There are a few other things I want to mention: - North Africa, the Levant and Mesopotamia would still be speaking Coptic, Berber and Aramaic. - Charlemagne (if he would even exist) would never he crowned emperor by the pope, meaning the Holy Roman Empire would just remain East Francia. - the Balkans would probably still fall to the Slavs. There is no way the Byzantines could have stopped hundreds of Slavic tribes. - the Muslim Persian states would never exist and thus never use Turkic mercenaries, meaning the Turks would never conquer Iran, and thus the Caucasus and Anatolia.
Yes, those are valid points that I considered as well. The slavs did arrive in overwhelming numbers and were extremely spread out. So much so that the Balkan cities of the empire were practically Greek and Latin islands in a Slavic Sea. However, I believe that the early disintegration of the Avar khaganate and the fact that the empire wouldn't have to deal with the existential threat of the Muslim caliphate was would enable it to put efforts into integrating the Slavic tribes.
This would also have big ramifications with East Africa. The Nubian kingdoms would be able to maintain contact with Rome and would remain Christian and not fall to Islam in the 15th century. Ethiopia would also be more connected to the rest of the Christian world. Perhaps Ethiopia wouldn't have been driven into the interior and have been able to expand and spread their influence.
Ethiopia might have untied a good chunk of Africa had Rome not fell. As long as they could have kept good relations with rome they would have been free to head south without fear of invasion from the north. Also all the money coming in from trade ports between rome and china
@@kinggundragon3728yeah and it would also have influence in Arabia because prior to the rise of Islam the kingdom of Axum (Ethiopia) had territory in parts of Arabian peninsula
No islam = No renaissance No surviving greek mythology and science, No exploration of the americas, No major scientific inventions like algebra, and this would fuck up the timeline so badly probably everyone living today and our current technology won't exist.
I disagree on the part about the Western Empire being so successful, although it would rebound, it would find the Visigoths harder to break, would have to deal with Lombards, and eventually the Franks and Germanic Tribes. I see the Franks, perhaps, winning that war unless the Eastern Empire comes to their aid. The rest, sounds about accurate. I do think the Sassanids would struggle to survive after 1000 A.D. when the Turks would enter the Middle East just like in our timeline. Removing the Arabs also empowers Ethopia. If not for Islam, Ethopia may have conquered Arabia. That wasn't really addressed well in the video.
The western part may just succeed for a few more centuries. In late 7th century Bulgaria pressed on the East Roman heart land and its capital was under threat from time to time so maybe Italy wouldnt be able to remain under control. I assume Bulgaria wouldn't pressure the East Roman empire so badly as soon as it did but if it's not standing directly blocking others from looting Roman land then later the Magyar arrival would definately become a problem that the 4th century Germanic tribes werent comparable to. If Bulgaria and the Magyars can allie for the common good which is to press south of the Danude then that will be a problem the size of the Atilla invasions. Through much more focused on the balkan territories and they may become free rela estate. The Roman legions werent fast enough to deal with Bulgaria let alone the combined effort of both cavalry forces which vastly outnumber Roman cavalry and were far better at mobile warfare. Rome will likely survive its downfall maybe till today or maybe at least for many centuries afterwards. Such scenario is so hard to predict the future.
Ethiopia would’ve probably just conquered and secured their control in Yemen, and maybe influence southern Arabia. I doubt it would conquer ALL of Arabia, if you meant it literally. I do agree thiugh that a bunch of “What if Islam never existed” videos don’t cover how Africa would be affected, and I, for one, would probably see Somalia never existing.
The Turks wouldn’t have been Muslim in this timeline though so they would have been different so that changes the time line abut and also what religion the mongols change to I think they would have adopted Orthodox christianity in this time line because it would have had a bigger role then Islam in this timeline and also Zoroastrianism wouldn’t have been as successful as the Christian which would have rebelled more then the Persian
@@Litany_of_Fury The most of what we know is that Maurice had himself to blame for the revolts against him. While he was a good Emperor, he just didn't have the money to do much. The fact that he ended the Persian War with territorial gain was only thanks to Khosrow II showing up at his door for help What he did against the Avars & Slavs was incredible as well. But the Army & some of his own people even warned him to not cut the Army's salaries. So instead as a comprise, he has them winter over the Danube in winter. Crazy
@@iDeathMaximuMII there Is not more that he could done.. maybe should had made more pressure on kosroe the First to aid him in recapture the Throne,as receive a kind of pretorian guard made by Persian nobles fanatically loyal to mauricius.. logistic was everything, and hit the enemy in the Winter season was esactly what arborgaste did against the Franks..or maybe support the usurper killing cosroe,knowing that now the usurper Need to consolidated his rule, and others civil war could be sparked,but in Exchange for Money and Land to the support..
@@iDeathMaximuMII The treasury was empty even before his accession. Tiberius was very reckless with the money, he reduced taxes at a time when the empire needed money, gave away a lot of cash to the plebs to buy popularity, paid off the Avars, paid a huge amount of money to the Lombards and the Sassanids and raised new armies which required more payment (these would be the same armies to revolt against Maurice), he also raised the pay of the army which was just dumb. Although I forget if it was him or Justin II. Regardless, the point is that Maurice had inherited a bankrupt and seriously overextended Empire and made do with what he had while trying to salvage the situation which he was largely successful at.
Ethnically Greek is a very iffy definition. He was born in Cappadocia which is in Asia Minor near Syria. Although he was a native Greek speaker, his Latin was also pretty good due to his military background. (the military used Latin even after the reign of Heraclius).
Great video. The creation of the Islamic faith was a great turning point in history and the alternative version where it wasn't is a very interesting concept.
Romans and Persians united against the Muslims in the battle of Alfradh and got defeated by Muslims. Let’s be realistic in that time Arabs were unbeatable military force just like every other civilization on its peak.
@@KGF-zf2qj Before The Muslim Invasion, there was a Mini Ice Age in the two empires, they both endured Turkic and nomadic migrations, in addition they were fighting each other vehemently, heraclius reclaimed the Asian and African territories after a decade of Persian rule, and the Arabs had served in all the Romano-Persian Wars and were recently united, the Romans and Persians that fought together were not cohesive armies, just patches, most of them didn't even show up for a fight!
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 Non the less they were the super power of their times and Persians beats the turks while Romans beats Slavs and Hungarians why they couldn’t beat The nomadic Arab while even in their most weakened state are able to beat other nomads
@k. Your information from Wikipedia which has Persian admins ! In fact, Al-Khwarizmi was a Turk-Uzbek from Uzbekistan.. He studied at the House of Wisdom (an Arab university) and all his researches and books were in Arabic + his culture and language were Arabic.. NOT Persian Most of the notable scientists were Arabs (Fathers of Sciences) NOT Persian All the university was built by the Arabs (Al-Azhar - House of Wisdom - Al-Qarawiyyin - Al-Zaytouna) NOT Persians When the Arab Caliphate fell, the golden age ended Literally, most of the scholars were from the Arabs, the peoples of Central Asia (the Turks, the Khwarizmians, etc.), the Berbers and the Iberians.. The Persians were very few. The Persians when they were an empire did not create a golden age throughout their history! They had no books, alphabet or knowledge.. Why did the Persians not have a golden age when they were an empire?
@k. The Greeks borrowed their knowledge from the Semites and Egyptians .. But you cannot deny the cultural and scientific role of the Arabs in the Middle Ages.
@k. "most people were Persians" LOL ! are you persian ? Actuality, you are reading persian nationalism citations No, they weren't Persian! Al-andalus was the greatest Islamic civilization that was not Persian.. The fathers of sciences are mostly Arabs.. Islamic philosophy was founded by the Arabs (Al-Kindi) Most "the people" are Arabs and Turks from Central Asia, Iberians and Berbers..even were leaders and generals from them Why did the Persians not invent this invention at the time of their empire?
The video is produced quite well but i disagree on a few points: - I don't think that the Byzantines had enough strenght to defeat the Avars and if they did another tribe/power might replace them. -You vastly overestimate the Byzantine holdings in the western balkans. By this point they only controled the adriatic coastline with some inland forts/towns, but they didn't have firm control over them. Location of Sirmium is also wrong. - The great Persian-Roman war might have been avoided but the rivarly would never stop. Both hated each other and the Persians wanted to take Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia. - By this point Italy was so depopulated and exhausted from decades of war that restoration of the western empire was not likely. Also Africa was a very rich province and the east would never give it up.
Valid points but I mildly disagree with some of them. 1 Africa was not the breadbasket it used to be in Antiquity. The cold climate made the region drier and less fertile. Plus Maurice gave Africa more autonomy with the creation of the exarchate as he realized that Constantinople was not capable of exercising full control over it. In fact Africa nearly succeeded in the 640s under a governor named Gregory. 2. Byzantium still exercised control over the interior of the Balkans until at least the 630s. 3 .while depopulated Italy still had a significant population. The future papal states and Sicily alone probably had a larger population than the entirety of Britania at the time.
@@historyrhymes1701 Africa and Italy are debatable but im certain that the Byzantines didn't control eastern Slovenia, Croatian Slavonia and northern Bosnia. Emona, Poetovia, Atrans were all destroyed during the 5th century and roman power never returned. Slavonia was under Avar rule. Byzantines controled the Dalmatian coastline, Istria and Slovenia up to where the Claustra line once was. Avars also controled most of moder hungary and the alpine slavs were under their vassalage. Sources for this mostly come from Archeology due to written sources being almost not existant for this time period/area.
1) i think they did Maurice campaings ended in 602 were strong enough that when Phocas pulled a number of troops from the balkans in 605 after dara fell the avars did not attack , in fact the avars did not join the war after the eastern army was anihlated in antioch in 613 and Heraclius pulled almost all balkan forces from the empire , in fact the siege of Constantinople in 626 was likely a desperate act of the avar khagan trying to get a great victory to unite his declining realm , this can be shown as when he lost the avar khagante fell in to futher decline so much so that Samo a merchant turned king with some slavs rebelled against them and won multiple victories. So Mauirce campaings made the dabube secure and the avar khagante decline as seen by their defeat in Constantinople they were one major defeat from becoming irrelevant as major power.
The Justinian Plague and the Gothic War left Italy depopulated and invaluable. Nearly all of it’s urban centres became irrelevant, and nearly all of it’s infrastructure was destroyed. It would require undertaking a massive, daring effort by the Western Roman Empire to reconquer all of Italy and Hispania, especially with the little wealth and manpower they had outside of Africa. However, the Western Roman Empire wouldn’t have to suffer with the religious unrest on the likes of that in the Eastern Roman Empire, as Africa, Italy snd Hispania were predominantly adherents to Chalcedonian Christianity.
Visigothic Spain seems to have been knocked out by a stiff breeze. Given time to recover, and no cataclysmic war against the Persian/Avars/Caliphates, the Roman's seem poised to entrench and expand in the West without too much effort. Drawing upon the recovering resources of Hispania, Africa, Egypt, Syria and Palestine could help make up for the difficulties they saw against the Lombards in Italy.
by this time, although the churche was beginning to show some signs of schism and unrest, both the eastern and the hypothetical western rome of this timeline would remain chalcedonian
Funny, no one seems to really talk about the trauma those final decades of war the Byzantine and Persians left on the Arab mercenary tribes. It was an Apocalyptic age in every sense, and this Byzantine General Heraclius had to create a spiritual/psycological/metaphysical culture of....well, for lack of a better term...Holy War! The aftermath of which may have planted the seeds for an off-shoot extremist Judeo-Christian military cult manifesting into Islam. Just a theory.
I think the west would have quickly reunited with the east. The time it would take for it to consolidate italy and africa would be enough to make spain unconquerable.
Good video, though this is basically a "What if Mohammad never existed" scenario. A more different video would have been if Arabs were contained west of Zagros and a Sassanid state had survived in Iranian heartland similar to the Byzantines.
Persia a fost o mare civilizatie cind era venerat zeul Ahuramazda sau Ormuzd in elenă numele sau este Ormuzd de aici vine numele Hormizda .Asta intre anii 558 330 i en .in 331 Alexandros Megas sau Sicandar cucereste orientul persan de la un capat la altulajunji in Bactriana si Suguda apoi in Barata .se raspindeste e,enismul in Asia In 221 651 avem regatul Sasanid ,o alta Persie .Cu Ardasir Sapuŕ si Anusirvan .La Ahemenizi erau CIRUS CAMBISE DARIUS XERXES SI ARTAXERXES ,ULTIMUL IN 465 424 I E N Asta gasim la BEROES HERODOTUS ZENO ORIBASIE ARRIAN SI ALȚII.SUPERBE ORASE ECBATANE SUSA PERSEPOLIS SI HECATOMPIL. DUPA 651PERSIA NU VA CUNOASTE O ASEMENEA GLORIE DAR VA DA LUMII POETI GENIALI PRECUM RUMI JAMI SAADI HAIAM RUDAKI FIRDOUSI HAFEZ SI TOT AȘA .CULTURA PERSANA FACE PARTE DIN TEZAURUL CULTURII MONDIALE LA UN NIVEL CU CELE DIN ROMA ELLADA KINA BIZANȚ SI APUSUL EUROPEI
@@Ahmed-q9m6vislam is the fastest growing religion because a Muslim man can have 4 wives while a non Muslim can have only one also islam is not peaceful religion Also most Muslim leave islam very fast
This is also a timeline where the 5 holy c's remain Christian including Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Unlike our timeline in which we only have Rome and Jerusalem, and with Jerusalem the Jews own it. A timeline in which the 2 major religions being Christianity and Zoroastrianism seems to me like a better timeline tbh.
Such timeline doesnt automatically stop everything else. What I dont like in such scenarios is that something changes and its live happy and forever. U cant have that. For sure these Arabs there would some day later invent some powerful state maybe not a state which would advance so further away but something will happen eventually. Plus it's not like Parthia or Persia or whatever dynasty there would just leave Rome alone. U gotta realise that for both sides there is nothing nearby more lucrative than looting each other. That is the issue with empire bordering each other. Unless its some geographical barrier badly putting any invasion into risk then they are always doomed to eventually meet up in battle. The issue between them was neither was capable of knocking out the other 1 completely. Too large and it would take generations for East Rome to properly conquer the other side. Same for Persia trying to conquer Rome. These fast conquests are not a thing of already established and succesful states. They lack the hunger to do it. Peaceful coexistence ain't a long term thing.
Amazing! Bravo to you for making such a badass video! It would also be interesting if you made a video, about What if the Turkification of Anatolia Failed. Cheers from Georgia!
Nestorianism was spreading in Persia during the last decades of Sassanian rule, it might become a lot stronger in Central Asia and India, maybe even Persia itself.
Yes it's actually quite possible that Persia would have been one of the major Christian power houses of the world by now. As a matter of fact some of the Sassanid emperors were very attracted to the Christianity & it's concepts & values , there are some Periods during the Sassanid empire of Persia that christianity was even declared as the official state religion !!!! Ahhh..... if only....... This world truly would have been a paradise !!! I'm jealous of the people in our alternative worlds :"))
@The Dark Knight Just as much as I like annoying atheists I suppose ! Lol. Tell me , do you believe we're all a coincidence ?? Lol. That : one molecule hit another & boom , trillions of years later & after evolving from fish to monkeys & from monkeys to humans, here we are ?? XDD Also I never got to directly ask the opinion of an atheist about death !!! Your people must be $hit scared of death right ? Cuz if : *God is real then you're screwed* !!! Lol & if : *God is not real, then you're screwed to the void & oblivion anyways* !!! LMFAO Must be a hopeless life......sorry for what you're going through :"(
@The Dark Knight & do you think, that volcano erupted for a reason ? or was it just a coincidence that plate tectonics & chemical activity beneath the surface of earth caused a volcano to erupt ?
If only Persia and Rome weren't at each other's throats all the time, this easily could have been the case, and humanity would have been much better off for it. Such a shame
This is more like "What if Muhammad never born" rather than "If Islamic conquest failed". If the conquest failed: -Arab still united -Breakup to smaller Muslim tribes after Rashidun ended -Islam still exist, but limited to Arabian peninsular, Egypt, Levant, Mashriqi. -If Byzantines collapse, Egypt would become a Coptic kingdom. Much like Ethiopia. -Crusader might not happened in this timeline.
if the crusades happened, they would be limited to northeastern europe. the only reason why the whole "we will conquer jerusalem" thing happened was because the turks were conquering byzantium, and with no muslim persia, the turks wouldn't migrate to anatolia
"What if Islamic conquests failed" Egyptians and Phoenicians on the background,not bowing down to the Arabs: *party music* Arabs,unable to civilize without a proper leader and a more centralized religion and army: *arabic swearing with desert sounds* Assyrians on their way to revive their empire: Jews not getting kicked out of their homeland and finally not living like garbage in all of Europe: Indians of all Hindus Valley finally not getting apart from their brothers because of religion,cuz everyone now hinduist: Turkics getting kicked out from Anatolia and Caucasus due to staying as nomads,and creating instead a empire in Steppes,never countering Byzantines or Armenians: By the anyway,history would majorily change,mate.
The reason Assyrians and Phoenicians builded an empire because of the weakness of Iran and Anatolia during their times, without high birth rate they won't be able to be independented from them ever again. And jews weren't kicked out by Muslims and the current jews aren't even the ancestors of Solomon but Khazars From Russia.
However for the cases of Arabs, they would have been Nestorian or Zoroastrianist sooner and this means we would have more Arab Christians in the Western Arabia and a sizeable Zoroastrian Arab population in the east including majority of the Gulf countries, hence we would have a different geopolitical focus now as Islamism and Sharia didnt exist.
@@P1utiaI think he has a point. The Muslims translated ancient Egyptian and Greek knowledge in bulk which helped for the renaissance and scientific revolution eventually. It's not clear if those other empires would have done same. But if they did, it would have been beneficial.
@@madrexertheboredtm7728 it can be also atheist or hindu, who knows. If someone says something negative about Islam, that doesn't mean he is Christian. Grow up
@@bluemachine1025 couldn't the same be said of the British which is a shadow of its former self, the later Byzantines, the Spanish, the French, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Indians and many more? While not as tumultuous as the middle east rn, the point is clear, they're all shadows of their former selves
I say Persia falls, they already had internal issues and operated as something of a Sassanid lead Parthian Confederacy where even that Sassanid legitimacy had diluted to other leading clans. I would say maybe if the Lakhmids play their cards right they might conquer it and they had converted to Christianity. Or Sassnids be replaced by a Pathlavi dynasty that is eventually taken over by Nestorian Arabs.
@@slimmy478-6 no, not really, you want to become Muslim? You can, the two major Muslim sects just argue about the heir to the prophet's caliphate, you can decide on that after you've said the oath.
Second of all, islam didn't ruin shit as If it wasn't already ruined, multiple envoys and messengers were sent to heraclius to let islam flourish in his kingdom, but no heraclius chose to do the worst desicion of his life, the Muslim messengers got harassed and a Roman puppet killed one of them, its just pure karma and you Christians don't know the full story and keep whining about rome fell, it was because rome was weak. End of story
@@faisal35i92 lies. modern civilization would still be there even without islam, the people made the golden age and not initiated by islam itself. it was a byproduct of caliphate success. even if without islam a similar golden age would happen, just under the sassanians and zoroastrians. without islam you all arabs would have been liberal by now and would stop fighting in the name of sectarianism like in syria.
What about LALIA? (Late antiquity little ice age) this period lead to more rain and the rise of greenery in arabia wich lead to overpopulation while not being effected by the wars (except in yemen) nor the plagues this is actually the mean reason why the islamic conquest was successful depopulated empire by wars and plagues and an overpopulated arabia with a new religion
The Arabs were in a violent civil war. It was a war of apostasy, and this was before their fight against the Persians and the Romans, so there is no excuse that the Arabs were able to defeat the Persians and the Romans with their strength
Note that you cannot compare a war of centralization such as riddah wars with a decentralising war such as sassanid civil war of 628-633. This basically led to the arab conquest of persia so yes it is the reason.
@@ariaghorbani9375 It seems that you do not know that before the Persians and the Romans invaded, the Arabs were in a civil war called the war of apostasy, so there is no excuse because the Arabs possessed the same reason for weakness that the Persians possessed, and yet they were victorious.
@@سيف-ر3ظrabs had no plauge.Persians had. Arabs had not fought a 26 war before their civil war the persians had.Arabs were centralized after riddah wars persians weren't after the sassanid civil war.Arabs were rising persians were exhausted, in shambles had lost their great generals and a child king was ruling them. It's not only an excuse but the main reason.
@@ariaghorbani9375 Why did the Arabs not fight a war before the civil war? Before the civil war, the Arabs fought 28 battles and many heroes died, the most famous of which was Hamza, the uncle of the Messenger and other great companions. It is enough for a man that the Persians and the Romans cooperated against the Arabs and they are the worst enemies. Both the Persians and the Romans were The Romans are more in number and equipment, armored and organized, unlike the Arabs who were fighting for the first time with organized armies. No matter how hard you try to find any excuse, believe me, you will not find it.
@ariaghorbani9375 Arabs had plagues, I do remember reading about many plagues in the 7th century arabia including the awmas plague. I think the ridda wars even though they centralized arabia they meant that some tribes joined the caliphate by force and that'd mean their rebellion had the rashidun lost in war against Rome and Persia.
I really appreciate that you're pretty much the only alt-history channel that doesn't assume that Abrahamic cults (particularly Christianity and Islam) would have dominated the world anyway, even if things played out differently and all the odds were stacked against them. All these other channels are clearly biased towards these cults. You seem to be one of the few objective alt history channels.
@@Eltonthaqis lol nope western rome had fallen leaving Europe in darkness and Eastern Rome aka byzantines were listless ruminating in a state of societal decay. It was Muslims who were a global community that by religious edict sought out and shared knowledge. It was Muslims who translated the works aristotle and plato that were lost to Europe doing so in the same place where they were translating physics papers from India, mathematics books from persia, herbal medicine from china, writing down oral knowledge of astronomy from arab bedouins or somali seafarers. This was not going to happen in persia or byzantium. That level of commitment to seeking and sharing of knowledge was unparalleled.
@@Eltonthaqis I don't understand your first comment. As for your second its not about an Arab inventing something its about curating the educational environment necessary with the trade routes and state support of scientific research to accompany it that creates the invention.
@@skp8748 This knowledge would have still been preserved and shared by India... Muslims were just translators between India and Europe... Knowledge would be shared regardless....Also a lot of knowledge that was destroyed by Muslims (Nalanda University) also will be saved...
And the people of Iran would have also been saved from the repression done by the Islamists. Its not only the 9.11 that Islam was the blame, Iranians and Indians are also the most victims.
Yemen was a center for trade and knowledge in pre-islamic arabia, do you think then in this alternate timeline Yemen might become the most influential powerhouse or even the unifier of Arabia?
@@thedstorm8922 no when i viewed it on the phone, the arabic name was on the right of the sentence and rest of the text wrapped around it. But looks fine on PC
One of the main concepts in zoroasterinism is to actively help human societies grow in the righteous way and also protecting earth and environment, each person has the responsibility of thinking and not just blindly following. You can see how the Parsis helped with growth in India after they fled And became refugees there ( after Islamic colonization of Persia). Only imagine if that religion was the dominant religion in Middle East. It would be a whole different world.
Not beneficial to Bulgaria. Maybe in this scenario our ancestors would not go as deep as ancient Greece at certain points. I'm not sure if they would remain well below the Danude. Simply more legions for Rome doesnt mean they could deploy many more but for sure in such scenario the success of the first Bulgarian empire wouldnt be the same in style. Probadly would also settle in the Panonian basin.
So, I guess in this alternate timeline, Islam remains in the arabian peninsula. The sassanid Empire survives until another iranian dynasty takes over and remains zoroastrianism with a mix of Judaism and christianity. India remains hindu with multiple states, Egypt, and other North African states becoming christian Spain is never conquered. The Levant region remains in the Roman Empire. Central asia is still a buhdist region. I doubt they sail to Southeast Asia, so indonesia remains Buddhist and hindu the area of iraq and syria convert to christianity as for the rest of history, I assume it remains the same I guess the islamic golden is replaced with the zoroastrianism golden age in persia European countries like Spain France Germany England Russia and Poland still form with the black death renissance and colonialism still happening as well as the mongolian conquest and the colonization of the America's still happen. So, in the current era, india would still be united, and iran would still be zoroastrianism and possibly ww1 and 2 still happen So what I'm saying is that everything in our history still happens with a few differences. Overall, i think the Middle East would be far more developed and peaceful without the tyrannical governments, and iran would definitely be more prosperous, and india would save its history and culture as for indonesia maybe a unification could still happen in this timeline.
And also let us forget that the Persians and the Romans were more numerous in number and equipment, and also allied themselves in order to bring down the Arabs, but they could not, under the leadership of Heraclius, the strong leader.
I worked this idea with a Alternate History scenario i made,basically the Earlier Muslim Caliphate Fell because of a Successful Non-Muslim Peasant Revolt that took place in Egypt
It is sad that such an idea spreads In the Middle East there are many Christians and Jews in Arab and Islamic countries... If your words were true, they would have disappeared from existence... But the Western advertisement distorted Islam for political purposes and nothing more
I agree on all except the WRE restiration. The Western Roman Empire Beta 2.0 would had big difficulties levying new troops, the only good thing would be the rich economy of africa, but that would mean a big reliance on mercenaries … Carthaginian trait, haha. Back to the middle east. If the Sassanids survive the muslim invasion, they survive any other invasion, both infantry or cavalry based armies. They would had incredible defences and technologies, they already had the naffatun before the Greeks had the Greek Fire
Byantium might have it's history ended short. Maybe the slavs under papal sanction retake it. Maybe Charlemagne retakes Eastern Rome and is proclaimed restorer of the world.
I think assuming the situation was that stable is probably wrong. An autonomous Western Empire based heavily in Africa and the Exarchate of Ravenna might see some success, particularly in Italy, although I don't foresee the Franks allowing them to get more than that before they begin supporting the empire's rivals in some form, or helping to carve them up themselves. Whether the west would be up to facing the Franks would depend very heavily on how well its first few centuries go, as well as who is on the Frankish throne, since the Frankish Kingdom in this period was incredibly dependent on having a capable monarch, but incredibly powerful when it did. Likewise, the situation in the east might not blow up as spectacularly as it did in reality, but Eastern Rome was facing fierce internal conflict with Egypt and parts of Syria, and the Avars were far from the last horde coming down from the north. Maurice was unique in that he was so much more popular than the man who replaced him that many were uncertain of whether letting Persia in was actually the greater evil, at least at first, but Persia could still launch an invasion when an emperor was preoccupied or during transition, and there's no guarantee that it wouldn't make significant gains. Persia itself was also in decline though, and you completely omitted the rapidly growing Nestorians, whom the Persians were more hesitent to persecute because they had Roman backing, and whom the Romans regularly used as a cassus belli against Persia during their wars. That situation wasn't going to end peacefully, one way or another, and while the Sassanids might not implode, civil war was likely in the cards for the near future, as it had been in much of their history. The Eastern Romans were also beginning to recover from the devastation of Justinian's plague and the more recent invasions, so if the east sees its star rising again, it's very likely that they will at least attempt to return to the old Roman pastime of sacking Ctesiphon. Clearly such an advance was possible, given what Heraclius managed with a devastated empire, and if the Arabs begin to favor Rome consistently it might even become likely, assuming that the Eastern Empire doesn't split in half over religion or get devastated by Bulgars. Personally, I see Sassanid collapse as coming in the relatively near future, and Western Roman restoration stopping after securing a more stable position in Italy, possibly just restoring everything south of Rome, while Spain either divides against itself before later reunifying or is taken by the Franks. The East probably masterminds the Sassanid collapse and restores a favorable position by creating or restoring Christian client kingdoms in Armenia, Iraq, and Arabia, and propping them up, while a more modest Persia persists either under a branch of the Sassanids or a new house and probably has some difficult times facing off against increasingly aggressive Turks. Long term the scenario benefits the Eastern Romans the most, so if the Sassanids or anyone else doesn't do something to nerf them soon, I see them becoming the dominant European/Near Eastern power, particularly as the situation in Europe stabilizes with the growth of Christianity. East west Schism probably doesn't occur, though the churches do drift apart culturally and repeatedly excommunicate opposing emperors. Western Rome has about as good of odds of being reincorporated at some point as of remaining independent, with an outside chance of Frankish conquest of some or all of it, particularly in mainland Europe. Nestorianism probably gets huge, maybe even gaining majorities in some countries without Islam nerfing its heartlands, and Persia probably protects and promotes Zoroastrianism much better than in reality, though it was a faith in decline, and absent major reforms likely doesn't expand much, and may even lose Persia with enough Roman intervention. The real wild card is the Germans, and whether they unite under the Franks, unite under someone else, and what happens with their religion. Absent Islam we lose Charles Martel's victory at Tours, so the Carolingians might not be a thing, Frankia might be weak, and Christianity might have a much harder time among the Germans without Charlemagne. Vikings without Christianity gradually taking their homelands from the south might be a far larger threat than they already were, and might lead to interesting consequences for Western Europe and Russia. Arabs also still likely create trading empire's around the Indian Ocean, though without Islamic domination things will be quite different there too.
Funny, no one seems to really talk about the trauma those final decades of war the Byzantine and Persians left on the Arab mercenary tribes. It was an Apocalyptic age in every sense, and this Byzantine General Heraclius had to create a spiritual/psycological/metaphysical culture of....well, for lack of a better term...Holy War! The aftermath of which may have planted the seeds for an off-shoot extremist Judeo-Christian military cult manifesting into Islam. Just a theory.
@@Litany_of_Fury that's a misconception. During the Meiji period the emperor wanted to remove any foreign thing from Japan (that includes Buddhism). The soldiers weren't Buddhists when they were committing the atrocities in Korea & China. Anyone who follows Dharma can never commit such crimes.
@@P1utia Why do you think so?! I would like to hear your thought process about that. Because from my view, the translation in bulk of ancient knowledge from Egypt and Greece by the arabs helped fuel the renaissance and eventually industrial revolution of the Europeans. I don't see how those other empires (Byzantine and Assyrian) would have helped...
@@mohammadhassan5461 i say roman in broarder term, it might be a community that actually consider themselves romans in a very convincing way by speaking latin or still have roman tradition. not like the sketchy romanian slavs or italian 'people' like we have today.
Research the years 630 through 740 AD. ISLAM was not a cult during that time yet. Research the coins, architecture, language, rock inscriptions, water sources, etc. The early Quran suras were Christian poems.
me as an ex-Muslim atheist..... emmmmm no comment, I love a lot of Islam teaching, my Muslim bros and sisters, but I wish they stop bombing churches in my country and pls stop interfering my culture
Let’s be honest if the Islamic empire didn’t exist we wouldn’t have much development or countries as now everything can be changed by a simple touch to a country
I don't think The Western Roman Empire would be able to conquer Spain, especially with them fighting the Lombard's and later the Franks and Germans, it really wouldn't be worth the resources required either and it'd be even harder to maintain it especially with Frankish pressure, and I don't think we'd see major conflicts between Western and Eastern Empires as this would weaken them for other enemies to just conquer.
@@Amadeo790 But this tribalism is quite different than the one with Islam today. Take Russia's mentality for example. Russia has a 15th century mentality that they invaded Ukraine for some reason, now compare this to Islamic terrorists, they also have this similar mentality but more dedicated for religion itself. People are ALWAYS tribal, but not that kind tribal they are because the world become and becomes LIBERAL, and they just dont want war.
@@P1utia but that is the definition of tribalism. “We don’t like you because your not like us” but the point here is, if Islam didn’t exist, some other groups would still cause war. It’s silly to think the world wouldn’t hate itself if Islam dint exist.
Truly paradise !!! Since with the Sassanid empire & the byzantine empire still remaining as the world's superpowers & each other's allies would have also resulted in the Mongolian empire to never expand westwards !!! ( terrible & devastating wars would have happened for sure but the Mongolian empire would have 99.99% never ever set foot in the west in either of Persia or byzantium !!!! ) For those blinded turkic or Mongolian nationalists or anyone who is gonna complain, I'm gonna remind you : *the Mongols under Genghiz Khan sure killed & fought & won over a lot of people & armies in all sides but take into account that THEY FOUGHT ONLY AGAINST THE EXTREMELY WEAK OR "WEAKENED" NATIONS & COUNTRIES* We're talking about the Sassanid & the byzantine empires here !!! ( *fri**ing superpowers of the world* !!! ) & superpowers which were already greatly advanced & developed , as matter of fact it's not even that far from mind to think that they would have even invented the gunpowder by the times the Mongolian empire was only about to rise. Truly a paradise !!!! Unburned libraries crying of laughter & happiness in the distant :""""""))
My Newest video: ruclips.net/video/5JIJLOVgjzY/видео.html
What if persia resisted heraclus
Like how rome resisted hannibal
Imagine how heraclius felt. He spent 2 decades in trying to restore Rome's borders and when he finally succeeded the Muslims arrived. Excellent video!
A trolling was done
@@yoghurtmaster1688 Muslims: “We do a little trolling”
@@gabrielseaborn257 i think that was one gigantic trolling..
Lol killing the envoy was his biggest mistake
Most of empires end because they kill envoys
It's really the only reason the Muslims beat the Byzantines. They were severely weakened by war.
There are a few other things I want to mention:
- North Africa, the Levant and Mesopotamia would still be speaking Coptic, Berber and Aramaic.
- Charlemagne (if he would even exist) would never he crowned emperor by the pope, meaning the Holy Roman Empire would just remain East Francia.
- the Balkans would probably still fall to the Slavs. There is no way the Byzantines could have stopped hundreds of Slavic tribes.
- the Muslim Persian states would never exist and thus never use Turkic mercenaries, meaning the Turks would never conquer Iran, and thus the Caucasus and Anatolia.
Yes, those are valid points that I considered as well. The slavs did arrive in overwhelming numbers and were extremely spread out. So much so that the Balkan cities of the empire were practically Greek and Latin islands in a Slavic Sea. However, I believe that the early disintegration of the Avar khaganate and the fact that the empire wouldn't have to deal with the existential threat of the Muslim caliphate was would enable it to put efforts into integrating the Slavic tribes.
Is it possible that the Zoroastrian Persia would steel hire the turks just for need of mercenaries?
@@antoniomariamacri7500 actually yes.
@@historyrhymes1701 السلام عليكم هل يمكننى القيام بتعاون
@@antoniomariamacri7500 There might be a chance that the Turks would become Zoroastrian too, though.
This would also have big ramifications with East Africa. The Nubian kingdoms would be able to maintain contact with Rome and would remain Christian and not fall to Islam in the 15th century. Ethiopia would also be more connected to the rest of the Christian world. Perhaps Ethiopia wouldn't have been driven into the interior and have been able to expand and spread their influence.
Ethiopia might have untied a good chunk of Africa had Rome not fell. As long as they could have kept good relations with rome they would have been free to head south without fear of invasion from the north. Also all the money coming in from trade ports between rome and china
@@kinggundragon3728yeah and it would also have influence in Arabia because prior to the rise of Islam the kingdom of Axum (Ethiopia) had territory in parts of Arabian peninsula
Paradise?
No islamic golden age
based
No fuck that I wouldn’t exist
Yes.
No islam = No renaissance No surviving greek mythology and science, No exploration of the americas, No major scientific inventions like algebra, and this would fuck up the timeline so badly probably everyone living today and our current technology won't exist.
I disagree on the part about the Western Empire being so successful, although it would rebound, it would find the Visigoths harder to break, would have to deal with Lombards, and eventually the Franks and Germanic Tribes. I see the Franks, perhaps, winning that war unless the Eastern Empire comes to their aid. The rest, sounds about accurate. I do think the Sassanids would struggle to survive after 1000 A.D. when the Turks would enter the Middle East just like in our timeline. Removing the Arabs also empowers Ethopia. If not for Islam, Ethopia may have conquered Arabia. That wasn't really addressed well in the video.
The western part may just succeed for a few more centuries. In late 7th century Bulgaria pressed on the East Roman heart land and its capital was under threat from time to time so maybe Italy wouldnt be able to remain under control. I assume Bulgaria wouldn't pressure the East Roman empire so badly as soon as it did but if it's not standing directly blocking others from looting Roman land then later the Magyar arrival would definately become a problem that the 4th century Germanic tribes werent comparable to. If Bulgaria and the Magyars can allie for the common good which is to press south of the Danude then that will be a problem the size of the Atilla invasions. Through much more focused on the balkan territories and they may become free rela estate. The Roman legions werent fast enough to deal with Bulgaria let alone the combined effort of both cavalry forces which vastly outnumber Roman cavalry and were far better at mobile warfare. Rome will likely survive its downfall maybe till today or maybe at least for many centuries afterwards. Such scenario is so hard to predict the future.
yeah he skipped india and indonesia. Even china would be affected.
The Third Ethiopian empire when?
Ethiopia would’ve probably just conquered and secured their control in Yemen, and maybe influence southern Arabia. I doubt it would conquer ALL of Arabia, if you meant it literally. I do agree thiugh that a bunch of “What if Islam never existed” videos don’t cover how Africa would be affected, and I, for one, would probably see Somalia never existing.
The Turks wouldn’t have been Muslim in this timeline though so they would have been different so that changes the time line abut and also what religion the mongols change to I think they would have adopted Orthodox christianity in this time line because it would have had a bigger role then Islam in this timeline and also Zoroastrianism wouldn’t have been as successful as the Christian which would have rebelled more then the Persian
Then Zoroastrinism would still be a dominant religion.
No Christianity would
True, no muslims only makes Christians more dominant in Europe and beyond while Zoroastrinism remains dominant but Persia
@@i_likemen5614jajajja the persians worship ahura mazda not christ
Persia probably would've fallen to the pressures that Christianity would've exerted on it
I think, Zoro messages continued in Sufism. That is why many Muslims hate Sufism and consider it as heresy.
Strange how something as insignificant as ordering an army to winter in a certain place changes the course of world history immensely
Or he gets assassinated anyway. we don't know the details only what was written.
@@Litany_of_Fury The most of what we know is that Maurice had himself to blame for the revolts against him. While he was a good Emperor, he just didn't have the money to do much. The fact that he ended the Persian War with territorial gain was only thanks to Khosrow II showing up at his door for help
What he did against the Avars & Slavs was incredible as well. But the Army & some of his own people even warned him to not cut the Army's salaries. So instead as a comprise, he has them winter over the Danube in winter. Crazy
@@iDeathMaximuMII there Is not more that he could done.. maybe should had made more pressure on kosroe the First to aid him in recapture the Throne,as receive a kind of pretorian guard made by Persian nobles fanatically loyal to mauricius.. logistic was everything, and hit the enemy in the Winter season was esactly what arborgaste did against the Franks..or maybe support the usurper killing cosroe,knowing that now the usurper Need to consolidated his rule, and others civil war could be sparked,but in Exchange for Money and Land to the support..
@@iDeathMaximuMII The treasury was empty even before his accession. Tiberius was very reckless with the money, he reduced taxes at a time when the empire needed money, gave away a lot of cash to the plebs to buy popularity, paid off the Avars, paid a huge amount of money to the Lombards and the Sassanids and raised new armies which required more payment (these would be the same armies to revolt against Maurice), he also raised the pay of the army which was just dumb. Although I forget if it was him or Justin II. Regardless, the point is that Maurice had inherited a bankrupt and seriously overextended Empire and made do with what he had while trying to salvage the situation which he was largely successful at.
Maurice is really underrated. I believe that he was also the first fully ethnically Greek Roamn Emperor
Ethnically maybe. But Justin II was the first native Greek speaker for the Empire. His Latin was barely passable I read
Ethnically Greek is a very iffy definition. He was born in Cappadocia which is in Asia Minor near Syria. Although he was a native Greek speaker, his Latin was also pretty good due to his military background. (the military used Latin even after the reign of Heraclius).
Some people call me Maurice, because I speak with the Pompitice of Love.
Great video. The creation of the Islamic faith was a great turning point in history and the alternative version where it wasn't is a very interesting concept.
By the will of Allah, muslims won
The True title of the video should be "what if the Romans and Persians didn't go to war for 700 years"
Ask Crassus
@@AryanXvaday the first gold teeth
Romans and Persians united against the Muslims in the battle of Alfradh and got defeated by Muslims.
Let’s be realistic in that time Arabs were unbeatable military force just like every other civilization on its peak.
@@KGF-zf2qj Before The Muslim Invasion, there was a Mini Ice Age in the two empires, they both endured Turkic and nomadic migrations, in addition they were fighting each other vehemently, heraclius reclaimed the Asian and African territories after a decade of Persian rule, and the Arabs had served in all the Romano-Persian Wars and were recently united, the Romans and Persians that fought together were not cohesive armies, just patches, most of them didn't even show up for a fight!
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003
Non the less they were the super power of their times and Persians beats the turks while Romans beats Slavs and Hungarians why they couldn’t beat The nomadic Arab while even in their most weakened state are able to beat other nomads
Call me biased but, this looks like an amazing alternate option to our timeline...
Great video once more!
No algebra!!!!
@k. .invented by an Uzbek who studied at an Arab university..and presented by Arab civilization to the world
@k. Your information from Wikipedia which has Persian admins !
In fact, Al-Khwarizmi was a Turk-Uzbek from Uzbekistan.. He studied at the House of Wisdom (an Arab university) and all his researches and books were in Arabic + his culture and language were Arabic.. NOT Persian
Most of the notable scientists were Arabs (Fathers of Sciences) NOT Persian
All the university was built by the Arabs (Al-Azhar - House of Wisdom - Al-Qarawiyyin - Al-Zaytouna) NOT Persians
When the Arab Caliphate fell, the golden age ended
Literally, most of the scholars were from the Arabs, the peoples of Central Asia (the Turks, the Khwarizmians, etc.), the Berbers and the Iberians.. The Persians were very few.
The Persians when they were an empire did not create a golden age throughout their history! They had no books, alphabet or knowledge..
Why did the Persians not have a golden age when they were an empire?
@k. The Greeks borrowed their knowledge from the Semites and Egyptians .. But you cannot deny the cultural and scientific role of the Arabs in the Middle Ages.
@k. "most people were Persians" LOL ! are you persian ?
Actuality, you are reading persian nationalism citations
No, they weren't Persian! Al-andalus was the greatest Islamic civilization that was not Persian.. The fathers of sciences are mostly Arabs.. Islamic philosophy was founded by the Arabs (Al-Kindi)
Most "the people" are Arabs and Turks from Central Asia, Iberians and Berbers..even were leaders and generals from them
Why did the Persians not invent this invention at the time of their empire?
The video is produced quite well but i disagree on a few points:
- I don't think that the Byzantines had enough strenght to defeat the Avars and if they did another tribe/power might replace them.
-You vastly overestimate the Byzantine holdings in the western balkans. By this point they only controled the adriatic coastline with some inland forts/towns, but they didn't have firm control over them. Location of Sirmium is also wrong.
- The great Persian-Roman war might have been avoided but the rivarly would never stop. Both hated each other and the Persians wanted to take Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia.
- By this point Italy was so depopulated and exhausted from decades of war that restoration of the western empire was not likely. Also Africa was a very rich province and the east would never give it up.
Valid points but I mildly disagree with some of them.
1 Africa was not the breadbasket it used to be in Antiquity. The cold climate made the region drier and less fertile. Plus Maurice gave Africa more autonomy with the creation of the exarchate as he realized that Constantinople was not capable of exercising full control over it. In fact Africa nearly succeeded in the 640s under a governor named Gregory.
2. Byzantium still exercised control over the interior of the Balkans until at least the 630s.
3 .while depopulated Italy still had a significant population. The future papal states and Sicily alone probably had a larger population than the entirety of Britania at the time.
@@historyrhymes1701 Africa and Italy are debatable but im certain that the Byzantines didn't control eastern Slovenia, Croatian Slavonia and northern Bosnia. Emona, Poetovia, Atrans were all destroyed during the 5th century and roman power never returned. Slavonia was under Avar rule. Byzantines controled the Dalmatian coastline, Istria and Slovenia up to where the Claustra line once was. Avars also controled most of moder hungary and the alpine slavs were under their vassalage. Sources for this mostly come from Archeology due to written sources being almost not existant for this time period/area.
@@viddobrisek6953 never returned? perhaps "romans" never returned. but roman influence did, definitely under Basil II.
@@viddobrisek6953 nothing was said about what the avars controlled in this video. half your comment is therefore useless
1) i think they did Maurice campaings ended in 602 were strong enough that when Phocas pulled a number of troops from the balkans in 605 after dara fell the avars did not attack , in fact the avars did not join the war after the eastern army was anihlated in antioch in 613 and Heraclius pulled almost all balkan forces from the empire , in fact the siege of Constantinople in 626 was likely a desperate act of the avar khagan trying to get a great victory to unite his declining realm , this can be shown as when he lost the avar khagante fell in to futher decline so much so that Samo a merchant turned king with some slavs rebelled against them and won multiple victories.
So Mauirce campaings made the dabube secure and the avar khagante decline as seen by their defeat in Constantinople they were one major defeat from becoming irrelevant as major power.
The Justinian Plague and the Gothic War left Italy depopulated and invaluable. Nearly all of it’s urban centres became irrelevant, and nearly all of it’s infrastructure was destroyed. It would require undertaking a massive, daring effort by the Western Roman Empire to reconquer all of Italy and Hispania, especially with the little wealth and manpower they had outside of Africa. However, the Western Roman Empire wouldn’t have to suffer with the religious unrest on the likes of that in the Eastern Roman Empire, as Africa, Italy snd Hispania were predominantly adherents to Chalcedonian Christianity.
Visigothic Spain seems to have been knocked out by a stiff breeze. Given time to recover, and no cataclysmic war against the Persian/Avars/Caliphates, the Roman's seem poised to entrench and expand in the West without too much effort. Drawing upon the recovering resources of Hispania, Africa, Egypt, Syria and Palestine could help make up for the difficulties they saw against the Lombards in Italy.
by this time, although the churche was beginning to show some signs of schism and unrest, both the eastern and the hypothetical western rome of this timeline would remain chalcedonian
Funny, no one seems to really talk about the trauma those final decades of war the Byzantine and Persians left on the Arab mercenary tribes. It was an Apocalyptic age in every sense, and this Byzantine General Heraclius had to create a spiritual/psycological/metaphysical culture of....well, for lack of a better term...Holy War! The aftermath of which may have planted the seeds for an off-shoot extremist Judeo-Christian military cult manifesting into Islam. Just a theory.
@@juniorjames7076That's a position of Richard Carrier.
- Adûnâi
I think the west would have quickly reunited with the east. The time it would take for it to consolidate italy and africa would be enough to make spain unconquerable.
What a wonderful world that we missed
Nah
Western Rome exists that make me smile
Jews should have k Jesus in his childhood that would be interesting.
Nah
True... Zoroastrian Persia, Rome rekindled and probably no Turkish conquests...
African Latin would still exist
Good video, though this is basically a "What if Mohammad never existed" scenario. A more different video would have been if Arabs were contained west of Zagros and a Sassanid state had survived in Iranian heartland similar to the Byzantines.
Mohammed probably never existed in real life. Islam is a made up religion like all others.
Despite the accent, the pronunciation is perfect and the content even moreso. Awesome new creator, thanks to Mr. Z for the new sub.
As a persian i see this as an absolute win
But it did not happen and Islam is still spreading against your will
@@Ahmed-q9m6v in secolele urmatoare lumea va fi tot mai atee si agnostica vremea relijiilor monoteiste se cam duce
Persia a fost o mare civilizatie cind era venerat zeul Ahuramazda sau Ormuzd in elenă numele sau este Ormuzd de aici vine numele Hormizda .Asta intre anii 558 330 i en .in 331 Alexandros Megas sau Sicandar cucereste orientul persan de la un capat la altulajunji in Bactriana si Suguda apoi in Barata .se raspindeste e,enismul in Asia In 221 651 avem regatul Sasanid ,o alta Persie .Cu Ardasir Sapuŕ si Anusirvan .La Ahemenizi erau CIRUS CAMBISE DARIUS XERXES SI ARTAXERXES ,ULTIMUL IN 465 424 I E N Asta gasim la BEROES HERODOTUS ZENO ORIBASIE ARRIAN SI ALȚII.SUPERBE ORASE ECBATANE SUSA PERSEPOLIS SI HECATOMPIL. DUPA 651PERSIA NU VA CUNOASTE O ASEMENEA GLORIE DAR VA DA LUMII POETI GENIALI PRECUM RUMI JAMI SAADI HAIAM RUDAKI FIRDOUSI HAFEZ SI TOT AȘA .CULTURA PERSANA FACE PARTE DIN TEZAURUL CULTURII MONDIALE LA UN NIVEL CU CELE DIN ROMA ELLADA KINA BIZANȚ SI APUSUL EUROPEI
@@Ahmed-q9m6vislam is the fastest growing religion because a Muslim man can have 4 wives while a non Muslim can have only one also islam is not peaceful religion
Also most Muslim leave islam very fast
@@Ahmed-q9m6vislam only spread because a Muslim man can have 4 wives while a non Muslim can have only one wives also most Muslim leave islam fast
A better ending , A happy ending , The best ending
ruclips.net/video/C8M4i9fvq1M/видео.htmlsi=sfE1_p1by8wtm5xx
"If the conquest failed" we won at the end
A world of Zoroastrianism vs Christianity!
Zoroastrianism is peaceful religion
@@patriotofpersia2238 It is unfortunate that the religion was nearly completely wiped out by Islam.
@@patriotofpersia2238 no is not
@@patriotofpersia2238 yes yes, just how people got burned on the stakes for not accepting that religion
@@pixistypses5406 Reminds me of islam
This is also a timeline where the 5 holy c's remain Christian including Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Unlike our timeline in which we only have Rome and Jerusalem, and with Jerusalem the Jews own it. A timeline in which the 2 major religions being Christianity and Zoroastrianism seems to me like a better timeline tbh.
Such timeline doesnt automatically stop everything else. What I dont like in such scenarios is that something changes and its live happy and forever. U cant have that. For sure these Arabs there would some day later invent some powerful state maybe not a state which would advance so further away but something will happen eventually. Plus it's not like Parthia or Persia or whatever dynasty there would just leave Rome alone. U gotta realise that for both sides there is nothing nearby more lucrative than looting each other. That is the issue with empire bordering each other. Unless its some geographical barrier badly putting any invasion into risk then they are always doomed to eventually meet up in battle. The issue between them was neither was capable of knocking out the other 1 completely. Too large and it would take generations for East Rome to properly conquer the other side. Same for Persia trying to conquer Rome. These fast conquests are not a thing of already established and succesful states. They lack the hunger to do it. Peaceful coexistence ain't a long term thing.
@@ivokantarski6220 hey look a rational and well reasoned response to a dumb comment. Good going
@Timur Sayfullah kinda was expecting this you know. Btw, your comment means nothing to me.
@Timur Sayfullah wow, this again.
@Timur Sayfullah so you run off now? Coward.
Amazing! Bravo to you for making such a badass video! It would also be interesting if you made a video, about What if the Turkification of Anatolia Failed. Cheers from Georgia!
dreams
@@tigin11 ?
@@androtchitchinadze3450 What if hellenization was successful and permanent would be more interesting.
@@androtchitchinadze3450that's just some turkish nationalist....
Nestorianism was spreading in Persia during the last decades of Sassanian rule, it might become a lot stronger in Central Asia and India, maybe even Persia itself.
Yes it's actually quite possible that Persia would have been one of the major Christian power houses of the world by now.
As a matter of fact some of the Sassanid emperors were very attracted to the Christianity & it's concepts & values , there are some Periods during the Sassanid empire of Persia that christianity was even declared as the official state religion !!!!
Ahhh..... if only.......
This world truly would have been a paradise !!!
I'm jealous of the people in our alternative worlds :"))
@The Dark Knight What is it you say ??.....
*Haram* !!!!!
LMFAO
@The Dark Knight Just as much as I like annoying atheists I suppose ! Lol.
Tell me , do you believe we're all a coincidence ?? Lol.
That : one molecule hit another & boom , trillions of years later & after evolving from fish to monkeys & from monkeys to humans, here we are ?? XDD
Also I never got to directly ask the opinion of an atheist about death !!!
Your people must be $hit scared of death right ? Cuz if :
*God is real then you're screwed* !!! Lol & if :
*God is not real, then you're screwed to the void & oblivion anyways* !!! LMFAO
Must be a hopeless life......sorry for what you're going through :"(
@The Dark Knight & do you think, that volcano erupted for a reason ? or was it just a coincidence that plate tectonics & chemical activity beneath the surface of earth caused a volcano to erupt ?
@The Dark Knight & from what did the hominids evolve from pray tell ?
You can change as much history events as you’d like, the Arabian conquest was as Thanos described himself “Inevitable”
The tang dynasty might conquer central Asia and the discovery of the age of exploration might be delayed. I wonder if this world industrializes.
It WONT be delayed. The exploration was an inevitable thing even without Islam.
@@P1utia ruclips.net/video/C8M4i9fvq1M/видео.htmlsi=sfE1_p1by8wtm5xx
Good accent, i can't understand most of American/English channels but i do understand Slavs. Greetings from Costa Rica
If only Persia and Rome weren't at each other's throats all the time, this easily could have been the case, and humanity would have been much better off for it. Such a shame
I wish persia and roma allied too
They literally had allied against Muslims and still failed @@Iranshahriii
Life could be a dream… Life could be a dreeeeeeeaaaammmmmm booom boom boom shiboom
This is more like "What if Muhammad never born" rather than "If Islamic conquest failed".
If the conquest failed:
-Arab still united
-Breakup to smaller Muslim tribes after Rashidun ended
-Islam still exist, but limited to Arabian peninsular, Egypt, Levant, Mashriqi.
-If Byzantines collapse, Egypt would become a Coptic kingdom. Much like Ethiopia.
-Crusader might not happened in this timeline.
if the crusades happened, they would be limited to northeastern europe. the only reason why the whole "we will conquer jerusalem" thing happened was because the turks were conquering byzantium, and with no muslim persia, the turks wouldn't migrate to anatolia
@@atr_g10 Yeah, I've heard that pope created Teutonic Order to convert Lithuanian pagans.
@@atr_g10 Turks could've still migrated to Anatolia (thought they would probably be more like the Slavs where they would eventually be Christianized)
Maurice is such an underrated Emperor for all the potential he'd built. The ultimate what-if imo
"What if Islamic conquests failed"
Egyptians and Phoenicians on the background,not bowing down to the Arabs: *party music*
Arabs,unable to civilize without a proper leader and a more centralized religion and army: *arabic swearing with desert sounds*
Assyrians on their way to revive their empire:
Jews not getting kicked out of their homeland and finally not living like garbage in all of Europe:
Indians of all Hindus Valley finally not getting apart from their brothers because of religion,cuz everyone now hinduist:
Turkics getting kicked out from Anatolia and Caucasus due to staying as nomads,and creating instead a empire in Steppes,never countering
Byzantines or Armenians:
By the anyway,history would majorily change,mate.
The reason Assyrians and Phoenicians builded an empire because of the weakness of Iran and Anatolia during their times, without high birth rate they won't be able to be independented from them ever again. And jews weren't kicked out by Muslims and the current jews aren't even the ancestors of Solomon but Khazars From Russia.
that sounds like a paradise,ngl.
zoroastrianism and other iranian religions would be major
However for the cases of Arabs, they would have been Nestorian or Zoroastrianist sooner and this means we would have more Arab Christians in the Western Arabia and a sizeable Zoroastrian Arab population in the east including majority of the Gulf countries, hence we would have a different geopolitical focus now as Islamism and Sharia didnt exist.
And I would still be speaking Aramaic
A better world...
Lool no science
@@skp8748Lol, Science has nothing to do with Islam for crying out loud, as there are other powers having science themselves that are not Islamic
@@P1utiaThe app you are using was made by a Muslim
@@P1utiaI think he has a point. The Muslims translated ancient Egyptian and Greek knowledge in bulk which helped for the renaissance and scientific revolution eventually. It's not clear if those other empires would have done same. But if they did, it would have been beneficial.
@@ze_kangz932 Even if, Islam is not that influential enough. He doesnt have a point, all what hes saying is nonsense.
Ah yes, the good ending.
@@madrexertheboredtm7728 it can be also atheist or hindu, who knows. If someone says something negative about Islam, that doesn't mean he is Christian. Grow up
@@davidechiusano173 lots of the time it's Hindus pretending to be Christians
@@davidechiusano173 Exactly. If someone says something negative about christianity, it doesn't mean they are muslim
The sigma ending : Arabs conquered gaul, Britain, and take constantinople.
@@davidechiusano173
He have a clearly European name. How can he be Hindu?
If only this was the real timeline...
Luckily the Caliphate became a great power. If the islam didn't spread, this World would be worse
@@Courdelion such a great power, look at you guys now
@@bluemachine1025 Today many are under the feet of Christian powers so. Let's be real.
@@ivokantarski6220 I was being sarcastic
@@bluemachine1025 couldn't the same be said of the British which is a shadow of its former self, the later Byzantines, the Spanish, the French, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Indians and many more? While not as tumultuous as the middle east rn, the point is clear, they're all shadows of their former selves
I say Persia falls, they already had internal issues and operated as something of a Sassanid lead Parthian Confederacy where even that Sassanid legitimacy had diluted to other leading clans. I would say maybe if the Lakhmids play their cards right they might conquer it and they had converted to Christianity. Or Sassnids be replaced by a Pathlavi dynasty that is eventually taken over by Nestorian Arabs.
We can't you just accept that Iran doesn't have to be conquered by arabs?
@@iSyriux what if they are instead conquered by Turks, tho a Daylamite conquest would just be a different Iranian group taking over.
Good Ending
"What if the Persian reconquest from the Muslim occupiers succeeded?
A blessed timeline
A disgrace
@@13thdivision70 for some
@@TheLastRoman for everyone beside the enemies of Islam.
@@13thdivision70 still a blessed timeline with no islamic empire
@@TheLastRoman cope dude, it is still your imagination. The blessed islamic empires happened and it will happen again.
R E M O V E S H I R K
Don’t know how I ended up here but I’m enjoying it.
Medina literally means "City".
It's full name is madina al manawara which means City of light or bright city
@@victorien3704 A fellow Muslim scholar, what sect are you brother?
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 Is a sect necessary?
@@slimmy478-6 no, not really, you want to become Muslim? You can, the two major Muslim sects just argue about the heir to the prophet's caliphate, you can decide on that after you've said the oath.
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 Fortunately I am a Muslim however I just stick to the basics of the religion
Heraclius the Great would not had his Emperorship ruined if Islam didnt fucking Ruin it. All hail the savior of ROME
Ave Heraclius
Heraclius 👎
Second of all, islam didn't ruin shit as If it wasn't already ruined, multiple envoys and messengers were sent to heraclius to let islam flourish in his kingdom, but no heraclius chose to do the worst desicion of his life, the Muslim messengers got harassed and a Roman puppet killed one of them, its just pure karma and you Christians don't know the full story and keep whining about rome fell, it was because rome was weak. End of story
@@victorien3704 Sure okay bro
@@victorien3704 you sent the same message twice
The greatest thing to ever happen to humanity
If it didn’t happen then Say bye bye to modern civilization lol 😂
@@faisal35i92 press x to doubt
@@faisal35i92 lies. modern civilization would still be there even without islam, the people made the golden age and not initiated by islam itself. it was a byproduct of caliphate success. even if without islam a similar golden age would happen, just under the sassanians and zoroastrians. without islam you all arabs would have been liberal by now and would stop fighting in the name of sectarianism like in syria.
@@P1utianah 🐖 pagan your modern world would never make it
@@P1utiawrong they were islamic theologians inspired by islamic edict to seek knowledge 😂
What if the Mongols conquered Egypt ?
They did actually at one point
What about LALIA? (Late antiquity little ice age) this period lead to more rain and the rise of greenery in arabia wich lead to overpopulation while not being effected by the wars (except in yemen) nor the plagues this is actually the mean reason why the islamic conquest was successful depopulated empire by wars and plagues and an overpopulated arabia with a new religion
how the death of ONE man changes history.
No,only the birth of one man changed history....prophet Muhammad
A man can dream I wish this was the history😊
The largest empire other than Rome, Britain and the Mongols, and Russians
Wrong. It is dwarfed by most major colonial Empires, including the French and Spanish.
@@nathanc939 incase you didn't read it right which could be the case, I said Britain, which covers colonial powers because they were the top one
5:57
Me: *groans “nooooooo…not again!” out loud*
The Arabs were in a violent civil war. It was a war of apostasy, and this was before their fight against the Persians and the Romans, so there is no excuse that the Arabs were able to defeat the Persians and the Romans with their strength
Note that you cannot compare a war of centralization such as riddah wars with a decentralising war such as sassanid civil war of 628-633. This basically led to the arab conquest of persia so yes it is the reason.
@@ariaghorbani9375 It seems that you do not know that before the Persians and the Romans invaded, the Arabs were in a civil war called the war of apostasy, so there is no excuse because the Arabs possessed the same reason for weakness that the Persians possessed, and yet they were victorious.
@@سيف-ر3ظrabs had no plauge.Persians had. Arabs had not fought a 26 war before their civil war the persians had.Arabs were centralized after riddah wars persians weren't after the sassanid civil war.Arabs were rising persians were exhausted, in shambles had lost their great generals and a child king was ruling them. It's not only an excuse but the main reason.
@@ariaghorbani9375 Why did the Arabs not fight a war before the civil war? Before the civil war, the Arabs fought 28 battles and many heroes died, the most famous of which was Hamza, the uncle of the Messenger and other great companions. It is enough for a man that the Persians and the Romans cooperated against the Arabs and they are the worst enemies. Both the Persians and the Romans were The Romans are more in number and equipment, armored and organized, unlike the Arabs who were fighting for the first time with organized armies. No matter how hard you try to find any excuse, believe me, you will not find it.
@ariaghorbani9375 Arabs had plagues, I do remember reading about many plagues in the 7th century arabia including the awmas plague.
I think the ridda wars even though they centralized arabia they meant that some tribes joined the caliphate by force and that'd mean their rebellion had the rashidun lost in war against Rome and Persia.
I really appreciate that you're pretty much the only alt-history channel that doesn't assume that Abrahamic cults (particularly Christianity and Islam) would have dominated the world anyway, even if things played out differently and all the odds were stacked against them. All these other channels are clearly biased towards these cults. You seem to be one of the few objective alt history channels.
Not Good Or Bad.
Just A Strange World
I bet you started mappinga year ago
Amazing video bröther
The best timeline!! Rome still dominant and no Muslims....now that is a world I will love to live in!!
No science 😂
Muslim civilisation is better than Rome. Most of Roman population were slaves but in Islamic civilisation the slaves became kings.
@@Eltonthaqis lol nope western rome had fallen leaving Europe in darkness and Eastern Rome aka byzantines were listless ruminating in a state of societal decay. It was Muslims who were a global community that by religious edict sought out and shared knowledge. It was Muslims who translated the works aristotle and plato that were lost to Europe doing so in the same place where they were translating physics papers from India, mathematics books from persia, herbal medicine from china, writing down oral knowledge of astronomy from arab bedouins or somali seafarers. This was not going to happen in persia or byzantium.
That level of commitment to seeking and sharing of knowledge was unparalleled.
@@Eltonthaqis I don't understand your first comment. As for your second its not about an Arab inventing something its about curating the educational environment necessary with the trade routes and state support of scientific research to accompany it that creates the invention.
@@skp8748 This knowledge would have still been preserved and shared by India... Muslims were just translators between India and Europe... Knowledge would be shared regardless....Also a lot of knowledge that was destroyed by Muslims (Nalanda University) also will be saved...
@Bulgarian Empire Mapping I wish You could do a classic video of "History of (region of The world) Every year"
We could of prevented 9/11 this way
And the people of Iran would have also been saved from the repression done by the Islamists. Its not only the 9.11 that Islam was the blame, Iranians and Indians are also the most victims.
9/11 is done by government usa
No tech to build those towers
@@skp8748 Stop spewing propaganda thinking without Islam the world would be different
@@P1utia Okay Lindu 👍
sounds nice
Cope
Yemen was a center for trade and knowledge in pre-islamic arabia, do you think then in this alternate timeline Yemen might become the most influential powerhouse or even the unifier of Arabia?
No one at that time really thought of or aimed for unification of Arabia, it's a nomad land mostly.
@@فهميكتاني I was thinking maybe it would naturally emerge as the centre of Arabian world as a result of its position
wtf is with this formatting
@@ayush.kumar.13907 lol it the Arabic name
Arabic starts from right to left
@@thedstorm8922 no when i viewed it on the phone, the arabic name was on the right of the sentence and rest of the text wrapped around it.
But looks fine on PC
One of the main concepts in zoroasterinism is to actively help human societies grow in the righteous way and also protecting earth and environment, each person has the responsibility of thinking and not just blindly following. You can see how the Parsis helped with growth in India after they fled And became refugees there ( after Islamic colonization of Persia). Only imagine if that religion was the dominant religion in Middle East. It would be a whole different world.
Not beneficial to Bulgaria. Maybe in this scenario our ancestors would not go as deep as ancient Greece at certain points. I'm not sure if they would remain well below the Danude. Simply more legions for Rome doesnt mean they could deploy many more but for sure in such scenario the success of the first Bulgarian empire wouldnt be the same in style. Probadly would also settle in the Panonian basin.
I'd say, there would be the missing romance language and nation in north Africa.
Islam is coming again and it will be stronger than before
@John Smith
We will return as the spirit of God Jesus
Dude get ridd of Israel first
nice video but I just want to see a sequel to this
this video should be titled: "What if Eastern Rome wasn't usurped by the worst emperor history had to offer?"
They will still lose
@@13thdivision70 how?
So, I guess in this alternate timeline, Islam remains in the arabian peninsula. The sassanid Empire survives until another iranian dynasty takes over and remains zoroastrianism with a mix of Judaism and christianity. India remains hindu with multiple states, Egypt, and other North African states becoming christian Spain is never conquered. The Levant region remains in the Roman Empire. Central asia is still a buhdist region. I doubt they sail to Southeast Asia, so indonesia remains Buddhist and hindu the area of iraq and syria convert to christianity as for the rest of history, I assume it remains the same I guess the islamic golden is replaced with the zoroastrianism golden age in persia European countries like Spain France Germany England Russia and Poland still form with the black death renissance and colonialism still happening as well as the mongolian conquest and the colonization of the America's still happen. So, in the current era, india would still be united, and iran would still be zoroastrianism and possibly ww1 and 2 still happen
So what I'm saying is that everything in our history still happens with a few differences. Overall, i think the Middle East would be far more developed and peaceful without the tyrannical governments, and iran would definitely be more prosperous, and india would save its history and culture as for indonesia maybe a unification could still happen in this timeline.
Then Iran would've been Islam free and better off.
And also let us forget that the Persians and the Romans were more numerous in number and equipment, and also allied themselves in order to bring down the Arabs, but they could not, under the leadership of Heraclius, the strong leader.
PROPAGANDA
the golden timeline
6:53 *Soviet anthem plays in Arabic*
I worked this idea with a Alternate History scenario i made,basically the Earlier Muslim Caliphate Fell because of a Successful Non-Muslim Peasant Revolt that took place in Egypt
This title is a Persian wet dream
False
and an indian, greek, armenian one
And an arab NIGHTMARE.
@@iaw7406lol indians
Add in the fact that the inhabitants Malaysia and Indonesia both, would remain predominantly affiliated with Dharmic faiths.
You wish 😂😂😂☪️
Crescent is symbol of pagan moon God in pre-Islamic Arabia use 🏴🏳
You wish 😂😂😂💩
If only Heraclius had died before the Arab invasion he would've been remembered as one of the greatest.
Thank you God I'm not muslim 😂
Why?
@@khkkhk6594 I'm not related with terrorist
@@Nubrezyu Based
Your arrogance will cost you the Hereafter
It is sad that such an idea spreads
In the Middle East there are many Christians and Jews in Arab and Islamic countries...
If your words were true, they would have disappeared from existence... But the Western advertisement distorted Islam for political purposes and nothing more
I agree on all except the WRE restiration. The Western Roman Empire Beta 2.0 would had big difficulties levying new troops, the only good thing would be the rich economy of africa, but that would mean a big reliance on mercenaries … Carthaginian trait, haha.
Back to the middle east.
If the Sassanids survive the muslim invasion, they survive any other invasion, both infantry or cavalry based armies.
They would had incredible defences and technologies, they already had the naffatun before the Greeks had the Greek Fire
What if constantinople fell in 717?
Byantium might have it's history ended short. Maybe the slavs under papal sanction retake it. Maybe Charlemagne retakes Eastern Rome and is proclaimed restorer of the world.
The Romans become Muslims and maybe they become like the Persians
I think assuming the situation was that stable is probably wrong. An autonomous Western Empire based heavily in Africa and the Exarchate of Ravenna might see some success, particularly in Italy, although I don't foresee the Franks allowing them to get more than that before they begin supporting the empire's rivals in some form, or helping to carve them up themselves. Whether the west would be up to facing the Franks would depend very heavily on how well its first few centuries go, as well as who is on the Frankish throne, since the Frankish Kingdom in this period was incredibly dependent on having a capable monarch, but incredibly powerful when it did.
Likewise, the situation in the east might not blow up as spectacularly as it did in reality, but Eastern Rome was facing fierce internal conflict with Egypt and parts of Syria, and the Avars were far from the last horde coming down from the north. Maurice was unique in that he was so much more popular than the man who replaced him that many were uncertain of whether letting Persia in was actually the greater evil, at least at first, but Persia could still launch an invasion when an emperor was preoccupied or during transition, and there's no guarantee that it wouldn't make significant gains.
Persia itself was also in decline though, and you completely omitted the rapidly growing Nestorians, whom the Persians were more hesitent to persecute because they had Roman backing, and whom the Romans regularly used as a cassus belli against Persia during their wars. That situation wasn't going to end peacefully, one way or another, and while the Sassanids might not implode, civil war was likely in the cards for the near future, as it had been in much of their history. The Eastern Romans were also beginning to recover from the devastation of Justinian's plague and the more recent invasions, so if the east sees its star rising again, it's very likely that they will at least attempt to return to the old Roman pastime of sacking Ctesiphon. Clearly such an advance was possible, given what Heraclius managed with a devastated empire, and if the Arabs begin to favor Rome consistently it might even become likely, assuming that the Eastern Empire doesn't split in half over religion or get devastated by Bulgars.
Personally, I see Sassanid collapse as coming in the relatively near future, and Western Roman restoration stopping after securing a more stable position in Italy, possibly just restoring everything south of Rome, while Spain either divides against itself before later reunifying or is taken by the Franks. The East probably masterminds the Sassanid collapse and restores a favorable position by creating or restoring Christian client kingdoms in Armenia, Iraq, and Arabia, and propping them up, while a more modest Persia persists either under a branch of the Sassanids or a new house and probably has some difficult times facing off against increasingly aggressive Turks. Long term the scenario benefits the Eastern Romans the most, so if the Sassanids or anyone else doesn't do something to nerf them soon, I see them becoming the dominant European/Near Eastern power, particularly as the situation in Europe stabilizes with the growth of Christianity. East west Schism probably doesn't occur, though the churches do drift apart culturally and repeatedly excommunicate opposing emperors. Western Rome has about as good of odds of being reincorporated at some point as of remaining independent, with an outside chance of Frankish conquest of some or all of it, particularly in mainland Europe. Nestorianism probably gets huge, maybe even gaining majorities in some countries without Islam nerfing its heartlands, and Persia probably protects and promotes Zoroastrianism much better than in reality, though it was a faith in decline, and absent major reforms likely doesn't expand much, and may even lose Persia with enough Roman intervention.
The real wild card is the Germans, and whether they unite under the Franks, unite under someone else, and what happens with their religion. Absent Islam we lose Charles Martel's victory at Tours, so the Carolingians might not be a thing, Frankia might be weak, and Christianity might have a much harder time among the Germans without Charlemagne. Vikings without Christianity gradually taking their homelands from the south might be a far larger threat than they already were, and might lead to interesting consequences for Western Europe and Russia. Arabs also still likely create trading empire's around the Indian Ocean, though without Islamic domination things will be quite different there too.
Funny, no one seems to really talk about the trauma those final decades of war the Byzantine and Persians left on the Arab mercenary tribes. It was an Apocalyptic age in every sense, and this Byzantine General Heraclius had to create a spiritual/psycological/metaphysical culture of....well, for lack of a better term...Holy War! The aftermath of which may have planted the seeds for an off-shoot extremist Judeo-Christian military cult manifesting into Islam. Just a theory.
"Why did the Islamic conquest failed?"
Thousands of Muslims in North Africa and iran and Pakistan : hmmmmmmm interesting
Christianity and Buddhism: It's free real estate.
@@Litany_of_Fury Buddhism never used violence btw
@@mr.commenter7953 what about Shinto Buddhists?
@@Litany_of_Fury that's a misconception. During the Meiji period the emperor wanted to remove any foreign thing from Japan (that includes Buddhism). The soldiers weren't Buddhists when they were committing the atrocities in Korea & China. Anyone who follows Dharma can never commit such crimes.
@@mr.commenter7953 so? what about before?
Interesting!
Looks like a better alternative.
Muslim was the reason Charistainity united .
Without Muslim unity among Charistain was not possible.
Short answer: the world would be a better place
So christen never had war?
Without tech though?! Cuz I feel like industrialisation would be delayed
@@ze_kangz932 There would still be tech without Islam, as ive stated in another reply, Islam is not that influential enough.
@@P1utia Why do you think so?! I would like to hear your thought process about that. Because from my view, the translation in bulk of ancient knowledge from Egypt and Greece by the arabs helped fuel the renaissance and eventually industrial revolution of the Europeans. I don't see how those other empires (Byzantine and Assyrian) would have helped...
@@ze_kangz932 Its because the world of religions doesnt revolve around Islam, all inventions doesnt revolve around Islam.
Always wondered about this if they hadn’t fought could the Islamic conquest been successful
roman would still be a thing today
No i think roman well fall even if muslim did not conquer
@@mohammadhassan5461 i say roman in broarder term, it might be a community that actually consider themselves romans in a very convincing way by speaking latin or still have roman tradition. not like the sketchy romanian slavs or italian 'people' like we have today.
Peak tl: Frankish Byzantine Union change my mind
The Romans and Sassanids would've still lose to the Arabs even if they didn't have war, Khalid defeated far larger armies.
Research the years 630 through 740 AD. ISLAM was not a cult during that time yet. Research the coins, architecture, language, rock inscriptions, water sources, etc. The early Quran suras were Christian poems.
Me as a Muslim.. wtf
Me as an atheist.. yooooooooo lets go
me as an ex-Muslim atheist..... emmmmm no comment, I love a lot of Islam teaching, my Muslim bros and sisters, but I wish they stop bombing churches in my country and pls stop interfering my culture
@@Briar_Yuri i don't know when does Islam teaches to bomb churches but ok
cool vibeo
No 9/11...
@@DaFanterLetsGo ah...
El GOD ending definitivo
Let’s be honest if the Islamic empire didn’t exist we wouldn’t have much development or countries as now everything can be changed by a simple touch to a country
That's power of humanity not faith
Whats the name of the songs (Instrumental beats).
BTW love your videos, best greetings from Albania/Kosovo
I don't think The Western Roman Empire would be able to conquer Spain, especially with them fighting the Lombard's and later the Franks and Germans, it really wouldn't be worth the resources required either and it'd be even harder to maintain it especially with Frankish pressure, and I don't think we'd see major conflicts between Western and Eastern Empires as this would weaken them for other enemies to just conquer.
Remember me when you reach a million subs
No 1Sl4m, N0 w4r.
Ehh that is questionable. There will always be tribalism.
@@Amadeo790 But this tribalism is quite different than the one with Islam today. Take Russia's mentality for example. Russia has a 15th century mentality that they invaded Ukraine for some reason, now compare this to Islamic terrorists, they also have this similar mentality but more dedicated for religion itself. People are ALWAYS tribal, but not that kind tribal they are because the world become and becomes LIBERAL, and they just dont want war.
@@P1utia but that is the definition of tribalism. “We don’t like you because your not like us” but the point here is, if Islam didn’t exist, some other groups would still cause war. It’s silly to think the world wouldn’t hate itself if Islam dint exist.
If I ever get a time machine the only thing I want to change
Truly paradise !!!
Since with the Sassanid empire & the byzantine empire still remaining as the world's superpowers & each other's allies would have also resulted in the Mongolian empire to never expand westwards !!! ( terrible & devastating wars would have happened for sure but the Mongolian empire would have 99.99% never ever set foot in the west in either of Persia or byzantium !!!! )
For those blinded turkic or Mongolian nationalists or anyone who is gonna complain, I'm gonna remind you : *the Mongols under Genghiz Khan sure killed & fought & won over a lot of people & armies in all sides but take into account that THEY FOUGHT ONLY AGAINST THE EXTREMELY WEAK OR "WEAKENED" NATIONS & COUNTRIES*
We're talking about the Sassanid & the byzantine empires here !!! ( *fri**ing superpowers of the world* !!! )
& superpowers which were already greatly advanced & developed , as matter of fact it's not even that far from mind to think that they would have even invented the gunpowder by the times the Mongolian empire was only about to rise.
Truly a paradise !!!!
Unburned libraries crying of laughter & happiness in the distant :""""""))
In this hypothetical case, the whole of Iran and Central Asia would have come under Sikh Khalsa rule.