WI the First Crusade failed and Islam took over most of the world?

Would the United States exist?

Is there a realistic way for the civil rights movements to gain traction in this ATL with Islam in the middle east and most of Europe?

Would Russia be likely to fend off an invasion from a middle east that has most of Europe annexed?
 
Would the United States exist?

Is there a realistic way for the civil rights movements to gain traction in this ATL with Islam in the middle east and most of Europe?

Would Russia be likely to fend off an invasion from a middle east that has most of Europe annexed?

1. Why couldn't it? It's just a collection of European colonies united into one state. Maybe it's called Al-Wilayat al-Muttahida instead.

2. Why couldn't it? Islamic holy texts say one thing, the people who follow it believe something else. The Bible supports all sorts of nasty stuff, didn't stop civil rights from emerging in the Christian-dominated West, in some cases led by Christian ministers.

3. Why couldn't it? Russia's biggest threat at this point is invasion from the steppes, not from anywhere else.

Please explain more, because nothing in it seems to follow from "First Crusade fails".
 
How the hell does a failure to take Jerusalem lead to the ENTIRETY OF EUROPE getting conquered?
That would take centuries, and would need a PoD much further back.
 
As others have said, this escalated super quickly...

There is no link between the first crusade succeeding and keeping Europe Christian. I'm presuming this is a coincidence, but that sounds more like an "alt-right" reading of history or that whatever source gave you that idea is certainly suspect.
 
1. Why couldn't it? It's just a collection of European colonies united into one state. Maybe it's called Al-Wilayat al-Muttahida instead.

2. Why couldn't it? Islamic holy texts say one thing, the people who follow it believe something else. The Bible supports all sorts of nasty stuff, didn't stop civil rights from emerging in the Christian-dominated West, in some cases led by Christian ministers.

3. Why couldn't it? Russia's biggest threat at this point is invasion from the steppes, not from anywhere else.

Please explain more, because nothing in it seems to follow from "First Crusade fails".
It could exist but is less likely, you can´t just say civil rights or the US happened despite the religions that were present, those influenced all the history surrounding it and if anything I´d say the US are pretty much butterflied away into oblivion, civil rights less so.
 
As others have said, this escalated super quickly...

There is no link between the first crusade succeeding and keeping Europe Christian. I'm presuming this is a coincidence, but that sounds more like an "alt-right" reading of history or that whatever source gave you that idea is certainly suspect.
Not all of Europe, but having Anatolia fell 3 centuries earlier and during the Golden Age of Islam is going to have massive effects, while the Islamic dominion over Sicily fell and Castille-Leon took Toledo there is still enough room to have quite a share of Europe under Islamic dominion.
 
It could exist but is less likely, you can´t just say civil rights or the US happened despite the religions that were present, those influenced all the history surrounding it and if anything I´d say the US are pretty much butterflied away into oblivion, civil rights less so.

I don't see how civil rights in Islam are any less unreasonable than in Christianity. We have over 900 years of history after the First Crusade, after all. Maybe we don't have civil rights. After all, a lot is the product of the Enlightenment. But I'm saying there is no reason we can't just because Europe is Muslim.

The United States I'm referring to as a territorial unit which presumably consists of at least the extent of the Thirteen Colonies and is a republic. I don't think it's too unreasonable that if united under one government (as the East Coast was) that the colonies could gain independence as one unit, and as a republic (defined as "not a monarchy").
 
As others have said, this escalated super quickly...

There is no link between the first crusade succeeding and keeping Europe Christian. I'm presuming this is a coincidence, but that sounds more like an "alt-right" reading of history or that whatever source gave you that idea is certainly suspect.

I was mostly basing it off the Umayyad Caliphate doing better and able to hold on to spain.
 
I don't see how civil rights in Islam are any less unreasonable than in Christianity. We have over 900 years of history after the First Crusade, after all. Maybe we don't have civil rights. After all, a lot is the product of the Enlightenment. But I'm saying there is no reason we can't just because Europe is Muslim.

The United States I'm referring to as a territorial unit which presumably consists of at least the extent of the Thirteen Colonies and is a republic. I don't think it's too unreasonable that if united under one government (as the East Coast was) that the colonies could gain independence as one unit, and as a republic (defined as "not a monarchy").
I was more talking about the US than civil rights, I was not clear.

At that point is more like a ex-colony being a republic, that´s probable but something like the US with its charachteristics(constitution, political culture etc.) is unlikely or even impossible.
 
I was mostly basing it off the Umayyad Caliphate doing better and able to hold on to spain.

I don't see Umayyads or any other caliphate being able taking whole Europe anymore if it ever wanted that.

And United States, at least such as we know that, is butterflied away anyway like previous posters has stated.
 
Regarding Spain, by the time of the First Crusade (end of the 11th Century), the tide on Al-Andalus had turned in favor of the Christian princedoms, especially Castille/Leon, considering that the Caliphate of Cordoba had crumbled already into the taifas. The Christian expansion was turned around by the Almoravids and then by the Almoads, but this was a temporary (well, more than a 100 years) setback.

Regarding the Middle East, during the First Crusade, the main "power" on the region were the Selujk Turks, and by the time Alexius called for Pope Urban's aid, the Turks themselves had imploded in warring statelets, the Abbasid Caliphate was but a shadow of itself, and the Fatimids had no interest (at least not in a short-term) in conquering the whole of the world beyond Palestine and perhaps Syria. The fracturing of the Muslim world, in fact, was one of the things that permitted a Latin victory, considering how many times they were liable to annihilation (since Dorylaeum all the way to Ascalon, losing any of these battles would have spelt the end of the Crusade).

So, the OP's idea is a bit exaggerated, unless we are considering the appearance of a humongous Islamic power, which I find a bit unlikely to swallow the whole of Europe. Perhaps the Ilkhanate put its sh*t together and attempts a conquest of Anatolia (which I find unlikely), or a much more successful Mamluk state in Egypt. Then, I believe the most reasonable proposition would be for the Ottomans (already in the 15th Century) to be even more successful than OTL, perhaps with a successful siege of Vienna, or a conquest of a part of Italy, or even the destruction of Venice. Nevertheless, whatever are their advances, this will likely invite a combined European counterattack (another Crusade, if yoy may), that, if more organized than Varna, will be set the tide back to the Balkans.

Now, how this affects the eventual creation and development of the USA, only a centuries-old set of butterflies can say. If we change anything from the rise of Spain, Colombus voyage, the successful conquest of the Aztecs and the Inca, and then, much later, the Atlantic Slave Trade, EVERYTHING about the American countries will likely change as a consequence, including the USA. For example, they will not have a civil rights movement if there was never African slavery in the continent.

P.S. Yes, Russia would fend off the Muslims. They would wait for them to freeze in winter, and then steamroll over Europe. They do this in all of the parallel universes of the multiverse.
 
If the first crusade fail, Europe as we know it (and by extension the entire world) will be different but in no case a Muslim one (except the Balkans/Eastern Europe which, by a combination of luck and favorable conditons could be conquered earlier an converted by a Muslim power similar to the Ottomans).
 

Deleted member 97083

Without the First Crusade, the Shia Fatimids and Sunni Seljuks keep fighting each other. The Byzantines recover from the Seljuk invasion only slightly more slowly, if not at the same pace, due to Komnenid leadership.

Ultimately, nothing much changes, except that Constantinople could remain Christian due to the lack of the Fourth Crusade.

Actually, maybe the lack of the Fourth Crusade and the Mongols prevents the Renaissance, but that's not certain, since any decline in the Byzantines or Andalusian taifas will spread classical texts and techniques to the Latins.
 
While I agree with others and especially @Rdffigueira , I think that the absence of a First Crusade would imply, rather than cause, significant changes.

The safest bet, if we'd search a PoD to prevent the First Crusade to happen, would have been to override the evolution of the Xth century.

Crusades were possible thanks to a social/ideological evolution and integration of miles* into a Christian way-of-life : If violence against Christians from a class whom whole legitimacy was based on warfare was frowned upon, the logical outcome for milites, in order to be religiously legitimized, was to use this violence to serve Christians.
Legitimisation of violence, especially from a military-based social class (less nobility as a whole strictly speaking than milites, aka warring nobility), that was in the direct continuation of Truce of God and XIth councils played an important role : it did help that Urban II was issued from this nobility, and most able to speak to them, calling to their own conceptions.

As armed protection of pilgrimage, partially-religious led expeditions were already a thing, if Byzzies wouldn't have asked for reinforcement, eventually a religious expedition similar to Crusades would have been launched with the whole base being present.

Eventually, what you would need is a weakened papacy before the XIth century, maybe no HRE in order to butterfly away the Ottonian Reforms, making Rome unable to really support movements as Peace of God or at least having them remaining under local religious control, and therefore and while more or less respected, not really susceptible to gather as much support or being abl to bypass as much imperial and royal authority to adress to directly to miles as it happened IOTL.

It wouldn't butterfly away religious expeditions, would it be only because they already existed by then (in Spain, with participation of southern France's lords and Normans; in Italy with the lot of Normans and north-western French; etc.), but it would remain a more regional concern, maybe some on behalf of Byzantines (I'm not sure you'd have both ideological motivation and general structuration to launch autonomous expeditions, tough) and maybe Baltics. All with a more important secular drive.

It would have important consequences on political conceptions in Western Europe : overall, XIth Europe would be a relatively different place to live with less restriction on war and more direct nobiliar power or influence on regional clergy.
That being said, it's mostly implied rather than caused by the absence of Crusade : the direct impact on Latin Christiendom would be limited : Most of cultural transmission were happening in Spain or Sicily IOTL; Mediterranean Sea was already pretty much dominated by Latin and Greek navies in the late Xth; etc.

On Middle-East, Byzantines could have it a bit harder, but the truly chaotic situation regionally at this point would prevent a complete Turk takeover, especially with Fatimids being unopposed in southern Syria.
That said, Constantinople could maybe meet an earlier end, being more under pressure from Normans and not beneficing from as much Anatolia they had IOTL, altough I think Kommenoi could take back 1/3 of it with their own means.

*Roughly, miles are identifiable to knights, as a the lower step of medieval nobility up to the XIIth century, servicing lords or princes trough military service, some of them being landed.
 
Actually, maybe the lack of the Fourth Crusade and the Mongols prevents the Renaissance, but that's not certain, since any decline in the Byzantines or Andalusian taifas will spread classical texts and techniques to the Latins.

Most of the technical and cultural transmission was made either from other regions (Sicily, southern Italy, Spain, etc.) and less thanks to the Fourth Crusade for what matter Constantinople, but in spite of it.
That it could be a different Renaissance, possibly more closely looking like the Renaissance of the XIIth, but isn't going to stop any transmission.
 

Deleted member 97083

Most of the technical and cultural transmission was made either from other regions (Sicily, southern Italy, Spain, etc.) and less thanks to the Fourth Crusade for what matter Constantinople, but in spite of it.
That it could be a different Renaissance, possibly more closely looking like the Renaissance of the XIIth, but isn't going to stop any transmission.
That's after the Normans in Sicily already pilfered the Byzantine Empire under Robert Guiscard, Roger II, and others. At the very least, Sicilian, Luccan, and Venetian silk production was dependent on captured Byzantine materials/silkworms, and without this wealth, a great deal of cultural and technical artifacts from al-Andalus and the Byzantine Empire would not have made their way into Italy.
 
That's after the Normans in Sicily already pilfered the Byzantine Empire under Robert Guiscard, Roger II, and others.
And? Your point was that no Crusade could lead to no Renaissance, which seems extremely questionable when looking at medieval development.

Now, if you're arguing that the Renaissance of the XIIth is due to Norman conquest of Italy and Byzantine defeat...
Well, it's not what it appears to have happened : it involved demographical growth and institutional reinforcement on which Norman conquest of Italy was a symptom, not a cause, with contact with hellenistic scientific corpus trough Islamic scholarship (the thesis about how it was from Greeks lacks most semblanc of proof, and is mostly driven by...unpalatable support).

At the very least, Sicilian, Luccan, and Venetian silk production was dependent on captured Byzantine materials/silkworms, and without this wealth,
Italian city-states didn't produce spices, but were able to take off the ground economically as well thanks to their trade. You're really downsizing the importance of trade itself, for a more or less anachronical take on production.
Not that trade with Byzantium didn't represented a huge part of this, of course, but their wealth wasn't dependend on production.

I would point, furthermore, that you're as well ignoring Islamic importance there : silk manufactories in Sicily and especially in Spain since the VIIIth weren't run by Byzzies.

I know that this board have a known tendency for Byzantomania, but it gets ridiculous there : their influence into the medieval world was real, but mostly indirect contrary to Arabo-Islamic's influence.

a great deal of cultural and technical artifacts from al-Andalus and the Byzantine Empire would not have made their way into Italy.
Only if Amalfitain or Pisan trade in Spain suddenly cease to be a thing, tough, and assuming that the lot of southern France's trading cities doesn't get the lead there.
 
Top