WI: Islam the dominant religion of Europe by 1000 AD

How often can you categorically say 'never' in the alternate history genre?

Whenever necessary conditions which are tried over and over to be overcome are not met.

It is clear and obvious from case studies on Sassanids, Ottomans, crusaders, Umayyad, etc that a state cannot occupy or capture Constantinople without a sufficient naval presence or blockade.
 

Deleted member 67076

The 20 years's anarchy continues for a bit longer, allowing Constantinople to fall in the 718 siege, and the Ummayads are able to sweep up Anatolia as their last gasp of power before the Abbasid revolution. Yet in doing so, Arab settlement is allowed to gain a foothold in both Anatolia and Thrace. Once the Abbasids are in power, raiding then transfers over not towards Anatolia, but towards the Balkans and Italy, crushing resistance from the comparatively weak Slavs and Italians.

With a large Muslim presence in the Balkans, the Bulgars convert to Islam instead of Christianity, and the knock off effects lead into Russia, the Ukraine and parts Hungary.

Post Abbasid Dynasties (or really strong governors), with their more local focus, continue the string of conquests in Italy, turning the Mediterranean into a Muslim Lake. By 875 or so, everything south of the Po and east of the Carpathians should be nominally Muslim and steadily converting, with Francia being the last major Christian stronghold.

That should get you Islam as the Dominant religion once Francia's feudal tendencies cause it to drift apart.
 
The 20 years's anarchy continues for a bit longer, allowing Constantinople to fall in the 718 siege, and the Ummayads are able to sweep up Anatolia as their last gasp of power before the Abbasid revolution. Yet in doing so, Arab settlement is allowed to gain a foothold in both Anatolia and Thrace. Once the Abbasids are in power, raiding then transfers over not towards Anatolia, but towards the Balkans and Italy, crushing resistance from the comparatively weak Slavs and Italians.

With a large Muslim presence in the Balkans, the Bulgars convert to Islam instead of Christianity, and the knock off effects lead into Russia, the Ukraine and parts Hungary.

Post Abbasid Dynasties (or really strong governors), with their more local focus, continue the string of conquests in Italy, turning the Mediterranean into a Muslim Lake. By 875 or so, everything south of the Po and east of the Carpathians should be nominally Muslim and steadily converting, with Francia being the last major Christian stronghold.

That should get you Islam as the Dominant religion once Francia's feudal tendencies cause it to drift apart.

The only issue I have with this is that it essentially happened, with the Uqaylids taking much of Anatolia and the islands leading up to Constantinople. Further, the Umayyads launched invasions into
Greece and Italy to engage the Byzantines.

In all honesty, the Umayyads did all they could and if allowed to continually invade unhinged, could've broken the Byzantine shell, but at what cost? An even more brutal rebellion than the one amongst the Khawarij? Despite the view of Umayyad writers putting significance on the capture of al-Rum, it in my opinion would not necessarily prolong this state not give credence to their legitimacy.

Also, I seriously doubt the conversion of the Balkans, for reasons I have expressed elsewhere into the lack of conversion outside of the Khilafah until at least the faltering of the Abbasid. More than likely any Balkan people's are strengthened in their religion especially as it is far from Dimshaq and also it's relative importance being liquidated into a territorial state on the outer fringes of a greater Arab state.

Also do not forget that the Umayyads are not free to prosecute wars constantly and forever and that it also is fighting the Khazars and another half of its forces invested into fighting Iranian rebels and invading into Hindustan, Bactria and Central Asia. It is not as if Umayyads are only interested in Europe, internal factions in the Umayyad state require invasion in all directions, gaining slaves from Africa, Hindustan, etc, defending from various avenues of invasions from different states such as the tenants of the Hepthalites, Gokturks, Khazars, Zunbil, etc...
 
The Also, I seriously doubt the conversion of the Balkans, for reasons I have expressed elsewhere into the lack of conversion outside of the Khilafah until at least the faltering of the Abbasid. More than likely any Balkan people's are strengthened in their religion especially as it is far from Dimshaq and also it's relative importance being liquidated into a territorial state on the outer fringes of a greater Arab state.

Also do not forget that the Umayyads are not free to prosecute wars constantly and forever and that it also is fighting the Khazars and another half of its forces invested into fighting Iranian rebels and invading into Hindustan, Bactria and Central Asia. It is not as if Umayyads are only interested in Europe, internal factions in the Umayyad state require invasion in all directions, gaining slaves from Africa, Hindustan, etc, defending from various avenues of invasions from different states such as the tenants of the Hepthalites, Gokturks, Khazars, Zunbil, etc...

I hear a lot of what you're saying, but I don't see how replacing the Byzantine state with at best warlord states of Greek soldiers, who lack a centralized government, would: a) strengthen Christianity in the Balkans; or b) be more difficult than opposing an actual Byzantine state along the border.
 

Deleted member 67076

The only issue I have with this is that it essentially happened, with the Uqaylids taking much of Anatolia and the islands leading up to Constantinople. Further, the Umayyads launched invasions into
Greece and Italy to engage the Byzantines.

In all honesty, the Umayyads did all they could and if allowed to continually invade unhinged, could've broken the Byzantine shell, but at what cost? An even more brutal rebellion than the one amongst the Khawarij? Despite the view of Umayyad writers putting significance on the capture of al-Rum, it in my opinion would not necessarily prolong this state not give credence to their legitimacy.

Also, I seriously doubt the conversion of the Balkans, for reasons I have expressed elsewhere into the lack of conversion outside of the Khilafah until at least the faltering of the Abbasid. More than likely any Balkan people's are strengthened in their religion especially as it is far from Dimshaq and also it's relative importance being liquidated into a territorial state on the outer fringes of a greater Arab state.

Also do not forget that the Umayyads are not free to prosecute wars constantly and forever and that it also is fighting the Khazars and another half of its forces invested into fighting Iranian rebels and invading into Hindustan, Bactria and Central Asia. It is not as if Umayyads are only interested in Europe, internal factions in the Umayyad state require invasion in all directions, gaining slaves from Africa, Hindustan, etc, defending from various avenues of invasions from different states such as the tenants of the Hepthalites, Gokturks, Khazars, Zunbil, etc...
Hence why my main point is increased Byzantine internal conflict, which the possibilities were endless at the time. Another civil war, another shuffling of troops around, use of foreign armies that wreck havoc in Anatolia, etc, all these things tip the scales just a little bit more to the breaking point. Besides, once Constantinople is taken, the head of the government is decapitated, and all that will be left are theme army remnants in Anatolia led by unprofessional troops- no better than brigands at this point. This can be mopped up in a decade at the most so long as the new government introduces stability.

I don't think it will make the Ummayads last longer- far from it. I think a rebellion would be likely. I do think however, when the next state arises seeking to reunify the Caliphate it will take the borders of the Acheamenid empire, going after the wealthy cores of Anatolia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt (and of course Thrace). And without the skilled leadership or finances available to the Roman government, any rebellion will be far weaker than a standard war between the Byzantines and the Ummayads.

Now I didn't mean willing conversion in the Balkans by the tribes there, I meant that with the raids against the Empire no longer needed, the Caliphate would shift its raids towards the Balkan cities, in effect leading to conquest of the Balkans (which I believe would be rather easy, given there's no state there with the numbers or organizational capacity to resist). If not the Caliphate as we know it, it will almost certainly occur with one of the post Caliphate dynastic states. Henceforth, this new Persian state would basically complete the conquest of Greece that Darius failed centuries ago. :p

The splinter remnants of the Ummayads in North Africa will almost certainly try to move up north into Italy, which I think they can do incrementally.
 
Eventually in Soverihn's system you might get nomadic groups like the Avars and Magyars converting to Islam rather than Christianity, continuing the knock-on effect and spreading the religion further and further.

Total domination of Europe by Islam seems difficult, but you could definitely change the dynamics enormously.
 
I hear a lot of what you're saying, but I don't see how replacing the Byzantine state with at best warlord states of Greek soldiers, who lack a centralized government, would: a) strengthen Christianity in the Balkans; or b) be more difficult than opposing an actual Byzantine state along the border.

Perhaps not. I would need to think it over slightly.
 
Hence why my main point is increased Byzantine internal conflict, which the possibilities were endless at the time. Another civil war, another shuffling of troops around, use of foreign armies that wreck havoc in Anatolia, etc, all these things tip the scales just a little bit more to the breaking point. Besides, once Constantinople is taken, the head of the government is decapitated, and all that will be left are theme army remnants in Anatolia led by unprofessional troops- no better than brigands at this point. This can be mopped up in a decade at the most so long as the new government introduces stability.

I don't think it will make the Ummayads last longer- far from it. I think a rebellion would be likely. I do think however, when the next state arises seeking to reunify the Caliphate it will take the borders of the Acheamenid empire, going after the wealthy cores of Anatolia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt (and of course Thrace). And without the skilled leadership or finances available to the Roman government, any rebellion will be far weaker than a standard war between the Byzantines and the Ummayads.

Now I didn't mean willing conversion in the Balkans by the tribes there, I meant that with the raids against the Empire no longer needed, the Caliphate would shift its raids towards the Balkan cities, in effect leading to conquest of the Balkans (which I believe would be rather easy, given there's no state there with the numbers or organizational capacity to resist). If not the Caliphate as we know it, it will almost certainly occur with one of the post Caliphate dynastic states. Henceforth, this new Persian state would basically complete the conquest of Greece that Darius failed centuries ago. :p

The splinter remnants of the Ummayads in North Africa will almost certainly try to move up north into Italy, which I think they can do incrementally.

Yes it would divert its raids. But to what avail? The Umayyad shifted the Rashidun raids and it did not give any relief in converting those areas.
 

Deleted member 67076

Yes it would divert its raids. But to what avail? The Umayyad shifted the Rashidun raids and it did not give any relief in converting those areas.
Quite a lot I would believe, mainly because of extensive military superiority in the Balkans in comparison to the vastly organized Slavic proto-states. The only real threat is the Bulgar's and even then they would be drastically dwarfed by the Caliphates resources.

I just don't think the Balkans would be hard to hold down at this time period, and the fertile yet comparatively empty lands will make settlement attractive to Caliphate soldiers (when the garisson cities aren't enough).

And also, a few more raids could be shifted towards the wealth of Italy, granting a small foothold in that region.
 
Quite a lot I would believe, mainly because of extensive military superiority in the Balkans in comparison to the vastly organized Slavic proto-states. The only real threat is the Bulgar's and even then they would be drastically dwarfed by the Caliphates resources.

I just don't think the Balkans would be hard to hold down at this time period, and the fertile yet comparatively empty lands will make settlement attractive to Caliphate soldiers (when the garisson cities aren't enough).

And also, a few more raids could be shifted towards the wealth of Italy, granting a small foothold in that region.

Raids already existed against Italy during the Rashidun and Abbasid period.

The Umayyads again do not have therefore to prosecute war indefinitely whilst also warring across the entire classical world in every direction. I think you are overestimating their power.
 

Deleted member 67076

Raids already existed against Italy during the Rashidun and Abbasid period.
Sure, and with the Byzantine fleet wiped out and unable to be rebuilt it would be quite a bit easier to launch raids and obtain territory.

The Umayyads again do not have therefore to prosecute war indefinitely whilst also warring across the entire classical world in every direction. I think you are overestimating their power.
Perhaps, but I believe things are not that difficult for the Ummayads (or any succesor state) to expand a bit more with their chief rival removed from power.

I do think any lasting presence in Europe would be done more by the next big dynasty as overextension would weigh in even harder following the conquest of Anatolia. After the inevitable collapse and replacement, as I said above, if we get a new state which takes up mor or less the borders of Darius The Great's empire, a conquest of the Balkans and maybe Magna Graecia is in the cards.
 
Umayyads Victory in Battle of Tours and Siege of Constantinople.

How would that give them a victory over the Khazar which was then compounded with structural issues in terms of its rule over al-Andalus, Maghreb, Iraq, Iran and a growing Tang menace to the east. The Umayyads regardless of victory at Tours or Constantinople, will have to face the chopping block against its internal contradictions.
 

Towelie

Banned
If the Umayyads were perhaps more accepting of non-Arab Muslim converts and encouraged more of them to partake in the constant external invasions, would that perhaps be a tipping point towards defeating the Byzantines?

Al-Andalus probably lacked the ability to carry their rule into most of Gaul, and their hold on Septimania was weak enough as it is.

But if there were more non-Arabs participating in the external actions in Central Asia and Bactria, they would perhaps not have allowed the Abbasid revolution to occur. The Abbasid revolution festered in the anger of non-Arabs at discriminatory treatment they were recieving, as well as the fact that Sunnis and Shiites in Persia were able to put their differences aside to unite to take down Damascus. The revolution got its start in Persia and grew from there. Having more troops there of various backgrounds without discriminatory policies would help prevent this.

The Umayyads were dead set on external conquest. The Abbasids reined things back and tried to centralize and control the disparate Arabic tribes who had sprung forth as conquerors and gradually became dependent on Central Asian slave armies who proved to be their downfall.

A longer Umayyad reign takes more advantage of the weakness of Europe and leads to more steady conquests. It is possible that the Umayyads reached the point of diminishing returns for further offensive action by 750 AD. I don't particularly think so. The Caucasus and the plains of Russia were fertile grounds for conquest and conversion of the pagans, who took quite quickly to organized religion OTL through the actions of Basil. Sicily and Southern Italy were raided and controlled for brief periods by Muslim armies. Perhaps things could have been more securely locked down as Muslim. West Africa was a ripe target. The Umayyads would not have tried to stymie the Arab warrior class, and more conquests would have followed.
 
When we say "dominant religion," do we mean the religion of the majority of the people, or just of the ruling classes? I ask because IOTL, much of today's Arab world was still not Muslim-majority in the year 1000. (Egypt, for example, is thought to have only become Muslim-majority a couple of centuries later.)
 
Umayyads Won Battle of Tours and Constantinople or Ottomans Won Siege of Vienna.

World would be much more Advanced, if this Happened because Dark Ages would ended sooner and Golden Age of Islam would Survive longer.
 
Top