he Khilafah removed this creation by crushing both notions, basically destroying the old Hellenic Middle East, opening the Red Sea and the Persian Hulf as the dominant trade zones for the Levant and Persia rather than the Mediterranean and China respectively. So from the start it is possible that without the Khilafah destroying the Mediterranean exchange and the Hellenic worlds dominance of Europe that Europe would have slowly come around perhaps even much quicker and the hope of Roman Empirium would still be alive; and in Persia dynastic succession would continue in China like cycles and the status quo would remain until an upstart people destroy it.
I'm sorry, but none of this makes any sense. Islamic Egypt was more populous than Roman Egypt, for instance. And you ignore (as I mentioned about another poster), that trade in the Mediterranean was already declining before the arrival of Islam. So where's the recovery come form in this ATL?
Who was it who took most of Byzantine Italy? Not Muslims; but rather the Lombards, who themselves took over in the vacuum created after the Byzantines destroyed vast swathes of territory.
By promoting slavery in a rural nomadic lifestyle the city was neglected (opposed to the older Hellenic and Persian world). [/quote]
I have no idea what you are saying here. Surely it can't be that cities and urban life were neglected in the Islamic World, which saw the creation of cities like Baghdad, Cordoba, and Cairo.
This is also wrong; economic growth and trade increased in India during the Islamic period, while the rise of Hinduism (opposed to trade) and the decline in Ghandaran Buddhism predate the arrival of Islam.
This is at this point descending into orientalism in a weird vein. Why is it primitive to use a camel instead of wheels if camels are more efficient than horses and are better suited to carrying heavy loads over poor terrain? How can one square the systematic attempt to promote new crops and construction of new irrigation works in areas conquered by the Islamic states?
I honestly have no idea what your point is now. Islamic states were weak because there were no conversions to Islam? This would be news to most people; by the time Alfonso moved south in 11th Century Iberia, he could only find Arabic speakers in Toledo.
And of course this still doesn't explain why the only achievement of Byzantium from the death of Justinian til it was put out of commission in 1453 was to suck and die.
That's not fair. We should give Byzantium credit for its early adoption of waterwheels, its discovery of printing, and its stable government that helped it avoid the coups and succession crises that wracked the decadent Ottomans.[/QUOTE]
You are right the Mediterranean was in a short term decline due to the plague of Justinian and the preceding Sassanid-Byzantine war right before the Rashidun conquest. However was it not possible for it to recover? To recover with the possibility of Imperium? Regardless of what you say, Byzantium's long term goal was the recreation of Pax Romana and with that would be the revival of the Mediterranean, opposed to the Persian gulf trade of the Khilafah. How is this difficult to see? To see that possibly without the Khilafah and its disastrous and demoralizing effect on the Mediterranean that the Mediterranean might have recovered before Europe got strong enough to fight of pirates coming from the Mid East and North Africa. Also where is the evidence for this mass advance in the North Sea opposed to the Mediterranean in 700 AD? Surely you are not saying that the North Sea has more value than the Mediterranean in 700 AD.
So where is the evidence for this much larger population base in Egypt under the Khilafah? Egypt under Rome was perhaps the richest province in the empire used for grain and was part of the North African breadbasket, what was it to the Khilafah? Further the Fatmids created Cairo not any of the Khilafah, and when does single cities make up for the general destruction of the soil in North Africa, the importation of rebellios slaves all over the place, constant wars for slaves, ineffective taxing methods in order to get more slaves and the destruction of much of the previous cities and population centers in the Middle East moving in Bedouin all over the place, who did not pay taxes?
The Khilafah did not necessarily take Italy from Byzantium but constant strikes with no end (Baqqiyyah Wa-Tattamadad) lead to the stifling of Byzantium and keeping them from breathing. I do not think either party benefited from these wars and attacks. If you don't know how deadly the Umayyad attacks where on Byzantium, then I suggest you study.
Yes the Khilafah did neglect city life, Baghdad came at a price do not forget the Khilafahs destruction of Cteshipon and demoralizing the already drained native population of Iraq, by moving in Bedouin who contribute nothing to urban life and the mass movement of Bantu slaves into Iraq who are away at the urbanization as it was profitable to own skaves and have them work fields outside the city, in what way does this help urbanization? It is the same problem the CSA had, a nation built on rural slavery has difficulty urbanising completely. The scope of skavery and its massive problems weighed heavily on the Khilafah read up on Khawarij revolts and how they rebelled using the out of control practice of slavery in Iraq and North Africa to literally destroy the power of the Khilafah. Instead of saying hey look at three big cities in the Khilafah (who where based on previous Hellenic and Persian settlements and the intake of disastrous numbers of Arab immigrants) debate the disastrous effects of slavery on the economic, stabillity and innovative process of the Khilafah, opposed to the less slave based urbanized Sassanid empire or Byzantium and how the lack of these demoralizing practices would effect the possible outcome for innovation in Persia and the Roman world.
Prove to me that the Khilafah and other early Islamic Indian states did not have an effect on the economy of India. How would it not? This not only drained the population but kept Indian states in fear of invasion constantly. Just because there is trade in the south, does not mean that the economic power as in manpower and political stability is not crippled in the north. As I said in many cases the Khilafah nullified its achievements with mistakes.
The camel is practical in Arabia, but is it practical in Syria opposed to a cart? Trust me, a cart is effective in the Levant and the use of wheel promotes further use of roads as it was during the Roman Empire. The problem is not that the camel was more useful in Arabia but that the Khilafah coming from Arabia forced their lifestyle and rather nomadic notions onto its conquered people who where more urbanized and accustomed to roads and the use of the wheel. The Arabs where not, they wanted to do things as they had done it in the Nejd. The sane is true for Persia, find me sources that the Persians used camels opposed to horses or carts. The lack of the wheel lead to a general decline in the road system in the Mid East, because a camel moves just as good on sand as he does on road, so what is the need for a road?
The Islamic states where weak not because they didn't bring more people to Islam but because they often refused to take taxes so they could continue taking slaves lol. When does not taxing and supporting your economy become a good thing, and how is it not a bad thing? Byzantium might of made a little innovative and progress and stayed stabile, but the hope for a return to Pax Romana was still alive before the Arab invasion and this might of recovered Europe far quicker than the alternative which was constant slave raids and a general fear to live on the coast.
I like how you avoid the important points such as the Khilafahs out of control slavery that it relied almost entirely upon. Or the massive depopulation and decline of East Africa, what could've happened here the possibilities are high that Ethiopia remains strong and is not constantly fighting for its life, nor will the people of East Africa be drained from the slave raids from the Mid East. Also defend the massive instability of the Khilafah, who literally danced with death. Find some way to say that the Abbasids where economically sound as their slave population revolted and ruled southern Iraq for 20 years or when the Qarmatians raided the Arabian trade routes, or any of the other North African revolts.
