I once began preparing a campaign with just this premise: Charles Martel lost. My vision was to have Moslem explorers just getting around to discovering the New World in the 20th century (the Moslem 13th century) with a successor to the Aztec empire and Viking colonists awaiting them. I figured it would be an Arabian Nights fantasy romp. But the more I studied Moslem/Arabic history and culture, the more I realized it would be a rather backward and totalitarian nightmare instead. I didn't run the campaign after all. But I did learn plenty about the Moslem mindset. "The Religion of Peace." Heh!
I once began preparing a campaign with just this premise: Charles Martel lost. My vision was to have Moslem explorers just getting around to discovering the New World in the 20th century (the Moslem 13th century) with a successor to the Aztec empire and Viking colonists awaiting them. I figured it would be an Arabian Nights fantasy romp. But the more I studied Moslem/Arabic history and culture, the more I realized it would be a rather backward and totalitarian nightmare instead. I didn't run the campaign after all. But I did learn plenty about the Moslem mindset. "The Religion of Peace." Heh!
Hey, thanks for slamming an entire religion with your bigotry. Appreciate that.
Mods should be along shortly.
-Darren MacLennan
__________________
RPG.net Moderator
The more tags you put up, the larger the tag cloud will grow! Keep at it!
Darren; You gazed far, far, far too deep into the abyss when you wrote that review. Cause it didn't just look back, it sucked out your eyeballs, climbed in, and started driving you around like a car.- Patrick Y.
I once began preparing a campaign with just this premise: Charles Martel lost. My vision was to have Moslem explorers just getting around to discovering the New World in the 20th century (the Moslem 13th century) with a successor to the Aztec empire and Viking colonists awaiting them. I figured it would be an Arabian Nights fantasy romp. But the more I studied Moslem/Arabic history and culture, the more I realized it would be a rather backward and totalitarian nightmare instead. I didn't run the campaign after all. But I did learn plenty about the Moslem mindset. "The Religion of Peace." Heh!
Attack an entire faith and culture like that again and you'll be gone for good.
__________________ RPG.Net Moderator
my mod voice is red
.
I mean, I think genital mutilation is disgusting. I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't think that if you live in Somalia, it's fine to mutilate little girls. There is nothing wrong with taking a moral stand, but when we take a moral stand and then use it to elevate ourselves to another moral plane above other human beings, then it becomes, in biblical terms, a form of self-worship. That's what the New Atheists have, and that's what the Christian fundamentalists have. - Chris Hedges
Location: Native of Indianapolis, currently in self imposed exile in Vincennes, Indiana
Posts: 198
Re: #3: Alternative History For Fun and Profit
As the author of the column, I feel I should say a few words in defense of Islam. First, Islamic countries are no more prone to oppression or totalitarianism than any other country. Second, in the time period in question, namely CE 700-1200, Islamic Societies were more open, more tolerant, more inclined to technological and scientific progress, more literate, and had better preserved the writings of classical antiquity than their neighbors. Yes there were purges, secret police, coups, and all manner of nasty business; in comparison, however, I would prefer Andalusia to England.
Second, most, if not all, universal religions claim to be a 'Religion of Peace'. Like all ideologies, this aim has been dutifully upheld by some and brutally discredited by others.
Third, I don't know what sources you used to come to this conclusion about Islam, but I dare say they may be poor choices. I would recommend checking your local library for some works published by university affiliated authors, especially anthropologists. Also, most imams (Muslim religious leaders) are more than happy to help educate outsiders about Islam. Take a tour, sit in on a service, and if you are lucky enough to be there during the Eid, don't turn down an invitation to join the feast. I still dream of the lamb and yogurt sauce.
Your sources appear adequate. What chain of reasoning did you use to come to these conclusions?
I'd cheerfully share them if it won't cause me to be banned for my so-called bigotry.
A couple starting points. Before the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, all governments were totalitarian ones. Civil rights didn't exist as a concept as late as our 17th century. You thought and worshipped as the head honcho of your region dictated or else. Also, human beings have a tendency to be nasty to each other regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Slavery, racism, bigotry, intolerance (all those other politically incorrect things) are universal. They weren't invented by Western imperialists in the 15th century.
We were talking about speculative history for RPG campaign purposes, with a break point from our own at the Battle of Tours. Like you, I assumed Islam would sweep over Western Europe, either all at once or in stages. Based on Glubb's assertion that the Arabs proved poor mountain fighters (which is why the Druse Christians survived in Lebanon), I figured as you did that there would be some Christian holdouts in places like Switzerland, the Alps, the Pyranees. Possibly England and Ireland would remain unconquered. Some world events, like the Black Plague and the Mongol invasions, would have happened regardless. Others, like the Renaissance and the Reformation, would not have (this has big implications, more later). And like you, I figured the Byzantine empire would have collapsed earlier than it did in our world.
In our world, the Arabs and the Chinese both had a knowledge of navigation and naval architecture superior to that of 15th century Western Europeans. Yet is was Columbus who discovered America. Why? Mindset. The Chinese felt they were self-sufficient, secure, and superior. They'd created the perfect society. There was no reason to explore. Nothing they wanted they couldn't acquire at home. Nothing they could learn from those dirty Western barbarians. In a similar vein, despite their scientific achievements in the 12th century or so, by the 15th Moslem scholars figured they'd already learned everything worth knowing. They were comfortable with the trade routes they'd set up around Europe, Africa, and East Asia. Like the Chinese, they'd created a perfect society. They had nothing to gain by further exploration, either physically or philosophically. Discussing ideas with the Western Europeans would be futile and posed a risk of contaminating the faith. So in my campaign world, I had them finally getting around to discovering the New World in their 13th century (20th in our timeline).
A couple starting points. Before the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, all governments were totalitarian ones. Civil rights didn't exist as a concept as late as our 17th century.
OTOH the American Revolution was about restoring the "native rights of Englishmen" that the British monarch was seen to be violating. I would disagree with your use of 'totalitarian' here - most governments lacked the ability to control every area of life.
I'm not sure if an Islamic Western Europe would have been a 'totalitarian nightmare' - actual totalitarianism was made possible by the industrial revolution, which in turn was the product of a particular culture in northwestern Europe. With an Islamic Europe, that culture would not exist.
In any case I'm not sure that Muslim victory at Tours would have resulted in Islam throughout Western Europe. It might merely have shifted the line north from Gibraltar to the Pyrennees, so that Spain became permanently incorporated into the Umma and the Reconquista took place in France rather than Spain. This could have resulted in:
1. The reconquista struggle results in the earlier emergence of nationalist sentiment in France, forging a strong unified state centuries before it actually happened.
2. Freed of rivalry with Spain, Saxon England becomes the dominant naval power and has uninterrupted access to the entire New World.
In any case I'm not sure that Muslim victory at Tours would have resulted in Islam throughout Western Europe. It might merely have shifted the line north from Gibraltar to the Pyrennees, so that Spain became permanently incorporated into the Umma and the Reconquista took place in France rather than Spain. This could have resulted in:
1. The reconquista struggle results in the earlier emergence of nationalist sentiment in France, forging a strong unified state centuries before it actually happened.
2. Freed of rivalry with Spain, Saxon England becomes the dominant naval power and has uninterrupted access to the entire New World.
That's part of the fun of playing with alternative history. Sand Rodent and I both assumed that a Tours victory would have enabled the Moslems to sweep the West as they had Syria, North Africa, and Spain. The city is in the northern central portion of France (western France is mostly plains), so the invaders had already made it quite a ways past the Pyrennees. Although mountains do block the way into Italy and Switzerland, the Moslems could have made it into Germany by way of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Of course, it's your alternate history, so if you can figure out a plausible reason for the invaders to retreat to the Spanish border, go for it!
Linear Mode
