Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Without Islam would the Roman Empire have been restablished?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Without Islam would the Roman Empire have been restablished?

    In the early 7th century the East Roman Empire finally, after the best part of 400 years achieved a crushing victory over its arch enemies the Sassanids. At the same time the Romans had re captured most of the richer parts of the West - Africa, southern Spain, much of Italy. Yet within 30 years of this high point the empire had lost some of its most advanced lands - Egypt, Israel, Jordon , Syria, Lebanon etc. and had began the slow decline that would eventually result in its demise in 1453.

    But what if there had been no Mohammed, no Islam, no-one to unit the Arabs and lead them on a war of conquest. Would the Roman empire in the west have been restablished, do the nation states of western Europe in an ironic twist of fate owe their existance to Islam?
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

  • #2
    The New Roman Empire might have been higher-up, but I think that the Venetians, attempting to destroy the Byzantine strangle-hold on trade, would launch a crusade to defeat the 'schismed' Orthodox Church.
    For despite the silly sayings about violence never settling anything, history IS changed on the battlefield: ask the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    -Jerry Pournelle-
    Introduction to 'Hammer's Slammers'

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Marshal Murat View Post
      The New Roman Empire might have been higher-up, but I think that the Venetians, attempting to destroy the Byzantine strangle-hold on trade, would launch a crusade to defeat the 'schismed' Orthodox Church.
      But the schism wsn't until the 10th (or was it the 11th) century. There was just one church in the 7th century and the Pope was little more than the bishop of Rome. With a reestablished Roman empire the head of the church would have remained the Emporer.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #4
        I think that the plauge that killed half the Empire was a bigger nail in the Byzatine coffin, and the inflexible nature if that ancient system.

        Did you know that the time between the last Arab and the first Ottoman attack on that city was longer then the time since it fell to them? Serious history in that place...

        Another interesting item; Muhamaed told his followers not to discount the Romans, that they would be around for many years to come.
        WHat was remarkable about that was that the Persians had Constantinople under seige at the time, and seemed ready to take the whole place over. The sudden introduction of Greek fire and the last gasp of good old fashioned Roman determination soon turned the tables and routed the Persians once and for all.

        Comment


        • #5
          the Byzantines were crushed by the Sassanids in the 7th century - something that the arabs, allied with dissident jewish extremist sects took advante of to seize the near middle-east.

          had the byzantines or the Sassanids (persians) reacted more swiftly they could have easyly crushed the arab/jews (also because the extremist jews massacred christians in Jerusalem - something both the Byzantines and the Sassanids found repelling).

          with the early arabs crushed while Islam was in it's infancy (or not even created in fact) that would be the end of that silly religion.

          now, what would the Byzantines do. their main ennemy and threat was in the east. The Western empire was then already a "Romano-Gothic" group of kingdoms on the way to feudalism.

          perhaps Charles The Hammer and then Charlemagne would have managed to unite a much larger empire - with all of spain and the former visigothic kingdoms of North Africa, united and perhaps could manage to find the energies to reach into and ally with the early Polish kingdom against the Norse. so you could imagine a stronger byzantium with a Christian Carolingian empire (with vassal kingdoms) going from Tunis to Gibraltar to Scotland, Ireland, Norway to Russia to Rome.

          that would still devolve in successions, but it woudl stabilize the middle ages faster and puch perhaps a renaissance in the 11th or 12th century.

          Islam was and is (as with all religions) a disaster for human history.
          "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

          Comment


          • #6
            Agreed.
            Don't get me wrong, if I could go back in time and kill just one man, it would be Mohamaed.

            (Pardon me while I change my SSN and put a firewall on this baby that a nuke couldn't get through...)

            Comment


            • #7
              I dont' even think that the dude even existed, but for sure the collapse of the Roman empire brought an immense pain to mankind - ok, the pain in creating the roman empire was quite high as well.

              with the Romans around as a strong empire - the arab raids would only remain a raid, not a cavalcade across undefended (well, initially) lands.
              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                In the early 7th century the East Roman Empire finally, after the best part of 400 years achieved a crushing victory over its arch enemies the Sassanids. At the same time the Romans had re captured most of the richer parts of the West - Africa, southern Spain, much of Italy. Yet within 30 years of this high point the empire had lost some of its most advanced lands - Egypt, Israel, Jordon , Syria, Lebanon etc. and had began the slow decline that would eventually result in its demise in 1453.

                But what if there had been no Mohammed, no Islam, no-one to unit the Arabs and lead them on a war of conquest. Would the Roman empire in the west have been restablished, do the nation states of western Europe in an ironic twist of fate owe their existance to Islam?
                No, the Germans that drove old Rome into the "ash heap of history"* would not have allowed it -- it wasn't their style.

                *Or whatever the heck that quote is.
                Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                "Never pet a burning dog."

                RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                http://www.mormon.org
                http://www.sca.org
                http://www.scv.org/
                http://www.scouting.org/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Janos View Post
                  No, the Germans that drove old Rome into the "ash heap of history"* would not have allowed it -- it wasn't their style.

                  *Or whatever the heck that quote is.
                  Belasarius destroyed the Vandals (Germans) and broke the Goths (also Germans) in the 6th century and that was when the Romans had to keep diverting rescources to fight the Sassanids.
                  With the Sassanids destroyed by the Romans in the early 7th century then if there was no Islam the Romans could have committed their full force to secure recapture northern Italy (they already had recaptured southern Italy) and Gaul.
                  "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    snif. I wrote a full paragraph on the sassanids and it got deleted. snif.

                    yes, had the Sassanids been destroyed or neutralized (Persia is vey far away from the mediterranean...) yes that is plausible. but Rome and Byzantium had lots of fronts to fight.

                    Rome lost it's empire in 6AD when it decided no to venture anymore (in much strength across Germany. had Rome Romanized Germany and made a defensive line, say on the Vistula, or even romanized the scarcely populated scandinavia, we may still live in pax romana.

                    Rome forgot it's ways. it should have exterminated it's enemies in europe (picts, germans, etc.) as it did with it's earlier foes, but was too focused by internal affairs and strife in the middle east (ha!)
                    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The wars of Justinian (d 565) bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire (a/k/a the Byzantine Empire). The revenues gained by capturing Italy, North Africa, and Spain did not repay the expense. Despite the heroic leadership of Heraclius, the shaky fiscal footing of the Empire was going to force a retrenchment, especially with the plague which swept through in the 540s (is that the right decade).
                      Don't leave good whiskey for the damn Yankees!" John Hunt Morgan, Eagleport, Ohio, July 23, 1863

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Roman rebirth

                        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        But the schism wsn't until the 10th (or was it the 11th) century. There was just one church in the 7th century and the Pope was little more than the bishop of Rome. With a reestablished Roman empire the head of the church would have remained the Emporer.
                        This is a good having served two and currently on a third tour in Iraq I ahve raised this what if to fellow sodiers all based on a book written 10 or more years ago by Alternate History pioneer Harry Turtledove entitled Agent of Byzantium. Now his background he has a Masters in Eastern Roman or Byzantium Empire history so his insights as well as the writing are very good.
                        In his book Mohammed becomes St. Mahomet a monk who writes songs to inspire Christian soldiers to defeat the Persians etc. Of course in the book this is a background as the prologue. Surrey writes of the Schism which actually occured in around 873 AD (7 century) not 10th or 11th. Needless to say the Byzantines control all of the Holy Land, North Africa, Egypt, Spain, Italy and southern France and allied with the kings of countries that had once been under Roman control as well as using mercenaries from Normandy and Scandinavia even, sending Missionaries with the Vikings to North America etc. It's very interesting and I could write about it for days but anyone interested should look for it in a used book store.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                          But the schism wsn't until the 10th (or was it the 11th) century. There was just one church in the 7th century and the Pope was little more than the bishop of Rome. With a reestablished Roman empire the head of the church would have remained the Emporer.
                          The Great Schism didn't happen out of the blue. The Bishop of Rome has always deemed himself, as Successor of St Peter, to be the first among his equal Patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople), but the other patriarchs haven't agreed with his characterization. In the early years of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople perhaps lacked the prestige of the other Patriarchs due to the relative youth of his Patriachate. Roman theology and Orthodox theology have always had their tensions. Certainly it was one church in the 7th Century, but the fractures had already begun.
                          Don't leave good whiskey for the damn Yankees!" John Hunt Morgan, Eagleport, Ohio, July 23, 1863

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by guthrieba View Post
                            Certainly it was one church in the 7th Century, but the fractures had already begun.
                            Well, they were well past "fractures". By the 7th century, Christianity has already survived the first century debates on whether or not Christians were Jews or not and gotten past Arianism. I'm not sure when the Nestorians split away, but he died in the 5th century and Nestorians were prominent in Asia at least until the 12th century. The church was seldom "a universal and catholic*" one for long.

                            *Small c
                            Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                            Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                            "Never pet a burning dog."

                            RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                            http://www.mormon.org
                            http://www.sca.org
                            http://www.scv.org/
                            http://www.scouting.org/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Janos View Post
                              Well, they were well past "fractures". By the 7th century, Christianity has already survived the first century debates on whether or not Christians were Jews or not and gotten past Arianism. I'm not sure when the Nestorians split away, but he died in the 5th century and Nestorians were prominent in Asia at least until the 12th century. The church was seldom "a universal and catholic*" one for long.

                              *Small c
                              Well, I'm not so sure that the fractures were over. The controversy over the Filioque (precedence of the Holy Ghost), which I don't begin to comprehend, was under way by the beginning of the 7th Century. This controversy is one of the causes of the eventual split between Rome and Constantinople.

                              The Monophysite confession was going strong in Egypt (the Copts there are Monophysites) despite opposition from the Emperor. Some have argued that Egypt fell so easily to the Arabs because of disaffection from Constantinople (both ecclesiastical and Imperial) due to the strong Monophysite base there.

                              Yes, I think that we are in violent agreement. The church has seldom been universal and catholic.
                              Don't leave good whiskey for the damn Yankees!" John Hunt Morgan, Eagleport, Ohio, July 23, 1863

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X