Which further Muslim expansion is less implausible or difficult?

raharris1973

Well-known member
Which further Muslim expansion is less implausible or difficult? a) A further Muslim conquest and expansion into France, leading to the Caliphate having a frontier at about the Loire or the Seine river for several centuries (at least 300) and Orleans or Paris being a frontier rather than central Frankish city, or,
b) A Muslim conquest and expansion onto the Italian peninsula leading to the Caliphate (or whatever Islamic state) ruling the Mezzogiorno for several centuries (at least 300), and either Naples or Rome itself being a front-line city for Christendom.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Which further Muslim expansion is less implausible or difficult? a) A further Muslim conquest and expansion into France, leading to the Caliphate having a frontier at about the Loire or the Seine river for several centuries (at least 300) and Orleans or Paris being a frontier rather than central Frankish city, or,
b) A Muslim conquest and expansion onto the Italian peninsula leading to the Caliphate (or whatever Islamic state) ruling the Mezzogiorno for several centuries (at least 300), and either Naples or Rome itself being a front-line city for Christendom.

It might depend on the circumstances but I would think lasting expansion into parts of Italy more likely than a lasting one occupying much of France. They had chances both after the conquest of Sicily and possibly if something had stopped the Norman conquest of the south while Byzantine undergoes its historical collapse under the Turkish threat something could have happened then. Or possibly the historical Turkish occupation of part of the region in 1480 becomes lasting and larger in scope. Although that might mean that say Hungary avoids its OTL conquest?
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
It might depend on the circumstances but I would think lasting expansion into parts of Italy more likely than a lasting one occupying much of France. They had chances both after the conquest of Sicily and possibly if something had stopped the Norman conquest of the south while Byzantine undergoes its historical collapse under the Turkish threat something could have happened then. Or possibly the historical Turkish occupation of part of the region in 1480 becomes lasting and larger in scope. Although that might mean that say Hungary avoids its OTL conquest?

Yeah, well, what Italy has going for it is basically two shots at it (the Arab or Ottoman era) and and greater proximity to multiple avenues of Muslim reinforcement and possible greater defensibility once conquered.

For lasting expansion into France, the advantage is the broad and direct land connection with Spain, but there's only one shot to do it and nail it down, early in the Arab expansion phase.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Honestly

If the Muslums had more luck they could have taken pretty much all of europe.

Europe for a very very long time was a total shit show with disorganized, shitty politics where backstabbing was incredibly common. And Europeans as a whole spent centuries basically getting their shit pushed in by the muslums because of all the back biting and stupidity.

And even when the west got its act together the ottomans were able to successfully play the european powers off each other and survive for centuries.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Europe for a very very long time was a total shit show with disorganized, shitty politics where backstabbing was incredibly common. And Europeans as a whole spent centuries basically getting their shit pushed in by the muslums because of all the back biting and stupidity.

This is true to a great extent, Europe nearly always had this backstabbing between multiple states, while the Muslims had longer periods (certainly not without long interruptions) of hegemonic, outwardly directed empires. Plus for long stretches the Muslims had a better tax base and military organization. But the Muslim empires and states within their ruling houses pretty much never stopped having disorganized, shitty politics where backstabbing was incredibly common, including assassinations and civil wars nearly every generation. Caliphs, Emirs, and Sultans dying peacefully in bed were the exception, not the rule.

Indeed, an internal disturbance, the Berber revolt, is often credited with rendering the Arab conquerors of Spain to vanquish all resistance in the northwest of the peninsula or persist in raiding efforts in France.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Honestly

If the Muslums had more luck they could have taken pretty much all of europe.

Europe for a very very long time was a total shit show with disorganized, shitty politics where backstabbing was incredibly common. And Europeans as a whole spent centuries basically getting their shit pushed in by the muslums because of all the back biting and stupidity.

And even when the west got its act together the ottomans were able to successfully play the european powers off each other and survive for centuries.

Indeed.Muslims ,after taking german proto-states,would easly take slavic tribes.
After crushing Franks,nobody would be capable of gather army.

Well,Scandinavia and Britain could hold.Or not.And they could not conqer slavic tribes becouse of harsh climate.

So,i would vote for taking France and later other german tribes/proto states.
Slavic tribes - probably not worth taking for them.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
The whole "Muslims just needed more luck" argument is incorrect; the Muslims didn't have infinite man-power, and converting subject populations almost always takes time. The ventures into France were never a realistic spring-board for conquest; more like aggressive raids. The optimal result would be the temporary reduction of Southern France to the status of a vassalised region (which would still be Christian, and which the Muslims would not be able to forcibly convert, and wouldn't be able to hold in the long term either).

Muslim control over Sicily would be plausible. Much beyond that isn't easy to effect at all. Holding Hundary was also very difficult for them, so I give them poor odds of pulling that off in an ATL. The oft-seen scenario of "Muslims take Vienna and conquer Austria" is like-wise inplausible. It was never a real option, nor even the actual intention. Crushing Vienna wasn't about conquest, but about defeating Austria as a rival power that could threaten the Balkans.

If you want more Muslim expansion, a push into Europe is a poor prospect. Islam making its way down the East African coast earlier and much more vigorously, for example, is a far more believable alternative.
 

Buba

A total creep
I don't think that Hungary is a valid example. It was at the edge of the area which the Ottomans and their logistics could hold. And over half a thousand years later.

The Arab conquests were more centrifugal, at some point the marches/border barons breaking off and ruling themselves and keeping on expanding, with only lipserve - if at all - to the central authority. Southern France - or rather Gaul, as we are in pre-France days; term Aquitaine would be best - would be conquered and held by the Sultanate/Emirate of the Extreme North.
Same would apply to the the Mezzogiorno.
Somehow I think that taking and holding south Italy is more plausible than Aquitaine.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I mean that it would last, presumably until the present day.

I still belive,that arabs had small window of opportunity after taking Spain to take much more in Europe,when there was still no real states there except Franks.
Remove them,and you could pick up tribes one after another,like american settlers did with indians.
I think,that only climate would eventually stop arabs in this scenario.
 

Buba

A total creep
to take much more in Europe,when there was still no real states there except Franks.
Frankish propaganda. A fable presented in chronicles written on Frank order and perpetuated as part of French founding myth to this day.
The Arabs were first stopped by the prosperous Duchy of Aquitaine, facing a two front war with the Arabs and Frank barbarians.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Frankish propaganda. A fable presented in chronicles written on Frank order and perpetuated as part of French founding myth to this day.
The Arabs were first stopped by the prosperous Duchy of Aquitaine, facing a two front war with the Arabs and Frank barbarians.
Possible,but if both such Duchy and frank barbarians cease to exist,who would stop next muslim band?
Winged hussarls? Crusaders? sorry,they do not existed yet.
 

Buba

A total creep
If the Duchy of Aquitaine falls, then indeed it will be the Franks on the frontline.
I do not dispute the Franks being a state in the mid 700s, or being able to stop the Arabs on the Loire and Rhone, what I dispute is them having stopped the Arabs.
Beating off a single slave raid i.e. POITIERS, THE BATTLE THAT SAVED EUROPE, WE SO AWESOME!!!!1111 in the French narrative - did not stop Arab expansion. In OTL it was stopped much further south and not by Franks. The roll back was Frank led, I admit.
 

ATP

Well-known member
If the Duchy of Aquitaine falls, then indeed it will be the Franks on the frontline.
I do not dispute the Franks being a state in the mid 700s, or being able to stop the Arabs on the Loire and Rhone, what I dispute is them having stopped the Arabs.
Beating off a single slave raid i.e. POITIERS, THE BATTLE THAT SAVED EUROPE, WE SO AWESOME!!!!1111 in the French narrative - did not stop Arab expansion. In OTL it was stopped much further south and not by Franks. The roll back was Frank led, I admit.
I agree.Franks stopping arabs is french propaganda.But,if arabs manage to destroy both Duchy and Franks,there would be nobody to stop muslims after that.
Althought,i doubt that they conqer slavic tribes - too harsh weather,and they were Avars servants then.
Avars could stop muslims - if they do not become muslims themselves.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
The whole "Muslims just needed more luck" argument is incorrect; the Muslims didn't have infinite man-power, and converting subject populations almost always takes time. The ventures into France were never a realistic spring-board for conquest; more like aggressive raids. The optimal result would be the temporary reduction of Southern France to the status of a vassalised region (which would still be Christian, and which the Muslims would not be able to forcibly convert, and wouldn't be able to hold in the long term either).

Largely agree with this and further evidence is found in how quickly after Tours the Caliphate started to come undone, as the revolt of the Berbers in North Africa and Coptics in Egypt shortly after show. I've often thought of a Muslim victory at Tours as being the means of engaging in a "bait and switch" scenario, where the over-extension of the Caliphal forces leads to long term disaster, as a Coptic "Agypt" is able to break free, and the Reconquista starts earlier and much stronger too, perhaps liberating the peninsula in the 800-900s instead of taking until 1492.

Muslim control over Sicily would be plausible. Much beyond that isn't easy to effect at all. Holding Hundary was also very difficult for them, so I give them poor odds of pulling that off in an ATL. The oft-seen scenario of "Muslims take Vienna and conquer Austria" is like-wise inplausible. It was never a real option, nor even the actual intention. Crushing Vienna wasn't about conquest, but about defeating Austria as a rival power that could threaten the Balkans.

I only sorta agree, and you kinda explain why with the last sentence; conquest of Germany or whatever isn't happening, but defeat of the Austrians in 1529 or 1683 could result in the rest of Royal Hungary being ceded and lead to a stabilization of Ottoman rule in the region by removing their main rival until Russia arises. Such could help to expand Islam significantly in the region, given it was probably the plurality or even a slight majority in the Southern Balkans by the 19th Century.

If you want more Muslim expansion, a push into Europe is a poor prospect. Islam making its way down the East African coast earlier and much more vigorously, for example, is a far more believable alternative.

India, China and Southeast Asia too make good contenders. It was entirely possible to get a Muslim dynasty of China, for example.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
I agree.Franks stopping arabs is french propaganda.But,if arabs manage to destroy both Duchy and Franks,there would be nobody to stop muslims after that.
Althought,i doubt that they conqer slavic tribes - too harsh weather,and they were Avars servants then.
Avars could stop muslims - if they do not become muslims themselves.
The Franks had a good deal of strategic depth too, they had Neustria (northern France) in the Paris area and west of the Rhine but they had Austrasia (Germany), especially their Franconian heartland still east of the Rhine, and they probably already controlled Alemannia, so the more mountainous parts of southwest Germany and Switzerland, and probably Bavaria, already.

Also, at this time, in the 700s, and into the 800s, there was little incentive for barbarian, tribal and nomadic kings - like the Avar Khagan or Saxon King Widukind, to convert to Islam, because they didn't just have to accept the religion, they had to have their armies join the Caliphal armies, and accept the Caliph was their superior political ruler on earth too.

The first time I am aware of where a ruler converted his nation to Islam and kept his supreme rulership was when the Volga Bulgar Khan did it in 922 AD. This was after the Abbasid replaced the more Arab-supremacist and bossy Umayyad, and after the Abbasids had passed their peak and become more weak and compromising.
 

Eparkhos

Well-known member
I agree broadly with Skallagrim. The most likely outcome of any 'Muslim conquest of Francia' after Tours (732) is the Muslims taking a few footholds in the south (Septimania, Toulouse, the Rhone Valley) and holding them for ~25 years at the most before the Great Berber Revolt and the Third Fitna choke off their manpower and they collapse/are driven back into Spain (or possibly further, depending on how well the Franks and any Christian remnants in Spain are situated at the time). There might be a few holdouts a la Fraxinetum, raiding bases hidden in the marshes of the Rhone or the calanques of Provence. As a side note, I've been interested in some sort of scenario where the Arab settlement at Fraxinetum-Sant Tropez expands into something permanent. For later times, I suppose.

As for expansion, I think the two easiest options are East Africa and Indochina. All the former needs is to continue OTL trends of Muslim expansion into the center of the continent in the 18th and 19th centuries, though what drives this I'm not entirely sure. Indochina seems a lot more interesting to me. If we push back (or entirely avert) European colonization, we have a powerful, populous, Muslim Bengal just over the mountains to the west, looking to expand its influence eastward like it did IOTL in Arakan. Historically, Islam spread well along trade routes, so the trading centers of Indochina seem like natural next-steps: if I had to guess why it didn't happen IOTL, the two big ones seem to be a) 'no Muslim ruling class' so there was no real cultural drive and b) the presence of Buddhist monasteries as a center of social life, creating an incentive for the lower classes not to convert and to keep the faith, limiting any inroads amongst the poor and limiting Islam to the mercantile class.

Off of five minutes of googling, a workable PoD might be keeping Dhammazedi from ascending to the throne of Hanthawaddy in the 1460s/1470s, or preventing the rise of First Taungoo in the early 16th century. Before Dhammazedi, the religious state of Hanthawaddy was a chaotic mess, many temples/monasteries practicing their own rituals and neglecting social duties; he imported Sri Lankan clerics and forced a universal reform of the monasteries that destroyed the worst of the corruption and created a standardized religious system Intertwined with daily life. The Taungoo adopted these reforms and imposed them on monasteries across their empire (most of Burma, Thailand and Laos).

If we prevent these reforms, the situation in the 15th-17th centuries is one ripe for conversion. The temples/monasteries/pagodas are blatantly corrupt and neglect the poor, syncretism and local sects (including human sacrifice) abound, and there's no real religious orthodoxy to be defended by educated clerics. Also, without the Taungoo, there are a number of rival kingdoms and petty statelets, none of whom can present a unified opposition to the spread of a new religion. We get the typical 'scissor pressure' (my term, if not a very good one) of Islam spreading syncretically among an oppressed lower class by offering social support and justice in the hereafter and among the upper class to further ties with the Malays and/or Bengalis and to pick up some of their prestige. I imagine that there are a few generations of syncretism and wary coexistence between Islam and Buddhism before the Muslims gain enough of an institutional* or popular advantage to launch a 'renewal' movement that expels most pagan beliefs and consolidates power.

The biggest roadblock in the scenario would probably be some kind of 'later revival' of Buddhism in the hill country or Mekong Plain, probably on the back of some developing power, that can credibly challenge the rise of Islam, or more simply Vietnam. IOTL, the Vietnamese were one of the more powerful Indochinese states and never cared for Islam (or Christianity, for that matter), seeing it as a foreign faith and a threat to the state ideology of Vietnamese Confucianism--though this wasn't helped by their main interaction with Muslims coming through Champa, their ancestral rival. I could see Vietnam turning into a bastion of Buddhist orthodoxy and anti-Islam sentiment, probably intervening in the west and south to make sure their coreligionists hold out. However, given good relations between Muslims and the Ming government, I doubt the Chinese would back them--unless some sort of Qing-analog arises, in which case the loyalty of Muslims to the Ming could create some sort of 'stop them there so they don't come here' mentality. Regardless, I think Islam would have a hard time spreading in the hill country, and any Muslim states in the lowlands would struggle to control their borders with the highlands.

*Now that I've thought of it, the weakness of Buddhism might create an institutional 'need' for Muslim officials; with no temple system to help run tax collection in the decentralized mandala political system, state will have an increasing dependence on trade revenues; as a significant number of involved traders would be Muslims, this would increase their political and cultural influence. Might not amount to anything, but still.
 

Buba

A total creep
@Eparkhos - Indochina could had gone Islamic - all :) it takes is Champa beating and rolling back the Dai Viet.
 
Last edited:

Eparkhos

Well-known member
@Eparkhos - Indochina could had gone Islamic - all :)it takes is Champa beating and rolling back the Dai Viet.
The problem with that is that not was Dai Viet militarily stronger, more populous and better organized, but the 'Islam' practiced by the Champa was extremely heterodox--they spent more time declaring jihad on other Champa than they did fighting any outsider. The structures of Champa society were extremely decentralized, and bar some sort of major, decades-long reform under a Great Man type figure I can't see a realistic path to them being capable of going toe-to-toe with the Vietnamese.

Possibly, if the process of Vietnamese colonization of the Mekong Delta is aborted halfway-through (earlier Trinh-era civil war c.1700?), there could be an environment of Muslim Champa-Malay settlements expanding into the fertile bottomlands of the delta, and developing some sort of central state to keep up levees and flood control a la Bengal. The region can support a large population, and if they can centralize they have a decent shot of pushing the Vietnamese back.

My .02 anyway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top