So, this is entirely outside my venue of knowledge but I thought it interesting complement to the no Christianity thread. So, let's begin.

1. Who could this occur? The early death of Mohamed? A more disorganized Arabic states in his time?

2. Would the lack of the Islamic religion stop the Moorish expansions and stop the caliphates?

3. What would be the cultural effects? Spain? Morocco?

4. Would Byzantine held it together? Were they just doomed.

5. Would another religion have supplanted it? If so, which one?

Those are the ones I can think of now. I am sure there are more.

Thanks,
Bill

1. Who could this occur? The early death of Mohamed? A more disorganized Arabic states in his time?

Couldn't have gotten any more disorganized than they in fact were. The Islamic expansion is an amazing phenomenon.

2. Would the lack of the Islamic religion stop the Moorish expansions and stop the caliphates?

Yes.

3. What would be the cultural effects? Spain? Morocco?

Well, there's evidence from the Persian war and the subsequent Islamic expansion that folks in the Levant and North Africa may not have been very happy with Byzantine rule, so in answer to this question and the next, those areas might have fallen away one way or another anyway, possibly with religion as a political force (Judaism, Monophysitism).

As for Spain, the Visigothic royalty were pretty decrepit; the "conquest" was basically a single battle followed by mass defection/conversion of the nobility. Without Islam, Spain might have moved back into Byzantine orbit or toward the Franks, who at the time of the conquest were starting to get their act together for a few generations. However, without Islam to break up the Mediterranean world, further weakening Byzantium and cutting off communications with Constantinople, the Franks themselves might have developed a bit differently.

4. Would Byzantine held it together? Were they just doomed.They'd have held it together. After the initial Islamic conquests, Byzantium had a resurgence more or less in parallel with the rise of the Carolingians, and the Greeks were in excellent shape until the disaster at Manzikert in 1071, which lost them most of Asia Minor including the manpower there. In the west at the time they were still major players in Italy and Sicily. If they'd held onto Jerusalem and also kept a tighter leash on the Pope (intead of being distracted by a fight for survival in the 7th-8th centuries), Byzantium would have remained the cultural/political/diplomatic center of the western world.

Of course Byzantium still had the one flaw they inherited from Rome (and really, to be fair, much of the rest of the ancient world): no settled protocol for imperial succession. So they messed themselves up with a number of civil wars, including where one dumbass or another called in some foreign power or barbarians to help him.

5. Would another religion have supplanted it? If so, which one?Judaism or Monophysitism. There were Jewish kingdoms in Arabia at the time of Mohammed, and somewhat later the kingdom of the Khazars in southern Russia/Ukraine/Caucasus converted to Judaism; the political dimension of this was they became "people of the book" without making themselves directly beholden to the Moslems or the Byzantines.

How the fuck do you people know all this shit? Seriously, what are you reading?

Like I need more things to read right now, but...

BA History, specializing in late antiquity & the early medieval period. (Some graduate work, too, but I didn't get very far.)

The Cartoon History of the Universe, by Larry Gonick, is seriously not a bad place to start. He's got a good bibliography, too.

Islam being the actual break from antiquity to the middle ages (as opposed to Odoacer deposing Romulus Augustulus in 476) is famously the idea of Henri Pirenne, in his book Mohammed and Charlemagne. Although academics like to nitpick the big theses to death, I find this one pretty persuasive. From the Franko/Gallic viewpoint, you can read from Gregory of Tours through the Chronicle of Fredegar and get a strong sense of a "contraction" of perspective in the 7th century. As well, the weakening of Byzantine power in Italy was decisive in the Pope looking to the Franks for protection, in exchange for providing divine sanction for Charlemagne's father assuming kingship instead of remaining a sort of "shogun" (major domo, "mayor of the palace" to the Merovingian kings). By the later 8th century Charlemagne and the Byzantines were confronting each other in Italy; it was as if a curtain had fallen and was just being lifted.

Showoff :haw:

I will, during lunch tomorrow, do a little searcing.  I was always fascinated by history, but having switched majors in college could only get the minimum requirements without spending too much money and time...

Thanks for the biblio...and man we must have history majors falling out of the trees around here. I wonder if that's indicative of the hobby in anyway?

Quote from: James J Skach...and man we must have history majors falling out of the trees around here. I wonder if that's indicative of the hobby in anyway?

i wonder how many here are history majors?

BA history, '91, focus on 19th century europe, myself.  of course i don't run anything in "my" period

1. Who could this occur? The early death of Mohamed? A more disorganized Arabic states in his time?
I think the easiest thing is the death of the Prophet instead of exhile.  You could also change the results of the First Fitna (ratchet up the fractures in the Islamic state to the point of self distruction).

2. Would the lack of the Islamic religion stop the Moorish expansions and stop the caliphates?
I don't think it would stop states from coming into existence, but it would certainly eliminate the notion of Dar al Islam.  The lack of common cause would certainly change the landscape.

3. What would be the cultural effects? Spain? Morocco?
Without Islam to unify the Berbers I don't see how Islam would have had an effect in Iberia.  It would most likely be drawn more tightly into the sphere of the Franks.  The Battle of Tours might have been between Christian states as Martel exerted his expansions southwards into Visigothic France.

4. Would Byzantine held it together? Were they just doomed.
I think Byzantium was bound to be weakend regardless.  The turkic migration into Anatolia was I think just a great a threat as the arab expansion from the south.  You still could easily have had a Manzikert without the influence of Islam.

5. Would another religion have supplanted it? If so, which one?
Well Islam supplanted Christianity throughout the Mediteranean world, so I would say that if there is no Islam or a weak Islamic presence, that Christianity would dominate.  It might have led to a more militarized conflict between the various sects.  Arianism comes to mind as a strong sect at the time (primarily among the Germanic tribes).

Arianism was largely spent by the time of the rise of Islam. The Vandals & Ostrogoths had been wiped out, the Visigoths had converted in 587, leaving only the Lombards as a major Arian group. However, Monophysitism was popular in the Levantine and North African portions of the empire, and had a divisive effect. In the early 7th century, the Byzantine authorities tried to push a compromise called Monothelitism, but it was abandoned after the Islamic conquests--I would speculate because it was no longer necessary to bridge the gap between Orthodox/Catholicism and the Monophystism which had been popular in the lost territories.

Quote from: Elliot WilenArianism was largely spent by the time of the rise of Islam. The Vandals & Ostrogoths had been wiped out, the Visigoths had converted in 587, leaving only the Lombards as a major Arian group. However, Monophysitism was popular in the Levantine and North African portions of the empire, and had a divisive effect. In the early 7th century, the Byzantine authorities tried to push a compromise called Monothelitism, but it was abandoned after the Islamic conquests--I would speculate because it was no longer necessary to bridge the gap between Orthodox/Catholicism and the Monophystism which had been popular in the lost territories.

Right.  Wrong time frame.  My bad.

An interesting question is, do you think that Nestorian Christianity would have had an effect say it spread to the turkic people's instead of Islam?  If I recall it was popular in Asia.

Well it does seem like there's a tendency throughout history for "barbarians" to pick up a version of one of the dominant religions as they move into contact with civilized states, but also for their kings to pick their religion with somewhat of an eye to both the affinities it creates and the dependencies. E.g., I think that retaining Arianism was partly a mark of independence as much as abandoning paganism was a bid to be seen as "culturally developed". Similarly when the Khazars picked Judaism, they became "people of the book" without being subject either to Constantinople or Baghdad.

So Nestorianism or possibly Judaism might have been candidates for wider spread in Central Asia if they hadn't had to compete with Islam. (Note: Judaism is always working at a disadvantage relative to Pauline Christianity due to circumcision & dietary restrictions--but neither seem to have slowed Islam down.) The effect of Nestorianism on the Turks, though--who knows. You'd have to factor in the probability that without Islam, the Persians or some other Iranian dynasty might have maintained a stronger center of gravity in the Iranian plateau, and might possibly have become Christians themselves. (Or, again, converted to Judaism.)

One mustn't forget Buddhism, which was especially strong in Central Asia prior to the coming of Islam. Present-day Afghanistan is a prime example of a former Buddhist stronghold in the region.

And even though it's counter-intuitive, several "warrior" cultures adopted a form of Buddhism in the region. Of those, the Tibetans and some Mongols and Uzbeks held on to it, while the rest (including the western Mongols and many Turkic peoples) converted to Islam.

The downfall of Buddhism in India and Central Asia is a complex issue, but with the lack of an Islamic conquest as a factor, it might have continued to prosper. Likewise, Zoroastrianism would likely have maintained dominance in the Persian lands, since they had successfully resisted Christianity and would have provided a bulwark against "Roman" (i.e. Christian) culture, allowing Buddhism, et al., to continue to thrive and expand to the East.

Moreover, without the influence of Islam, modern Hinduism wouldn't be what it is today (for better or worse), and Sikhism wouldn't exist at all.

Christianity would likely be a rather different animal, as well. Without their hereditary bugbear to unite them, you'd probably see a much more fragmented Christianity that focused more energy on eliminating heresy and fighting sectarian disputes. Like Islam, Christianity needs an adversary in order to function and will turn on itself in a pinch. Alternatively, Zoroastrianism or Buddhism might have become the "enemy du jour" if one started expanding into the former Roman world.

Ultimately, I don't see folks like the Manicheans faring any better either way, but they were also strong in Central Asia for a bit.

Quote from: Black FlagOne mustn't forget Buddhism

I had, and you're right.