(May 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Perhaps the time was simply right? The Byzantines and Persians had spent most of the 6th and the early part of the 7th century merrily slaughtering one another. The result?
Quote:Neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they were struck by the onslaught of the Arabs, newly united by Islam.
Even if the time was right they still needed a leader. Maybe all that was required to unite the Arabs at this time was the promise of land and riches now that the two empires were severely weakened. The leader could have been a man who was called Muhammad or he could have been called something else.
(May 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The issue is were they "united" by Islam then or somewhat later when a ruler decided to emulate Constantine?
It seems that the Arab tribes were pagans who worshipped various deities. This doesn't mean there couldn't have been a sect which had adopted some version of the Abrahamic religion, though. One God and one set of rules would make sense for anyone doing a Constantne. As time went on, whatever the original sect was about gradually turned into Islam.
A prophet would be a very useful invention for the purpose of establishing this religion and a prophet who was also a war leader would be even more useful. The real war leader got lost to history because he was merged with a fictional character. If the real war leader had been called Muhammad it would be an ideal name for the prophet because it means The Chosen One. If he'd been called something else, the fictitious prophet was given the name Muhammad because of what it means.
Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?