A few things: -I forgot to add dates in the top right before exporting the video, apologies for that. I added which century it is as chapters on the video timeline and in the description. -This fictional world is not better or worse, just different. Extremism and war exist just as much as in our world. The middle east, being at the crossroads of 3 major powers, certainly sees its fair share of conflict in my scenario. -Productive and respectful discussions, even if a little controversial, are fair game, but if you have nothing more to say than hateful nonsense or "Islam bad" I'm just removing your comment, that's not productive. -The video is definitely too Eurocentric. I should've focused a lot more on Africa and Asia, as Islam had a profound impact there as well. -The United Provinces of America has the same "Recognized Languages" tab as Rhomania by mistake.
I imagine that some Christian Theologians will discovered Calculus and Algebra, but the Black Death will happened because that Goddamn Genghis Khan will throw that desease as a Bioweapon. Christianity will spread like wildfire.
Another Lore: That scenario, evolution(Darwinism) will be not discovered but only the basic evolution, Big Bang Theory will be discovered by a priest named George Lamentra and because of that discovery, Christianity influence goes on Fire, people will understand genetics and huge debate will happened if either hybrids must exist or not. Another note:Furry,Wokest, Secularist and Atheist related things will not exist.
There is NO WAY Egypt would secede from the Roman Empire after 1000 years of Greek rule especially just to become a subject of a tribal foreign ruler with a negligible military standing and even more unlikely with the support of the Patriarch who was still operating under the quasi-doctrine of Caesaropapism. Also you mentioned "landowners" when the nobility for 1000 years have been Greeks and Hellenized Egyptians. The Empire has a vital and strong connection to Egypt and would not abandon it to Bedouin nomads even if all those unlikely events came to pass. All those would be amplified if the Holy Land came with Egypt.
@@xp7575 if they regretted it, why don't they just replace Arabic with Coptic. Why don't they just become Christian? Fvck off with your islamophobia, no religions are to be or deserve to be belittled. This is 2024, not the crusade era
I think that, without the caliphates defeating the Tang and expanding into Central Asia, Turks wouldn't migrate into the Middle East, at least until the Mongol invasions.
the turks were around central asia for about decades before mohamed started in 610, the turks only expanded to middle east due to the weakness of the abbasids and climate change, of course no amount of pod will change the climate but a stronger persia could contain the turks from not invading the middle east.
I'd say the Mongol conquests would never have happened; or if they had happened, they wouldn't have been nearly as expansive or significant. A stronger Chinese presence in Central Asia and Mongolia, in addition to a much stronger Persia, would have significantly reduced the chances. Persia was also a relatively close ally of the Chinese, meaning they might have worked together to contain the Mongolian threat. Also, the chief reason for Genghis Khan's invasion of the Middle East and Central Asia was to avenge the killing and humiliation of Mongol envoys and merchants by the Turco-Muslim rulers of the area at the time (the Khwarizmshahians).
@@TheSonOfArabism we tried the Arab thing and look what happened, Saddam Hussein and his meangless wars , ISIS, and the death of millions of Iraqi people, I prefer mesopotamian identity rather than Arab or Muslim identity
Well, if things were a bit different in history, Islam could have been a regional religion instead of global. I mean, it would go to Indonesia and Africa to some degrees.
Yeah I'm not surprised lol. I will moderate as well as I can. "Islam inherently bad" takes are going to be removed if there is no more substance to the argument than that for example. But I don't mind productive discussion, or criticism of the video.
As a Persian, I would like this scenario much more than the breakout of Islam, because if Rome and Persia hadn't fought years, the Islamic caliphate would have no chance to make their own empire, both empires had become very weak specially the Persian empire
I would use this excuse for every single rising empire in history. You had outnumbered the Arabs in every battle, and out armored them, and yet you still lose.
Please don't cope your forces outnumbered Arabs in all battles + your soldiers were more trained because they were fighting against the byzantine for decades but still Persian empire lost and that's the reality accept it.
@@RAFAY_SHEIKH_47are you aware the sasanian was in civil war? Did you know plague killed half of the population? Neither eranshar and Rome expected a invasion from Arabian peninsula that why there was no castle there and jorjje zydan a pro sunni and pan Arab literally said in his book (history of Islam) that there was 7 reason that Arab won against Iran 5 if them has nothing to do with arab
@@RAFAY_SHEIKH_47What can you expect of a tired army which had just come back from long-term Sanssanid-Byzantine wars, while leading by a young inexperienced king who had just taken the rule after about 10 kings shift in just several years, while standing against an army of savagae ideologic people who were seeking for martydom to go to the heavens to be with Hoories and drink wine So, that is the reality and we should accept it
Ok, so I wrote a timeline about spending a lot of time depending on the pod. 1) For one, the lakmids are all ready gone by 630, heck even 610; if anyone tries to carve eastern Arabia, it would be the banu bakr, who in the OTl were raiding southern Mesopiamia and asked the caliphate for help; they in this timeline due to the history at Dhi Qar would. 2) It's quite unlikely the Ghassanids attack Rome. Ever since the 580s, Ghasanid power had declined, and even after the Islamic invasions, the Ghassanids remained loyal until they had no other choice when the main Roman army was destroyed at Yarmourk. 3) A more limited Arab expansion since the droughts and populations of booms of the 630s would occur; does it make it possible that Egypt and Syria are conquered? Yes but it would resemble for the germanic invaisons rather than united fron, Im just thinking if they were that successful, why not Mesopotamia? Persia was in a worse state than Rome after the war and had raids on it prior to the caliphate.
Until the Byzantines were too weak to defend their territories properly. That's the idea, anyway. And what happened in real life. You can replace the Ghassanids with a fictional or unknown arab tribe. The idea was just having more limited arab invasions, where the conquerors assimilate, as happens more often than not. The specifics are just for the sake of worldbuilding.
Bro what about india without islamic invasion northern India became more estable knowledgeable area for bhudhism and hindunism like takila Kashmir under rule of gurjar korkata and afganistan hindu kings@@Neatling we have chol yes later they destroyed there navy itself but we have pal vijaynagar rashtrakuta chalukya too for colonization or trade balance and many more things afterall indian history also effected by islam directly so don't ignore all this Also if gazhvind never fights 3 battles with gurjar's then what happened with gurjar pratihar how gurjar pratihar end 🤯🤔 Also you put west India under Persia rule this so unrealistic west india have great warriors like gurjar sindh pashtuna rajputs rawat yadav jat and sikh Also then what happened with Sikh the reminded a peaceful religion instead of warriors Sikh and persian only one time fight against each other (Sikh win) it's also changed history they fight with hindu kingdoms in afganistan instead of muslims (not like massive wars like they fighted with Muslim and not harmful hindu community) but after all they fight with hindus too and sikh major enemy became Persian instead of turk India never separated also Hindu and Buddhism was the second and third major following religion in iran And what if bhudhism spread in iran and middle East like they spread in east and central asia
@@Neatling also one more thing whenever we see shivaji tipu sultan nagabhata1 they famous and respected in various regions in india because they fight against invaders or they fight in unity (pls understand my points) if muslim invaders never arrived then no one give respect shivaji, bhoja Samrat etc so much like today they remained famous only in his region and community
@Yashveergurjar4513 Let's address some of this Firstly, Sikhs, Sikhism as a religion essentially only exists due to the Islamic invasions and mass conversion only occurred due to Indian failures in fighting the Arabs. Secondly, India would not colonise anywhere. India was far too divided for far too long of its history, with exactly one Indian power ever colonising outside their borders, that being the Tamil Chola Empire (907AD - 1215AD) India is far too insular as a society, owing much to its extremely entrenched priestly caste, which forced the subcontinent to look inward rather than outward In addition, India had well trained and equipped armies, but they were far too small for conquest, as it was restricted again, by caste. Lastly, invasion of India by an outside power was fairly easy, the land was too divided politically to put up a coordinated effort, and was slow to react and respond, for example, when the Arabs invaded and smashed local armies, Indian nations responded by building Temples and praying more instead of adopting enemy tactics or inventing new ones in response to counter the enemy. They were then subjugated in record speed. This happened again multiple times whenever the Afghans grew bored and decided to attack. Indeed, the only time they've ever adapted and looked outward at all, was when they were invaded and ruled by foreign powers, and even then, they still didn't launch any wars or offensives unless they were actively ruled by another power, such as the British Raj launching very successful offensives against the Japanese, or when WIC-lead local forces attacked the French at Plassey This isn't to say Indian armies were crap, on the contrary they were often excellent, and for example if the generals weren't quite literally doing everything possible to destroy their own army because they were trying to launch a coup, then the Second Anglo-Sikh War would have been a resounding success, given their army was far superior to that of the British It's more that aggressive foreign policy is effectively alien to Indian rulers when dealing with non-Indian powers, and effective coordination of defensive military action did not really exist until during WW1 and WW2, when the British trained and lead Indian armies into modern warfare After that, India appears to have retained that knowledge quite well, using it to decimate their Pakistani neighbours until both sides achieved a nuclear detente
Yeah if persia survived muslim invasion It would allied Chinese dynastys against mongol invasion and probably defeat them (In fact sassanids destroyed gokturks in 12k vs 300k battle by bahram VI )
Good idea for a video, but the research here is sloppy and there's a lot of weird errors in judgement here. For one, the Lakhhmid and Ghhassanid kingdoms did not exist anymore by 630. The Lakhmids were annexed by the Sassanids decades earlier and the Ghassanids had fragmented, becoming reduced to their holdings *inside* Roman territory. So the idea that the Ghassanids would conquer Egypt, and that the Egyptians would just be okay with this for some reason is baffling (also Benjamin was not patriarch at the time, Cyrus was, who was a Monothelite and strongly pro-Constantinople). Let alone the idea that the Romans would just be...okay with this? Egypt made up somewhere around half of the imperial budget, what sense would it make for them to just leave it be? Video is also very Eurocentric. Islam affected most of the world, yet the video is almost solely about the Mediterranean. What about Africa? Or Asia? Or Indonesia? Nothing of interest to be altered there? I don't think so.
the ghassanids still existed in 630 as seen by the fact the leader of the ghassanids fougth at yarmourk the kingdom had fragement in 580s but the tribal leaders still existed and held territory outside of rome as they were still at least in name the leaders of the many arab vassals tribes that were still under rome. but yeah the ghassanids and other tribes were loyal and only joined the caliphate when they had no choice after the army was destroyed at yarmourk if any arabs conquer egypt it would be the waves of migrants from hejaz and central arabia.
@@El-Silver The Ghassanid leader who fought at Yarmouk would have been the Phylarch, who was the leader of the Ghassanid Phylarchate, which did indeed still exist. But the Phylarchate existed inside Roman borders. The Ghassanid basileia, or kingdom, which existed outside of Roman borders no longer existed. Or at least, we have no sources from the time suggesting it still existed as a unified entity at all.
Actually, the Byzantines were not interested in controlling the area of the Levant and Egypt because their empire was collapsing and was declining also the so-called Islamic conquests never happened and the prophet Muhammad never existed Islam as a religion was created later by the Abbasids and before them, there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity influenced by Manichean and Marcions ideas we also have overwhelming archaeological and historical evidence supporting the revisionist view.
I think your criticisms are fair disagreements about the direction of the scenario, rather than errors in judgment or research. I'm aware the Lakhmid and Ghassanid kingdoms were gone. The idea was simply to depict more limited Arab invasions. The specifics are for worldbuilding; you could envision some fictional or unknown Arab tribe from Hejaz. But as for choosing the Lakhmids and Ghassanids: they are recognized tribal entities in their regions, and the scenario remains plausible. The Ghassanid Phylarchate might've been revived after the war with the Sassanids (it's debated), and there’s some evidence of a Ghassanid leader during the Arab invasions converting to Islam (though this is also contested, with some arguing his existence was a revision by the Abbasids). So, it’s within reason that some Ghassanid leader could carve out a kingdom when Rome is weakened in the region due to war. As for the Lakhmids, the Kingdom would’ve been within living memory. It’s plausible some tribal identity connected to it still existed, and even that an heir to Al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir survived. I probably should've chosen a random or made-up Arab tribe, but I didn’t. Cyrus was a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, appointed by Emperor Heraclius. His mission was to reconcile the Miaphysite (Coptic) Christians with the Chalcedonian doctrine of the Roman Empire. However, his efforts, especially promoting Monothelitism (the belief in a single will of Christ), were largely unsuccessful and unpopular among the Copts. Benjamin I, conversely, was the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, who rejected the Chalcedonian doctrine and upheld the Miaphysite belief in Christ's single, unified nature. Due to Cyrus's harsh persecution of the Copts, including the brutal torture and execution of Benjamin's brother Mennas, Benjamin went into hiding to evade capture. The Copts continued to view Benjamin as their legitimate patriarch, while seeing Cyrus as an oppressor imposed by Roman authorities. In my scenario, when Rome lost control over Egypt, Cyrus would lose all legitimacy. Rome wouldn’t be okay with this, but they’d have little choice. They weren’t okay with the Arab invasions in real life either but couldn’t stop the Arabs from taking Egypt. They couldn't in my scenario either, even with less organized invasions. Rome would have almost no local support apart from the elites they installed. The Egyptian population and Miaphysite leaders all despised Roman rule, at least during this period. It is very Eurocentric, I agree with you there. I wanted to map out the entire Old World in the video, but that was too ambitious if I wanted to complete it within a reasonable timeframe. If I remade this video, I’d probably have fewer maps showing all of Afro-Eurasia-maybe one every 2-3 centuries-and then focus more on Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, etc. I could still make a follow-up video.
@@Neatling this is actually inaccurate Cyrus with glee tells us how many due to monoenergisim ( monothelisim wouldn't come about till 638) many in Alexandria joined comunión due to said compromise the compromise in 630 was succeeding Armenia another non chalcedonian area fully entered communion with Constantinople ( that they would leave in 646) the major opponent now was the chalcedonians. Cyrus disliked both Copts and chalcedonians who didn't conform but the persecutions you read about and pope Benjamin come from 10th century sources which I don't have to tell you by that point the trend of Coptic sources exaggerating or some times flat out making up byzantine periods of persecution was a long established writing trend
Sassanid Persia was undergoing rapid change when the Muslims arrived. While the rulers were Zoroastrian, eastern Iran was converting to Buddhism and western Iran to Nestorian/Assyrian Christianity. ( That's why there are so many Buddha statues there). The Sassanids destroyed the Lakmid Kingdom in 602 AD, but many members of the Sassanid royal family were already Christians including the last crown prince who never inherited the throne due to the Islamic invasion. So I think the Turkic peoples would still have embraced Buddhism. (Buddhism still survives in Kalmykia Russia.) But what would have resulted from the encounter of Buddhism and Eastern Christianity, no one knows...
@@Remtnot it'll definitely be awhile, but my short stories will come out before the main series to kind of introduce people to my world. It's not your typical science fiction, more like a modern retelling of the stories of the Spanish conquistadors, and other adventures
@@Ivarevich I'd like to know what the settlement on the continent of Aphrodite is called. It sounds like a lovely place. What would you call this series so we know what to look for?
Islam is not an Arab culture, Islam is a complete life from God who does not differentiate between races or nationalities and rules the same on them, Persia or Iran is stronger with Islam, therefore it is the Islamic Republic of Iran If it weren't for Imam Khomeini and his great revolution that changed the face of the Middle East and the world, I, my family, and many of the people of my country and many of the Shiite countries would be dead or slaves to the superpowers. The Imam and his revolution liberated us, strengthened us, and motivated us to be a bulwark against evil, but fools like you do not realize the value of this revolution to Iran or the world. I am Iraqi, for your information, so that you do not think that I am benefiting financially from the Iranian Islamic government
As a Georgian, I see this as an absolute win. Georgia would maintain its stable presence as a resistant kingdom and would have much more open relations with the Western world thanks to the fact that Ottomans never invaded Anatolia and the Straits stayed open, never isolating the Eastern Christian world. Also, what would happen to Communism (Which I assume, would still rise after the start of the industrial revolution) in this alternate world? Also, I'd guess that out of the wars and internal conflicts, both Persia and Rome would collapse way moreso than what you depicted.
man if only... brazil could have been so much less corrupt and could be the definite regional power in south america. it could have it's own monroe doctrine for it's continent
Can we get a video on alternate Anglo-American world order. 1, What if America colonized the Carribean and Annexed more of Mexico? What if America never exported industry? 2. What If Britian Colonized Argentina? What If Imperial Federation was successful?
It's interesting but I feel like America colonizing the Carribbean and annexing more of Mexico, would be the job of a Confederacy which won the Civil War
South and SEA would change substantially too. Islamic invasions and institutional erosion that followed in India would not happen; and potentially local state structures would continue to evolve; with Indian states strengthening; India would probably resemble Europe with strong local states like the Kakatiyas, Hoysalas, Yadavas, etc. SEA would still be majority Hindu / Buddhist. Maybe the Majapahit empire would thrive to form a large Indonesian power.
It would completely depend on the economic models if followed laizzes faire caiptalism than it would be richer than Europe given large landscape larger populations and more natural in India. The British won against the Indians because of there industrial revolution without this they would be as poor as dust. India seriously needs laizzes faire reforms same with Bengal and Pakistan these countries are not poor because of islam or Christianity they are poor because of central planning and shit economic miss management by an inefficient state. The empire itself was not a caiptalist empire it was a protectionist empire it was caiptalist in Britain but not so in Bengal or India as they set price controls and regulated grain imposed tarrifs and imposed trade regulations and then India putting flame to a gasoline after the Brits left decide to go socialist fully raping the economy we could have been great Britain levels of rich 50 years earlier
@@tysolbohan6446 Yeah, but in South India you had large scale trade guild activity which died down post Islamic rule. This increased the influence of Arab merchants in SEA and China (following the Indian Ocean trade route) rather than South Indian guilds which traditionally dominated these markets. The second factor is land management and state control as you rightly mentioned. Traditional Indian states are relatively small and light on taxation / regulation. This could have led to the emergence of a free market style system before. Iqta governments have well defined and strong taxation.
@@vishwakat8743 if that's the case then yes your right india would be trillions of times wealthier but the caveat is you still had the caste system there is 0 reason to white wash it and in fact the cast system has been a natural part of history all over the world. the difference was Christianity had been through several reforms and people started to get more secular this led to formation of Capitalism. Inverse capitalism seems to have a eugenic effect on the IQ as people who are smarter get more rewarded in these systems and more likely to have kids while those with lower iqs tend to die to off this is why they had an iq of 126 in the victorian era. India today privitized it's industries removed barriers to trade reduced the taxes to a flat rate of 10 percent maximum with a strong police force mainly funded by public and private interests then the police have an incentive to serve the public more so than just the state as both sectors would pay there bills. but alas the leaders want to suck the blood dry of india
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
Missed a few minor details about the preservation of the Persian culture. For instance, you included that a recognized languages in the Shahdom of Persia was "Farsi" when it in this world would've been called "Parsi" since the Arabic conquest of Persia wouldn't have taken place and their influence on the Persian language would never have happened.
@@TheLostChild25 Huh ? You guys ok ? There were no better army than Turks at that time because Turks are nomadic warriors. Be it with islam or not Turks would still invade all those lands with ease
The whole beginning of the video makes no sense. While Egypt at the time wasn’t a big fan of Roman rule, they had still been under Roman (or Greek) rule for 1000 years and had a significant Greek speaking population, particularly in urban areas, such as on the coast where they represented the vast majority, and even in the Nile delta, though there would’ve been a higher concentration of Coptic speakers the further south you went. In this timeline, Egypt is not an Arab state. It is a Christian, mostly Greek and Coptic speaking one that is not in any way similar to the Arabs. Egypt’s main gripe with Rome was the large Miaphysite population in Egypt while the Romans were Chalcedonian Christians, as were the Ghassanids. There would be no love for the Ghassanids nor any incentive to invite the Ghassanid king to become king of Egypt. The Ghassanids were literally a Roman puppet, and not a very strong one. There is no way they would’ve wanted to or been able to take literally half the Empire from the Romans. Egypt would’ve almost certainly remained part of the Empire, and would’ve only become more integrated as time went on. By our time it would be almost entirely Greek speaking and Orthodox Christian (though in this timeline the great schism probably never would have happened so that designation wouldn’t be relevant, it would just be the one Church).
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no Islam just a sub-sect of christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marxism we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia I mean I would agree in the sense that I think that Islam is just a Christian heresy. I have no idea what the first Muslims believed but it doesn’t really matter, they weren’t Orthodox Christians and they conquered and subjugated Christian lands
well the guys with this opinion also thinks Jesus isn't real or maybe a jews man with some different ideas and have smell cult no one ever heard about
You really underestimate Egypt here, we were not fans of them at all, and many wanted out, and the Greek speaking population was just focused in Alexandria, nowhere else, and the majority of Egypt is Miaphysite and not Diaphysite, as you've said, and I really doubt the Coptic Church would crumble under the weight of the Eastern Roman Church, if we revolted, it'd have been over for the Byzantines, especially given their troublesome circumstances and their fatigue, being very unlikely to respond, and Egypt by this time was already 90% Christian, and I really doubt Coptic would die out in favor of Greek.
@@Cyril_2009 the idea of manny of you wanting out comes from jonh of nikou who was trying to explain why God will allow arabs to conquer egypt so his rationalization was the romans persecuted us so severely God freed us scholars like jonh Moorhead show that no such sentiments existed in 630 or during the Muslims invasion
not much would change, before even islame came there the indians were always fragmented, united several times but never expand outward india itself, and i'm not sure the indian non islamic empire can keep the mongols out
India never expanded? 😂 India controlled Central Asia,South Asia, parts east Asia and Whole southeast Asia by different Empires like Chola, Karkota, Rajputana, Maurya, Kushana, etc before Islam borned @@AdeTri-pu7qi
Can you do If the Islam’s Golden Age never ended next? Note: For this type of scenario, Mongols shouldn’t expand and stay at the east of Caspain sea. Another Note: Good video. Keep up with the quality content!
@@THE_APK20No because it wasn’t really lslamic in the first place. Most Islamic theocrats thought ill of those discoveries and thought they were the work of the devil. Islam is even more dogmatic than Christianity. Even art is banned in Islam because it’s blasphemy. Without art there can’t be progress. Artistic ideals are the milestones for scientific advancements.
he already did.. charles had won the wars of sucessions long before tours, tours just gave him a massive Pr win to justify him essentially taking power from the merovingian dynasty.
Good video but why is there almost nothing said about Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Southeast Asia 😭 Without the Islamic world cutting them off, Ethiopia would be far more powerful and far more connected to the rest of Eurasia. The Sahel would convert to Christianity without Islam being there, so they will also be more closely connected with Europe. Maritime Southeast Asia might stay Buddhist in this timeline, however it is also possible that they would convert to Christianity or Zoroastrianism. The Spanish specifically landing in the Caribbean was likely a fluke of our timeline. In this timeline, the Americas would either be discovered by the Basques through Canada or by the Iberians/North Africans through Brazil. Since the Basques probably did find the Americas before 1492, but diseases didn’t spread as much, I'd imagine that the Native Americans would have been a bit better off. This combined with Canada and Eastern Brazil being way further from the main American civilizations means that the Mesoamericans and the Andeans likely would have survived as independent cultures. The Aztecs specifically probably would have fallen anyways as they were already in decline before the Europeans came. With more natives around to enslave instead, and with West Africa already being Christian, the Atlantic Slave Trade likely would have been smaller. This would subsequently mean that the 1800s economic recession and following instability in Africa wouldn't have been as severe, leading to more African states not to be colonised relative to our timeline. Although India would still get invaded from Afghanistan many times, it will likely be less severe, since Zoroastrianism isn't as focused on converting people. The only reason why the entire Indian Subcontinent was colonised was because of the complete disintegration of the Mughal Empire. The butterfly effect could change this dramatically. It is more possible that India ends up like China, where the empire there would slowly decline over time and thus not be directly colonised. It is possible that a more merchantile state (probably in Southern india) industrialises earlier, similar to what happened in Japan. I don't think Egypt would be independent for long. It's geography makes it easy to hold by an Anatolian power. I don't get why you say the HRE would be more centralised in this timeline. Maybe northern Italy specifically would be centralised, due to Byzantium threatening them, but not necessarily Germany. France will likely end up dominating Western Europe in this timeline. A big factor in France not doing this in our timeline is Austria, which narrowly avoided being conquered by the Ottomans in our timeline. In this timeline, there is less of a religious opposition towards Byzantium and it wouldn't need to spend time uniting Anatolia like with the Ottomans. This would mean that the Byzantines would take Austria and consequently, France would have hegemony over mainland Western Europe. This will probably make France more like the other gunpowder empires due to less competition, and thus it won't be as technologically competitive as England. This would give England an advantage compared to mainland Europe when it comes to overseas colonisation. Sweden will also be more powerful without Russia overpowering them. Without a large country like Russia turning to communism, communist revolutions worldwide would probably be less successful. Additionally, there were less colonised countries in this timeline and countries that were never colonised are generally better at industrialising. These two would mean that the world as a whole would be wealthier in this this timeline. Conversely, mainland Europe and especially France might be poorer in this timeline, but England Scandinavia and Eastern Europe would be richer.
as an indonesian i can say you're a bit incorect here, southeast asian maritime only get full islamized around 15th century as the same time as spanis expansion, so we can assume zorostrianism also won't reach us before that timelime and we will still under majapahit empire that is hindu, the majapahit fall due to internal struggle and the srivijaya also vastly weakened after chola invasion and majapahit conquest, there could be another hindu kingdom thrive in this situation but overall the archipelago would be much more fragmented, if spanish reach SEA maritime in this situation they could've conquer and influence much more area, probably turn SEA into second south america, but as reconquesta never happened the scenario where berber and middle eastern people come to america first is make sense as well, but without extreme ambition and competition between spain and portuguise the native americans would probably develop faster than any foreign power can conquer them as they learn the world beyond their continent and learn so much from the old wolrd, adopting technology, culture even ideology, no one can say if they can't form their own empire and start conquering the old world, that would be interesting as this would hugely benefical for maritime SEA, as there's no foreign disturbance they could rise from their dimise either caried by the extention of srivijaya, majapahit or other kingdom from completely different culture like pajajaran, anything is possible, the world geopolitics would look much more different than today as the americans are become one of major power in the wold and the christianity influence would probably far more weakened and limited than today, islam did't rise and so christianity only limited to it's former territories in east africa and europe, what this wolrd might look like?
Sorry to be critical, but there are several points: even if Islam did not exist, the Lombards would have conquered Italy, which they were already doing by 600 (and probably the Normans would have conquered Sicily sooner or later). Without Islam there are no Mamluks and their military capacity that allowed the sultans of Delhi and Cairo to resist the Mongol invasions, so Egypt and northern India would have been conquered by the Ilkhanate and the Chagatai Khanate. And what happened to the kingdom of Axum? 1500 years pass and nothing changes with Egypt, probably the Romans would have tried to reconquer it, or the Persians. Also, without Mamluks as a warrior caste nothing prevents the Seljuk Turks from conquering all of Persia, Mesopotamia and Anatolia.
the byzantines even after the islamic conquest nearly reconquered benevento an empire that doesnt suffer from that is far more likely to succed were constans II nearly did.
A world where Persia is still Zoroastrian and strong, AND russia does not exist, AND Taurica is a non-slavic nation? This is a perfect world I'd happily live in, get me there now!
Well, the Arabs likely would not have transmitted Indian Numerals (known to us as Arabic numerals). That would have staunched mathmatical progress in the West.
There’s no way of knowing how it would play out, the Sassanids could’ve invented a similar numerical system given their close contact with India which was the source of inspirations for the arabs.
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
Since this scenario didn't focus on the impact of Islam's non-existence in a huge Muslim population, Southeast Asia, I want to give a few theories on what might have changed. I am from SEA but this is just a theory with not much research given into it so if you think this is wrong feel free to correct me. Firstly, South Thailand and South Philippines insurgencies would have been less severe because a huge reason for the insurgencies is the feeling of difference and them not being Muslim anymore would have meant that factor would have been gone. The Aceh insurgency would have still happened due to their beef with the Javanese but Aceh probably wouldn't choose to gain autonomy to carry out Sharia law. Malaysia would either be a Buddhist majority or a Christian majority depending on if the Portuguese were able to convert them and Indonesia would have a lot more Buddhists and Hindus. Maybe even a large enough Hindu population to where they would seek even closer ties to India. Malaysia's kings would have had even lesser power due to no longer being the head of Islam there and some of them might even be removed due to lack of power so they could have been a republic. Malaysia and Indonesia might also go full communist. On that note the British might have gone to war with Malaysia since they weren't willing to give them independence if communism was still strong. So instead of a peaceful independence, it would have been a bloody one, or no independence at all. Maybe then the possible communist Indonesia would have stepped in and if they won, would have unified Malaysia and Indonesia under the banner of communism. Singapore also could have went differently because the tensions between the Chinese and Malays might change due to Malays no longer being an ethnoreligious group but instead just an ethnic group and they might have broken up and identified differently without Islam.
I think the biggest issue I have here (aside from my own subjective feelings about Slavic people being subjects of greater powers in this universe too) The biggest issue is the idea that Japan would slmehow be better off than China which simply seems unlikely, in fact, it seems offensive, Western civilization made Japan into a ticking time bomb (in our timeline) and managed to completely ruin all the previous archivements of Japanese civilization that could have made it succeed as a world power. It simply doesn't make much sense to put Japan over China in this universe. Not to mention - what happened to the Indian world, without islam, much more of south east asia would have been hindu and buddhist further expanding and forming a unifying ideals for a much greater ASEAN, especially since from what I managed to grasp when you showed Iran, India isn't unified, meaning it's a set of smaller states. Simply put, a sort of south asian Union could happen
I think persian took North america because sassnade Navy always had ships around china and jepan, even persian base found in jepan ,, they just needed to follow the russian border to find Bering Strait
mhm even if islam didnt exist hm not good or bad its still awful like our timeline causes bro you just want islam to dissappear because works of individuals and it doesnt mean all like saying on chirstianity the same causes some individuals did something pretty wrong
@@HalfBound-c9x yeah sure, humans would be centuries stuck in time, and before you tell me that it's only decades or so, the literary rate was very low and some people didn't go to school and spent time on agriculture, which would make us centuries back then we are
@@starwarsfan779 Nepos was the last feasible chance of restoring the western roman empire however he didn't have enough support from the eastern empire and ended up being assassinated
As for the Visigoths, their kingdom suffered numerous civil wars and was always reunited, in fact, despite the last civil war before the Arab conquest, it was the most culturally developed kingdom in the West (after Italy) and the most centralized (that's why it fell so easily when the king died), even centuries after several kingdoms made their own Reconquista, the idea of Hispania as the same territory was what inspired the attempts to unite the peninsula, which was achieved. And the Catholic kings, after taking Granada in 1492, wanted to continue their Reconquista in present-day Morocco but then came the discovery of America. And regarding the discovery of America, the Spanish and Portuguese would also have the same problems to trade with the East, so they would have to launch themselves into exploration trips. And if Spain or Portugal never had a Reconquista, their history would probably have been more similar to that of France, with a much more centralist monarchy (and as for stability, look at central Africa to see if the French colonization model is very stable), and the Reconquista generated a community mentality and free peasants. And why is it called Argentina? If it was colonized by a North African state with a Nordic ruling class, it should be called something else (and why would that state, located there, be more concerned with Mediterranean and Sahara trade?).
And, as a South American, I regret to say it, but there probably would not have been a period of greater stability after independence, nor would we have become independent as a united or larger country: civil wars occurred because the new republics had a hard time subduing the provinces, which was mixed with racial issues, ideologies and the ambitions of caudillos. The most stable countries were those where the capitals quickly subjugated the provinces (Chile 1859, Argentina 1880, Uruguay in 1904, Peru 1896, Venezuela 1903, Colombia 1902, Bolivia 1899, Ecuador 1899, etc.). And because there was no large state in South America, its geographical extension made it impossible to govern the territory, so each viceroyalty, captaincy general or audience was completely autonomous from each other.
En ese mundo el norte de África sigue teniendo un idioma derivado del latín, por lo que Argentina es la misma lógica que se usó en español, en lo demás bastante de acuerdo.
Lol the Romans and Persians were literally fighting each other before islam rose maybe ask those people at the time if a world without islam improved anything or not
As an Egyptian this is MY DREAM 😍 i really hate when people visit us and think we are Arabs We don't have arab names, we don't eat as arabs and we don't workship the arabic fake god We are AFRICANS not Asians.
@@Damascene-Syria They are NOT EGYPTIANS they are Mamelucs living in Egypt it doesn't matter if they are the biggest part of the population because they never called them selves "Egyptians" until the British helped to create the modern state of Egypt. But we have always called our selves Egyptians under the arabic caliphates, under the otoman rule because we are the real owners of this Land 🇪🇬
India have 220 million Muslim population Pak has 240 million Bangla has 150 million Afghan has 40 million Other south aisa and south east asia has around 5 million Muslims Indonesia, Malaysia other south east major Muslim nation has around 300 million Muslims, and also in middle asia .. Almost a billion Muslims has been ignored
The narrator was very eurocentric. I think Aksum would greatly expand and morph into something new and bigger. One of the factors for the decline was it got cut off due to the rise of Islam (they once controlled the red sea and indian ocean routes in the region). Due to constant fighting with converted coastal kingdoms (Somali coastal sultanates and other horner sultanates) and suppression from muslim kingdoms upstream (like Egypt) there influence and wealth declined severely.
very nice, but all those well developed powers are a bit unrealistic. The industrial revolution happened quickly but was based on centuries of cultural change to enable it, and I think that's why the most advanced economies were mostly just in western europe, even to this day.
The cenario is fun but it’s completely irrealistic. First the ghassanids didn’t even exist any more by this point Secondly the patriarch at the time was a Roman loyalist and even if he wasn’t he didn’t have anything even close to the power and influence to make such a move Thirdly if the Egyptians decide to declare independence they wouldn’t call on some Arab barbarian to be the king they would crown one of their own. Fourthly that Egypt wouldn’t last a second in no time the Roman emperor would send an army. Like in our timeline the Arabs won but barely and they had high morale ,were imbued with religious fervor and had a legendary general in the form of Khalid ib’n Walid. This Egypt wouldn’t have any of that and would be reliant on the provinces that had been hit the hardest by the recent wars against the Persians and some small petty Arab kingdom. There just no way this Egypt lasts. And well without that weakening of Rome created by the loss of Egypt basically every thing else in this cenario would be different.
The only way I see something like this happening is with a charismatic governor in the style of Julius Ceaser getting the support of masses of Alexandria, the support of the provincial army’s and a secret aliance with the Sassanids (the Persian Empire). So that the takeover of Egypt is actually plausible and so the Romans are distracted enough to not immediately send an army before this new Egypt even has time to breathe.
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia Islam in its first years was just a sub-sect of Christianity. I do not denie it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it existed and all those conquests are real Besides on it’s first year’s Christianity was also only just a sub-sect of Judaism it really only evolved into its own thing after Constantine the Great.
Besides Sunni, and Shia are only sub-sect’s of Islam Orthodoxy, and Catholicism are only sub-sect’s of Cristianity. But that doesn’t change the fact that they exist have they’re own achievements and are treated as basically they own separate religions.
I'm more confused on how the world countries became larger including the south americans since there is a possibility that the inca empire would've conquered the south americans without western threat
Nice work! Well thought out and interesting. A couple thoughts... * I could maaaaybe see Egypt getting independence, but it'd more likely be without inviting "outsiders" from Arabia * A surviving Byzantium comprised of exactly the Balkans and Anatolia is almost a cliche now. Can't they keep Tunisia for once? Oh well, at least they got Syria. * I like Vandal/Norman New World
@@Redmi-qs3sp I wouldn't be so sure about the dominant religion. Celtic and Germanic tribes contributed to Christianity spreading as much as the late Roman Empire. Islam, if it somehow existed (Islam shares a lot with Judaism and Christianity, but with different interpretation), I don't think it would be all that popular in Europe because of the dry law. So Hellenistic religion in the southern Europe, mix or amalgam of other European religions in the rest of the continent. Celtic, Germanic and Slavic pantheons were getting mixed in real life even at times of crusades (Germans mostly) and rulers adopting Christianity from the top.
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view. The world before is better.
Think you for respecting our religion Islam and the information was great but a question means without Islam the disappearance of the Arabic language and the Arabic race from the world or this world not have happened and I am only reporting 😅❤
Can you make part 2 of this video but this time focusing on India and the East? Because as someone whose ancestors were forced to leave their lands in modern day Bangladesh to escape genocide thanks to Islam, I would very much like to see such an alternate history.
I've been thinking about something similar for a few years now, and honestly I'm curious if things I imagined will happen in the video, I'm going to watch it now.
An actually decent and even blessed timeline; I despise Islamophobia as I would any other extreme form of bigotry and prejudice, but Oriental Christians being given more sway and influence, including greater Christian unity is quite wholesome to me, even as an Ex-Catholic.
@@SirBolsón the internet is far more important than you think it is, if i just snapped my finger rn and the internet disappeared then our economy would be sent back to the 1920's with billions dying (especially in the western world)
the islamic golden age made scientific technological stuff that shaped modernity, so without them the world would just be 1900s still, but atleast persia does them
I’m skeptical for the changes this would actually have on Western Europe beyond maybe a few more states existing in Iberia. The Frankish Empire would’ve still been divided between Charlemagne’s sons and regardless of whether it’s called the Holy Roman Empire or not, the Germanic portion of that would very likely still be extremely decentralized. France itself would also likely not centralize much earlier because there’s nothing that would change the Hundred Years War in this scenario. They’re very likely still on the same timeline bar some possible French expansion into Iberia with the possible lack of Spain which isn’t guaranteed that it wouldn’t still exist through unification of the Iberian kingdoms. I’m also very skeptical on the Reconquista’s effect on how the Iberians would conduct colonization of the Americas. I do think an interesting thing to note that wasn’t mentioned though is without a Christian-Muslim split, the Mediterranean likely remains as a regional community across both sides, allowing much more trade and cultural exchange to flourish in the region. This may at least play into the Iberians not necessarily viewing themselves as superior based on skin to the locals in the Americas but they would still likely view themselves as superior. What’s today Latin America would definitely still be drastically different. Rather than just Spanish and Portuguese colonies with some small areas by the British, Dutch, and French, there’s the possibility of more Iberian kingdoms competing for these territories as well as very likely Moroccan and Berber colonies. I can’t really imagine how this would change how the rest of North America is settled though because that’s still primarily done by the English and French with the intentions of full settlement and trade beyond there never being a claim to Alaska by the Russians since they’re likely no longer a major colonial power. That means Alaska would very likely be part of Canada instead of America. I do think the idea of a Byzantine state turning the Black Sea into its own internal waters is really cool but I’m also skeptical on their success against the Mongols. I’m not fully sure they could still hold onto that much land even without the losses to the Islamic powers prior. The Byzantine’s were in decline either way. The Mongols likely wouldn’t be as successful as our timeline but they’d still be quite successful. Even if they did survive and regrow, they’d eventually still likely eventually become the same “sick man of Europe” they, the Ottomans, and the Austro-Hungarians became. I think my biggest qualm is the sheer amount of unity across Western Europe and the Americas though just because most of them don’t really get affected a whole lot by this timeline change. It’s much more Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. I think exploring the Eurasian Steppe a bit more could have also been interesting just because I’m not fully convinced a state doesn’t emerge there even with the Byzantines around. They wouldn’t press too far inwards so a major land power could still rise between them, the Baltic Sea, and the Volga River and in the power vacuum that was left by the Mongols, there’s a lot of states with the potential to do so. Other than Novgorod or Poland-Lithuania, all of the other candidates likely play out very similarly to Russia, at least in terms of how pre-Soviet Russia functioned and expanded eastwards.
This is a very well-written scenario on what if Islam never existed. I have always wanted to hear a timeline on all the events that would happen in the next 14 centuries after 610 AD, and what empires, states, and religions would rise and fall. 1:05 Why would the Ghassanid Kingdom invade Byzantine Egypt and become kings of Egypt? In the 5tth-7th Centuries, The Ghassanids were a Christianized Arab tribe and kingdom which was a vassal state to the Byzantine Empire. They constantly allied with the Byzantines against the Sassanid (Persian) Empire and their Arab vassal tribe, the Lakhmids.I see no reason why the the Ghassanids, serving as useful allies of the Byzantines during the enduring centuries-long Byzantine-Persian Wars, whould suddently betray their biggest ally and take Egypt from them.
as an kazakh, we would be gratefully with Persians with zoroastrian or shamanizm. But Kazakhstan is formed turkic 3 juz tribes. there should be named Cuman Confederation
Sweden has a growing muslim population (for the most part due to immigration but a growing number of converts to the faith), but it's about 5% of the total population. it is widely regarded as an athiest country, which has left christianity behind in the past two decades
I don't really think in this case Turkish expansion in Eran-shahr would've been successfuldue to the united land there was. thus the the chance of Persia becoming a Mongol puppet state is doubtable but not really denyable. what i mean is in the Abbasid Caliphate time line there really wasn't a major Persian empire in the land. yes ofc there were Tahirid, Samanid, Safarid... but none of them really were independent and all of them were just a feudal state of the Caliphate and the one who were not, were fighting the Caliphate for independence. Rashidun and Abbasid didn't really cared who ruled the land as long as they did pay their taxes and respected Caliphate as the true land owner. I believe that alternative history here is more like a internal coup or change of dynesty or maybe seperation in the Sassanid empire or maybe a long lasting civil war. I say that because of the appearance of Prophets "Mani" and "Mazdak" in that same century and the massive corruption and not having the enough strength to govern the persia from the Sassanids. PS: It's not clear why if all the things that were mentioned in the video were true, why wouldn't the Turkish or Mongol tribes conquer Egypt?
No? if religon exists there will continue to be wars im not saying religon is bad but you are stupid and racist for thinking world peace would exist if islam vanished
yo!!! mate can you do what if the Angevin Empire survived with a united France having its natural borders and united British isles, as the Angevin Empire expands and conquered 1/3 of the world and became the largest and one of the greatest empires in world and history, like bigger than the British empire in our world
Another edgelord islamophobiaese probaly a political woke larper bot from the CIA or mossad, or a islamist trying to ruin reputation by running a larping account, or a sad teenager who failed to get attention in school
A few things:
-I forgot to add dates in the top right before exporting the video, apologies for that. I added which century it is as chapters on the video timeline and in the description.
-This fictional world is not better or worse, just different. Extremism and war exist just as much as in our world. The middle east, being at the crossroads of 3 major powers, certainly sees its fair share of conflict in my scenario.
-Productive and respectful discussions, even if a little controversial, are fair game, but if you have nothing more to say than hateful nonsense or "Islam bad" I'm just removing your comment, that's not productive.
-The video is definitely too Eurocentric. I should've focused a lot more on Africa and Asia, as Islam had a profound impact there as well.
-The United Provinces of America has the same "Recognized Languages" tab as Rhomania by mistake.
I imagine that some Christian Theologians will discovered Calculus and Algebra, but the Black Death will happened because that Goddamn Genghis Khan will throw that desease as a Bioweapon.
Christianity will spread like wildfire.
Another Lore:
That scenario, evolution(Darwinism) will be not discovered but only the basic evolution, Big Bang Theory will be discovered by a priest named George Lamentra and because of that discovery, Christianity influence goes on Fire, people will understand genetics and huge debate will happened if either hybrids must exist or not.
Another note:Furry,Wokest, Secularist and Atheist related things will not exist.
could you please do video on amazigh
Ghassanids were Roman allies since the 400s and Nubians were not nearly as numerous
@@CJ8pl 2. ghannsadis wre not roman allies and Numidians were numerous they were the amazigh kingdom
There is NO WAY Egypt would secede from the Roman Empire after 1000 years of Greek rule especially just to become a subject of a tribal foreign ruler with a negligible military standing and even more unlikely with the support of the Patriarch who was still operating under the quasi-doctrine of Caesaropapism. Also you mentioned "landowners" when the nobility for 1000 years have been Greeks and Hellenized Egyptians. The Empire has a vital and strong connection to Egypt and would not abandon it to Bedouin nomads even if all those unlikely events came to pass. All those would be amplified if the Holy Land came with Egypt.
Worth noting Egypt had massive religious tension with the remainder of the Empire-- to such an extent that they *welcomed* the muslims as liberators!
That is why it's called alternate history
@@xp7575 if they regretted it, why don't they just replace Arabic with Coptic. Why don't they just become Christian? Fvck off with your islamophobia, no religions are to be or deserve to be belittled. This is 2024, not the crusade era
Westerners talking things they dont know anything about, only their islamophobia@@xp7575
@chad2522 Better than opressed by Greeks and Roman's, stop spreading your hate towards islam
I think that, without the caliphates defeating the Tang and expanding into Central Asia, Turks wouldn't migrate into the Middle East, at least until the Mongol invasions.
the turks were around central asia for about decades before mohamed started in 610, the turks only expanded to middle east due to the weakness of the abbasids and climate change, of course no amount of pod will change the climate but a stronger persia could contain the turks from not invading the middle east.
@@El-Silver😱
@@El-SilverThe Sassanid Persians did stop the Gokturks Khaganate from expanding
@@Oskar_Von_Reuenthal_1 yes but who knows what it would be like in alt 950
I'd say the Mongol conquests would never have happened; or if they had happened, they wouldn't have been nearly as expansive or significant. A stronger Chinese presence in Central Asia and Mongolia, in addition to a much stronger Persia, would have significantly reduced the chances. Persia was also a relatively close ally of the Chinese, meaning they might have worked together to contain the Mongolian threat. Also, the chief reason for Genghis Khan's invasion of the Middle East and Central Asia was to avenge the killing and humiliation of Mongol envoys and merchants by the Turco-Muslim rulers of the area at the time (the Khwarizmshahians).
Rome continues to struggle on and on, surviving over 3,000 years...
Erm, the germanic barbarians would've eventually caused its collapse.
@@villiamfangy6205 I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.
@@Darkness-yn5us The fact that even if the Islamic calpihate never existed, rome would've eventually collapsed sooner or later.
@@villiamfangy6205why so?
@@TheSuperemeGoat The Roman Empire was already weakened by the time the Islamic Empire became a thing.
I have to respect that you didn't close the comments section
Mesopotamian nationalism 🫶🏻
🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦
⬜⬜☀️⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
BASED PFP! MESOPOTAMIA FOREVER!
I personally have no nationalism for Mesopotania or Iraq
@@TheSonOfArabism Yeah, thankfully. No place for Arabism and Baatheism here.
@@TheSonOfArabism we tried the Arab thing and look what happened, Saddam Hussein and his meangless wars , ISIS, and the death of millions of Iraqi people, I prefer mesopotamian identity rather than Arab or Muslim identity
Oh boy, the comments are gonna be fun with this one
Really fun.
There will be someone who says peace , or the world will be better, this gonna start a bloodbath
Well, if things were a bit different in history, Islam could have been a regional religion instead of global. I mean, it would go to Indonesia and Africa to some degrees.
Yeah I'm not surprised lol. I will moderate as well as I can.
"Islam inherently bad" takes are going to be removed if there is no more substance to the argument than that for example.
But I don't mind productive discussion, or criticism of the video.
@@Neatling as an atheist how would a alternate history scenario play out without religion. How would civilization develop without religion?
Now this is a world that i want to live in
As an Iranian, I too.
without islam there would be no advancements in algebra,maths,physics and astronomy many of the muslim inventions shaped the world
The world would be ruled by two great Indo-European Empires. Persia and Rome
world isn't only limited to middle east and eastern europe
@@zukotraat that time. the world outside of Europe. middle East. north Africa.and china didn't matter much lo l
@@Sina.575 Europe also didn't matter for India China South East Asia also these regions were a lot richer stronger and greater than Europe back then
You have completely got the wrong meaning of this already confusing term aka "Indo-European" if this is what you think of it.
@@Sina.575 india alone controlled 38% of the worlds wealth alongside buddhism being spread to majority of asia. lmao
As a Persian, I would like this scenario much more than the breakout of Islam, because if Rome and Persia hadn't fought years, the Islamic caliphate would have no chance to make their own empire, both empires had become very weak specially the Persian empire
I would use this excuse for every single rising empire in history.
You had outnumbered the Arabs in every battle, and out armored them, and yet you still lose.
Please don't cope your forces outnumbered Arabs in all battles + your soldiers were more trained because they were fighting against the byzantine for decades but still Persian empire lost and that's the reality accept it.
@@RAFAY_SHEIKH_47are you aware the sasanian was in civil war? Did you know plague killed half of the population? Neither eranshar and Rome expected a invasion from Arabian peninsula that why there was no castle there and jorjje zydan a pro sunni and pan Arab literally said in his book (history of Islam) that there was 7 reason that Arab won against Iran 5 if them has nothing to do with arab
@@RAFAY_SHEIKH_47What can you expect of a tired army which had just come back from long-term Sanssanid-Byzantine wars, while leading by a young inexperienced king who had just taken the rule after about 10 kings shift in just several years, while standing against an army of savagae ideologic people who were seeking for martydom to go to the heavens to be with Hoories and drink wine
So, that is the reality and we should accept it
That is
But is persian army an infantry with the flavour of cavalry ?
Where are the heavy cav and horse archers@@RAFAY_SHEIKH_47
as an Iranian I wish I could live in this world
You never will as another iranain 🤣🤣🤣
As a Türk, I‘m certain some days Persians will wake up. Fight for your culture
Womp womp cry about it fire worshipper 🐪💨
@@FNFive-seveNNFire worshipping culture you Kemalass
@@FNFive-seveNN ❤❤
*reads the title*
*sighs*
*opens the comment section*
I sighed too
Let the game hunt begin
luckily the admin is care enough to regulate his content to avoid the mess
Looks at your profile pic… Well, well, well 🙃
@@ruin1619 pakistan zindabad
TLDR;
Without Islam noTurks
Without Turks no Islam
Incorrect, Islam survived without Turks for centuries and still does till this day
How did Islam expanded from Arabian peninsula to France and China....!
@@__user__name__ Turks existed for centuries before converting to Islam, their original religion was Tengrism
If Islam doesn't exists.there will be peace and love🥰🥰
No even Islam didn't exist, human still wages war on each other
Was there peace before Islam?
Didn't know how to do toilet properly. Killing Scientists
Where was your peace before islam?
@@adeolaolalekan2306 Pax Romana has entered the chat; the Classical Period has entered the chat;
Ok, so I wrote a timeline about spending a lot of time depending on the pod.
1) For one, the lakmids are all ready gone by 630, heck even 610; if anyone tries to carve eastern Arabia, it would be the banu bakr, who in the OTl were raiding southern Mesopiamia and asked the caliphate for help; they in this timeline due to the history at Dhi Qar would.
2) It's quite unlikely the Ghassanids attack Rome. Ever since the 580s, Ghasanid power had declined, and even after the Islamic invasions, the Ghassanids remained loyal until they had no other choice when the main Roman army was destroyed at Yarmourk.
3) A more limited Arab expansion since the droughts and populations of booms of the 630s would occur; does it make it possible that Egypt and Syria are conquered? Yes but it would resemble for the germanic invaisons rather than united fron, Im just thinking if they were that successful, why not Mesopotamia? Persia was in a worse state than Rome after the war and had raids on it prior to the caliphate.
Check out my alt hist timeline on if the Roman empire survived, I think you'll find it way more logical
The Islamic invasions never happened they simply legendary.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia no, as mentioned in another comment this view point of patricia crone has been largely been debunked by scholarship
@@El-Silver I disagree with Patricia crone but evidence supports this view.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia if it has then why has the concensus shifted away from her?
oh Eranshahr not only survived but lived the best life ever...
"Reality often disappoint"
Dude the Ghassanids were BYZANTINE PUPPETS 💀💀💀💀💀💀
yeah I was confused on that too
Until the Byzantines were too weak to defend their territories properly. That's the idea, anyway. And what happened in real life.
You can replace the Ghassanids with a fictional or unknown arab tribe. The idea was just having more limited arab invasions, where the conquerors assimilate, as happens more often than not. The specifics are just for the sake of worldbuilding.
Bro what about india without islamic invasion northern India became more estable knowledgeable area for bhudhism and hindunism like takila Kashmir under rule of gurjar korkata and afganistan hindu kings@@Neatling we have chol yes later they destroyed there navy itself but we have pal vijaynagar rashtrakuta chalukya too for colonization or trade balance and many more things afterall indian history also effected by islam directly so don't ignore all this
Also if gazhvind never fights 3 battles with gurjar's then what happened with gurjar pratihar how gurjar pratihar end 🤯🤔
Also you put west India under Persia rule this so unrealistic west india have great warriors like gurjar sindh pashtuna rajputs rawat yadav jat and sikh
Also then what happened with Sikh the reminded a peaceful religion instead of warriors
Sikh and persian only one time fight against each other (Sikh win) it's also changed history they fight with hindu kingdoms in afganistan instead of muslims (not like massive wars like they fighted with Muslim and not harmful hindu community) but after all they fight with hindus too and sikh major enemy became Persian instead of turk
India never separated also Hindu and Buddhism was the second and third major following religion in iran
And what if bhudhism spread in iran and middle East like they spread in east and central asia
@@Neatling also one more thing whenever we see shivaji tipu sultan nagabhata1 they famous and respected in various regions in india because they fight against invaders or they fight in unity (pls understand my points) if muslim invaders never arrived then no one give respect shivaji, bhoja Samrat etc so much like today they remained famous only in his region and community
@Yashveergurjar4513 Let's address some of this
Firstly, Sikhs, Sikhism as a religion essentially only exists due to the Islamic invasions and mass conversion only occurred due to Indian failures in fighting the Arabs.
Secondly, India would not colonise anywhere. India was far too divided for far too long of its history, with exactly one Indian power ever colonising outside their borders, that being the Tamil Chola Empire (907AD - 1215AD)
India is far too insular as a society, owing much to its extremely entrenched priestly caste, which forced the subcontinent to look inward rather than outward
In addition, India had well trained and equipped armies, but they were far too small for conquest, as it was restricted again, by caste. Lastly, invasion of India by an outside power was fairly easy, the land was too divided politically to put up a coordinated effort, and was slow to react and respond, for example, when the Arabs invaded and smashed local armies, Indian nations responded by building Temples and praying more instead of adopting enemy tactics or inventing new ones in response to counter the enemy. They were then subjugated in record speed. This happened again multiple times whenever the Afghans grew bored and decided to attack.
Indeed, the only time they've ever adapted and looked outward at all, was when they were invaded and ruled by foreign powers, and even then, they still didn't launch any wars or offensives unless they were actively ruled by another power, such as the British Raj launching very successful offensives against the Japanese, or when WIC-lead local forces attacked the French at Plassey
This isn't to say Indian armies were crap, on the contrary they were often excellent, and for example if the generals weren't quite literally doing everything possible to destroy their own army because they were trying to launch a coup, then the Second Anglo-Sikh War would have been a resounding success, given their army was far superior to that of the British
It's more that aggressive foreign policy is effectively alien to Indian rulers when dealing with non-Indian powers, and effective coordination of defensive military action did not really exist until during WW1 and WW2, when the British trained and lead Indian armies into modern warfare
After that, India appears to have retained that knowledge quite well, using it to decimate their Pakistani neighbours until both sides achieved a nuclear detente
Perfect world
Brainwashed
A perfect world is one without Joos, Hindpoos & atheists
@@eatinsomtin9984what religion are you wanting?
Indeed
@@Respecteddude666 the irony of a Muslim calling someone brainwashed lmao
I believe the Persians well survive until the Mongols invasion
But for the Eastern Romans well survive WWI🌍
Chiness and persian beat mongols
Yeah if persia survived muslim invasion
It would allied Chinese dynastys against mongol invasion and probably defeat them
(In fact sassanids destroyed gokturks in 12k vs 300k battle by bahram VI )
Bro if Persia at the time of Mongols' invasion was at its highest power, who could stand against Sassanid cataphracts and horse archers☠️
@@persian639 l believe so
@@persian639 any Asiatic horse archers could do that
What if the reconquista failed and instead an islamic iberia conquered the new world?
Terrifying
@@NSMexicano2008 as terrifying as the genocide of native americans
@@gojo236almost as bad as what the ottomans did to the armenians…
@@HalfBound-c9x and the crusades and colonisation
@@gojo236 true
Good idea for a video, but the research here is sloppy and there's a lot of weird errors in judgement here.
For one, the Lakhhmid and Ghhassanid kingdoms did not exist anymore by 630. The Lakhmids were annexed by the Sassanids decades earlier and the Ghassanids had fragmented, becoming reduced to their holdings *inside* Roman territory.
So the idea that the Ghassanids would conquer Egypt, and that the Egyptians would just be okay with this for some reason is baffling (also Benjamin was not patriarch at the time, Cyrus was, who was a Monothelite and strongly pro-Constantinople).
Let alone the idea that the Romans would just be...okay with this? Egypt made up somewhere around half of the imperial budget, what sense would it make for them to just leave it be?
Video is also very Eurocentric. Islam affected most of the world, yet the video is almost solely about the Mediterranean. What about Africa? Or Asia? Or Indonesia? Nothing of interest to be altered there? I don't think so.
the ghassanids still existed in 630 as seen by the fact the leader of the ghassanids fougth at yarmourk the kingdom had fragement in 580s but the tribal leaders still existed and held territory outside of rome as they were still at least in name the leaders of the many arab vassals tribes that were still under rome.
but yeah the ghassanids and other tribes were loyal and only joined the caliphate when they had no choice after the army was destroyed at yarmourk if any arabs conquer egypt it would be the waves of migrants from hejaz and central arabia.
@@El-Silver
The Ghassanid leader who fought at Yarmouk would have been the Phylarch, who was the leader of the Ghassanid Phylarchate, which did indeed still exist. But the Phylarchate existed inside Roman borders. The Ghassanid basileia, or kingdom, which existed outside of Roman borders no longer existed. Or at least, we have no sources from the time suggesting it still existed as a unified entity at all.
Actually, the Byzantines were not interested in controlling the area of the Levant and Egypt because their empire was collapsing and was declining also the so-called Islamic conquests never happened and the prophet Muhammad never existed Islam as a religion was created later by the Abbasids and before them, there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity influenced by Manichean and Marcions ideas we also have overwhelming archaeological and historical evidence supporting the revisionist view.
I think your criticisms are fair disagreements about the direction of the scenario, rather than errors in judgment or research.
I'm aware the Lakhmid and Ghassanid kingdoms were gone. The idea was simply to depict more limited Arab invasions. The specifics are for worldbuilding; you could envision some fictional or unknown Arab tribe from Hejaz. But as for choosing the Lakhmids and Ghassanids: they are recognized tribal entities in their regions, and the scenario remains plausible. The Ghassanid Phylarchate might've been revived after the war with the Sassanids (it's debated), and there’s some evidence of a Ghassanid leader during the Arab invasions converting to Islam (though this is also contested, with some arguing his existence was a revision by the Abbasids). So, it’s within reason that some Ghassanid leader could carve out a kingdom when Rome is weakened in the region due to war. As for the Lakhmids, the Kingdom would’ve been within living memory. It’s plausible some tribal identity connected to it still existed, and even that an heir to Al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir survived. I probably should've chosen a random or made-up Arab tribe, but I didn’t.
Cyrus was a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, appointed by Emperor Heraclius. His mission was to reconcile the Miaphysite (Coptic) Christians with the Chalcedonian doctrine of the Roman Empire. However, his efforts, especially promoting Monothelitism (the belief in a single will of Christ), were largely unsuccessful and unpopular among the Copts. Benjamin I, conversely, was the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, who rejected the Chalcedonian doctrine and upheld the Miaphysite belief in Christ's single, unified nature. Due to Cyrus's harsh persecution of the Copts, including the brutal torture and execution of Benjamin's brother Mennas, Benjamin went into hiding to evade capture. The Copts continued to view Benjamin as their legitimate patriarch, while seeing Cyrus as an oppressor imposed by Roman authorities. In my scenario, when Rome lost control over Egypt, Cyrus would lose all legitimacy.
Rome wouldn’t be okay with this, but they’d have little choice. They weren’t okay with the Arab invasions in real life either but couldn’t stop the Arabs from taking Egypt. They couldn't in my scenario either, even with less organized invasions. Rome would have almost no local support apart from the elites they installed. The Egyptian population and Miaphysite leaders all despised Roman rule, at least during this period.
It is very Eurocentric, I agree with you there. I wanted to map out the entire Old World in the video, but that was too ambitious if I wanted to complete it within a reasonable timeframe. If I remade this video, I’d probably have fewer maps showing all of Afro-Eurasia-maybe one every 2-3 centuries-and then focus more on Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, etc. I could still make a follow-up video.
@@Neatling this is actually inaccurate Cyrus with glee tells us how many due to monoenergisim ( monothelisim wouldn't come about till 638) many in Alexandria joined comunión due to said compromise the compromise in 630 was succeeding Armenia another non chalcedonian area fully entered communion with Constantinople ( that they would leave in 646) the major opponent now was the chalcedonians.
Cyrus disliked both Copts and chalcedonians who didn't conform but the persecutions you read about and pope Benjamin come from 10th century sources which I don't have to tell you by that point the trend of Coptic sources exaggerating or some times flat out making up byzantine periods of persecution was a long established writing trend
Sassanid Persia was undergoing rapid change when the Muslims arrived. While the rulers were Zoroastrian, eastern Iran was converting to Buddhism and western Iran to Nestorian/Assyrian Christianity. ( That's why there are so many Buddha statues there). The Sassanids destroyed the Lakmid Kingdom in 602 AD, but many members of the Sassanid royal family were already Christians including the last crown prince who never inherited the throne due to the Islamic invasion.
So I think the Turkic peoples would still have embraced Buddhism. (Buddhism still survives in Kalmykia Russia.) But what would have resulted from the encounter of Buddhism and Eastern Christianity, no one knows...
"What if Venus was habitable?"
Now that's what I call an idea!
@@maesizmayonnaise2745 I'm writing an entire book series and several short stories based on the idea
@@Ivarevich shitttt tell us when its done homie
@@Remtnot it'll definitely be awhile, but my short stories will come out before the main series to kind of introduce people to my world. It's not your typical science fiction, more like a modern retelling of the stories of the Spanish conquistadors, and other adventures
@@Ivarevich I'd like to know what the settlement on the continent of Aphrodite is called. It sounds like a lovely place. What would you call this series so we know what to look for?
Imagine a world where Asha and Daēnā reign supreme, we need the light of Ahuramazda now more than ever ❤️🔥
I hope Persia can free itself from Arabic influence one day, it’s warming to see so many Iranians embracing the culture of its millenary country
Free Persia from Arabian Culture ☝️
Islam is not an Arab culture, Islam is a complete life from God who does not differentiate between races or nationalities and rules the same on them, Persia or Iran is stronger with Islam, therefore it is the Islamic Republic of Iran
If it weren't for Imam Khomeini and his great revolution that changed the face of the Middle East and the world, I, my family, and many of the people of my country and many of the Shiite countries would be dead or slaves to the superpowers.
The Imam and his revolution liberated us, strengthened us, and motivated us to be a bulwark against evil, but fools like you do not realize the value of this revolution to Iran or the world.
I am Iraqi, for your information, so that you do not think that I am benefiting financially from the Iranian Islamic government
Turkic and Arabic invaders destroyed everything fr
Iran brother not all iranians are persian
As a Georgian, I see this as an absolute win. Georgia would maintain its stable presence as a resistant kingdom and would have much more open relations with the Western world thanks to the fact that Ottomans never invaded Anatolia and the Straits stayed open, never isolating the Eastern Christian world. Also, what would happen to Communism (Which I assume, would still rise after the start of the industrial revolution) in this alternate world?
Also, I'd guess that out of the wars and internal conflicts, both Persia and Rome would collapse way moreso than what you depicted.
I really want to see a scenario that sees the Brazilian Empire survive! Could you perhaps make a video based on this scenario?
man if only... brazil could have been so much less corrupt and could be the definite regional power in south america. it could have it's own monroe doctrine for it's continent
US of Z did a two video series on that
Can we get a video on alternate Anglo-American world order.
1,
What if America colonized the Carribean and Annexed more of Mexico?
What if America never exported industry?
2.
What If Britian Colonized Argentina?
What If Imperial Federation was successful?
I can tell you want this video so you can edge to it while crying about what could've been lol
We already have an american world order lmao why would you ask for an alternate scenario for something that already exists
You can move to Uruguay and settle there.
It's interesting but I feel like America colonizing the Carribbean and annexing more of Mexico, would be the job of a Confederacy which won the Civil War
@@m0nkeywrench thats alot of althistory ngl (especially the roman and germans ones)
Good alternative history video. There are some things that I think could be a little different, but it's still pretty good, good job.
South and SEA would change substantially too. Islamic invasions and institutional erosion that followed in India would not happen; and potentially local state structures would continue to evolve; with Indian states strengthening; India would probably resemble Europe with strong local states like the Kakatiyas, Hoysalas, Yadavas, etc. SEA would still be majority Hindu / Buddhist. Maybe the Majapahit empire would thrive to form a large Indonesian power.
It would completely depend on the economic models if followed laizzes faire caiptalism than it would be richer than Europe given large landscape larger populations and more natural in India.
The British won against the Indians because of there industrial revolution without this they would be as poor as dust.
India seriously needs laizzes faire reforms same with Bengal and Pakistan these countries are not poor because of islam or Christianity they are poor because of central planning and shit economic miss management by an inefficient state.
The empire itself was not a caiptalist empire it was a protectionist empire it was caiptalist in Britain but not so in Bengal or India as they set price controls and regulated grain imposed tarrifs and imposed trade regulations and then India putting flame to a gasoline after the Brits left decide to go socialist fully raping the economy we could have been great Britain levels of rich 50 years earlier
@@tysolbohan6446 Yeah, but in South India you had large scale trade guild activity which died down post Islamic rule. This increased the influence of Arab merchants in SEA and China (following the Indian Ocean trade route) rather than South Indian guilds which traditionally dominated these markets. The second factor is land management and state control as you rightly mentioned. Traditional Indian states are relatively small and light on taxation / regulation. This could have led to the emergence of a free market style system before. Iqta governments have well defined and strong taxation.
@@vishwakat8743 if that's the case then yes your right india would be trillions of times wealthier but the caveat is you still had the caste system there is 0 reason to white wash it and in fact the cast system has been a natural part of history all over the world.
the difference was Christianity had been through several reforms and people started to get more secular this led to formation of Capitalism.
Inverse capitalism seems to have a eugenic effect on the IQ as people who are smarter get more rewarded in these systems and more likely to have kids while those with lower iqs tend to die to off this is why they had an iq of 126 in the victorian era.
India today privitized it's industries removed barriers to trade reduced the taxes to a flat rate of 10 percent maximum with a strong police force mainly funded by public and private interests then the police have an incentive to serve the public more so than just the state as both sectors would pay there bills.
but alas the leaders want to suck the blood dry of india
You're just finding an excuse to glaze india tbh
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
Missed a few minor details about the preservation of the Persian culture. For instance, you included that a recognized languages in the Shahdom of Persia was "Farsi" when it in this world would've been called "Parsi" since the Arabic conquest of Persia wouldn't have taken place and their influence on the Persian language would never have happened.
I wouldn't have had to leave my motherland because of not accepting muslim religion.
I like how seljuks still rise to power in Iran like they never took advantage of power vacuum in Iran after muslims destroyed its armies
yeah,that seemed weird to me as well.
without islam in Eranshahr,turks would never raise to such positions.
@@TheLostChild25 Huh ? You guys ok ? There were no better army than Turks at that time because Turks are nomadic warriors. Be it with islam or not Turks would still invade all those lands with ease
Yep, it doesn't make any sense for Seljuks to still exist in this timeline.
@@jackholler3572 what u on abt , islam empowered the turks in one banner and made them unified
@@doomboi8637 You are an islamic Turk that no one in Turkey takes serious.
The whole beginning of the video makes no sense. While Egypt at the time wasn’t a big fan of Roman rule, they had still been under Roman (or Greek) rule for 1000 years and had a significant Greek speaking population, particularly in urban areas, such as on the coast where they represented the vast majority, and even in the Nile delta, though there would’ve been a higher concentration of Coptic speakers the further south you went. In this timeline, Egypt is not an Arab state. It is a Christian, mostly Greek and Coptic speaking one that is not in any way similar to the Arabs. Egypt’s main gripe with Rome was the large Miaphysite population in Egypt while the Romans were Chalcedonian Christians, as were the Ghassanids. There would be no love for the Ghassanids nor any incentive to invite the Ghassanid king to become king of Egypt. The Ghassanids were literally a Roman puppet, and not a very strong one. There is no way they would’ve wanted to or been able to take literally half the Empire from the Romans. Egypt would’ve almost certainly remained part of the Empire, and would’ve only become more integrated as time went on. By our time it would be almost entirely Greek speaking and Orthodox Christian (though in this timeline the great schism probably never would have happened so that designation wouldn’t be relevant, it would just be the one Church).
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no Islam just a sub-sect of christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marxism we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia I mean I would agree in the sense that I think that Islam is just a Christian heresy. I have no idea what the first Muslims believed but it doesn’t really matter, they weren’t Orthodox Christians and they conquered and subjugated Christian lands
well the guys with this opinion also thinks Jesus isn't real or maybe a jews man with some different ideas and have smell cult no one ever heard about
You really underestimate Egypt here, we were not fans of them at all, and many wanted out, and the Greek speaking population was just focused in Alexandria, nowhere else, and the majority of Egypt is Miaphysite and not Diaphysite, as you've said, and I really doubt the Coptic Church would crumble under the weight of the Eastern Roman Church, if we revolted, it'd have been over for the Byzantines, especially given their troublesome circumstances and their fatigue, being very unlikely to respond, and Egypt by this time was already 90% Christian, and I really doubt Coptic would die out in favor of Greek.
@@Cyril_2009 the idea of manny of you wanting out comes from jonh of nikou who was trying to explain why God will allow arabs to conquer egypt so his rationalization was the romans persecuted us so severely God freed us scholars like jonh Moorhead show that no such sentiments existed in 630 or during the Muslims invasion
You completely ignored south Asia, where almost half of the Islamic population lives
not much would change, before even islame came there the indians were always fragmented, united several times but never expand outward india itself, and i'm not sure the indian non islamic empire can keep the mongols out
@@AdeTri-pu7qi Mongols purposely didnt attack India, because they said it was the birthplace of the buddha
@@bestbuilder7833 mongols did try to invade india and get kicked out by delhi sultanate though, and mongols is not buddhist either
@@bestbuilder7833Mongols doesn't believe in religions they only believe in their strength
India never expanded? 😂 India controlled Central Asia,South Asia, parts east Asia and Whole southeast Asia by different Empires like Chola, Karkota, Rajputana, Maurya, Kushana, etc before Islam borned @@AdeTri-pu7qi
Can you do If the Islam’s Golden Age never ended next?
Note: For this type of scenario, Mongols shouldn’t expand and stay at the east of Caspain sea.
Another Note: Good video. Keep up with the quality content!
Yes do this one, it'll be fun
@@bobodexgsquare354true 👍
For an answer they would have a lot of technology and at some point they would be advanced a lot
@@THE_APK20No because it wasn’t really lslamic in the first place. Most Islamic theocrats thought ill of those discoveries and thought they were the work of the devil. Islam is even more dogmatic than Christianity. Even art is banned in Islam because it’s blasphemy. Without art there can’t be progress. Artistic ideals are the milestones for scientific advancements.
They would have not been token over by the turks and the ottoman empire would not be as strong as it was. I dont think much would change though.
Guys dont hate on him, this was probably just some fun unrealistic idea with little research, he probably had no or limited intentions of realism
9:54 That flag is awesome, could you post that somewhere? Maybe in your community tab?
Average dream of crusader at night
Long Live Christianity from 🇪🇬☦️💪🏻
no 😂 long live Islam 🇪🇬☪️🕌
Long live both monkeys
@@coolranch-ez4tu Nope
@@BrahimS03 Ever wondered whose name is yours?
@@Harbin_07 prophet ibrahim, maybe you understand my words wrong let me help you, what i meant to say is "Long Live Both, monkeys"
How would Charlemagne become king without the Islamic invasion? Would Charles Martel have been able to unify the Franks without Tours?
he already did.. charles had won the wars of sucessions long before tours, tours just gave him a massive Pr win to justify him essentially taking power from the merovingian dynasty.
Interesting video :).
I think Egypt would have been Hellenic
Good video but why is there almost nothing said about Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Southeast Asia 😭
Without the Islamic world cutting them off, Ethiopia would be far more powerful and far more connected to the rest of Eurasia. The Sahel would convert to Christianity without Islam being there, so they will also be more closely connected with Europe.
Maritime Southeast Asia might stay Buddhist in this timeline, however it is also possible that they would convert to Christianity or Zoroastrianism.
The Spanish specifically landing in the Caribbean was likely a fluke of our timeline. In this timeline, the Americas would either be discovered by the Basques through Canada or by the Iberians/North Africans through Brazil. Since the Basques probably did find the Americas before 1492, but diseases didn’t spread as much, I'd imagine that the Native Americans would have been a bit better off. This combined with Canada and Eastern Brazil being way further from the main American civilizations means that the Mesoamericans and the Andeans likely would have survived as independent cultures. The Aztecs specifically probably would have fallen anyways as they were already in decline before the Europeans came. With more natives around to enslave instead, and with West Africa already being Christian, the Atlantic Slave Trade likely would have been smaller. This would subsequently mean that the 1800s economic recession and following instability in Africa wouldn't have been as severe, leading to more African states not to be colonised relative to our timeline.
Although India would still get invaded from Afghanistan many times, it will likely be less severe, since Zoroastrianism isn't as focused on converting people. The only reason why the entire Indian Subcontinent was colonised was because of the complete disintegration of the Mughal Empire. The butterfly effect could change this dramatically. It is more possible that India ends up like China, where the empire there would slowly decline over time and thus not be directly colonised. It is possible that a more merchantile state (probably in Southern india) industrialises earlier, similar to what happened in Japan.
I don't think Egypt would be independent for long. It's geography makes it easy to hold by an Anatolian power.
I don't get why you say the HRE would be more centralised in this timeline. Maybe northern Italy specifically would be centralised, due to Byzantium threatening them, but not necessarily Germany.
France will likely end up dominating Western Europe in this timeline. A big factor in France not doing this in our timeline is Austria, which narrowly avoided being conquered by the Ottomans in our timeline. In this timeline, there is less of a religious opposition towards Byzantium and it wouldn't need to spend time uniting Anatolia like with the Ottomans. This would mean that the Byzantines would take Austria and consequently, France would have hegemony over mainland Western Europe. This will probably make France more like the other gunpowder empires due to less competition, and thus it won't be as technologically competitive as England. This would give England an advantage compared to mainland Europe when it comes to overseas colonisation. Sweden will also be more powerful without Russia overpowering them.
Without a large country like Russia turning to communism, communist revolutions worldwide would probably be less successful. Additionally, there were less colonised countries in this timeline and countries that were never colonised are generally better at industrialising. These two would mean that the world as a whole would be wealthier in this this timeline.
Conversely, mainland Europe and especially France might be poorer in this timeline, but England Scandinavia and Eastern Europe would be richer.
agreed, Islam had a huge influence on all three parts.
@@gatuarhin word
as an indonesian i can say you're a bit incorect here, southeast asian maritime only get full islamized around 15th century as the same time as spanis expansion, so we can assume zorostrianism also won't reach us before that timelime and we will still under majapahit empire that is hindu, the majapahit fall due to internal struggle and the srivijaya also vastly weakened after chola invasion and majapahit conquest, there could be another hindu kingdom thrive in this situation but overall the archipelago would be much more fragmented, if spanish reach SEA maritime in this situation they could've conquer and influence much more area, probably turn SEA into second south america, but as reconquesta never happened the scenario where berber and middle eastern people come to america first is make sense as well, but without extreme ambition and competition between spain and portuguise the native americans would probably develop faster than any foreign power can conquer them as they learn the world beyond their continent and learn so much from the old wolrd, adopting technology, culture even ideology, no one can say if they can't form their own empire and start conquering the old world, that would be interesting as this would hugely benefical for maritime SEA, as there's no foreign disturbance they could rise from their dimise either caried by the extention of srivijaya, majapahit or other kingdom from completely different culture like pajajaran, anything is possible, the world geopolitics would look much more different than today as the americans are become one of major power in the wold and the christianity influence would probably far more weakened and limited than today, islam did't rise and so christianity only limited to it's former territories in east africa and europe, what this wolrd might look like?
Well , the beginning was cool . Cody from alternate history hub makes a good point that it's hard to keep the timelines into a later date
Charlemange is a cool fellow
As a Maronite, it would be better
Sorry to be critical, but there are several points: even if Islam did not exist, the Lombards would have conquered Italy, which they were already doing by 600 (and probably the Normans would have conquered Sicily sooner or later). Without Islam there are no Mamluks and their military capacity that allowed the sultans of Delhi and Cairo to resist the Mongol invasions, so Egypt and northern India would have been conquered by the Ilkhanate and the Chagatai Khanate. And what happened to the kingdom of Axum? 1500 years pass and nothing changes with Egypt, probably the Romans would have tried to reconquer it, or the Persians. Also, without Mamluks as a warrior caste nothing prevents the Seljuk Turks from conquering all of Persia, Mesopotamia and Anatolia.
the byzantines even after the islamic conquest nearly reconquered benevento an empire that doesnt suffer from that is far more likely to succed were constans II nearly did.
A world where Persia is still Zoroastrian and strong, AND russia does not exist, AND Taurica is a non-slavic nation? This is a perfect world I'd happily live in, get me there now!
Seek help n@%!
Well, the Arabs likely would not have transmitted Indian Numerals (known to us as Arabic numerals). That would have staunched mathmatical progress in the West.
There’s no way of knowing how it would play out, the Sassanids could’ve invented a similar numerical system given their close contact with India which was the source of inspirations for the arabs.
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia it has been agreed by many historians that muhammad indeed did exist
@@gojo236lol
From shang chin
Since this scenario didn't focus on the impact of Islam's non-existence in a huge Muslim population, Southeast Asia, I want to give a few theories on what might have changed. I am from SEA but this is just a theory with not much research given into it so if you think this is wrong feel free to correct me. Firstly, South Thailand and South Philippines insurgencies would have been less severe because a huge reason for the insurgencies is the feeling of difference and them not being Muslim anymore would have meant that factor would have been gone. The Aceh insurgency would have still happened due to their beef with the Javanese but Aceh probably wouldn't choose to gain autonomy to carry out Sharia law. Malaysia would either be a Buddhist majority or a Christian majority depending on if the Portuguese were able to convert them and Indonesia would have a lot more Buddhists and Hindus. Maybe even a large enough Hindu population to where they would seek even closer ties to India. Malaysia's kings would have had even lesser power due to no longer being the head of Islam there and some of them might even be removed due to lack of power so they could have been a republic. Malaysia and Indonesia might also go full communist. On that note the British might have gone to war with Malaysia since they weren't willing to give them independence if communism was still strong. So instead of a peaceful independence, it would have been a bloody one, or no independence at all. Maybe then the possible communist Indonesia would have stepped in and if they won, would have unified Malaysia and Indonesia under the banner of communism. Singapore also could have went differently because the tensions between the Chinese and Malays might change due to Malays no longer being an ethnoreligious group but instead just an ethnic group and they might have broken up and identified differently without Islam.
I think the biggest issue I have here (aside from my own subjective feelings about Slavic people being subjects of greater powers in this universe too)
The biggest issue is the idea that Japan would slmehow be better off than China which simply seems unlikely, in fact, it seems offensive,
Western civilization made Japan into a ticking time bomb (in our timeline) and managed to completely ruin all the previous archivements of Japanese civilization that could have made it succeed as a world power.
It simply doesn't make much sense to put Japan over China in this universe.
Not to mention - what happened to the Indian world, without islam, much more of south east asia would have been hindu and buddhist further expanding and forming a unifying ideals for a much greater ASEAN, especially since from what I managed to grasp when you showed Iran, India isn't unified, meaning it's a set of smaller states.
Simply put, a sort of south asian Union could happen
Zoroastrianism or Sumerian religion would be the majority, in my opinion.
Historically, zoroastrianism was on the decline even before Islam and was actually being replaced by a rapidly growing Christian Nestorian faith.
I think persian took North america because sassnade Navy always had ships around china and jepan, even persian base found in jepan ,, they just needed to follow the russian border to find Bering Strait
There would be no terrorism 👹
Pretty controversial topic, but great video nonetheless!
something can't be great if it tries to please everyone.
@@sofboiquiet true true
What if Christianity didn't exist ahhhh
@@atemtheprime world would be in future now
@@ThedeadaccountAL realisticly would as churches actively stopped people researching certain topics
The good timeline
mhm even if islam didnt exist hm not good or bad its still awful like our timeline causes bro you just want islam to dissappear because works of individuals and it doesnt mean all like saying on chirstianity the same causes some individuals did something pretty wrong
algebra and vaccines wouldnt have existed then
@@gojo236they would be discovered, just later
womp womp
@@HalfBound-c9x yeah sure, humans would be centuries stuck in time, and before you tell me that it's only decades or so, the literary rate was very low and some people didn't go to school and spent time on agriculture, which would make us centuries back then we are
Nice video! Do one on what if Nepos reconquered italy instead of the Visigoths
Huh?
@@starwarsfan779 Nepos was the last feasible chance of restoring the western roman empire however he didn't have enough support from the eastern empire and ended up being assassinated
@@DrKarmo Who are you talking about. Lombards conquered Italy not Visitgoths
As for the Visigoths, their kingdom suffered numerous civil wars and was always reunited, in fact, despite the last civil war before the Arab conquest, it was the most culturally developed kingdom in the West (after Italy) and the most centralized (that's why it fell so easily when the king died), even centuries after several kingdoms made their own Reconquista, the idea of Hispania as the same territory was what inspired the attempts to unite the peninsula, which was achieved. And the Catholic kings, after taking Granada in 1492, wanted to continue their Reconquista in present-day Morocco but then came the discovery of America. And regarding the discovery of America, the Spanish and Portuguese would also have the same problems to trade with the East, so they would have to launch themselves into exploration trips. And if Spain or Portugal never had a Reconquista, their history would probably have been more similar to that of France, with a much more centralist monarchy (and as for stability, look at central Africa to see if the French colonization model is very stable), and the Reconquista generated a community mentality and free peasants. And why is it called Argentina? If it was colonized by a North African state with a Nordic ruling class, it should be called something else (and why would that state, located there, be more concerned with Mediterranean and Sahara trade?).
And, as a South American, I regret to say it, but there probably would not have been a period of greater stability after independence, nor would we have become independent as a united or larger country: civil wars occurred because the new republics had a hard time subduing the provinces, which was mixed with racial issues, ideologies and the ambitions of caudillos. The most stable countries were those where the capitals quickly subjugated the provinces (Chile 1859, Argentina 1880, Uruguay in 1904, Peru 1896, Venezuela 1903, Colombia 1902, Bolivia 1899, Ecuador 1899, etc.). And because there was no large state in South America, its geographical extension made it impossible to govern the territory, so each viceroyalty, captaincy general or audience was completely autonomous from each other.
En ese mundo el norte de África sigue teniendo un idioma derivado del latín, por lo que Argentina es la misma lógica que se usó en español, en lo demás bastante de acuerdo.
A much more peaceful world, it’s influence would no longer plague every country and people it touches
With this logic we could argue that christianity is a plague.
The last 100 years, the largest and most brutal wars have all been started and fought by christians. C0pe
Lol the Romans and Persians were literally fighting each other before islam rose maybe ask those people at the time if a world without islam improved anything or not
@TheForestor In a way, but not evil like Islam.
How much better would the world be?
It wouldn't be better, just different
With Christianity still existing
Not really
Well at least the world will be so better for Persians
@@Arad-oi7xb hard to say
Geopolitics are unpredictable
But we can say that their "empire" would last longer and get owned so quickly
@connor-22islam was great then, but after the 2000s not so much unfortunately.
I got so excited by the thumbnail.
As an Egyptian this is MY DREAM 😍
i really hate when people visit us and think we are Arabs
We don't have arab names, we don't eat as arabs and we don't workship the arabic fake god
We are AFRICANS not Asians.
I know you are a disguised Christian
Arabic fake God? Are you calling the Abrahamic God fake? Youre not one of us. You are trying to appeal to the westerners' agenda.
@@Damascene-Syria
They are NOT EGYPTIANS they are Mamelucs living in Egypt it doesn't matter if they are the biggest part of the population because they never called them selves "Egyptians" until the British helped to create the modern state of Egypt.
But we have always called our selves Egyptians under the arabic caliphates, under the otoman rule because we are the real owners of this Land 🇪🇬
@@Damascene-Syria
We don't speak Arabic in my village we only speak Coptic.
Allah is just the general word for God. You're an atheist I think if you believe God is fake.
Such a world is described in Harry Turtledove's story cycle " Agent of Byzantium". A good read.
What happened to places with majority of world economy and population at that time that is india and china?
India have 220 million Muslim population
Pak has 240 million
Bangla has 150 million
Afghan has 40 million
Other south aisa and south east asia has around 5 million Muslims
Indonesia, Malaysia other south east major Muslim nation has around 300 million Muslims, and also in middle asia ..
Almost a billion Muslims has been ignored
What if Christianity didn't exist?
As a Christian I think that Christianity will remain as a regional reilgion
Impossible
@FEdelasJONS
It's possible but very unlikely
@@NSMexicano2008 Lol pissed
@@AvarageYoututbeUser nope
The narrator was very eurocentric. I think Aksum would greatly expand and morph into something new and bigger. One of the factors for the decline was it got cut off due to the rise of Islam (they once controlled the red sea and indian ocean routes in the region). Due to constant fighting with converted coastal kingdoms (Somali coastal sultanates and other horner sultanates) and suppression from muslim kingdoms upstream (like Egypt) there influence and wealth declined severely.
Good video
very nice, but all those well developed powers are a bit unrealistic. The industrial revolution happened quickly but was based on centuries of cultural change to enable it, and I think that's why the most advanced economies were mostly just in western europe, even to this day.
You are back
What if Christianity had never existed? that'd be a good one
The cenario is fun but it’s completely irrealistic.
First the ghassanids didn’t even exist any more by this point
Secondly the patriarch at the time was a Roman loyalist and even if he wasn’t he didn’t have anything even close to the power and influence to make such a move
Thirdly if the Egyptians decide to declare independence they wouldn’t call on some Arab barbarian to be the king they would crown one of their own.
Fourthly that Egypt wouldn’t last a second in no time the Roman emperor would send an army. Like in our timeline the Arabs won but barely and they had high morale ,were imbued with religious fervor and had a legendary general in the form of Khalid ib’n Walid.
This Egypt wouldn’t have any of that and would be reliant on the provinces that had been hit the hardest by the recent wars against the Persians and some small petty Arab kingdom.
There just no way this Egypt lasts.
And well without that weakening of Rome created by the loss of Egypt basically every thing else in this cenario would be different.
The only way I see something like this happening is with a charismatic governor in the style of Julius Ceaser getting the support of masses of Alexandria, the support of the provincial army’s and a secret aliance with the Sassanids (the Persian Empire).
So that the takeover of Egypt is actually plausible and so the Romans are distracted enough to not immediately send an army before this new Egypt even has time to breathe.
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia Islam in its first years was just a sub-sect of Christianity. I do not denie it.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it existed and all those conquests are real
Besides on it’s first year’s Christianity was also only just a sub-sect of Judaism it really only evolved into its own thing after Constantine the Great.
Besides Sunni, and Shia are only sub-sect’s of Islam
Orthodoxy, and Catholicism are only sub-sect’s of Cristianity.
But that doesn’t change the fact that they exist have they’re own achievements and are treated as basically they own separate religions.
@@DomainofKnowlegdiaAre you lying to me so shamelessly???
That would be a dream
Im just looking at the thumbnail...
Why does Finland control Eygpt and the Levonte!?! 😂😂😂
I'm more confused on how the world countries became larger including the south americans since there is a possibility that the inca empire would've conquered the south americans without western threat
forget spreading islamism or islamophobia in the comments, who wants popcorn
These comments gonna go crazy
Looks good.
looks good? No islam we would still be liveing in 1900s and our technology wont develop for another 100 years
Nice work! Well thought out and interesting. A couple thoughts...
* I could maaaaybe see Egypt getting independence, but it'd more likely be without inviting "outsiders" from Arabia
* A surviving Byzantium comprised of exactly the Balkans and Anatolia is almost a cliche now. Can't they keep Tunisia for once? Oh well, at least they got Syria.
* I like Vandal/Norman New World
Before Islam, Arabia and even surrounding areas were nothing. God blessed Arabia with Islam.
As an Arab, Alhamdulilah always and ever
As a Kurd, alhamdulillah
true
alhamdulilah!
الحمد الله as a 48er
next if Christianity never existed
true
@@korrziatrue what?
He made a request not a statement,you don't know how to communicate properly, think before you talk
Roman Empire still united and Hellenistic religion is dominant religion
@@Redmi-qs3sp I wouldn't be so sure about the dominant religion. Celtic and Germanic tribes contributed to Christianity spreading as much as the late Roman Empire. Islam, if it somehow existed (Islam shares a lot with Judaism and Christianity, but with different interpretation), I don't think it would be all that popular in Europe because of the dry law.
So Hellenistic religion in the southern Europe, mix or amalgam of other European religions in the rest of the continent. Celtic, Germanic and Slavic pantheons were getting mixed in real life even at times of crusades (Germans mostly) and rulers adopting Christianity from the top.
Peace and prosperity for everyone.
Imagine how peaceful world could be widout islam !!!
That was awsome
What if the World was better
Islamic conquests are simply legendary and Islam as a religion was created by the Abbasids before them there was no religion called Islam just a sub-sect of Christianity that was influenced by Manicheanism and Marcionism and the Prophet Muhammad never existed we have overwhelming evidence for this revisionist view. The world before is better.
fix ur profile pic and come back🙏🙏
@@DomainofKnowlegdiacome on now bro just give us your world shattering evidence already
Your opinion matches your profile picture
@@DomainofKnowlegdia he literally mistranslated the Quran on purpose
You should’ve covered on how this impacted other regions like india instead of being so eurocentric cus islam had a huge impact there
Half of the Islamic population lives on south Asia, Islam has had the biggest impact there then in any other part of the world
@@bestbuilder7833 fr
Think you for respecting our religion Islam and the information was great but a question means without Islam the disappearance of the Arabic language and the Arabic race from the world or this world not have happened and I am only reporting 😅❤
Arab exist before Islam came
Can you make part 2 of this video but this time focusing on India and the East? Because as someone whose ancestors were forced to leave their lands in modern day Bangladesh to escape genocide thanks to Islam, I would very much like to see such an alternate history.
The Modern Persian Empire, sounds fun
I've been thinking about something similar for a few years now, and honestly I'm curious if things I imagined will happen in the video, I'm going to watch it now.
An actually decent and even blessed timeline; I despise Islamophobia as I would any other extreme form of bigotry and prejudice, but Oriental Christians being given more sway and influence, including greater Christian unity is quite wholesome to me, even as an Ex-Catholic.
It's not going to be better vro the world is still highly underdeveloped
2024 would look like the 1900's
@@Respecteddude666 Huh, but hey, at least the internet, smartphones, dating apps, and all their disastrous consequences will be delayed for a while ;)
@@SirBolsón the internet is far more important than you think it is, if i just snapped my finger rn and the internet disappeared then our economy would be sent back to the 1920's with billions dying (especially in the western world)
the islamic golden age made scientific technological stuff that shaped modernity, so without them the world would just be 1900s still, but atleast persia does them
@@random_aaa_person456 I don't mind waiting a century or so ;)
I’m skeptical for the changes this would actually have on Western Europe beyond maybe a few more states existing in Iberia.
The Frankish Empire would’ve still been divided between Charlemagne’s sons and regardless of whether it’s called the Holy Roman Empire or not, the Germanic portion of that would very likely still be extremely decentralized. France itself would also likely not centralize much earlier because there’s nothing that would change the Hundred Years War in this scenario. They’re very likely still on the same timeline bar some possible French expansion into Iberia with the possible lack of Spain which isn’t guaranteed that it wouldn’t still exist through unification of the Iberian kingdoms.
I’m also very skeptical on the Reconquista’s effect on how the Iberians would conduct colonization of the Americas. I do think an interesting thing to note that wasn’t mentioned though is without a Christian-Muslim split, the Mediterranean likely remains as a regional community across both sides, allowing much more trade and cultural exchange to flourish in the region. This may at least play into the Iberians not necessarily viewing themselves as superior based on skin to the locals in the Americas but they would still likely view themselves as superior. What’s today Latin America would definitely still be drastically different. Rather than just Spanish and Portuguese colonies with some small areas by the British, Dutch, and French, there’s the possibility of more Iberian kingdoms competing for these territories as well as very likely Moroccan and Berber colonies. I can’t really imagine how this would change how the rest of North America is settled though because that’s still primarily done by the English and French with the intentions of full settlement and trade beyond there never being a claim to Alaska by the Russians since they’re likely no longer a major colonial power. That means Alaska would very likely be part of Canada instead of America.
I do think the idea of a Byzantine state turning the Black Sea into its own internal waters is really cool but I’m also skeptical on their success against the Mongols. I’m not fully sure they could still hold onto that much land even without the losses to the Islamic powers prior. The Byzantine’s were in decline either way. The Mongols likely wouldn’t be as successful as our timeline but they’d still be quite successful. Even if they did survive and regrow, they’d eventually still likely eventually become the same “sick man of Europe” they, the Ottomans, and the Austro-Hungarians became.
I think my biggest qualm is the sheer amount of unity across Western Europe and the Americas though just because most of them don’t really get affected a whole lot by this timeline change. It’s much more Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. I think exploring the Eurasian Steppe a bit more could have also been interesting just because I’m not fully convinced a state doesn’t emerge there even with the Byzantines around. They wouldn’t press too far inwards so a major land power could still rise between them, the Baltic Sea, and the Volga River and in the power vacuum that was left by the Mongols, there’s a lot of states with the potential to do so. Other than Novgorod or Poland-Lithuania, all of the other candidates likely play out very similarly to Russia, at least in terms of how pre-Soviet Russia functioned and expanded eastwards.
can you do a video on amazigh people please
This is a very well-written scenario on what if Islam never existed. I have always wanted to hear a timeline on all the events that would happen in the next 14 centuries after 610 AD, and what empires, states, and religions would rise and fall.
1:05 Why would the Ghassanid Kingdom invade Byzantine Egypt and become kings of Egypt? In the 5tth-7th Centuries, The Ghassanids were a Christianized Arab tribe and kingdom which was a vassal state to the Byzantine Empire. They constantly allied with the Byzantines against the Sassanid (Persian) Empire and their Arab vassal tribe, the Lakhmids.I see no reason why the the Ghassanids, serving as useful allies of the Byzantines during the enduring centuries-long Byzantine-Persian Wars, whould suddently betray their biggest ally and take Egypt from them.
0:55 ive heard this song before while playing eu4, what's it called?
as an kazakh, we would be gratefully with Persians with zoroastrian or shamanizm. But Kazakhstan is formed turkic 3 juz tribes. there should be named Cuman Confederation
Why Sweden wasn't highlighted at the beginning of this video?
Sweden has a growing muslim population (for the most part due to immigration but a growing number of converts to the faith), but it's about 5% of the total population. it is widely regarded as an athiest country, which has left christianity behind in the past two decades
I don't really think in this case Turkish expansion in Eran-shahr would've been successfuldue to the united land there was. thus the the chance of Persia becoming a Mongol puppet state is doubtable but not really denyable. what i mean is in the Abbasid Caliphate time line there really wasn't a major Persian empire in the land. yes ofc there were Tahirid, Samanid, Safarid... but none of them really were independent and all of them were just a feudal state of the Caliphate and the one who were not, were fighting the Caliphate for independence. Rashidun and Abbasid didn't really cared who ruled the land as long as they did pay their taxes and respected Caliphate as the true land owner.
I believe that alternative history here is more like a internal coup or change of dynesty or maybe seperation in the Sassanid empire or maybe a long lasting civil war. I say that because of the appearance of Prophets "Mani" and "Mazdak" in that same century and the massive corruption and not having the enough strength to govern the persia from the Sassanids.
PS: It's not clear why if all the things that were mentioned in the video were true, why wouldn't the Turkish or Mongol tribes conquer Egypt?
In short:world peace
No? if religon exists there will continue to be wars im not saying religon is bad but you are stupid and racist for thinking world peace would exist if islam vanished
"contradictory person"
yo!!! mate can you do what if the Angevin Empire survived with a united France having its natural borders and united British isles, as the Angevin Empire expands and conquered 1/3 of the world and became the largest and one of the greatest empires in world and history, like bigger than the British empire in our world
🌍🫸🏻 ☪️
🌍🫸🏻 religions
@@nnnnnnnnnnnnff ☦️ >>> 🌍
Uneducated spotted
Another edgelord islamophobiaese
probaly a political woke larper bot from the CIA or mossad, or a islamist trying to ruin reputation by running a larping account, or a sad teenager who failed to get attention in school
@nnnnnnnnnnnnff then without religons technology would be pushed back thousands of year's