WI: Western Mediterranean Muslim, Eastern Mediterranean Christian

Something I saw on reddit inspired this mini-scenario I've hacked together. Tell me what you think of it.

POD: Emperor Maurice does not command his troops to winter across the Danube, without food and exposed to the Avars. As a results, he keeps his throne for a few years and then his son and co-Emperor, Theodosius, succeeds him in a tidy succession, say in 610. In those 8 years, Maurice manages to resettle the Balkans with Armenians, as wiki tells me his plan was, peace is maintained, and the Empire's finances are restored.

That being said, I want to keep a partial butterfly net around Arabia. Muslims history progresses as per our timeline to the death of Muhammad in 632, but then Khalid ibn Al-Whalid, seeing that Rome and Persia are stronger than they were in OTL (no long-running war to exhaust them) decides to leave Persia alone and focus on a conquest of Byzantium. The Levant and Syria are taken in 637 and then Egypt two years later.

Persia holds firm against later Muslim attacks, as do the Byzantines in Anatolia, though the Arabs manage to hold onto their gains, and a decade later they conquer the rest of North Africa. Less over stretched and blocked in the east by Khosrau II's successor, the Muslim conquest of Visigothic Spain begins decades earlier and barrels over the Pyrenees, forcing the Franks to submit to their rule and even setting fire to Rome itself.

Maybe that last bit was a step too far. The Egyptian Copts rise in rebellion and create their own Miaphysite Egyptian Kingdom which after a decade of separation from and a long history of tension with Constantinople has no desire of rejoining Rome. In Europe the Arabs manage to put down Christian uprisings, and are now masters of North Africa, Spain, Gaul, and parts of Italy, along with Arabia, which is cut off from the rest of the "Muslim World."

The Christian world, meanwhile, consists of the Balkans, Anatolia, and Egypt. Northern and Eastern Europe is still pagan, as is Anglo-Saxon Britain. What will happen with the Christianity of Ireland and the Britons is anyone's guess.

So, what do you guys think of this?
 

girld22

Banned
Wow that was incredible great job, ive got a timeline and wow you gave me a few ideas well done. PS PLEASE MAKE THIS INTO A TIMELINE
 
So, what about the 20 year long war between the Byzantines and Persians before the Arab attack? If Maurice doesn't lose his army across the Danube, then that war goes differently. One can imagine that it isn't as long or as devastating for either side, especially the Byzantines who saw a long occupation of Syria and much of Anatolia before they were finally able to push the Persians back. With a stronger Byzantine army, then assuming that the Arab conquest goes as planned is just handwavery. The same for the decision to only focus on the Byzantines and not the Persians. Muslim forces didn't see themselves as conquerors but as missionaries spreading the word of Allah to the whole world, which is why they attacked in all directions.

The far more likely scenario with your POD is that Islam doesn't spread outside of Arabia in the 7th century, that Persia and Byzantium manage to hold back the tide. They might lose some territory initially, but both would be in a better position to eventually gain it back.
 

Delvestius

Banned
How do you figure the Arabs have enough strength to defeat both the Franks and the Lombards? A strengthened Persia would make things quite interesting though.

EDIT: Also, if the Franks only lose Provence and Languedoc, the northern heart of their empire would stand a Catholic bastion that would most likely would have gotten to the Anglos by now and some of the Saxons as well.
 
Last edited:
So, what about the 20 year long war between the Byzantines and Persians before the Arab attack? If Maurice doesn't lose his army across the Danube, then that war goes differently. One can imagine that it isn't as long or as devastating for either side, especially the Byzantines who saw a long occupation of Syria and much of Anatolia before they were finally able to push the Persians back. With a stronger Byzantine army, then assuming that the Arab conquest goes as planned is just handwavery. The same for the decision to only focus on the Byzantines and not the Persians. Muslim forces didn't see themselves as conquerors but as missionaries spreading the word of Allah to the whole world, which is why they attacked in all directions.

The far more likely scenario with your POD is that Islam doesn't spread outside of Arabia in the 7th century, that Persia and Byzantium manage to hold back the tide. They might lose some territory initially, but both would be in a better position to eventually gain it back.

The point is that there isn't a 20 year long way between Rome and Persia.


How do you figure the Arabs have enough strength to defeat both the Franks and the Lombards? A strengthened Persia would make things quite interesting though.

EDIT: Also, if the Franks only lose Provence and Languedoc, the northern heart of their empire would stand a Catholic bastion that would most likely would have gotten to the Anglos by now and some of the Saxons as well.

I didn't flesh it out because it's just an idea, but I pictured the conquest happening in multiple waves. The Arabs conquer Hispania, beat the Franks in a few key battles, and then sack Rome. Then retreat back to Hispania. Then come back and beat the Franks again, this time maintaining a presence in Gaul. Then they roll into Italy.
 
Nice and it would make some pretty maps!

I like the idea of sundered Islamic realms, so that W Europe will go completely separate from Arabia. Maybe they will have the Koran in the vernacular and stop everyone from having to learn Arabic, since its not linked anymore?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Delvestius

Banned
I didn't flesh it out because it's just an idea, but I pictured the conquest happening in multiple waves. The Arabs conquer Hispania, beat the Franks in a few key battles, and then sack Rome. Then retreat back to Hispania. Then come back and beat the Franks again, this time maintaining a presence in Gaul. Then they roll into Italy.

I'v always been wary of Muslim Europe ever since my first TL :rolleyes::p... But this one is pretty convincing.. Two questions though:

1. Why wouldn't the Arabs be able to put down the Copts?

2. Why didn't Persia attack Arabia while their forces were in the west? On what grounds are they neutral, or is there a constant state of border clashes?
 
Some ideas:

1. Were there any early Muslim leaders who were particularly anti-Christian or anti-Coptic? IIRC Mohammed was friendly toward Jews--until they didn't acknowledge him as a prophet and then he got mad. Maybe there was some Muslim leader who expected the Christians to immediately acknowledge the error of their ways and would get nasty if they didn't.

Put this moron in charge of Egypt and you could have problems. IIRC the Copts welcomed Islamic rule, but if someone makes them change their minds...

2. Persia could be the cause of a successful Egyptian revolt if they attack the Islamic heartland to distract its military forces and/or send the Copts aid.

The problem I could foresee is that although Egypt is defensible from the east (the Suez is a narrow front), if there are substantial Arabic armies in northern Africa, they'll be able to attack from the west.

Maybe the Byzantines attempt to retake Carthage at the same time? They might fail in the long run, but it could give the Copts breathing space to get organized.
 
Glad to see there is some interest! I hadn't planned on making an actual timeline out of this, but if you guys want to see it I might.


Nice and it would make some pretty maps!
It definitely would. Unfortunately, I lack the map-fu to do it. If anyone wants to have a go at it, that would be cool. :)

I like the idea of sundered Islamic realms, so that W Europe will go completely separate from Arabia. Maybe they will have the Koran in the vernacular and stop everyone from having to learn Arabic, since its not linked anymore?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
This is a very interesting point. What would be the vernacular? Or I guess another way to put the question, will the European Arabs Germanize? I personally am not sure, because I'm honestly not sure how far the vulgarization of Latin had gone by 700. I can't see the Muslims allowing Latin to replace Arabic as the language of state, and if they follow the same process of toleration with the jyzra (spelling) which eventually led the masses to convert to Islam for socio-economic reasons, then it seems like Arabic would also be maintained. But this is just off the seat of my pants speculation.


I'v always been wary of Muslim Europe ever since my first TL :rolleyes::p... But this one is pretty convincing.. Two questions though:

1. Why wouldn't the Arabs be able to put down the Copts?
My original thinking was that the sacking of Rome triggers the revolt (the Copts could perhaps already have been broiling to rebel by some foolish governing, as Merryprankster suggests). Since all of the Arabic armies are in Europe it would take a while for them to be transferred back to put down the rebellion, by which time it would have gained strength, perhaps even support from Constantinople (initially, as I said I see Egypt refusing to reunite with the Byzantines).

2. Why didn't Persia attack Arabia while their forces were in the west? On what grounds are they neutral, or is there a constant state of border clashes?
Interesting question, and actually an oversight on my part. Uniting Arabia under one Caliph requires attacking Persia, as they controlled both sides of the Persian Gulf, and the Himyarites in Yemen were essentially Persian puppets at this time. So there would have had to be some war, but I think it could be worked into the story.

In OTL, the last strong Sassanid king, Khusrau II, was assassinated in 628 after losing the war to the Romans. Here I hypothesized he lives longer and implied that he managed to hold back any Muslim attacks. But here's a combination events that would fix that. The Lakhmids, Arabic vassals of Persia which controlled the land south of Mesopatamia, convert to Islam as OTL. So Khusrau has to deal with his own vassals turning on him and doesn't have time to go a-conquering. Then he dies, and messy Persian-style succession ensues, where a bushel of Persian princes play King for a year or two. The next big King seizes power and all the sudden the Arabs are entrenched in the Peninsula and the lower half of the former Roman state.

Some ideas:

1. Were there any early Muslim leaders who were particularly anti-Christian or anti-Coptic? IIRC Mohammed was friendly toward Jews--until they didn't acknowledge him as a prophet and then he got mad. Maybe there was some Muslim leader who expected the Christians to immediately acknowledge the error of their ways and would get nasty if they didn't.

Put this moron in charge of Egypt and you could have problems. IIRC the Copts welcomed Islamic rule, but if someone makes them change their minds...
Good idea, I'll have to look into that. I'm going to throw a dart and say the revolt happens in the early 700s (708, 713, something like that) so I really could make a character up by that point. This would also give some background to Egypt revolting after Rome gets sacked, so it doesn't seem so...forced.

2. Persia could be the cause of a successful Egyptian revolt if they attack the Islamic heartland to distract its military forces and/or send the Copts aid.

The problem I could foresee is that although Egypt is defensible from the east (the Suez is a narrow front), if there are substantial Arabic armies in northern Africa, they'll be able to attack from the west.

Maybe the Byzantines attempt to retake Carthage at the same time? They might fail in the long run, but it could give the Copts breathing space to get organized.
This is a good point. And actually, if I want to flip the Christian and Muslim worlds entirely then North Africa will have to stay Christian. Hmm...

Maybe the Muslims are expelled from North Africa by the Byzantine Empire, reacting to the sack of Rome. The only problem here is if Constantinople controls North Africa, it seems like they should also be able to retake Egypt. Not sure where to go with this...any ideas...?
 
Top