Feanor

Well once more I've chosen an option that ultimately I don't believe in, simply because the question excludes my personal position on the matter. My logic works along the somewhat simplistic line of man = nature. Nature has no if's, nature runs along a single path with no free will. Therefore the entire human race is one complicated chemical process that only has a single logical conclusion.

It's like a card turned face down. It's not a variable future, it's a determined future, we just don't know what it is. Therefore the events in life have no actual influence. The entire universe is simply moving in a certain direction.

xerxes

Hi Kansas Bear, in regards to the Mongol defeat at the hands of Mamlukes ... how do you see that singular battle affecting the expansion of the Mongol empire westward in Syria and Egypt? ...

I think both the Battle of Tours and that of the Ilkhan-Mamlukes were similiar in a way that in the grand scheme of things, they were unimportant, eventhough at that point when it happened, it must have been a great victory for the Franks against Saracens, and the Mamlukes against the invincible Mongols, respectivly.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Kansas Bear

Ilkhan Hulagu was forced to return to Karakorum due to the death of Khakhan Mangu. It was Ket-Buka(Kitboga) that was in command of the Mongol army at Ain Jalut. Whether Hulagu's presence have made a difference, is open to debate.

In the grand scheme of things, the battle would seem to be the turning point of Islam vs Mongols. Yet in 1261 a civil war broke out between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhans, thus limiting the Mongols expansion.

In both areas Gaul/France and Syria, the invaders had to delegate troops to other areas(Hispania-Reconquista) and (Mongols-civil war).

Archer

I would say the Hindu & Sikh -Muslim conflicts that allowed a significant portion of the Indian subcontinent to remain as it was, with a different faith.
If the whole of India had fallen to Islam, as did the Middle East and significant portions of South Asia, and CAR, and South-east Asia, there would be a huge challenge to the global order, in terms of conflict and religious strife. WW2, WW1 etc are flashes in the pans besides this millenia long conflict.
Today, the whole world is thinking of the consequences of a nuke armed Pak and what it has done in terms of proliferation and extremism, now just think of an entire subcontinent united by one faith, with significant historical baggage against the west.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

troung

The Soccer War...

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

xerxes

Hi Archer,

with respect with what you said, couldnt the inverse also be consider as having a large impact, maybe not the largest in history but certainly strong enough to have an impact. By inverse I am refering to the invasion of India by Muhamed Ghaznevide. Certainly him, bringing Islam into the subcontinant, had profound effect in the Orient and far east. I am not familiar with the expansion of Islam into Indonasia and Philipines i.e. far east. But I assume it is an offshoot of the Ghaznevide expansion into India.

gunnut

I picked WW1.

1. There are people still alive who fought in that war.
2. It continued into WW2 to finish some business. Then WW2 wasn't exactly done and led directly to the Cold War.

WW1 was the war that started all wars in the 20th century.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Archer

Yes- I do agree with you, but you misunderstood what I stated. I pointed out that the entire Islamic invasion into India and the Hindu/Sikh resistance to it, is the biggest event, and it includes both Ghaznavi as well as the fall of Afghanistan and Pakistan (formerly Buddhist and Hindu) to Islam- its successes, as well as the rise of the Marathas, the survival of the Rajputs, the Southern kingdoms and the Sikh empire- Islams failures.

Thanks to Ghaznavis bigoted version of Islam being spread, it has had a direct effect on the South Asian region to this day. Islamic invasions reinforced the concept of no peace with non believers, and that "fight" continues to this day, as can be seen with the Pakistanis vs Indians, even as India itself has sought to recast this conflict into a "never happened" idealogy in order to build a single nation for itself.

Islam as it came earlier was also Arab supremacist, but it was limited to convert via peaceful proselytisation. What happened during the invasions was the entire overthrow of a way of life and a culture, a replacement with a tenet that glorified violence against non Muslims, and almost a millenia has passed since then, and yet Islam is yet to reform and the converts to Islam, see that shameful and despicable orgy of violence, rapine and slaughter as something wonderful and fit to be emulated or deny that it ever occurred.

Now just imagine, if there was NOT a bulwark in secular, non Muslim - for the most part- India, against Islam. Or for that matter, an example as in India where Muslims can live with non Muslims in number. And the answer is obvious.

For that matter, I even consider the fall of Persia to Islam to be a huge event, for it almost stifled centuries of creativity and civilizational strength. If Iran were to kick the Mullahs out, and return to its pre-Islamic Zoroastrian heritage, it would be able to face modernity without the historical baggage of an Arab faith that insists on its superiority. Zoroastrians, ie Parsis in India, are a community that have incredible achievements to their name. Whereas Irans mullahs have stifled its culture, its youth.

The reason why I consider the Hindu/Sikh resistance as significant is because of its record. For the first time, in Islams spread across Asia/CAR, a non Muslim civilization managed to fight it off, and retain its identity, through force of arms and by refusing to change its basic ethos/ or identity. That is not to say that it didnt suffer grievously in the process- it did, and so did the country, but it survived. I can still sit here today, celebrating a non Muslim festival, without fear of being dubbed an apostate or paying a tax because I am a non Muslim.

Maximus

The one I think made the most impact isn't listed.

Lets go back in history about 2300 years to Punic Wars.

The fact that Roman empire won over Carthage ensured that almost 1/3rd of the people in the civilization lived under the Romans for the next 1800 years till the fall of Eastern Roman Empire.

Had the Carthaginians won, the empire of the civilization would have passed from the south of the Mediterranean, rather than north of it.

Imagine what all it would have changed. No Romans would've meant faster spread of Christianity or may be no Christianity, since Europe would've been dominated by Barbaric tribes such as Gauls, Germans and later on Goths and Vikings.

It would have meant faster spread of Islamism, since there would have been no, Charles Martel for Poitiers, no Charlemagne and no Eastern Roman empire to stop the Saracen attacks. There wouldn't have been no Holy Roman Empire to wage the crusades...

Domininace of Islamism prolly would've delayed all the events in the Renaissance period. And without the Renaissance, we would still have been Barbarians, fighting with stones & sticks. And prolly there wouldn't have been no WWW..

P.S.: I just read the complete thread. And I think my thoughts are sounding the same as Feanor's thoughts.

What!? Did I just say that!? :D

__________________
Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage.

Kansas Bear

Until the time of the Roman Empire, 'civilization' was firmly entrenched in Greece.

Christianity was persecuted for nearly 300 years by Rome. Without Rome, Christianity would have expanded faster, thus 'barbaric' tribes would have converted sooner as opposed to later(as in REAL history).

Charles Martel was a Merovingian, just how does a lack of a Roman Empire effect the Salian Franks?


You wouldn't need the Holy Roman Empire to wage the crusades!

Most crusades originated with the Papacy.

Without a Roman Empire there wouldn't have been a "fall". 'Barbarian' tribes would have converted, made kingdoms(ie.Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania) and simply used a different language for their bibles(ie. instead of Latin).


You have my sincerest condolences.

Maximus

Partially agreed. Civilization was firmly entrenched in various kingdoms that arose out of Alexander's Greece. Seleucids and Ptolemaic Empire being the most dominant. Remember, both of these empires were brought down because of the rise of the Romans.


Still, faster conversion of the Barbarian tribes would have changed todays world.

How & when did the Frankish kingdoms gain power? After the fall of Rome. Which regions did they come up in? The Gaul. If there were no Romans 600 years ago to control the Gauls, prolly it would have been still barbaric. Hence, no Franks.

Agreed again. But without Rome earlier, Europe would've been less strong than it was at the times of Crusades. Or rather may be there would've been no need of Crusades, with Islamic armies all over the Europe without Battle of Tours..

The thing is what you've said could have been true too. But then again, due to all those events, world today might have changed.

For example, if there would've been no "fall", and Renaissance had taken place in 500 or 1000 AD, the world again today would have been very different.

And again think had Carthage been as dominant as Romans and no Romans at all. All of Europe, then would have been converted to the Phoenician religion..

I am just imagining the possibilities, which could be endless..

xerxes

Archer, these kind of changes that is to be made on a religion that is a rooted in nation will take decades to uproot if not a 100 years. Shah was trying to accomplish that within a generation in the 60s and 70s. It backfired and toppled him. But I can say that the fall of the peacockthrone in '79 and the following revolution certainly had educated and made Iranians wiser. They know now that mixing religion with state affairs is bad idea and if anything a second islamic revolution would probably never happen. Sometimes you need fire to stop fire. The revolution in '79 did just that.

WhamBam

I think Archer has made a very valid point. The survival of indian faith and culture after a milliena of Islamic onslaught is very significant for the whole world. I can think of only Spain that was similarly occupied by the Muslims and still could save itself from total destruction of it's culture and civilization. Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. were not so lucky and totally lost their civilization to the Arabic hordes. South East Asian countries had not fallen to militant Islam till a decade back but the future doesn't look very optimistic for them too.

Had India not survived the barbaric onslaught, the future of the world would be very bleak indeed.

Triple C

The Persian Wars.

__________________
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT.

xerxes

I am not sure Mesopotamia had a distinct and seperate civilization when Islam invaded.