Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Helena99 (U8659848) on Thursday, 21st June 2007

  What if Islam had not conquered the Mediterranean world? How might that region have developed? (eg, Vandal kingdom of North Africa, no fall of Byzantium, no Moors in Spain etc)
  
  Sorry if this is an old chestnut, but I'm new to the board.
  
  Thanks, Helena

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 21st June 2007

  The Vandal kingdom had already been totally destroyed by the Byzantines.
  
  Spain would have remained (at least for a time – see below) under the rule of descendants of the Visigoths.
  
  The Franks might have been less ‘imperialist’ and not had non-Christians on their south-west flank so would not see themselves as ‘the Christian People’ so readily. But maybe inter-marriage between their ruling families might have brought the Christian Spanish within the orbit of some sort of Frankish empire.
  
  The ability of the Franks to resist the Danes might have grown if they had no enemy empire to their south to contend with.
  
  It is the Byzantines that would need watching! Maybe, flushed with their eventual success against Ostrogoths and Vandals, they might have turned their attention to Visigothic Spain, then who knows?
  
  The Lombards might have been the unchallenged rulers of Italy if the Franks were not powerful enough to take over the north of the peninsula, to ‘help’ the Papacy. In fact if anyone ousted the Lombards, it might well have been the Byzantines, not wishing to give up to ‘barbarians’ the hard-fought lands of Italia.
  
  I think the likelihood of a split between Western Christendom (Roman) and Eastern (‘Orthodox’) would be reduced.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 21st June 2007

  If Islamic armies had not spread that much in the west (North Africa and later S.E. Europe) I think it would had changed considerably the story to completely unpredictable turns but then on ther other hand it could not had changed a lot also! Why?
  
  For Byzantines it would not had changed a lot as islamists were just one of the numerous stong enemies they had to face over their 1000 years of history. I think in the 10th century they had for example more to fear from the brutal raids of hordes of Bulgarians rather than from attacks from muslim middle easterners. Perhaps Byzantines would had only retained Egypt and Palestine for a bit longer until these would go their own way on a wave of sects and heresis (heretics in Egypt played an important role in the ease with which Arabs enterred - there was virtually no defense and no will to defend). It is clear that Byzantines were an Empire that had learnt well the meaning of the ratios of army numbers/military expenses/land area covered/profit and knew that at the end of the day it is commerce and not geography that made them rich - thus to make expenditions to re-gain half-empty lands of the old Empire was of no sense (something proven by the state of near-collapse that Justinian left as a heritage to his successors).
  
  The passing from feudal chieftains to kings and emperors in western Europe would happen anyway followed by some rythm of development but certainly that development would not be influenced by Arabs so much but by the relatively more close Eastern Romans and through absence of strong competition it would be a bit slower. States like Spain and France could indeed exist perhaps just 1 or 2 more (i.e. modern france being 2 states and Spain being 1-2 states more). However at some point a clash between Western Europeans and Eastern Romans would occur and there victory would be judged by numbers (i.e. despite the superior culture and technological army - the eastern Empire could possibly fall in the case of repeated attacks of hordes of westerners or more obviously under treason etc.).
  
  Here is the trap though. In reality despite the fact that Arabs took their culture largely from Byzantium and that Westerners started being influenced by it from the 8th century onwards, Crusaders had actually completely destroyed that culture thus the majority of higher-culture influences came actually from Arabs (many translations of ancient texts were actually from Arabic translations!) - hence it came indirectly. Now if we imagine the same thing happened, then ooopppsss sorry no further development but Eastern Europe would dive in a dark age (that it started during the 4th crusade and was immersed in completely anyway under Ottoman conquest), hence in the absence of Arabs, no Rennaissance (I always laugh with the "Re" as if it existed before anything!) for western Europeans, perhaps no expendition to Americas but even if there was one it would just mean more space for barbaric expansion (a bit like Mongols were expanding in the steppes!)! In case, Westerners conquered Eastern Romans in the styles of Normands conquered Sicily (with certain destruction but also some reconstruction and to a certain degree some respect for the local population) then eventually Western Europeans would have their "Re"Naissance perhaps even more vigorous (as they would get their stuff not second-hand but first-hand) and the rest in Western Europe could be much the same (development of states, wars, european wars, eventually exploration of the globe). The only difference would be that since islam would had been contained as a middle eastern religion, you wuold have also a fragmented (due to the conquest) S.E Europe taking part (due to the common background and religion) in the process of European development perhaps in the form of several Greek states, not so powerful as it was the earlier Emprie, of course traditionally fighting each other!!! but also producing some high-level culture of the styles of "Mistra despotate of the 15th century" giving philosophers like Plinthon and artists like El-greco... ouaou!... its not that I am Greek or something but honestly, the global level of civilisation would had a lot to gain from that possibility!
  
  So if Europe had gone a similar parallel process with the main difference the absence of the dark age of S.E. Europe (Ottoman Empire), then the big question would be of course Middle East and North Africa. I think of two possibilities. Small states that would fight untill bigger states would develop (in the fashion of europe) and above all supremacy (yet again!) of Persians in the east (until some Mongols destroy them, pass their dark-age and have their Renaissance again in the 1-th century) and Egyptians in North Africa, perhaps in the absence of the muslim religion that virtually was killing all national sentiments you could have a rebirth of the Egyptian feeling with a blend of a lot of Hellenic influences and some middle eastern touch, who knows - that kingdom could had proceeded in the exploration and exploitation of Africa (as they did 4000 years back and as Arabs did indeed).
  
  Now in the more recent times... and in case globe exploration had been achieved (most probably by western Europeans and Russians on the other side due to their geographic position - for Eastern/Romans i.e. Greeks it would be more difficult as first they would have to control all the Mediterranean and then to proceed to such exploration voyages) ... then industrialisation would had taken place in one of the nations exploring the world and colonisation also but then the 1st world war and the middle east would be a story apart since the fable Ottoman Empire would not exist you would have various lesser-to-average states to control (but not possible to colonise and play with them as they played with the Arab muslim populations) thus the whatever power (say England or France or Germany or Spain) would follow policies of control similar to what they followed for countries of average power i.e. a smart combination of alliance-and-aggretion but not direct conquest or colonisation, mostly establishment of friendly regimes that ensure commercial aggreements.
  
  I think the bigger change in the absence of muslims would had been for Egypt and Iran (obviously!) and for S.E. Europe (despite the fact that Byzantine Empire was extensively destoryed and conquered by Crusaders and not muslims who just enterred and took its dying corpse). Things for Western Europe could evolve similarly in case they would not had destoryed just everything in their earlier (more barbaric) phases exactly like American natives who ate the horses to extinction before thinking of riding them and accelerating their communications!

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Helena99 (U8659848) on Saturday, 23rd June 2007

  Thank you for your answers. It's really too big a question to ask, because it opens so many possibilities, but I guess I feel it would have been nice if the Mediterranean had remained 'mare nostrum', with North Africa and the Levant developing nation states just as in Europe, and ending up with a culture that would have been merely a little more 'different' than the Balkans, Sicily and Andalucia are today, but still 'part of us' (ie, Europe). It might have meant that North Africa would not have become part of the third world as it sadly is now, and that therefore economic contact/influence across the Sahara might have kept Africa from sinking into the dire (man made) poverty it's in now.
  
  As it is, sadly, the Med is a fault line between the rich and poor nations, and, as the desperate population of Africa tries to escape north, increasingly a battle line.
  
  Helena

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Saturday, 23rd June 2007

  In your senario I am assuming that the Muslim armies are decisively defeated fairly early on, say a reversal of Yarmuk.
  
  I can see a resurgence of the Byzantium empire. With no significant threat on its eastern flank the empire would be free to reinforce its holdings in Italy and complete the reconquest of Italy. The Byzantines had already tried to recapture Spain, without the threat in the east they may have been able to achieve it and possibly recapture much of the old Roman empire.
  The economy of Europe would be much stronger without the disruption in trade caused by the seperation of North Africa from Europe - leading to a much faster recovery from the fall of the western empire.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 24th June 2007

  I find your scenario very logical but then what I also think is that by 5th century the Francs, the Vandals and the Goths were quite determined in creating their own entities wherever possible utilising whatever example was possible by the previous empire. I think that even if the Byzantines were not able to keep Spain (or all of it) you could have certain kingdoms arond it that however would have inherently more close relations to Byzantium. That would imply that the Pope would inherently seek for a basis in the empire in the east and not so much in the west thus you would have fewer chances for a schism thus the relations between Byzantines and Westerners would be more close and you could have possibly much earlier exchanges of aristocracies (intermarriage etc.), a certain way of exchanging cultures at those times, not to mention more international trade. Hence, in that sense the acceleration of development in Europe (mainly west but to an extend in the east since they would have more markets for their luxury products) would be at a greater rate I think. In the absence of great raids (that of course could come from everywhere!, say the Vickings) a "Renaissance" might have happened some centuries earlier and it would have a more "byzantine" flavour (i.e. a bit more basis on greek language rather than latin etc., litourgy in churches a bit more orthodox-style etc.) but not so much difference from there on since anyway most of Italian Renaissance was largely based on (by now lost) Byzantine examples (Crusaders and later Ottomans left untouched only certain religious icons, churches and monasteries).
  
  However, I do not think that Byzantines would try to hold for many centuries lands in the west (Spain, north Italy) since they were mostly into economics than into geography. If Goths, Francs and Vandals were determined to enter in an international balance that would benefit everybody then that would do the job for the Byzantines (as they did in the 10th century with Arabs). Afterall, do not forget that these guys had their financial/cultural peak not at the times of Justinian (expansion to the west), not at the times of Basil (reconquest of most territories lost) but....only after Seljuks enterred eastern Minor Asia (thus quite contrary to common beliefs of great catastrophe and such!!!). Once Justinian tried to expand in the west and there was huge reaction in the east for "wasted ressources on useless wars".

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Sunday, 24th June 2007

  i would think the status quo pre islam would continue.
  
  the romans and sassanids would coninue trading blows ad infinitum, the romans would periodically try to make gains in the west, but suffer repeated contractions and expansions of their borders, much as they did do. when the mongols arrive id be pretty certain that the sassanids would take an astonishing beating if not be completely destroyed, but i also think that perhaps, having to put up with 2 superpowers in the west wouldve been beyond the mongols. keep in mind that the mongols will never have come across nations as economically powerful and militarilly durable as the romans and persians.
  
  without an expansionistic and dynamic enemy to the SE. the visigoths and franks would not have been anywhere near so dynamic themselves. they wouldve probly continued to expand at much the same rate they where prior to the muslim invasions-although i could see much of the east coast of spain being overwhelmed by the byzantines, taking areas such as cartegena or setting up trading outposts themselves.
  
  overall history in the west would probably have continued at a rather more sedate pace untill the nations such as france, the HRE england and spain wouldve developed, perhaps 2 centuries later than they did.
  
  ofcourse there wouldnt have been any great renaissance for a long time if atall.
  
  i think that, taking into account the cumans, seljuqs etc... very little would actually change from how it was pre islam. unless the mongols and timurids did something special and toppled both the sassanids and romans i could see both empires still exising in some way even now.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th June 2007

  I am 100% with you on the fact that less pressure in the west would imply development of about 2 centuries later which is rational but on the other hand I am not so much convinced that there would be no Renaissance.
  
  First, let me repeat that Renaissance is an artificial word as for most of the european parts it involved actually their medieval period was culturally/technologically superior to that of the Romans times (where only military outposts enjoyed some provincial style of Roman lifestyle). I mean none can say that Romano-gaulics were more advanced than later Francs just because Romans built one-two bridges there!
  
  What I think is that in the absence of Islam, Byzantines could be more free to get involved in the west thus the Pope would only seek his help and so much that of Franks, hence you xould continue to have one orthodox catholic church (these were the titles of the initial church), but then the age old resentement of those who have less (and less cultured) against those who have it easy (and more cultured) would imply that western Kingdoms would identify the Emperor as their main enemy and would attack, mostly in the fashion of raids (as a head on attack would be difficult - even Arabs attacked mostly in the form of raids).
  
  Now, since Arabs were greatly influenced by the Byzantines and most of their innovations actually had been done to pure imitation (universities, code of laws, sanitation, street lighting, mechanics, chemistry etc.) - and we get that from the fact that more Arabs sought of asking for scientific help from Byzantines rather than the opposite! - then we may guess that if Western Europeans despite their animosity with the Empire and exactly like in the case with Arabs would get greatly influenced by the Byzantines then I see no reason why wouldn't a Renaissance happen - I think even more intense since it would be under the same religion (in fact many of Arabic achievements did not make it to Europe just because of the religion barrier!).
  
  While you would have religious wars you would have an early distinction between science and religion (Byzantines had done it long before - or they never quite mixed these two / note that we talk about science, not philosophy that was of course dominated by religious topics). For these and for many other reasons i think a Renaissance would happen. It happened in Kievan Russia that had been briefly the second most civilised place in Europe but we did not receive much of that in later days since they were destroyed early on by Mongolic raids. It also happened to Normands invading Sicily, then you had Italians that remembered to learn again Greek to read from the prototypes (themselves admitting having no teachers and no knowledge) as late as late 13th century (only when they had finished the 50 yaers plundering of the ex. Empire) - I mean what had stopped Italians for so long if not the Byzantine age old negligence for the west (including Italian lands). Had, in the case of fewer threats from the east, the Byzantines been more interested in the west then that would had happened earlier and on a more solid basis that it happened.
  
  Nontheless, I admit also that it is really difficult to state whether the various catastrophes and changes that happened in history decelerated or accelerated the actual process. On the one hand they destroyed 90% of knowledge, on the other they 10folded the pressure to develop and built new more powerful structures. It is really difficult. I think the only positive of the official history was that discovery of Americas happened just a bit after Renaissance had started. If it was done by the nations it was done in their state 2-3 centuries prior to that then you wuold have just another Mongol-like horde occupying more space and learning less out of it!

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  Syrian Christianity would've spread across the East. The differences would've been extraordinary with a Christendom that stretched from Britain to India or further and from Russia to Ethiopia.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  with no external threat from Islam, there would be less Christian unity, so instead of the crusades you have lots of schisms and religious wars within Europe.
  
  Then Genghis Khan arrives and Europe, being hopelessly divided, falls under the rule of the Mongols for the next 500 years.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by patrickja2007 (U8850857) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  I beleive the survival of Islam would have been very slim compared today's magnitude in world.Yes,it would have survived through rite and well established dogma.It is not far fetched that it would have survived largely among fanatics,the religoius,those who have love for secular sect sensitive to the religion doctrines.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  christian europe was hardly united idamante.
  neither was islam. both where fractious entities, both had a very many internecine wars.
  geghis khan wouldnt have pwned europe, becuase he didnt. there is no difference between beating one group of fractious monotheists or the other.
  
  religion is as such an irrelevancy in that respect.
  
  in political terms-europe wouldve been far more capable of holding against the mongols, not less able-the french spanish and germans wouldve been perfectly capable of conolidating their power without the papacy ordering them on vainglorious crusades, as the papacy would be part of the eastern roman empire, which would in turn be more powerdul than it was. in addition to this, the mongols being the most significant threat to europe since the birth of islam, the sassanids would still at this time exist.
  
  what the mongols wouldve faced wouldve been 2 superpowers-the persians and byzantines, as well as the great powers of france and the HRE. the mongols wouldve been hard pressed to do as well as they did in real life.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  It is questionable whether Islam would have survived at all if the Islamic invasion of the Byzantine empire had been heavily defeated. It would depend on how many of the army's leaders were killed and whether there was a significant Byzantine counter attack.
  Islam wasn't very old at the time - Mohammmed had only recently died - when the Muslims attacked and was entirely concentrated in the Arabian peninsula.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  Islam had developed a more solid basis after conquest of
  
  1) Persia in the east enabled by the weakening effect of the incessant wars between Sassanids and Eastern Romans
  2) Egypt (followed by easy conquest of all northern Africa) in the west, enabled by the presence of sects, weakened Vandals in modern day Tynisia and Algeria due to the wars with the Eastern Romans and a population a bit more friendly to easterners than northerners (well Augustine in the 5th century was from that region and had mentioned things like "our own language", that means that descendants of Carthegenians still existed and talked offspring dialects).

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007

  Now in our scenario we built on the fact that muslims had remained a sect of the middle East. Hence the talk about:
  
  1) Persian Sassanids continuing for longer till Mongol raids
  2) Byzantines being more free to be occupied with things in the west thus:
  a) more control of Byzantines on Pope
  b) less risks for a schism of catholics/orthodox (but possibly more presence of sects like monophysites, cathats on localised as well as international basis)
  3) Construction of western kingdoms - possibly 2-3 states more than what it really resulted, these kingdoms could eventually ally against intervention of Eastern Romans but not so much on a religious basis but on strategic.
  4) In the absence of strong religious divisions national consciousness would be born some centuries earlier. Hence a western-eastern confrontation would have more the character of Germanics against Greeks rather than catholics against orthodox.
  5) Despite wars, Renaissance would happen in the absence of Arabs on the Byzantine model - possibly more accelerated due to the absence of the barrier of religion - all that in the case where western kingdoms being already consolidated and anxious then to antagonise the Easterners on all fronts (just like Arabs tried to do).
  6) Hit by Germanics along with Slavs in the north and Sassanids in the east, Eastern Romans could be possibly beat and after a short period revive under different Greek kingdoms fighting back but also among each other.
  
  I think the discover of Americas would imply that the shift of power would necessarily fall in the kingdoms having coastline on the Atlantic ocean (cannot imagine easily Egypt or Syria having any advantage) but then the possibility of Egypt continuing as an independent kingdom, possibly with a rebirth of the "Egyptian feeling" might meant that Egyptian ships could similarly explore the Indian ocean and create their own colonies with South Africa and East Asian lands. That would bring at some point Western Europeans and Egyptians in war - possibly Western Europeans trying to control West North Africa and having theaters of war there in the fashion of the European wars of the period 1600-1800.
  
  One must also note the positive effect that the Ottoman Empire had on western Europe that by remaining stagnant and holding the whole Eastern Mediterranean in a state of hypnosis released westerners from a huge headache thus leaving them concentrating in their colonising efforts and their wars among each other.
  
  Imagine now a case where despite the expansion to the Americas, the western Europeans would have to think hardly also about the case of 1) Egypt, 2) 2-3 Greek states in S.E. Europe and Minor Asia 3) Syria 4) Balcanic Slavic entities. European geopolitics would had been much more complex.
  
  I cannot think more than that cos then the possibilities become very open to choose one.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 28th June 2007

  i dont particularly think that the expansion into the new world would occur in a similar fashion. remember that the greeks where not as stupid as the ottomans, and did not charge so much to merchants as to make new routes to india a required economic strategy.
  
  indeed untill constantinople fell the routes through kaffa to the east where still open, and where still more than sufficient for the needs of europe.
  
  it should be remembered that the closing of the bosphorus passage is what started the search for new routes to india and indirectly the exploitation of the new world.
  the mongols, sassanids and byzantines where far too clever to lose such a monopoly along the silk road, as such there would be little impetus for expansion at that time.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 29th June 2007

  Hmmm I think I agree with you but then what you say should apply only to trade routes for traditional products such as spice, sugar and silk. However the discovery of Americas would imply the introduction of a whole new range of products to which the eastern trade route would be irrelevant. Of course one will wonder that without the big pressure from the closing routes whether western Europeans would go on sea voyaging. I think the answer is yes, even if it would happen later on, but certainly at some time it would happen. Vickings had already done it. In the very ancient world Egyptian mariners or probably other mariners that had commerce with Egypt did occasional voyages to America (American natives via their myths were aware of the existence of the Indo-european generic anthropologic race)
  It actually surprises me that it did not happen before on a major frequency unless Carthagenians who had closed the Gibraltar did not only trade with western Africa but also paid some visits to America also.
  
  In anyway, at some point (100 years later? 300 years?) contact with the Americas would become frequent as it did, and then it would be largely the western European nations that would benefit out of that introducing a whole new range of products.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 29th June 2007

  but it wouldnt lead to a terminal decline in the east is what im saying. there would still be massive trade revenues from india and china.
  
  hell. the mongols/sassanids might even do what the mughals did and conquer india, thus further securing their grip.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 1st July 2007

  Actually you are quite right on that. With open eastern trade routes and with introduction of western trade routes, you would have a rather more complex international scene with many more major players playing on the global level. Next to the western traders (English, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese) you would have the likes of the Persians and Greeks at least in the middle-east - Minor Asia area while eventually at some point China (led or not by Mongol conquerors) could decide to have a closer relation with the west in order to maximise profits (there was a similar effort in the 3 A.D. century but it did not continue due to the Persian interference (they were not so idiot to lose the profits of being the intermediate in the trade routes).
  
  In any case even in the case that westerners would get a leadership in technological/social progress (which would not be necessarily the case in a ottoman-free Middle East-S.E. Europe you would have a series of equally rich states from S.E. Europe to India and China doing perhaps what Russia did (it was indeed totally destoryed by Mongolic raids but 2 centuries later it was catching up with developments in the west, becoming their main opponent - though none admitted it easily).
  
  certainly with so much competition you would have may more wars of the likes of the European wars in the 16th-19th centuries period but then that could lead to global development at a faster rate: if colonising countries were doubled, the discovery of the world would be much more fast (accompagnied by a jump in global population) while the possibility of the existence of more major colonial cultures (latin, agnlosaxonic, egyptian, iranian, chinese) would mean a world with more stimulus - the more interaction between these cultures the more fast the development. Who knows, after 2-3 global wars (characterised by changing alliances) in the 17th-18th centuries you could have steam engines by 16th century, trains by 17th, modern artillery by 18th, airplanes by 19th and by late 19th a man on the moon and so on. Of course it is difficult to predict in such a chaotic environment, but I think the more major cultures, the faster the development, it is usually the case.

  Link to this forum: What if Islam hadn't conquered the Mediterranean

  Report message19

Back to top