I am making a TL where Islam does not exist. Tell me what you think.

So Mohammed converts to Christianity before he invents Islam. He converts many Arabs to Christianity and is canonized after his death as the Apostle to Arabia.

Without the Arab invasions, Byzantium and Persia slowly recover from their last great war, and periodically fight smaller wars with each other over hegemony of the middle east.

The Byzantines are paying as little attention to the Western Med as they can get away with, as they are focused on the relatively wealthy middle east, rather than the poor backwater kingdoms of Western Europe. As a result, the papacy falls under Lombard influence, then calls in help from the Franks, who then conquer the Lombards. In gratitude the Pope crowns the Frankish king as the Roman Emperor. After the death of the great Frankish king, Charles the Great, the empire was split into East and West Francia, which both disintegrate into feudal strife, as well as being raided by the Vikings. Basically, Western Europe is going more or less the same as OTL, due to Byzantine inattention.

So I've gotten up to roughly AD 1000, and I will post more of this TL later. What do you think so far?
 
Welcome I think you would be the 8th
I recommend you read dunes of the desert by @Tomislav Addai if you wanna base your timeline based on information.

The question here is how many arabs does alt Muhammed covert and does he found a new sect or is part of an existing one like monophysite , chalcedononian , nestorian or another small heretical group.
And does he unite the whole of arabia like the otl ?

This has major ramifications since
The arab migrations are still going to happen due to climate change and population.

But they can happens with different reasons a good leader could unite the arab tribes like mohamed or in this case be more like chingis khan
Or you can have the arab migartions be more like
The germanic ones .

As for italy I see no reason as to why they would just let it be , when all things are done the empire just lets italy be even when the empire was been gutted in the 7th century it never fully ignored it the same with the 8th and beyond .
The empire would mantain the status quo in italy but then again there is no caliphate that disctracts the Romans And allows the lombards to take over fully
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, monophysites were the predominant type of Christianity in a lot of the eastern provinces of Byzantium, so that's probably the version he would have picked up and started spreading. I doubt he would do political unification though.

I think the arab invasions would be more like the germanics than the mongols, because without Islam there is nothing to unify the Arab tribes. IMO they will likely take over Syria and Mesopotamia, possibly Egypt too, before they get pulled into the Byzantine and Persian orbits.

You're right, they won't abandon Italy altogether, but it certainly won't be their main focus. In the early middle ages, Egypt and Syria were much richer than Italy, so they would probably put more effort into Egypt and Syria. Plus, the church in Rome will still be irritated at Constantinople for multiple reasons: 1) being the chief bishop of the church, they will be a major target for Constantinople to control, but far enough away to resist, so the emperor will be inclined to try to elevate the patriarch of Constantinople (who he can control much more easily) above the Pope, thus irritating the papacy, and 2) in real life, Constantinople was always trying to find some compromise with the monophysites who dominated their eastern provinces, and this compromising of chalcedonianism always irritated Rome. OTL, Constantinople stopped after the Islam invasions rid them of their monophysite population. Since there is no Islam invasion in TTL, Constantinople will still be trying to compromise with the monophysites, still to the irritation of Rome.

So maybe the Pope allies with the Lombards and Franks against Byzantium, and since Italy was significantly richer than Francia and Germania, so the Franks will be more concentrated on Italy than the Byzantines. Maybe the Pope still crowns Charlemagne Emperor, for defending him from Byzantium.
 
a no islam timeline would be more interesting if Arabian polytheism survived. Frankly, Arabia converting to Christianity before islam has been overdone to death.
 
a no islam timeline would be more interesting if Arabian polytheism survived. Frankly, Arabia converting to Christianity before islam has been overdone to death.
It seems to be a trope among this forum that polytheism and paganism are doomed always while monotheism always triumphs, regardless of the actual circumstances present.
 
Without the Arab invasions, Byzantium and Persia slowly recover from their last great war, and periodically fight smaller wars with each other over hegemony of the middle east.
The Sassanids would probably get overthrown eventually by another dynasty, they were quite weak by this point.
 
a no islam timeline would be more interesting if Arabian polytheism survived. Frankly, Arabia converting to Christianity before islam has been overdone to death.
the process i see is that in few years they converted even with islam some areas didnt convert till a centuries down the line at least fully this is why in my timeline chirstian kingdoms are only in the north with the exception of the hejaz region were they are in constant war with the pagans in other areas you have the powerfull polythist and jewish tribes .
 
Last edited:
the process i see is that in few years they converted even with islam some areas didnt convert till a centuries down the line at least fully this is why in my timeline chirstian kingdoms are only in the north with the excpection tiny oman and the hejaz region were they are in constant war with the pagans in other areas you have the powerfull polythist and jewish tribes .
some safavid sources state that some isolated villages in Mesopotamia still had arabian polytheistic majority in the 17th century, so it does show that the arabian polytheists did have *some* staying power.
 
Who would be the possible successors to the Sassanids in the said scenario?
Possibly either a cadet branch, such as the Dabuyids, one of the Seven Great Houses, or even one of the dynasties of some of the client kingdoms of the Caucasus, the Sassanids were originally confined to Pars before they usurped the Arsacids.
 
As far as I know, monophysites were the predominant type of Christianity in a lot of the eastern provinces of Byzantium, so that's probably the version he would have picked up and started spreading. I doubt he would do political unification though.

I think the arab invasions would be more like the germanics than the mongols, because without Islam there is nothing to unify the Arab tribes. IMO they will likely take over Syria and Mesopotamia, possibly Egypt too, before they get pulled into the Byzantine and Persian orbits.

You're right, they won't abandon Italy altogether, but it certainly won't be their main focus. In the early middle ages, Egypt and Syria were much richer than Italy, so they would probably put more effort into Egypt and Syria. Plus, the church in Rome will still be irritated at Constantinople for multiple reasons: 1) being the chief bishop of the church, they will be a major target for Constantinople to control, but far enough away to resist, so the emperor will be inclined to try to elevate the patriarch of Constantinople (who he can control much more easily) above the Pope, thus irritating the papacy, and 2) in real life, Constantinople was always trying to find some compromise with the monophysites who dominated their eastern provinces, and this compromising of chalcedonianism always irritated Rome. OTL, Constantinople stopped after the Islam invasions rid them of their monophysite population. Since there is no Islam invasion in TTL, Constantinople will still be trying to compromise with the monophysites, still to the irritation of Rome.

So maybe the Pope allies with the Lombards and Franks against Byzantium, and since Italy was significantly richer than Francia and Germania, so the Franks will be more concentrated on Italy than the Byzantines. Maybe the Pope still crowns Charlemagne Emperor, for defending him from Byzantium.

there still could be muhamed was one of the people sure religion helped but there is a timeline were abu bakar with khalid or any other influential early islamic figure could have united the arabs like chingis did with , so i guess in your timeline it would stil be successfull arab invasions this an acceptable point of view but do remember than they could still get crushed since there is no unity diferent arab tribes or cofedracies attack later and in diferent times giving the romans more breathing room.

this would make kinda of sense your abandon italy idea for if the arabs invade and take syria and egypt then italy migth be lost but then again the arabs are not as big as the otl .
for the rest it falls in to anachonist points of views of the early medival period

1) the emperor would never did and nor would they will evelate the patriach of constantinople to the pope they did however reduce the pope authority (the one he was gaining) back to equeal of that of the others.

"in real life, Constantinople was always trying to find some compromise with the monophysites who dominated their eastern provinces, and this compromising of chalcedonianism always irritated Rome. OTL, Constantinople stopped after the Islam invasions rid them of their monophysite population. Since there is no Islam invasion in TTL, Constantinople will still be trying to compromise with the monophysites, still to the irritation of Rome."

this is frankly bs , heraclius was the only one trying this , justinian and his predeccesor actively promoted chalecedonian views ,justin II actively perescuted the heretics ,tiberuis II just tolared them and the same was with maurice.

Heraclius was a war hero in the eyes of the people and even then his compromise was not fully accepted , if the arabs invade despite not been as total heraclius repupation will fall and his compromise will die with him, as they lost the provinces and what good is a compromise if the other side belongs to the faith.

If how ever we delay the arab invasions till the death of heraclius in the early 640s , then there is the problem that gives rome more time to recover and kill any arab invasion with no other power left the byzantine could then impose really whatever they want but then again they dont have to apease no one so you could get rid of the compromise that both monophisyes and chalecodonians hated and continue maruice tolerance of them.


"So maybe the Pope allies with the Lombards and Franks against Byzantium, and since Italy was significantly richer than Francia and Germania, so the Franks will be more concentrated on Italy than the Byzantines. Maybe the Pope still crowns Charlemagne Emperor, for defending him from Byzantium."

any pope that allies with the lombars is as sure as dead , also the frankish realms wont be able to do much see this video for information
If they could by the late 8th century then a lot of things could and can change by that point
That the franks really won't be able to do much .
Depends on how the Byzantine go about in he 7th And 8th centuries

some safavid sources state that some isolated villages in Mesopotamia still had arabian polytheistic majority in the 17th century, so it does show that the arabian polytheists did have *some* staying power.
quite unlikely unless they are refering to remote areas around najd area there it makes sense for the imporant parts ie the coast it was 2 centuries at max so the idea of them becoming chirstian in less than one is lauguable .
 
Last edited:
Possibly either a cadet branch, such as the Dabuyids, one of the Seven Great Houses, or even one of the dynasties of some of the client kingdoms of the Caucasus, the Sassanids were originally confined to Pars before they usurped the Arsacids.
Yeah pretty much either way it going to be a long reconstruction and recovery persia with out islamic Invasion here is not going to be this bad and divided like the collapse of the ilkhante
 
With hindsight, after a reading of Spengler, Toynbee and Jaroslav Krejčí I came up to the point that internal differentiation of Christendom was inevitable.
In the west, catholicism was incorporating cults of patron saints, something commonplace in Antiquity and giving it a Christian cntext.
In the south, the Monophysites, with their emphasis on the supremacy of God were reaching an understanding of theology similar to Pharisee Judaism and later Islam.
In the east, there were the Nestorians,. Their thought was likely influenced by Persian context.

I guess that had Muhammad not declared islam a separate religion, most likely similar developments as in islam would have occured in Monophysite Christianity.

The question lying: can you imagine Manichean fundamnetalists blowing up WTC? yes, most definetley
 
a no islam timeline would be more interesting if Arabian polytheism survived. Frankly, Arabia converting to Christianity before islam has been overdone to death.
Honestly curious to see how long they could survive Arabia desert if interior is quite isolated . We have some possibility of a surviving "pagan faith" to modern days even if it’s probably not the most likely scenario
 
Yep, Pagan Arabia TL would be more interesting than Christian Arabia (but still, Monophysite > rest in terms of how interesting the TL would be)
 
a no islam timeline would be more interesting if Arabian polytheism survived. Frankly, Arabia converting to Christianity before islam has been overdone to death.
Arabia could well be a mixture of Christian, Zoroastrian, Mandaenism, Manichaenism, Arabian polytheist and syncretic faiths.

Alternatively, there could be an ATL Arabian equivalent of Yazidism - a syncretic faith, combining Christianity and Arabian polytheism.
 
Getting rid of Islam doesn't necessarily get rid of Arabic invasions and geopolitical upheaval caused by an increasingly populated and rich Arabia.
A lot of things would change, and without Islam it's likely that Arabization would be avoided and Arabs would embrace Persian and Roman cultures, but the Islamic invasions weren't a purely religious motivated event and even without Islam I'd say that the Byzantines and Persians will have to look out for a big mess coming out of Arabia when they're weak and vulnerable.
 
Getting rid of Islam doesn't necessarily get rid of Arabic invasions and geopolitical upheaval caused by an increasingly populated and rich Arabia.
A lot of things would change, and without Islam it's likely that Arabization would be avoided and Arabs would embrace Persian and Roman cultures, but the Islamic invasions weren't a purely religious motivated event and even without Islam I'd say that the Byzantines and Persians will have to look out for a big mess coming out of Arabia when they're weak and vulnerable.
It really depends on timing unlike the germanic tribes they don't have many numbers
But like them not all tribes are going to be enemies since some can just seek assaylum.
So instead of been attacks from 633 onward it could be migrations from late 630s some peaceful some not
 
It really depends on timing unlike the germanic tribes they don't have many numbers
But like them not all tribes are going to be enemies since some can just seek assaylum.
So instead of been attacks from 633 onward it could be migrations from late 630s some peaceful some not
It's not like numbers were important for the Germanic tribes either.

The Germanic people entered the empire because it grew economically weak and politically wrecked by civil wars, they settled the land as allies and tributaries to the Romans, and then the bureaucratic collapse of the empire allowed the tribes to take over. In the same way, the Arabs could become a destabilizing factor in the Middle East, especially as Byzantines and Persians were historically locked in a constant series of wars.
 
It's not like numbers were important for the Germanic tribes either.

The Germanic people entered the empire because it grew economically weak and politically wrecked by civil wars, they settled the land as allies and tributaries to the Romans, and then the bureaucratic collapse of the empire allowed the tribes to take over. In the same way, the Arabs could become a destabilizing factor in the Middle East, especially as Byzantines and Persians were historically locked in a constant series of wars.
They kinda of were especially in early time their massive number made them a treath before they closed the technological gap .

The germanic tribe entered the empire for various reasons some as invaders many as refugees.

As for wars there is likely not going to be a roman Persian war for a long time as long as from the 441 war to the anastasian war .
The Byzantines are on the verge of exhaustion with some religos tensions (which the caliphate had perfect timing )
Yet they have one leader whom they highly respect and persia and the avars have just lost
So there is no immediate danger to their provinces and heraclius before the islamic Invasion has no intention to invade persia .

Sasanid Persia is dead the war combined with the civil war had killed much of the potential Shas and the Sha is a puppet of rostram and others , who is not recognized by a large part of his empire and noble houses who declare themselves independent combined with turks raids , the economical issues etc.

So again if the arabs start their migrations in the late 630s early 640s there is not going to be a Persian Byzantine war the first one can't even mantain it's territory and the later is reconstructing.
It's not endless arab hordes and all are not going to cross the border at the same time .
 
Top