doesn't point a specific reason (mentioning hinterland disorganization, possible bad climatic situation,...)
For him, Vandals, Byzantines or Omayyad controlled a coastal band, letting the inner lands more or less let to themselves.
Of course, Heraclius' blockade on Carthaginian exports had its importance to overthrow Phocas, but it shouldn't be over-estimated : other grain-producing provinces of the empire were exhausted by war and in more "normal" times, the importance of Africa should be nuanced.

Tunisia would really became a trade center anew with a strong and unifing rule, with Fatimids.

 

[Simreeve]

For Tunisia (and maybe Tripolitania, too?), I've read that agriculture was badly damaged by the actions of some nomadic Arab tribes that a Caliph sent west against a rival Mahgreb (& Spain?)-based Muslim regime some time after the initial conquest.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think you makes reference to Arab raids, supported by Fatimids in order to weaken rebellious vassals in N-W Africa?

The "Hillalian catastrophe" point of view was mainly supported from Ibn Khaldoun (that had a coastal, urban point-of-view) by french colonial power. More or less to prove that Africa could be really prosperous, but that Arabs ruined it.
Needless to say, it's caricatural.

Berber society was largely pastoral before them, and Arabs quickly integrated (the damages being limited.), progressively expanding this way of life rather than destroying the coastal infrastructures. Actually, coast remained fairly prosperous and a trade center for centuries.