In a scenario where Islam never existed (let's say Muhammad dies before he founds Islam), what becomes of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanian Persia? How do the two empires develop without Islam? What's the "life expectancy" for the Sassanids without Islam arising?
No Islam: What happens to Byzantium and Persia
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
I think we've had this question rather frequently. The majority of the board tends to think that Byzantium might do well, while the Sassanids were in shambles anyway and would maybe buy a century or two, but few consider holding out like the ERE did until the 15th century likely for them.
I am not quite so convinced of this. In a recent thread, many people said that even without Islam, Arab conquests may well have happened, even though they'd maybe lack the coherence and longevity and would soon acculturate. I think that is rather likely. So, the ERE is thrown back upon its Anatolian and Balkanic holdings anyway, and I´m not sure they could win North Africa back from whoever holds it in a few centuries' time. As for the Sassanids, that'd be the loss of Mesopotamia, and they might not recover that, either, which still cripples them. But that doesn't mean that Iran's highlands would fall, too - I can see the Zoroastrian state hold out there for many, many centuries, and I think the land which we now call Kurdistan would still remain perenially contended, only now in a three-way fight between Byzantium, Sassanids, and an Arab Mesopotamian state, with the Göktürks or their successors from the North acting as a fourth wildcard maybe.
I am not quite so convinced of this. In a recent thread, many people said that even without Islam, Arab conquests may well have happened, even though they'd maybe lack the coherence and longevity and would soon acculturate. I think that is rather likely. So, the ERE is thrown back upon its Anatolian and Balkanic holdings anyway, and I´m not sure they could win North Africa back from whoever holds it in a few centuries' time. As for the Sassanids, that'd be the loss of Mesopotamia, and they might not recover that, either, which still cripples them. But that doesn't mean that Iran's highlands would fall, too - I can see the Zoroastrian state hold out there for many, many centuries, and I think the land which we now call Kurdistan would still remain perenially contended, only now in a three-way fight between Byzantium, Sassanids, and an Arab Mesopotamian state, with the Göktürks or their successors from the North acting as a fourth wildcard maybe.
I expect the Arabs would still conquer Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt and Persia due to population pressures in the Arabian peninsula and the fact that both Byzantium and Persia were exhausted from a drawn-out war. ITTL the Arabian empire will become a Christian empire with Arabs as a ruling class after a few generations and Arabization wouldn't happen outside the Levant and Mesopotamia due to weaker cultural identity without Islam. The empire will break up into a Persian and an Egyptian empire after a century or two. Basically the Arabs would have been just another Barbarian invader without Islam.
Here we go again:
Why do they get Persia, but not Byzantine Africa?
EDIT:
When Persia is the heartland of those they'd have to wrestle it from, and pretty hostile territory, while North Africa is rather remote from Constantinople and geographically much less harsh for an invader?
Well, Byzantine Africa took longer for the Arab Caliphate to conquer than Persia IOTL.
Without Islam, there would be no motivation to go further than Cyranaica because the Arabs would already have more than enough land and would be overextended militarily.
I think it is likely a back and forth - first the Arabs come in, then they'd be reconquered as whatever bound them together fragments. Probably taking the Levant and Mesopotamia, perhaps going so far as to be able to set themselves up as Shah. Heck, for all we know it could be more of an Arabian Timur scenario - in which case Persia and the Romans get many cities brutally sacked, the loot taken to enrich Medina, or Mecca, or whatever the base for that Empire is, and shatters upon their death.
@Salvador79 - I can't speak for Gwachiko, but AFAIK Byzantine Africa took three invasions from the established Caliphate. I'd say because of less unity amoungst the Arabs ITTL because they don't have Islam holding them together.
Plus, Persia was disunited, and even after a rebellion, was conquered in 20 years. North Africa was over a range of 50 years. I know which one appears to be the more difficult challenge.
@Salvador79 - I can't speak for Gwachiko, but AFAIK Byzantine Africa took three invasions from the established Caliphate. I'd say because of less unity amoungst the Arabs ITTL because they don't have Islam holding them together.
Plus, Persia was disunited, and even after a rebellion, was conquered in 20 years. North Africa was over a range of 50 years. I know which one appears to be the more difficult challenge.
They started their attacks earlier, too, so they were through with them before major civil war wrecked the caliphate.
Let's not forget that land grabs were not the (only) motivation for both conquests: it was, maybe primarily, aimed at removing threats because both Sassanids and Byzantines could not acquiesce with their losses to the caliphate.
I can also imagine, without the religious impulse, that Persia wouldn't fall, either; if Arabic civil war comes only a few years before IOTL, their conquest spree may well lose momentum and be thrown back.
Would seem likely Arab elites would assimilate pretty quickly the further away from Arabia they get and so in a few generations they'd be little different from their subjects. Berber Romano Arabs in West, Persian Arabs in NE
Logistics. Supplying an army past Cyrenaica involves the Gulf of Syrte, either crossing the relatively sparsely populated area on the southern coast of it, or crossing the gulf itself which was a notably dangerous area of sea in terms of weather and currents and also exposes you to the Byzantine Navy. With the Exarchate and the Romano-Berber states, I wouldn't expect the Arabs to be successful in that part of the world unless seriously wanked like OTL or being invited in which is a possibility.
If it's a Christian empire, then only the fringes of it are going to have much long-term Arabisation. I'd expect them to adopt some sort of Oriental Orthodoxy in opposition to both the Zoroastrianism of Persia and especially the Christianity of Byzantium, and the prestige language of that faith in the Levant and Mesopotamia is of course Aramaic.
Well, if there's no islam, meaning arab unification and conquests don't happen like they did in OTL, much less at the exact time, then there is no guarantee that byzantium and persia wouldn't have been able to repel the attackers, at least partially.
With no Islam,that means Zoroastrianism stays the official religion of Persia and possibly spreads to other countries such as Turkey, Afghanistan and possibly Arabian Peninsula. Might also means that the Rus joins Byzantium. There is no Al Andalus and the Iberian Peninsula either stays independent or the Franks/Holy Roman Empire conquers it.North Africa stays Christian,as does Mesopotamia,Levant,Egypt,Sudan and African Horn. Still might have conflict with Byzantium over theological differences as Christianity had sects from the very beginning. Afghanistan probably keeps a Jewish population and might wind up part of Persia in the long run. The Mongol Hordes still happen and they still create havoc throughout East Europe,Middle East and Central Asia.
Turkey at this point was already pretty heavily Christian Greek. However, without Islam I think that the arriving Turkic peoples are far more likely to convert to Christianity and marry within the Byzantine power structure than oppose it.
Wasn´t the Syrians and Egyptians rather fed up with Byzantine rule? My impression is that OTL they welcomed the Arab conquest, as the Arabs were more tolerant when it came to them continuing their variant of Christianity than what the emperor was. If they, in this ATL scenario, had taken for instance Syria, I assume that in a generation they would have been assimilated into their new empire.
An independent Coptic or Nestorian Christian kingdom would certainly be interesting.
The Arabs would be like other conquerors throughout history: They form a new upper class and their kingdoms/empires keep going for as long as their dynasties have vigor. Later on they split up or get replaced by more local dynasties.
Persia has a much stronger civilisation than the Arabs at this point, so much like with conquerors of India or China, the local culture will reassert itself, especially with no religious conversion.
Mesopotamia and Persia were in the same Empire for the majority of the time all the way from Cyrus until the Il-khans, so the probability is that they would remain in the same state.
Regards
R
Persia has a much stronger civilisation than the Arabs at this point, so much like with conquerors of India or China, the local culture will reassert itself, especially with no religious conversion.
Mesopotamia and Persia were in the same Empire for the majority of the time all the way from Cyrus until the Il-khans, so the probability is that they would remain in the same state.
Regards
R
The butterflies from not having Islam exist would probably mean no Turkish invasions at all, or at least they would be very, very different
Very different yes, but the Turkish invasions had their origins far outside of Islam and were initially caused by population and political pressures in central Asia forcing them westward. Butterflies mean it would be very different history but they're still likely to try to force their way into Byzantine lands at some point.
Would a Christian Arab Empire be more tolerant towards heretics than the Romans though? The reason the Caliphate was relatively tolerant towards the Copts and Nestorians was because, as Muslims they couldn't care less what brand of Christianity they practiced, only that they were People of the Book.
Granted, I think the success of an Arab Conquest without Islam depends entirely on how the final Roman-Sassanian war goes. The reason so many cities fell to the Arabs so quickly was because, during said war the inhabitants had learned the lession that resistance towards invaders resulted in brutal consequences. Jerusalem was the only major city in the Levant to resist a Sassanian siege for a prolonged period of time, and as a result was brutally sacked, unlike the other cities in the Levant. Not to mention that the Eastern Christians would not have experienced a temporary and more tolerant Persian rule which would ultimately make them more disloyal when Roman rule returned (after all, the war lasted for 30 years, many people in the East had never even lived through Roman rule).
If we keep Maurice alive somehow, and butterfly the final Roman-Sassanian War, I don't think the Arabs stand much of a chance, Islam or no Islam. Cities would take longer to surrender, and both Empires would be much stronger. At the very least it would be a much harder and bloodier fight for the Arabs.