World without Islam

One thing related to the last post I always guessed about, without Islam, would have Christianity penetrated deeper into Africa? Would have Catholicism perhaps touched some maghrebian cultures deeply? Would have the Sudan by example became/remained Coptic, and would have Ethiopians converted peoples of modern Yemen, Somalis, etc?

(Do we know the religious portrait of Africa before Islam came, how much had the various brands of Christianism entered such cultures?)

I would saying Coptic Christianity is indeed likely to do much better TTL, extending from Ethiopia's greater influence -- Sudan would likely remain Coptic, and Yemen and Somalia would be (remain) part of Ethiopia's influence.

As to a religious portrait of Africa, I have read that the Maghreb was tied to the church of Rome at least as late as the Fifth Century; but I also recall that North Africa, and Egypt especially, was a hotbed of Arianism and other "heresies" in the fourth century, and as late as the sixth century.
 
North Africa was relativly badly controlled by Roman church, critically after Byzantine conquest, not only by a great autonomy of local catholic/orthodox churches, but also by a relative bad penetration of hinterland by Christianism.

Now, with a possible Visigothic revival thanks to the developpment of trade roads that would more favour Spain than Gaul for Atlantic trade, and a possible quasi-independent Carthage exarchate, we could see a Roman christianity (while being less cohesive than post-Carolingian church) being more powerful at least in Mauretania and Africa proper.

The Jewish, Judeo-Christian Berber tribes would most certainly be influenced by this, but maybe more associated with time with rather than being outright converted, being part of a clientelist system by Visigoths and Africa (eventually Byzantium).
 
I'd like to point out something about these kind of PoD about 'no Islam', 'no Christianity' etc.

Even if Jesus, Mohammad or whoever another prophet would have failed to spread their messages that does not mean that analogue faiths, that maybe failed in OTL, succeeded in absence of these.
In that places, in that times, there were a social demand of that kind of faiths because of the circumstances. If Christianity would have not spread by the Roman Empire, another one would have do it: cult of Isis, Mitraism or even completely new religions that failed at their start. It's like 'if there were 100 prophets, only one succeeded', so if this was not Jesus or Mohammad they would have been Seraphim and Ahmed.
If you want to butterfly away big religions, it's not enough with making their prophets to fail. It is also needed to change social concerns in the societies where these religions were born.
 
I think that Zoroastrian and Christian teachings would move into Arabia, maybe with some local influences, maybe some Buddhist influences. The whole region would probably not have any unifying factors, and would probably remain a patchwork of tribal states.
 
I think that Zoroastrian and Christian teachings would move into Arabia, maybe with some local influences, maybe some Buddhist influences. The whole region would probably not have any unifying factors, and would probably remain a patchwork of tribal states.

I would think that Hinduism would have more quick and consistent presence in Arabia, honestly than Buddhism. After all, it's the predominant religion of Indian Sea and without Islam to compete, it would be clearly in a far stronger position to do with Arabia and East Africa what it did to S-E Asia.

Eventually, you could have some really interesting syncretism with Hindu-Arabic paganism from one part, and Judeo-Christianism from other.
 
I would think that Hinduism would have more quick and consistent presence in Arabia, honestly than Buddhism. After all, it's the predominant religion of Indian Sea and without Islam to compete, it would be clearly in a far stronger position to do with Arabia and East Africa what it did to S-E Asia.

Eventually, you could have some really interesting syncretism with Hindu-Arabic paganism from one part, and Judeo-Christianism from other.
I dont really think Hinduism would spread, as it isnt really a prostelyzing religion. However, if enough Hindus settled there, then it certainly could happen. I have read that the Christians there often had gnostic beleifs, which could mix in with Buddhist asceticism. Or, it is possible all these influences could mix in, and form some sort of alternate religion, similar to Manichaeism.
 
I dont really think Hinduism would spread, as it isnt really a prostelyzing religion.
I beg to differ : Hinduism managed to dominate southern Asia quite easily (and completly) before Islam coming in town.
Before the Islam rise, Sassanids were in direct contact with Hindu scholars, by exemple.

Eventually, the existance of a powerful, dynamic, Hindu commercial continuum in Indian Sea is going to play a role : I don't need to remind you that traders and trade roads are one of the best ways to expand a religion.

Now, as you noticed, I didn't speak of an Hindu Arabia, but enough influence to form a syncretism with local rites.
There I agree, that we could have a weird gnostic/Manicheism paganism, that would evolve probably in sort of Hindu/Judeo-Christian monotheism, critically with Hinduism being less cohesive than OTL (that was a consequence of Islamic conquests), allowing easily for such variants.
 
I beg to differ : Hinduism managed to dominate southern Asia quite easily (and completly) before Islam coming in town.
Before the Islam rise, Sassanids were in direct contact with Hindu scholars, by exemple.

Eventually, the existance of a powerful, dynamic, Hindu commercial continuum in Indian Sea is going to play a role : I don't need to remind you that traders and trade roads are one of the best ways to expand a religion.

Now, as you noticed, I didn't speak of an Hindu Arabia, but enough influence to form a syncretism with local rites.
There I agree, that we could have a weird gnostic/Manicheism paganism, that would evolve probably in sort of Hindu/Judeo-Christian monotheism, critically with Hinduism being less cohesive than OTL (that was a consequence of Islamic conquests), allowing easily for such variants.
Hmmmm. I didnt really think of that sort of thing. I guess I can imagine the Arabian coast, and the various Emirates, and maybe even East Africa having a series of small city-states, run by the descendants of Indian traders. I can imagine them preserving some elements of Hinduism, even when the Gnostic religion comes about.
 
North Africa was relativly badly controlled by Roman church, critically after Byzantine conquest, not only by a great autonomy of local catholic/orthodox churches, but also by a relative bad penetration of hinterland by Christianism.

Now, with a possible Visigothic revival thanks to the developpment of trade roads that would more favour Spain than Gaul for Atlantic trade, and a possible quasi-independent Carthage exarchate, we could see a Roman christianity (while being less cohesive than post-Carolingian church) being more powerful at least in Mauretania and Africa proper.

The Jewish, Judeo-Christian Berber tribes would most certainly be influenced by this, but maybe more associated with time with rather than being outright converted, being part of a clientelist system by Visigoths and Africa (eventually Byzantium).

The Donatists really took off in North Africa with the Berber peoples.

I kind of got to feel sorry for the Berbers during and after the Vandal Occupation. They really got screwed over by Constantinople for a while there and pretty much became independent along the limes the communities there going their own radical course.
 
The Donatists really took off in North Africa with the Berber peoples.
It's specifically touching the coastal Berbers that are more romanised than their hinterlands counterparts and disappear at best with the Byzantine conquest : Donatism was essentially localized to urban centers and shore plains, the Berbers being largely let to themelves (and whom Christianization have to be nuanced : even during Byzantine period, they seems to have a relative religious autonomy, with more dynamic tribes being more Judaised than Christianized).

You simply don't have a real mention of Donatism passed the V century, so I really disagree with both "took off" and "Berbers" (if you're talking about independent Berbers, at least)

I kind of got to feel sorry for the Berbers during and after the Vandal Occupation.
On a unrelated note, why "occupation"? Vandal Kingdom was basically as legitim that its neigbours, and not an occupation in the sense they considered it as "not their own" and prey to any sort of treatment reserved to occupied aeras (and subsequant ravages).

Unless you makes reference to supposed abuses made by one or two Vandals kings on Catholics, that basically concerned orthodox clergy and let actual population out of the matters. Byzantines quite needed a reason to attack Ganseric after all, and they kinda blew it up out of proportion.


They really got screwed over by Constantinople for a while there and pretty much became independent along the limes the communities there going their own radical course.
More by Constantinople than Vandals actually : these ones were more in favour of "laisser-faire" when it came to hinterland. They took taxes, and let Berber manage themselves, including religiously (it's basically why they never really lasted in Africa). In fact, at the end of the kingdom, Vandals were the ones raided by Berbers.

So when Constantinoples comes in game, Berbers (critically the ones of the hinterland) were basically "a thing", and Byzantines had others problems than bullying them, actively at least, and allowed the constitution of tribal and confederative kingdoms.

The only ones that tried that were the Arabs, and it kinda backfired with the Berber Revolt.
 
North Africa in the world without Islam

There are a lot of variants, but I will mention the most probable scenarios.

Egypt would stay Roman, I mean owned by the Bysantine Empire. That is almost certainty. IOTL the Eastern Roman Empire held against waves after waves of invincible Arabs and even managed to push them from Asia Minor. In the world without Islam I just cannot imagine the circumstances under which the Byzantines would lose Egypt. There might be some periods when Egypt would break away from Constantinople, some civil wars, pretenders for the imperial throne, riots and the like. But not for too long.

But what would happen to the rest of North Africa?
My guess that in the 6-th century the Byzantines would lose the last strongholds there. After the devastating war against the Sassanians when the mere existence of the Roman Empire was on the brink the main concern of Constantinople would be the Eastern (and Northern) border. They won't spend their strength in other directions too easily.

So the Berbers would conquer the 'Roman' Mediterranean cost of North Africa. That would be like the conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe by the Germanic tribes.
The Christianity would not have any serious religious competitors so in a century or so all North Africa will be Christian with probable anclaves of some Jewish tribes.
Where would be the religious centre of the North African Christian Church?
I do not know. Maybe in Rome, maybe in Constantinople, but most probably it would be quite independent and autonomous headed by the patriarch of Carthage.
There will be several political and cultural entities in N. Africa, something like in Medieval Europe. Some territories would use Romanse languages (like France, Italy, Spain). Some kingdoms would use their native Berberic languages (like Germany and England in Europe).
Is it possible that there will be a Southern Roman emperor in North Africa?
Why not?
There might be three 'Roman' emperors on the territory of the former Roman Empire:
- in Constantinople
- in Europe (Frankish)
- in North Africa - some victorious Berber king might conquer most of N. Africa for some time and be crowned as Emperor in Carthage by the Patriarch. After his death the 'Southern Roman Empire' will disintegrate, but tradition will stay - the king who owns Carthage has the right for the title of the Roman Emperor.

That will be a very different North Africa in Middle Ages. First of all many kingdoms of N. Africa will speak Romance languages which will be somewhat mutually intelligible with Romance languages of Europe. Secondly North Africa will be Christian. There might be a schism, but there might be nothing of the kind at least for some time. There is a possibility that Rome will be the centre of the N. African Christianity at least ideologically if not else.
So we might imagine a free exchange of people, ideas and commodities among Europe and North Africa.
There might be some union of both Holy Roman Empire of Europe and 'Southern Roman Empire' of Africa against arrogant and overwhelming mighty Eastern Roman Empire.
In the periods of capable emperors in Constantinople the Byzantines might try to conquer some lands in Europe (Southern Italy and south east Spain) and in North Africa. And definitely the emperors of Constantinople would object to the Frankish and Berber barbarians calling themselves 'Roman emperors'.

Would there be any equivalent to European 'Dark Ages' in North Africa?
I hope not.
There will be no Viking invasions and Hungarian raids in Africa. But anything might happen.
What kind of society will be this mixture of Berbers and Romans?
Will it be very different from the mixture of the Germanic tribes and the Romans in Europe?
Will it be a feudal society or more centralized one?
Will the Berbers conquer Spain like they did IOTL?
But that won't be what I call a foreign invasion - when Romano-Berbers conquer the Romano-Goths. That won't change too much especially if the Christianity is not too different from each other, I mean if both conquered and the conquerors are Catholics.
There won't be anything like reconquista in Spain in this case I guess.
 
There are a lot of variants, but I will mention the most probable scenarios.

Egypt would stay Roman, I mean owned by the Bysantine Empire. That is almost certainty. IOTL the Eastern Roman Empire held against waves after waves of invincible Arabs and even managed to push them from Asia Minor. In the world without Islam I just cannot imagine the circumstances under which the Byzantines would lose Egypt. There might be some periods when Egypt would break away from Constantinople, some civil wars, pretenders for the imperial throne, riots and the like. But not for too long.

But what would happen to the rest of North Africa?
My guess that in the 6-th century the Byzantines would lose the last strongholds there. After the devastating war against the Sassanians when the mere existence of the Roman Empire was on the brink the main concern of Constantinople would be the Eastern (and Northern) border. They won't spend their strength in other directions too easily.

So the Berbers would conquer the 'Roman' Mediterranean cost of North Africa. That would be like the conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe by the Germanic tribes.
The Christianity would not have any serious religious competitors so in a century or so all North Africa will be Christian with probable anclaves of some Jewish tribes.
Where would be the religious centre of the North African Christian Church?
I do not know. Maybe in Rome, maybe in Constantinople, but most probably it would be quite independent and autonomous headed by the patriarch of Carthage.
There will be several political and cultural entities in N. Africa, something like in Medieval Europe. Some territories would use Romanse languages (like France, Italy, Spain). Some kingdoms would use their native Berberic languages (like Germany and England in Europe).
Is it possible that there will be a Southern Roman emperor in North Africa?
Why not?
There might be three 'Roman' emperors on the territory of the former Roman Empire:
- in Constantinople
- in Europe (Frankish)
- in North Africa - some victorious Berber king might conquer most of N. Africa for some time and be crowned as Emperor in Carthage by the Patriarch. After his death the 'Southern Roman Empire' will disintegrate, but tradition will stay - the king who owns Carthage has the right for the title of the Roman Emperor.

That will be a very different North Africa in Middle Ages. First of all many kingdoms of N. Africa will speak Romance languages which will be somewhat mutually intelligible with Romance languages of Europe. Secondly North Africa will be Christian. There might be a schism, but there might be nothing of the kind at least for some time. There is a possibility that Rome will be the centre of the N. African Christianity at least ideologically if not else.
So we might imagine a free exchange of people, ideas and commodities among Europe and North Africa.
There might be some union of both Holy Roman Empire of Europe and 'Southern Roman Empire' of Africa against arrogant and overwhelming mighty Eastern Roman Empire.
In the periods of capable emperors in Constantinople the Byzantines might try to conquer some lands in Europe (Southern Italy and south east Spain) and in North Africa. And definitely the emperors of Constantinople would object to the Frankish and Berber barbarians calling themselves 'Roman emperors'.

Would there be any equivalent to European 'Dark Ages' in North Africa?
I hope not.
There will be no Viking invasions and Hungarian raids in Africa. But anything might happen.
What kind of society will be this mixture of Berbers and Romans?
Will it be very different from the mixture of the Germanic tribes and the Romans in Europe?
Will it be a feudal society or more centralized one?
Will the Berbers conquer Spain like they did IOTL?
But that won't be what I call a foreign invasion - when Romano-Berbers conquer the Romano-Goths. That won't change too much especially if the Christianity is not too different from each other, I mean if both conquered and the conquerors are Catholics.
There won't be anything like reconquista in Spain in this case I guess.

I greatly appreciate your detailed speculations. ;)
 
Huh?

Terrorism =/= Islam.

I will assume you just REALLY phrased this badly because none of your other posts seem to be bigoted crap.

You only get one warning for this sort of thing. This is it.

Now before you jump to conclusions by labeling me as bigoted, you should keep in mind that it all comes down to how you interpret the Quran's messages or Mohammed's biography. Look up what apostates of Islam have to say.

I consider myself a skeptic, not a bigot.
 
Top