No Islam: Christian West Africa

[Deleted member 88]

So having a thought as I often do, I was thinking what the effects of no Islam would be on West Africa, that is Songhai, Ghana, and Mali. historically Africa’s medieval Islamic domains.

Let’s posit a scenario where Islam never arises and Christianity remains in North Africa. And over the next two centuries, trans Saharan trade brings Christianity to subsaharan Africa in the western Sahel and its appendant regions.

This process would no doubt quite a long time. Possibly centuries due to the lack of the Islamic trade networks of which the Hajj to Mecca was an important part.

Anyway, let’s assume by the 13th and 14th centuries the region that was historically Islamicized became Christianized.

Now the interesting aspect is what this means for the concept of Christendom. Assuming Persia and India and Asia in general do not become Christian in any official sense.

There will be greater economic and social contacts between Europe and Western Africa before the age of colonization, and thus before the slave trade. If west African kingdoms develop contacts with European ones and the papacy.

Obviously there would still be great distances and likely inter placed Berber Christians in North Africa.

Assuming say there were occasional intermarriages between African and European kingdoms which were chrisrianized and good trade contacts, how does this affect the development of European identity in the latter half of the second millennium.

If Africa and Europe are at least tentatively part of the same sphere culturally, does this change European colonization and exploration? At least in any theoretical way? Will ideas of race and nation emerge differently?

(given Christian prohibitions in the era against enslaving fellow Christians, I expect this will mean a very different slave trade, if it exists in the same form).

Might we see a broader concept of the “West” that runs through Mesopotamia to Eastern Africa. As opposed to the infidel orient. Of Zoroastrians and Manichaeans and Hindus?

As opposed to the divide in western Eurasia between Christendom and the Dar al Islam?

Thoughts? Commentary?

 

[Zacharguy]

one consequence of this I could see is that the byzantines would last at least another century or two as it no longer has Islamic califates breaking down its doors and stealing one of it wealthiest provinces in Egypt

EDIT: Perhaps an eastern orthodox east Africa maybe them sailing east from the red sea to Indonesia to proselytize and trade for spices directly

EDIT2: spelling

 

[ATP]

No islam - it mean zoroastrian Persia.And considering that most christain there belonged to eastern churches/no orthodox /
their chrystianity would be probably more like Ethiopia then Byzantinum.
Another change - land road to India would be open.Probably nobody would bother with sea road there,and America would be discovered by Denmark or bretonnian/english/irish fisherman.

No quick conqer of Aztec and Inka empires - althought both was so silly,then anybody who finally find them would conqer them quickly.
All in all - no sea superpowers,at least till 19th century.And no protestants,too - but probably many eastern-like churches.

 

[Skallagrim]

One question to ask is: what form of Christianity would we be seeing here? The Byzantine Empire was still divided by religious disagreements. This escalated to the point that a substantial number of Christians in Syria and North Africa (esp. Egypt) welcomed the Muslims -- expecting them to be more tolerant than Constantinople.

In OTL, Eastern Orthodoxy became utterly dominant in the Byzantine Empire... after the most oppositional hotbeds had in fact been shorn off by the Islamic conquest. Without Islam, I can easily see a tug-of-war between Constantinople and Alexandria. It is not at all certain that Constantinople would be able to impose its will. Attempts to do so may be so costly that it would open the Empire up to attacks from outside.

In the absence of Islam, various Christian movements will continue to make inroads into Arabia. These will probably not be predominantly Khalkedonian. On the contrary! Miaphysites from Egypt and Syria, and potentially Nestorians from Mesopotamia! The outcome may well be that Arabia becomes Christian, over time -- but not a sort that is favourable to Constantinople.

We should note that Western North Africa was also historically a hotbed of all sorts of heresies and turbulent movements. It's possible for the Miaphysites to gradually expand in a Western direction. How would Rome respond to this? In OTL, Rome and Constantinople did ultimately split -- even though Islam was right there, and threatening. This might be repeated here. On the other hand, a Christian heresy is in many ways far more dangerous than a non-Christian enemy: the dangerous of conversions is greater.

This is highly speculative, but I can imagine a world where the Khalkedonian Church remains united, and Christianity is divided against itself, with (primarily) the Miaphysites as the "other side". The latter would essentially have a free hand to expand further into Africa. At least for quite some time.

The likelihood of Nestorianism ascending in Persia and becoming dominant in the East is another (and often hotly contested) topic, so I'll leave that be.

 

[Deleted member 88]

One question to ask is: what form of Christianity would we be seeing here? The Byzantine Empire was still divided by religious disagreements. This escalated to the point that a substantial number of Christians in Syria and North Africa (esp. Egypt) welcomed the Muslims -- expecting them to be more tolerant than Constantinople.

In OTL, Eastern Orthodoxy became utterly dominant in the Byzantine Empire... after the most oppositional hotbeds had in fact been shorn off by the Islamic conquest. Without Islam, I can easily see a tug-of-war between Constantinople and Alexandria. It is not at all certain that Constantinople would be able to impose its will. Attempts to do so may be so costly that it would open the Empire up to attacks from outside.

In the absence of Islam, various Christian movements will continue to make inroads into Arabia. These will probably not be predominantly Khalkedonian. On the contrary! Miaphysites from Egypt and Syria, and potentially Nestorians from Mesopotamia! The outcome may well be that Arabia becomes Christian, over time -- but not a sort that is favourable to Constantinople.

We should note that Western North Africa was also historically a hotbed of all sorts of heresies and turbulent movements. It's possible for the Miaphysites to gradually expand in a Western direction. How would Rome respond to this? In OTL, Rome and Constantinople did ultimately split -- even though Islam was right there, and threatening. This might be repeated here. On the other hand, a Christian heresy is in many ways far more dangerous than a non-Christian enemy: the dangerous of conversions is greater.

This is highly speculative, but I can imagine a world where the Khalkedonian Church remains united, and Christianity is divided against itself, with (primarily) the Miaphysites as the "other side". The latter would essentially have a free hand to expand further into Africa. At least for quite some time.

The likelihood of Nestorianism ascending in Persia and becoming dominant in the East is another (and often hotly contested) topic, so I'll leave that be.

Do you think it’s possible a Christian Songhai for example might be of a heretical church?

 

[gral]

Do you think it’s possible a Christian Songhai for example might be of a heretical church?

I'd say it's quite possible, given the fact there's the Sahara between them and either Rome or Constantinople(the Mediterranean only became a barrier after Islam conquered North Africa).

 

[CarlManvers2019]

How would this affect say, elections for who gets to be Pope? Will there be two or three Popes?

 

[Skallagrim]

Do you think it’s possible a Christian Songhai for example might be of a heretical church?

Entirely possible. Of course, not certain. The Sahara is between them and the North African coast, too. But if the cities on that coast are miaphysite, then trans-Saharan trade is going to be between the Miaphysites and the Sub-Saharan polities. So if the latter are influenced by Christianity, it's highly likely to be that Christianity. (Essentially the same reason Islam made its way into the region, and Christianity only started competing when Europeans sailed down the African coast and started making headway into West Africa from the South. Which is why we see coastal Christianity and inland Islam there, even now.)

Mind you, Chrisrian Ethiopia is going to be an avenue for the Miaphysites in this scenario, instead of the roadblock it was to Islam for some time. If (Western) Arabia is also Miaphysite, that goes double. Expect expansion into Africa to go down the East African coast first.

 

[stevep]

So having a thought as I often do, I was thinking what the effects of no Islam would be on West Africa, that is Songhai, Ghana, and Mali. historically Africa’s medieval Islamic domains.

Let’s posit a scenario where Islam never arises and Christianity remains in North Africa. And over the next two centuries, trans Saharan trade brings Christianity to subsaharan Africa in the western Sahel and its appendant regions.

This process would no doubt quite a long time. Possibly centuries due to the lack of the Islamic trade networks of which the Hajj to Mecca was an important part.

Anyway, let’s assume by the 13th and 14th centuries the region that was historically Islamicized became Christianized.

Now the interesting aspect is what this means for the concept of Christendom. Assuming Persia and India and Asia in general do not become Christian in any official sense.

There will be greater economic and social contacts between Europe and Western Africa before the age of colonization, and thus before the slave trade. If west African kingdoms develop contacts with European ones and the papacy.

Obviously there would still be great distances and likely inter placed Berber Christians in North Africa.

Assuming say there were occasional intermarriages between African and European kingdoms which were chrisrianized and good trade contacts, how does this affect the development of European identity in the latter half of the second millennium.

If Africa and Europe are at least tentatively part of the same sphere culturally, does this change European colonization and exploration? At least in any theoretical way? Will ideas of race and nation emerge differently?

(given Christian prohibitions in the era against enslaving fellow Christians, I expect this will mean a very different slave trade, if it exists in the same form).

Might we see a broader concept of the “West” that runs through Mesopotamia to Eastern Africa. As opposed to the infidel orient. Of Zoroastrians and Manichaeans and Hindus?

As opposed to the divide in western Eurasia between Christendom and the Dar al Islam?

Thoughts? Commentary?

Lord Invictus

Very interesting idea, thanks. If Islam never rose or was quickly strangled in the cradle then your likely to see some forms of Christianity spread both through Africa and also I would say much of southern and western Asia, simply because it puts so much effort into converting non-Christians, by foul means or fair. Would say it would be far more diverse with many different sects dominant in different locations. As with OTL, which seems to have happened especially with Egypt and Syria in the eastern Med and NW Africa in the west there could be a degree of political/national identity here in seeking to distinguish a group from a central ruling elite. Also as others have said its likely that Christianity is likely to have different cultural identities in both the Sahel states then later in the forest/jungle kingdoms to their south.

A lot would depend on how divided or not culturally the Med region stays. Your likely to see 'race' being markedly less important and as some have said probably intercontinental marriages and possibly states or at least alliances. You might even see earlier maritime links if say a state in the Med is friendly with a W African one but both are at odds with an intervening Sahel nation. Both to possibly co-ordinate military or other action or possibly to bypass the intervening states trade barriers. Similarly just because they have a 'common' religion won't prevent trade barriers to the east. What is probably more important would be if a single state controls most/all the trade routes i.e. via Egypt and Red Sea, via Antioch and Mesopotamia, via Constantinople and via the northern steppe route. Byzantium could do that if it can keep control of Egypt and Syria and gain enough influence over at least part of the Ukrainian steppe region.

Which had me thinking. Historically the Khazers are supposed to have chosen Judaism as their religion as a compromise between Byzantium's Orthodox Christianity and the Caliphate's Islam. Here such a state is presumably faced with an Orthodox Byzantium and Zoroastrian Iran rivalry. They might still consider Judaism but the hostility between that and Christianity might make it a less attractive choice. Also if they did still make such a choice - or even if they don't - their likely to find other Christian states emerging on their western flank, although they might be Orthodox or another grouping. Going to be complex there as elsewhere.

The key question might be whether assorted Christian sects and groups have more or less agreement than OTL Christians have with assorted Muslim groups. I suspect there would be more conflict and division simply because as Skallagrim says another sect is often seen as a greater threat - and insult to their view of god - than a totally different faith. As such you might see even more bloody conflict than OTL, although if this means a splintering of large states such as the Byzantine empire and OTL HRE as well as having greater access with non-European areas to the south and east it might mean you see something like the early modern period of history earlier with so many rival states competing for success. [A counter argument might be that the European modern age needed for its success the defeat of a 'virtually' universal church before the power of religion is reduced enough for non-religious ideas to emerge. In which case the 'dark' ages of religious conflict and mentality could last longer].

Steve

 

[Aldarion]

[A counter argument might be that the European modern age needed for its success the defeat of a 'virtually' universal church before the power of religion is reduced enough for non-religious ideas to emerge. In which case the 'dark' ages of religious conflict and mentality could last longer].

"Dark ages" are a lie anyway. In fact, the largest European religious conflict - the Thirty Years' War - was a direct consequence of reduced religious and moral authority of the Church, which led to Church splitting and then...

In fact, no Islamic conquest means:

• Byzantine Empire survives in the East as a superpower, or at worst splits into two under civil war
• reconquest of Western Europe may or may not succeed
• Byzantine Emperor is not forced to abandon Italy / southern Italy in favour of looking to his own borders under Islamic onslaught, which means that Pope is not forced to look for protection elsewhere
  • there is no Emperor Charlemagne and "Holy Roman Empire" to challenge Byzantines, as Byzantine Emperor still protects the Rome and Pope is still his faithful servant
  • Schism in the Church is much less likely
    • if there is no Schism, then it means that Church remains united
• no Islamic conquest means there are no Crusades, and especially the Fourth Crusade, which means that relations between Western and Eastern Churches do not become anywhere as bad as OTL
• no Fourth Crusade means Byzantine Empire remains a major power and there are no Turkish inroads into Eastern and Central Europe
• no Islamic conquest means that Catholic Church is not forced to sell indulgences, which means that Martin Luther Emperor may not start his Reformation to begin with
  • no start of Reformation means that moral authority of Catholic Church is nowhere as damaged, which on one hand means no Renaissance and Humanism, but on the other hand also means that many Early Modern Wars are not as damaging as they historically were, as moral authority of the Church is still there to restrain the combatants
• no Muslim expansion into Central Asia means that there is no need to search for alternate way into India - meaning that both discovery of Americas and potentially Western colonial expansion are significantly delayed
• if colonial expansion is indeed delayed or even prevented, colonial conflicts such as Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II will be significantly delayed, meaning that some or even all of them may not happen at all

 

[Deleted member 88]

With regards to Central Asia, I would think the Turkic people’s would migrate into Persia and the Middle East anyway. They might overrun a Sassanid or some other Persian dynasty. But they won’t destroy Byzantium.

Arabia is gradually penetrated economically and by missionary activity, and rising Arab populations likely means that some Arab migration will occur into the Levant and Mesopotamia enough that the romans may indeed lose some territory or at least have major issues assimilating them. Arab buffer tribes and kingdoms will be key in preventing that.

-Khazars likely become some form of Christian or Manichaean. As the incentive to convert to judaism doesn’t exist. Central Asia itself remains a religious hotbed of division, various Christian sects, Buddhists, and local religious beliefs remain much longer, as does Zoroastrian influence.

-No Islam and the sassanid dynasty probably still collapses or at least declines. Round 8 of a Byzantine Sassanid war is possible or at least another Roman Persian war is inevitable, even if the romans have decades of peace.

-Lombards still invade Italy though the romans will likely hold them off longer. And eventually they’ll be repulsed or come to terms.

-Visigoths are still a bumbling disaster. Their nobles killed more kings then A Song of Ice and Fire. I could see Berber forays into Spain. At the very least Berber mercenaries will likely start to influence Visigoth politics at some point.

-Gaul takes longer to coalesce and no Charles Martel, or at least his life is very different. I expect it will still be unified at some point.

-Germany Christianizes as does Eastern Europe but this process will likely take quite a bit longer without Charlemagne.

-Byzantines will face Slavic incursions from the north regardless, and likely have to fight to reconquer these areas, though without an eastern front as bad as it was in the seventh century, it’s likely the Byzantines hold central Greece and the southern balkans.

 

[stevep]

"Dark ages" are a lie anyway. In fact, the largest European religious conflict - the Thirty Years' War - was a direct consequence of reduced religious and moral authority of the Church, which led to Church splitting and then...

In fact, no Islamic conquest means:

• Byzantine Empire survives in the East as a superpower, or at worst splits into two under civil war
• reconquest of Western Europe may or may not succeed
• Byzantine Emperor is not forced to abandon Italy / southern Italy in favour of looking to his own borders under Islamic onslaught, which means that Pope is not forced to look for protection elsewhere
  • there is no Emperor Charlemagne and "Holy Roman Empire" to challenge Byzantines, as Byzantine Emperor still protects the Rome and Pope is still his faithful servant
  • Schism in the Church is much less likely
    • if there is no Schism, then it means that Church remains united
• no Islamic conquest means there are no Crusades, and especially the Fourth Crusade, which means that relations between Western and Eastern Churches do not become anywhere as bad as OTL
• no Fourth Crusade means Byzantine Empire remains a major power and there are no Turkish inroads into Eastern and Central Europe
• no Islamic conquest means that Catholic Church is not forced to sell indulgences, which means that Martin Luther Emperor may not start his Reformation to begin with
  • no start of Reformation means that moral authority of Catholic Church is nowhere as damaged, which on one hand means no Renaissance and Humanism, but on the other hand also means that many Early Modern Wars are not as damaging as they historically were, as moral authority of the Church is still there to restrain the combatants
• no Muslim expansion into Central Asia means that there is no need to search for alternate way into India - meaning that both discovery of Americas and potentially Western colonial expansion are significantly delayed
• if colonial expansion is indeed delayed or even prevented, colonial conflicts such as Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II will be significantly delayed, meaning that some or even all of them may not happen at all

Aldarion

No Islam doesn't mean those things wouldn't wouldn't happen. It just means that assorted other powers might do similar things. For instance if Sassanian Persia revives faster than Byzantium after their mutually destructive war - as something like that is likely sooner or later they could continue to be a threat, especially given the religious gulf between Constantinople and its southern lands. Or there will be groups such as the Mongols or Tamids emerging sooner or later. Plus as 11thC Byzantium showed even a large and successful state can suffer crippling internal decay.

Its difficult to see a revived 'Roman' empire emerging now Christianity is dominant as its too divisive. It adds an extra level of division and one that is very, very difficult to remove. Similarly there was already tension between the Papacy and empire before distraction in the east made it possible for the papacy to turn to Charlemagne. I can't see Popes not seeking political and religious independence from Constantinople and a more powerful eastern empire is likely to be even more mistrusted by western political/military leaders. Even if Rome itself stays under imperial control and the Pope there is religated to no better than any other patriarch he might still be a figurehead for western states opposing imperial claims for universal dominance. As such its quite possible that you could see some equivalent of a Pope in exile gaining widespread acceptance in the western and northern lands. When you add in areas such as N Africa which already had a history of religious divergence and then additional areas beyond the historical Christian lands the idea of a universal faith under a single faith becomes more and more impossible.

Crusades weren't restricted to attacks on Islamic as those against pagans in the Baltic showed. Or later against the Cathars for instance. Plus there is an argument that Heraclius's actions against the Persians has many aspects of a crusade. He played heavily on religious themes and persuaded the churches to supply massive funds to enable the counter-attack. I would say their at least as likely to be generated against 'heretical' groups as against totally foreign faiths. After all if people genuinely feel their faith is the true one then a rival version of that faith is a far greater threat than any alternative system. As such its fairly likely than some religious leader will call on his followers to take on a holy mission against another, opposing religious grouping.

Its possible that 'European' expansion and the discovery of the Americas and paths to W Africa and the East could be delayed and I suspect its more likely but as I said its also possible that it could be advanced depending on the circumstances.

The power and influence of the Catholic church waxed and waned over the 1st millennium and it was by no means certain it would actually become the dominant power in western Europe. It had considerably advantages in controlling Rome but the Papal claim to universal dominance was also almost universally challenged at one time or another. It could well emerge as the dominant player in western Europe but by its nature its likely to seek universal power which will cause both conflict and corruption as OTL.

Basically I think we have considerably different world views and as such I think a lot of what your presuming may not happen.
Steve

 

[Aldarion]

No Islam doesn't mean those things wouldn't wouldn't happen. It just means that assorted other powers might do similar things. For instance if Sassanian Persia revives faster than Byzantium after their mutually destructive war - as something like that is likely sooner or later they could continue to be a threat, especially given the religious gulf between Constantinople and its southern lands. Or there will be groups such as the Mongols or Tamids emerging sooner or later. Plus as 11thC Byzantium showed even a large and successful state can suffer crippling internal decay.

Definitely. But that crippling internal decay was very much a consequence of the external conditions - conditions which, in proposed scenario, will not have existed.

Its difficult to see a revived 'Roman' empire emerging now Christianity is dominant as its too divisive. It adds an extra level of division and one that is very, very difficult to remove. Similarly there was already tension between the Papacy and empire before distraction in the east made it possible for the papacy to turn to Charlemagne. I can't see Popes not seeking political and religious independence from Constantinople and a more powerful eastern empire is likely to be even more mistrusted by western political/military leaders. Even if Rome itself stays under imperial control and the Pope there is religated to no better than any other patriarch he might still be a figurehead for western states opposing imperial claims for universal dominance. As such its quite possible that you could see some equivalent of a Pope in exile gaining widespread acceptance in the western and northern lands. When you add in areas such as N Africa which already had a history of religious divergence and then additional areas beyond the historical Christian lands the idea of a universal faith under a single faith becomes more and more impossible.

I have never proposed that a revived Roman Empire would emerge. It is indeed possible that Justinian's conquests could have been retained, for a shorter or a longer time, but the West as such was never going to be completely recovered. However, lack of distraction in the East means that papacy will never have become a temporal political force it did become. Popes only sought political and religious independence from Constantinople once it became clear that Constantinople could no longer provide military protection. And main reason why it was not able to provide said protection were a) the plague and b) Arabic attacks. It is quite incorrect to suggest that Popes just looked for the opportunity to become independent; they were, in fact, extremely loyal to the Empire and Emperor in Constantinople, and only extreme need forced them to turn westwards. Pope becoming a figurehead for western states was unthinkable until the Empire, itself, abandoned the Popes (if for a good reason).

Crusades weren't restricted to attacks on Islamic as those against pagans in the Baltic showed. Or later against the Cathars for instance. Plus there is an argument that Heraclius's actions against the Persians has many aspects of a crusade. He played heavily on religious themes and persuaded the churches to supply massive funds to enable the counter-attack. I would say their at least as likely to be generated against 'heretical' groups as against totally foreign faiths. After all if people genuinely feel their faith is the true one then a rival version of that faith is a far greater threat than any alternative system. As such its fairly likely than some religious leader will call on his followers to take on a holy mission against another, opposing religious grouping.

The idea of Crusade as such emerged only due to Islam. While all warfare in Antiquity and Middle Ages was inerently religious (at least to an extent), there was very little in way of a "holy war"; one such war before the Crusades might have been Heraclius' campaigns (and in fact, Persian campaign against the Byzantine Empire had an aspect of a religious war long before Heraclius started his own), but that was still a temporal war with a religious veener, and Byzantines never again raised an idea of a holy war as such - and in fact found the idea itself rather distasteful. Only jihad, and the Crusades which followed in response, were outright "holy" wars.

Baltic crusades merely utilized the already existing idea for purposes of popes at the time. But the idea of Crusade emerged thanks to Islamic conquests. Until then, neither the West nor the Byzantines had anything comparable - and Byzantines never developed anything comparable, even after being exposed to the Jihad and Crusades both.

What you note about heresy is correct, but question here is not just of thing itself, but also of scale. Islamic conquests and Western European response did much to promote an idea of a religious war on a massive scale, as opposed to an essentially large police action.

The power and influence of the Catholic church waxed and waned over the 1st millennium and it was by no means certain it would actually become the dominant power in western Europe. It had considerably advantages in controlling Rome but the Papal claim to universal dominance was also almost universally challenged at one time or another. It could well emerge as the dominant player in western Europe but by its nature its likely to seek universal power which will cause both conflict and corruption as OTL.

Thing is, Papal claim to universal dominance was only possible in the first place because he was no longer under patronage of the Emperor in Constantinople. If a Pope made such a claim before islamic conquests, he would have had to explain himself to the Emperor.

Basically I think we have considerably different world views and as such I think a lot of what your presuming may not happen.
Steve

Well, that is what discussion is for. We may never agree, but exchange of ideas is important for its own sake.

 

[stevep]

With regards to Central Asia, I would think the Turkic people’s would migrate into Persia and the Middle East anyway. They might overrun a Sassanid or some other Persian dynasty. But they won’t destroy Byzantium.

It might depend on the circumstances. If as OTL Iran is weak and Byzantium also has a weak period then they could suffer considerable losses as OTL. Its less likely but all state fail at some time or later. Some have considerable potential to revive in a new form - most famously China - but all will have bad times, especially if they have more than one strong neighbour.

Arabia is gradually penetrated economically and by missionary activity, and rising Arab populations likely means that some Arab migration will occur into the Levant and Mesopotamia enough that the romans may indeed lose some territory or at least have major issues assimilating them. Arab buffer tribes and kingdoms will be key in preventing that.

There are some suggestions that an Arabic expansion was likely in the OTL period due to demographic and economic factors but the previous war that exhausted both empires gave them a markedly better chance and Islam gave them a unifying factor that also helped. As such you might see some similar expansion but more restrictive, possibly limited to say parts of the Levant and Mesopotamia.

-Khazars likely become some form of Christian or Manichaean. As the incentive to convert to judaism doesn’t exist. Central Asia itself remains a religious hotbed of division, various Christian sects, Buddhists, and local religious beliefs remain much longer, as does Zoroastrian influence.

There is still an incentive to have something that seperates them from both neighbouring empires. As such another Christian sect might make things awkward with Byzantium and as an outset from Zoroastrian Manichaean might be similarly awkward with Iran. As such Judaism could still be a valid option but you could end up somewhere else.

-No Islam and the sassanid dynasty probably still collapses or at least declines. Round 8 of a Byzantine Sassanid war is possible or at least another Roman Persian war is inevitable, even if the romans have decades of peace.

Sooner or later the Sassanid dynasty will die. It could come from a disasterous war with Byzantium, internal disputes or invasion from eastern nomads. Again its likely to be replaced by a new empire, whether Iranian in origin or external.

-Lombards still invade Italy though the romans will likely hold them off longer. And eventually they’ll be repulsed or come to terms.

Pretty likely in both cases although again not certain. The Lombards lasted quite a while despite a very fragile political system but if you got a strong ruler who managed to secure a more stable succession system it might be different.

-Visigoths are still a bumbling disaster. Their nobles killed more kings then A Song of Ice and Fire. I could see Berber forays into Spain. At the very least Berber mercenaries will likely start to influence Visigoth politics at some point.

Very possibly. Sooner or later the dynasty will either collapse completely or convert to Catholicism. In which case what the religious status of Berber intruders are might be important.

-Gaul takes longer to coalesce and no Charles Martel, or at least his life is very different. I expect it will still be unified at some point.

The Frankish state is already pretty powerful so likely to come out on top, although if not in time for a Viking period it could either collapse or prompt greater unification for protection.

-Germany Christianizes as does Eastern Europe but this process will likely take quite a bit longer without Charlemagne.

Quite possibly.

-Byzantines will face Slavic incursions from the north regardless, and likely have to fight to reconquer these areas, though without an eastern front as bad as it was in the seventh century, it’s likely the Byzantines hold central Greece and the southern balkans.
[/QUOTE]

Again, agree. Although of course the worse problems were under the Avars when the latter was allied with the Sassanids and depending on the exact POD that could well still occur. I would expect unless things go very badly they will maintain/regain control of Greece and neighbouring areas fairly quickly.

 

[stevep]

Definitely. But that crippling internal decay was very much a consequence of the external conditions - conditions which, in proposed scenario, will not have existed.

What are you thinking of as those external conditions and why they might not recur in a different TL? As I understand it the problem was that the empire looked too secure so the leadership got too complacent and hence involved in internal power struggles and undermining the military as it was seen as too much of a rival.

I have never proposed that a revived Roman Empire would emerge. It is indeed possible that Justinian's conquests could have been retained, for a shorter or a longer time, but the West as such was never going to be completely recovered. However, lack of distraction in the East means that papacy will never have become a temporal political force it did become. Popes only sought political and religious independence from Constantinople once it became clear that Constantinople could no longer provide military protection. And main reason why it was not able to provide said protection were a) the plague and b) Arabic attacks. It is quite incorrect to suggest that Popes just looked for the opportunity to become independent; they were, in fact, extremely loyal to the Empire and Emperor in Constantinople, and only extreme need forced them to turn westwards. Pope becoming a figurehead for western states was unthinkable until the Empire, itself, abandoned the Popes (if for a good reason).

I was going by where you said

reconquest of Western Europe may or may not succeed

which I took as a suggestion you considered it a possibility. If wrong then sorry. Not sure that the empire will be able to secure control of Italy as unless there is an earlier POD than the life of Muhammad the ruinous Gothic wars have already both devastated Italy and drained Byzantium resources. Also the Lombards invaded Italy in the 560s and quickly overwhelmed most of the north.

As I understood it some Popes claimed seniority over the other Patriarchs and this resulted in clashes with the emperor, frequently leading to Popes being removed so the desire for such a status seems to have been present. See the wiki page History of the Papacy, especially the sections on Constantine I and on the Byzantium Papacy. While its clear that in the latter period the emperor generally held the whip hand the Papacy obviously has some interests in exerting power independent of it. This increased with the weakening of imperial power after the Lombard invasions.

Reading that 2nd section the Franks were intervening in Italy prior to Charlemagne and seem to have been important in making the Papacy a military factor by gifting it lands taken from the Lombards.

The idea of Crusade as such emerged only due to Islam. While all warfare in Antiquity and Middle Ages was inerently religious (at least to an extent), there was very little in way of a "holy war"; one such war before the Crusades might have been Heraclius' campaigns (and in fact, Persian campaign against the Byzantine Empire had an aspect of a religious war long before Heraclius started his own), but that was still a temporal war with a religious veener, and Byzantines never again raised an idea of a holy war as such - and in fact found the idea itself rather distasteful. Only jihad, and the Crusades which followed in response, were outright "holy" wars.

I suspect that is a matter of interpretation. However more importantly I see no reason why the concept can't emerge in a period of bitter religious conflict between some pair [or more] of different warring groups.

Baltic crusades merely utilized the already existing idea for purposes of popes at the time. But the idea of Crusade emerged thanks to Islamic conquests. Until then, neither the West nor the Byzantines had anything comparable - and Byzantines never developed anything comparable, even after being exposed to the Jihad and Crusades both.

I think Byzantium may have decided that such an emphasis on religious fervor was probably not in their interests as it might elevate religious figures dangerously high - at least in the opinion of the temporal powers, especially the emperor.

What you note about heresy is correct, but question here is not just of thing itself, but also of scale. Islamic conquests and Western European response did much to promote an idea of a religious war on a massive scale, as opposed to an essentially large police action.

However in this ATL then there are large rival Christian powers, with different doctrines so potentially the scale is still there. After all even with the Islamic conquests it was only ~450 years after they started that, in response to an appeal from the Byzantine emperor, the 1st Papal crusade was called.

Thing is, Papal claim to universal dominance was only possible in the first place because he was no longer under patronage of the Emperor in Constantinople. If a Pope made such a claim before Islamic conquests, he would have had to explain himself to the Emperor.

As I mention above there are signs that some Popes at least find the idea appealing. Probably not during the period of direct imperial rule in the 6th C as Justinian and a number of his successors named a number of Popes, often selecting eastern religious figures.

Well, that is what discussion is for. We may never agree, but exchange of ideas is important for its own sake.

Very true.

Its getting late here so won't be posted again today. Try and catch up tomorrow.

 

[Aldarion]

What are you thinking of as those external conditions and why they might not recur in a different TL? As I understand it the problem was that the empire looked too secure so the leadership got too complacent and hence involved in internal power struggles and undermining the military as it was seen as too much of a rival.

Basically, the constant threat. Byzantium after 7th century was very much a garrison state, with a consequence that it almost entirely abandoned foreign trade. This then opened the path for the West, and between Byzantium's necessary focus on defense and various trade concessions given in exchange for assistance with defence (particularly to Venice), the Empire gradually lost control of its own trade, finances and even economy as such. If there is no Arab threat however, the Empire can allow trade to develop much more naturally, and various economic and trade concessions to Western maritime republics also become unnecessary.

Another aspect was that the early 11th century Byzantium had just finished massive expansion. While it was a consequence of the strength of the thematic system, this expansion - as well as the factors already noted - had unbalanced the internal balance of the Empire, leaving it very much a Potemkin's village. Consequently, the Empire was unable to prevent the civil war and the loss of Anatolia post-Manzikert. This again was a consequence of the constant and total warfare imposed on the Empire by the Muslim entities.

which I took as a suggestion you considered it a possibility. If wrong then sorry. Not sure that the empire will be able to secure control of Italy as unless there is an earlier POD than the life of Muhammad the ruinous Gothic wars have already both devastated Italy and drained Byzantium resources. Also the Lombards invaded Italy in the 560s and quickly overwhelmed most of the north.

What I meant was more in a sense of the Empire permanently keeping Justinian's conquest, or else reconquering said areas later. Franks were obviously too strong to take on, however, and the immediate cause of the loss of Justinian's conquests was the plague. No Islam however means that the Empire may have time to recover from the plague and attempt to finish the reconquest at a different time.

As I understood it some Popes claimed seniority over the other Patriarchs and this resulted in clashes with the emperor, frequently leading to Popes being removed so the desire for such a status seems to have been present. See the wiki page History of the Papacy, especially the sections on Constantine I and on the Byzantium Papacy. While its clear that in the latter period the emperor generally held the whip hand the Papacy obviously has some interests in exerting power independent of it. This increased with the weakening of imperial power after the Lombard invasions.

Reading that 2nd section the Franks were intervening in Italy prior to Charlemagne and seem to have been important in making the Papacy a military factor by gifting it lands taken from the Lombards.

There is however difference between Popes wishing to have absolute authority in the Church and them wishing to move away from the Empire politically. There were some clashes for sure, but by and large Popes remained loyal to the Empire up until Arab expansion. It was Papal need for military protection in absence of large Byzantine force which led to Pepin the Small (Charlemagne's father) intervening several times in Italy itself; and if I am not mistaken, Charles Martell may have done so as well. Charlemagne was merely the logical result of this process.

I suspect that is a matter of interpretation. However more importantly I see no reason why the concept can't emerge in a period of bitter religious conflict between some pair [or more] of different warring groups.

It can, but I doubt it would have such universal acceptance.

I think Byzantium may have decided that such an emphasis on religious fervor was probably not in their interests as it might elevate religious figures dangerously high - at least in the opinion of the temporal powers, especially the emperor.

It was more the case of a tradition and religious doctrine. In the West, Christian morals combined with barbarian heroic warrior culture to produce chivalry, giving the West a distinctly more martial nature. Byzantine Empire was much more pacifistic and Christian in its doctrine: it refused for example the idea that necessity of the act removes its evil, and so soldiers were forced to do penance even when fighting in a just war. If war was not just, Byzantines didn't fight it at all; but even if the war was just, it was still sinful, and tainted the people who participated in it. Compare that attitude to Western Crusaders, who went on Crusades to achieve penance and absolution of sins - to whom just war was not only free of sin, but actively removed the same.

However in this ATL then there are large rival Christian powers, with different doctrines so potentially the scale is still there. After all even with the Islamic conquests it was only ~450 years after they started that, in response to an appeal from the Byzantine emperor, the 1st Papal crusade was called.

It is a possibility, yes, but I still see it as a rather unlikely one for several reasons, some of which I explained earlier.

As I mention above there are signs that some Popes at least find the idea appealing. Probably not during the period of direct imperial rule in the 6th C as Justinian and a number of his successors named a number of Popes, often selecting eastern religious figures.

Agreed.

Very true.

Its getting late here so won't be posted again today. Try and catch up tomorrow.

No problem.

 

[ATP]

How would this affect say, elections for who gets to be Pope? Will there be two or three Popes?

No,but there would be more primarchs,like primarch of Alexandria.Which would be practically free from both Rome and Constamtinopole to do as they please,even if formally they all would be belonging to one Church.
And probably few Ethiopian-like churches,too.

 

[stevep]

Basically, the constant threat. Byzantium after 7th century was very much a garrison state, with a consequence that it almost entirely abandoned foreign trade. This then opened the path for the West, and between Byzantium's necessary focus on defense and various trade concessions given in exchange for assistance with defence (particularly to Venice), the Empire gradually lost control of its own trade, finances and even economy as such. If there is no Arab threat however, the Empire can allow trade to develop much more naturally, and various economic and trade concessions to Western maritime republics also become unnecessary.

Interesting thanks. I haven't read much on the imperial economy but thought that the Italian city states [especially Venice] only gained privileges in the period after Manzikert. That before that the empire continued to have substantial wealth both from trade routes going through the empire and also things such as the virtual monopoly on European silk production for a long while. It did lose a lot of resources after the initial Arab conquests of Egypt and the Levant but I assumed it still had a lot of resources and well.

In terms of events I could see it losing Egypt and Syria in the not too distant future. Possibly a non-Muslim Arab expansion which with a decent leader could possibly take both areas and establish a rival state. After the ruinous war with the Sasanians the empire was in a bad way and needed a lot of taxes to retain its facilities which caused problems in a largely devastated empire, especially in the reclaimed lands of Egypt and Syria, who according to some sources preferred Sasanian rule to Byzantine because they faced less religious discrimination. Then Heraclius tried to ease that tension by introducing the Monothelitism doctrine as a compromise between Orthodox and Monophysitism sects but ended up alienating many in both camps. As such with a seriously strained empire and deep religious divide I could see this reunification not lasting very long.

Of course this might not be as bitter a division as between the empire and Islam but then if this proposed Monophysitism state gets established the resultant religious and political divide could be pretty deep as well.

Bascially I'm saying that no Islam doesn't mean that the empire will be able to maintain control on those provinces. In such a case you would have an infra-Christian divide rather than a Christian/Islam one but I'm not sure that would be any less strife torn and you would have the same loss of resources as OTL.

Another aspect was that the early 11th century Byzantium had just finished massive expansion. While it was a consequence of the strength of the thematic system, this expansion - as well as the factors already noted - had unbalanced the internal balance of the Empire, leaving it very much a Potemkin's village. Consequently, the Empire was unable to prevent the civil war and the loss of Anatolia post-Manzikert. This again was a consequence of the constant and total warfare imposed on the Empire by the Muslim entities.

Sorry what do you mean by the internal balance of the empire? Between European and Asian parts [since by 1025 there had been substantial gains in both areas] or politically between different internal factions. There were a number of wars or coups in the period before Basil II gained the throne which lead to Basil stamping down on the assorted noble families but again those seemed to produce some of the best generals in that period so whether this was a net good or bad thing I'm unsure.

What I meant was more in a sense of the Empire permanently keeping Justinian's conquest, or else reconquering said areas later. Franks were obviously too strong to take on, however, and the immediate cause of the loss of Justinian's conquests was the plague. No Islam however means that the Empire may have time to recover from the plague and attempt to finish the reconquest at a different time.

The plague was a significant factor but also Justinian's massive building programme strained its resources while his mistrust of Belisarius, denying him sufficient resources to defeat the Ostogoths quickly. As such the Gothic wars took much longer to win and left the peninsula in a bad way, as well as with no great reason to welcome coming back under imperial rule.

There is however difference between Popes wishing to have absolute authority in the Church and them wishing to move away from the Empire politically. There were some clashes for sure, but by and large Popes remained loyal to the Empire up until Arab expansion. It was Papal need for military protection in absence of large Byzantine force which led to Pepin the Small (Charlemagne's father) intervening several times in Italy itself; and if I am not mistaken, Charles Martell may have done so as well. Charlemagne was merely the logical result of this process.

I would have to disagree here. If a Pope claims absolute authority in the church he's also claiming superiority and control over every other member of the clergy, including the other patriarchates. Which is going to be resisted by them and also by an emperor as it means the Pope rather than the emperor has control of such posts. Also since Christianity is such a centralised faith its difficult to separate temporal and spiritual power

It can, but I doubt it would have such universal acceptance.

Possibly, especially given what you say below.

It was more the case of a tradition and religious doctrine. In the West, Christian morals combined with barbarian heroic warrior culture to produce chivalry, giving the West a distinctly more martial nature. Byzantine Empire was much more pacifistic and Christian in its doctrine: it refused for example the idea that necessity of the act removes its evil, and so soldiers were forced to do penance even when fighting in a just war. If war was not just, Byzantines didn't fight it at all; but even if the war was just, it was still sinful, and tainted the people who participated in it. Compare that attitude to Western Crusaders, who went on Crusades to achieve penance and absolution of sins - to whom just war was not only free of sin, but actively removed the same.

Interesting thanks. I never realised the difference between western and eastern mentalities on this. I suspect that Byzantine fought a lot of wars because of political or military interests and squared the morality of the war later but can forsee it being more of a moral issue than in the west.

It is a possibility, yes, but I still see it as a rather unlikely one for several reasons, some of which I explained earlier.

I take your point about the idea being less likely but given how much conflict there was between Christian groups I suspect this world may not be much less violent than OTL.

Steve

 

[Aldarion]

Interesting thanks. I haven't read much on the imperial economy but thought that the Italian city states [especially Venice] only gained privileges in the period after Manzikert. That before that the empire continued to have substantial wealth both from trade routes going through the empire and also things such as the virtual monopoly on European silk production for a long while. It did lose a lot of resources after the initial Arab conquests of Egypt and the Levant but I assumed it still had a lot of resources and well.

Actually, Venice already gained some privileges in 9th century in exchange for naval assistance.

In terms of events I could see it losing Egypt and Syria in the not too distant future. Possibly a non-Muslim Arab expansion which with a decent leader could possibly take both areas and establish a rival state. After the ruinous war with the Sasanians the empire was in a bad way and needed a lot of taxes to retain its facilities which caused problems in a largely devastated empire, especially in the reclaimed lands of Egypt and Syria, who according to some sources preferred Sasanian rule to Byzantine because they faced less religious discrimination. Then Heraclius tried to ease that tension by introducing the Monothelitism doctrine as a compromise between Orthodox and Monophysitism sects but ended up alienating many in both camps. As such with a seriously strained empire and deep religious divide I could see this reunification not lasting very long.

Of course this might not be as bitter a division as between the empire and Islam but then if this proposed Monophysitism state gets established the resultant religious and political divide could be pretty deep as well.

Bascially I'm saying that no Islam doesn't mean that the empire will be able to maintain control on those provinces. In such a case you would have an infra-Christian divide rather than a Christian/Islam one but I'm not sure that would be any less strife torn and you would have the same loss of resources as OTL.

That is indeed possible - but ideologically, Monophysitism will be much less dangerous as a) it is not inherently expansionist and b) there is still Persia to consider.

Sorry what do you mean by the internal balance of the empire? Between European and Asian parts [since by 1025 there had been substantial gains in both areas] or politically between different internal factions. There were a number of wars or coups in the period before Basil II gained the throne which lead to Basil stamping down on the assorted noble families but again those seemed to produce some of the best generals in that period so whether this was a net good or bad thing I'm unsure.

Socioeconomic balance - between the center (Constantinople) and periphery (themes), between dynatoi and stratioti, between bureocratic and military factions in the capital...

The plague was a significant factor but also Justinian's massive building programme strained its resources while his mistrust of Belisarius, denying him sufficient resources to defeat the Ostogoths quickly. As such the Gothic wars took much longer to win and left the peninsula in a bad way, as well as with no great reason to welcome coming back under imperial rule.

Agreed, but do note that even with all these factors, Italy was basically paying for itself.

I would have to disagree here. If a Pope claims absolute authority in the church he's also claiming superiority and control over every other member of the clergy, including the other patriarchates. Which is going to be resisted by them and also by an emperor as it means the Pope rather than the emperor has control of such posts. Also since Christianity is such a centralised faith its difficult to separate temporal and spiritual power

Yet no Pope claimed temporal power while the Empire remained strong. And remember that Constantine I. had already established the precendent of the Emperor being ead of the Church (though to my knowledge no other Byzantine Emperor successfully imposed his will on the Church).

What you describe is indeed the consequence of pope claiming absolute authority, but consequence is not necessarily the intent.

Interesting thanks. I never realised the difference between western and eastern mentalities on this. I suspect that Byzantine fought a lot of wars because of political or military interests and squared the morality of the war later but can forsee it being more of a moral issue than in the west.

Even with political and military interests, Byzantines never fought outright wars of conquest. The closest they did was basically reconquista, trying to reconquer territories which were once Roman and which Byzantines therefore had a historical right to. But at no point did the Empire attempt to conquer wholly new territories. In fact, they often did not even try to conquer territories they did have historical right to: Basil II's conquest of Bulgaria was in fact largely an accident (he had merely sought to reincorporate areas which had been conquered by Bulgaria relatively recently), and in the east, Byzantine reconquest stopped where Christians ceased to be a majority despite the Empire being militarily capable of continuing the expansion.

I take your point about the idea being less likely but given how much conflict there was between Christian groups I suspect this world may not be much less violent than OTL.

Possibly.

 

[stevep]

Actually, Venice already gained some privileges in 9th century in exchange for naval assistance.

Interesting thanks.

That is indeed possible - but ideologically, Monophysitism will be much less dangerous as a) it is not inherently expansionist and b) there is still Persia to consider.

Persia would be an issue for both factions in that case. However I think there would be a lot of tension between the two Christian states over political claims and economic interests as well as religion and the loss of those territories would be a huge economic and prestige blow for the empire.

Socioeconomic balance - between the center (Constantinople) and periphery (themes), between dynatoi and stratioti, between bureocratic and military factions in the capital...

Many thanks. I have read that much of the problems that developed from 1071 onward was in large part because the bureaucratic elements gained too much control and restricted the army to weaken what was seen as the primary rival.

Agreed, but do note that even with all these factors, Italy was basically paying for itself.

Interesting thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

Yet no Pope claimed temporal power while the Empire remained strong. And remember that Constantine I. had already established the precendent of the Emperor being head of the Church (though to my knowledge no other Byzantine Emperor successfully imposed his will on the Church).

What you describe is indeed the consequence of pope claiming absolute authority, but consequence is not necessarily the intent.

The point was there was such a desire at times which is likely to emerge whenever imperial rule is no longer strong enough to either provide security nor to impose its will on such issues. Then as you say certain consequences are very likely to follow.

Even with political and military interests, Byzantines never fought outright wars of conquest. The closest they did was basically reconquista, trying to reconquer territories which were once Roman and which Byzantines therefore had a historical right to. But at no point did the Empire attempt to conquer wholly new territories. In fact, they often did not even try to conquer territories they did have historical right to: Basil II's conquest of Bulgaria was in fact largely an accident (he had merely sought to reincorporate areas which had been conquered by Bulgaria relatively recently), and in the east, Byzantine reconquest stopped where Christians ceased to be a majority despite the Empire being militarily capable of continuing the expansion.

Well since they had a claim to all territories ever claimed by the Roman empire that is a very large area before 'wars of conquest' start but it does suggest a different mentality. I have read a while back that the empire could have reached Baghdad in the late 10thC but had to turn attention closer to home with the threat of a reviving Bulgarian kingdom. [Afraid I'm not a formal historian so over the decades have read and considered a lot of information but never really got used to recording details in terms of references. ]

Steve