WI: North Africa Without Islam
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
Snake Featherston
Banned
Differently. There may or may not be a lasting North African variant of Latin, but there certainly will be enough difference here that North Africa would not be recognizable from an OTL point of view.
Well, in a world without Islam North Africa would be very different from ours for sure. For one thing you would have a firmly Berber (and most likely Christian) Maghreb, the Punic languages most likely surviving in Tunis/Carthage and a "Coptic" Egypt.
Not an expert though, so I hope someone else develops this further.
Not an expert though, so I hope someone else develops this further.
Probably that the visigothic kingdoms or statlets (depends of the outcome of the visigothic civil wars) would increase their grasp on the coast between Tingis and Cesarea, by ruling directly the towns and leaving the rest to tributaries berbers.
Besides, with the exharchat of Carthage still existing, you'll have more connections between Italy and Africa, a lasting trade at the hands of southern italians and carthaginian merchants for all Mediterranea.
For central Maghreb, not great changes, except you'll have Christianity instead of Islam.
And for the western Mediterranea, no Islamic piracy. So probably that the coastal cities of Italy and Gaul would continue to prosper, to have a growing population until the next epidemy.
Finally, probably no slave trade from slavic countries, no Carolingian Empire (and probably not pippinid coup against Merovingians).
Besides, with the exharchat of Carthage still existing, you'll have more connections between Italy and Africa, a lasting trade at the hands of southern italians and carthaginian merchants for all Mediterranea.
For central Maghreb, not great changes, except you'll have Christianity instead of Islam.
And for the western Mediterranea, no Islamic piracy. So probably that the coastal cities of Italy and Gaul would continue to prosper, to have a growing population until the next epidemy.
Finally, probably no slave trade from slavic countries, no Carolingian Empire (and probably not pippinid coup against Merovingians).
Depends. For instance, a lot of the "Arabization" happened because of Arab tribal invasions/migrations after 1000. Because the new residents had little experience in things live maintaining a navy or agricultural irrigation, these things declined markedly in the Maghreb.
So it depends: will the Arabs still come, only they will be pagan/jewish/christian/other Arabs, or are these migrations stopped or repelled? Absent these I can definitely see a mixture of Berber and whatever Roman-Empire era population existed before settling down to become farmers in the coastal regions and herders up in the mountains.
So it depends: will the Arabs still come, only they will be pagan/jewish/christian/other Arabs, or are these migrations stopped or repelled? Absent these I can definitely see a mixture of Berber and whatever Roman-Empire era population existed before settling down to become farmers in the coastal regions and herders up in the mountains.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
African Romance doesn't go extinct. Punic takes a few centuries more before it goes extinct. I heard Judaism was pretty big among some Berber folk so there might be a little friction between the Jewish Berbers and the Christian Latinate and Punic urban folk. 
I can see North Africa as a significant region. Under Islam it was the outer periphery of a great empire, while under the Romans, it was one of the major sources of grain, along with Egypt, for the empire. That strong agricultural legacy would likely survive, and probably we could see significant trade-based empires developing, like a sort of Carthaginian-equivalent Roman successor state.
WeisSaul
Banned
Byzantium, wrought with internal corruption and outside pressure from forces such as the Sassanids, Bulgarians, and Serbians could never maintain control over much outside of Greece proper, Asia minor, Thrace, the Macedonia region, Epirus, and perhaps a few scattered Islands, ports, and territories like the Ukraine, Sicily, or Malta. As a result you'd have other, more domestic, Orthodox christian countries stretching from Sinai to Cyrenaica, and a Islam dominated Levant.
You'd probably have a stronger Coptic Egypt that would have very strong trading ties with Greece due to linguistic and lexical similarities. Egypt would likely expand pretty far south to modern Khartoum. Axum would have strong trading ties too.
With Orthodox Christianity still a stable force by the time of the OTL Crusades, they may just not happen. OTL the Byzantine emperor called for the Pope's assistance in "Christian brotherhood" in order to collectively fight the rising power of Islam that threatened Constantinople. With an Orthodox north Africa and Balkans, even with an Islamic Levant nearby, Orthodoxy could fight off Islam without Catholic help. The Crusades may just be butterflied away.
Is North Africa isn't penetrable, Islam may just move further east too...If that's possible. Before Europe arrived in the 16th century, the Indian Ocean basin was in the hands of Islam, controlled by Safavids, Mughals, Arabs, Ottomans, and the like. It never would be able to penetrate China, but India may become more Islamic, especially in more traversed regions such as around the Ganges and Sri Lanka. I think an Islam that is more aggressive in the east would lead to confrontation with the major Buddhist power: China. Especially considering China and the Islamic world both are going for Central Asia in the long run.
So in short:
Catholic/Protestant world: West Europe, Central Europe, North Europe, Iberia, North Italy, Barbary coast, Tunis, Tripolitania
Orthodox World: Greece, Asia minor, South Italy, Sicily, Cyreneica, Egypt, Sinai, Armenia, Caucases, Assyria, Balkans, Malta, Russia, Axum, Horn of Africa
Islamic World: Arabia, Mesopotamia, Levant, Iranian Plateau, North-west India, Ganges Basin, Sri Lanka, India south of Jaipur, most of Sumatra, west Java, Horn of Africa, parts of Central Asia.
Buddhist world: China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Aceh, Riau, East Java, Indochina, Siam, the rest of the east India, parts of Central Asia, Burma, north-east India.
Hindu world: Muslim parts of India, Sumatra, and Java. It will be have heavily syncretized to the point where it is monotheistic and very similar to Islam, though perhaps more spiritual and passive.
You'd probably have a stronger Coptic Egypt that would have very strong trading ties with Greece due to linguistic and lexical similarities. Egypt would likely expand pretty far south to modern Khartoum. Axum would have strong trading ties too.
With Orthodox Christianity still a stable force by the time of the OTL Crusades, they may just not happen. OTL the Byzantine emperor called for the Pope's assistance in "Christian brotherhood" in order to collectively fight the rising power of Islam that threatened Constantinople. With an Orthodox north Africa and Balkans, even with an Islamic Levant nearby, Orthodoxy could fight off Islam without Catholic help. The Crusades may just be butterflied away.
Is North Africa isn't penetrable, Islam may just move further east too...If that's possible. Before Europe arrived in the 16th century, the Indian Ocean basin was in the hands of Islam, controlled by Safavids, Mughals, Arabs, Ottomans, and the like. It never would be able to penetrate China, but India may become more Islamic, especially in more traversed regions such as around the Ganges and Sri Lanka. I think an Islam that is more aggressive in the east would lead to confrontation with the major Buddhist power: China. Especially considering China and the Islamic world both are going for Central Asia in the long run.
So in short:
Catholic/Protestant world: West Europe, Central Europe, North Europe, Iberia, North Italy, Barbary coast, Tunis, Tripolitania
Orthodox World: Greece, Asia minor, South Italy, Sicily, Cyreneica, Egypt, Sinai, Armenia, Caucases, Assyria, Balkans, Malta, Russia, Axum, Horn of Africa
Islamic World: Arabia, Mesopotamia, Levant, Iranian Plateau, North-west India, Ganges Basin, Sri Lanka, India south of Jaipur, most of Sumatra, west Java, Horn of Africa, parts of Central Asia.
Buddhist world: China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Aceh, Riau, East Java, Indochina, Siam, the rest of the east India, parts of Central Asia, Burma, north-east India.
Hindu world: Muslim parts of India, Sumatra, and Java. It will be have heavily syncretized to the point where it is monotheistic and very similar to Islam, though perhaps more spiritual and passive.
Without Islam, I wonder if the ERE would actually be able to keep ahold of Egypt and Syria. One thing that Islam did that was good for the Empire was it rid Byzantium of all the majority-heretic provinces. Egypt and Syria were full of Monophysites, who weren't especially pleased with the rest of the Empire's dislike of them.
Why not, exactly?
Certainly greater internal cohesion may have helped to some degree, but it should be remembered that the ERE was never until the very end a homogenous Greek state. It did perfectly well with substantial Monophysite and Latin minorities under Basil II, for example.
I'm not sure "perfectly" is a good exemple. I would point the Paulicianism, by exemple, as an issue for Roman power.
Having huge religious "minorities" within the empire, especially when it was a revelator for regionalist tendencies would have certainly posed an issue for the ERE, in a era where with the Persian, the epidemics and the balkanic pressure, would have posed other problems.
That said, is the issues posed by Egypt and Syrian would have been less or more important than the Arab raids and invasions up to Constantinople? Hard to say, at least for me.
The following is for if it never arisen.
I think that by the 11th century, everything west of Cyrenaica would become independent or wrested from Roman control, one way or another. Egypt and Cyrenaica, because of their strong cultural and linguistic ties with the Greek-speaking ERE, might remain under Roman rule. However, if it doesn't, Egypt could very well spread down to Khartoum as WeisSaul mentioned.
Linguistically, Vandalic would fade into non-existence, since it never really was accepted by the common populace. You'd see the African Romance language take hold west of Cyrenaica up until about modern-day Morocco, especially along the coast. Greek or Coptic in Cyrenaica and Coptic in Egypt. Berber would probably be the language of the interior of North Africa and anything west of modern-day Morocco, barring Egypt of course. Punic would become extinct very soon, by the 9th or 10th century, I'd say. Interesting to see how the African Romance language would evolve... Maybe it would look like Spanish after a while.
As for religion, I'm not sure. Perhaps the Greek Orthodox Church could have some influence, but I can see either an African Orthodox Church developing (with its liturgical language being either Latin or African Romance) or the Roman Catholic Church taking hold.
I'm interested to see Iberia's interactions with North Africa, considering their geographical proximity.
I think that by the 11th century, everything west of Cyrenaica would become independent or wrested from Roman control, one way or another. Egypt and Cyrenaica, because of their strong cultural and linguistic ties with the Greek-speaking ERE, might remain under Roman rule. However, if it doesn't, Egypt could very well spread down to Khartoum as WeisSaul mentioned.
Linguistically, Vandalic would fade into non-existence, since it never really was accepted by the common populace. You'd see the African Romance language take hold west of Cyrenaica up until about modern-day Morocco, especially along the coast. Greek or Coptic in Cyrenaica and Coptic in Egypt. Berber would probably be the language of the interior of North Africa and anything west of modern-day Morocco, barring Egypt of course. Punic would become extinct very soon, by the 9th or 10th century, I'd say. Interesting to see how the African Romance language would evolve... Maybe it would look like Spanish after a while.
As for religion, I'm not sure. Perhaps the Greek Orthodox Church could have some influence, but I can see either an African Orthodox Church developing (with its liturgical language being either Latin or African Romance) or the Roman Catholic Church taking hold.
I'm interested to see Iberia's interactions with North Africa, considering their geographical proximity.
And even for the Rif... i could see them taking the coastal cities of Mauretania directly (well, "directly", under the direction of local nobles) but for the highlands they would probably create a buffer zone thanks to western christian berber kingdoms opposed to more eastern christian berbers close to the Exarchate of Carthage.
So, in a world without a Muslim North Africa, would the Mauretania be a competitor in colonization of the New World (provided that events eventually lead to a similar discovery of the Americas around the same general time frame give or take a few hundred years)? It shares benefits with Iberia in regards to its position and its proximity to the trade winds and such.
Sub-Saharan empires like Ghana would probably be more stable; Islam/the Arab conquest was hugely destabilising, making the trans-Saharan routes more unstable and the politics of the Nigerian states more fractious.