A World Without Martel (WWM) [Archive] - Alternate History Discussion Board

steven24gordon

November 24th, 2009, 07:36 AM

How the Charles “The Hammer” (Carolus Martellus) got his name: In 676, his father Pepin the Heristal, Mayor of the Palace and the most powerful man in Merovingian Empire of the Franks, received a messenger concerning the recent childbirth of his mistress, Alpaida. Not wishing to raise the ire of Plectrude (Pepin’s wife), the message carried to the Mayor was simple: “it is a carl (‘man’)”. And since a simple answer demands a simple reply, Pepin retorted: “Then let him be called that". However, Dark Ages Europe is a dangerous place and “Carl” dies soon after his birth to one of the numerous diseases of the period. His name would not be a feature of the sparse history of the time and the story of his naming would be forgotten in the blood and chaos of the brutal 7th century.

The 7th century was one of change and the rise of a new faith, sweeping out of the deserts of Arabia, under the banner of the Prophet. After uniting the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, Islam reached out its hand to the world. And that hand proved almost unstoppable: Egypt, the Holy Land, North Africa, and Spain (Al-Andalus) soon fell before the Hosts of Islam. In those heady days it is even said that the capital of the Roman Empire shall one day be ruled by a Caliph. But Pepin of Heristal was spared the spectre of Islam for he died in December 714.
His death left his position and his powers to Theudoald his grandson (at the urging of Plectrude). In the circumstances it was an unpopular move: Theudoald was only a child and the Frankish kingdoms of Neustria and Burgundy were united in opposition to the continuing domination of the Arnulfing family over the Empire. Anticipating the troubles ahead, Plectrude made her base at Cologne (Austrasia) and prepared for the inevitable civil war. She did not have long to wait: in 715 the Neustrian nobles (along with the Merovingian king) named Ragenfrid maior domus and declared war on Plectrude. Under this new strong leadership the Austrasians, vulnerable and outnumbered, were defeated near Cologne and Ragenfrid took the city in a bloody siege. In the aftermath Plectrude surrendered, Theudoald was sent into exile and the power of the Arnulfing was banished to the dustbin of history.

Although gaining the mantle of leadership, Ragenfrid found his power not as great as in decades past: not only were the German duchies to the east of the Rhine independent in all but name but Aquitania remained outside his authority while the Frisians and the Saxons had broken their former bonds of subservience. In the circumstances, Ragenfrid did what he could, warring with the Saxons and his former ally Radbod (King of the Frisians) to recapture the important trade routes on the Rhine to the North Sea. But these wars were distracted by conflicts closer to home, the Austrasians revolted when Chilperic II died in 720 and Ragenfrid had appointed Theuderic king without their consent (proclaiming Theudoald –returned from exile -maior domus). Their rebellion was supported by Odo “the Great” Duke of Aquitaine, who invaded Neustria looting and burning her towns and fields.

However, while fighting in Neustria Odo received surprising news: As-Shãm, the governor of Al-Andalus, had invaded his kingdom and looted Toulouse. Returning to repulse the attack, his war-weary army is defeated near the Garonne. This was a blessing for Ragenfrid who, free from the interventions of Odo, is able to crush the Austrasian rebellion (cutting off Theudoald’s head and parading it through the city of Metz). Afterwards, in retribution for his interference, the vengeful Frank crossed into Aquitania and defeated Odo near Bordeaux in 724, capturing his treasury and forcing the Duke to swear fidelity. Odo signs a treaty with Ragenfrid, recognising his suzerainty in exchange for his support against the Umayyads. But re-occupied with events in the north, the maior domus ignored the provisions of this treaty and the Islamic raiding parties continued to freely cross the Garonne to raid into Burgundy, Provence and Aquitaine. In the last years of As-Shãm governorship, Islamic control spread from Nîmes (captured 724) to encompass a large swathe of the Gallic Mediterranean coast.

But Ragenfrid was more concerned with events to the East than with the Umayyads. While he had been defending his position at home, the German duchies were drifting even further from the centre of Frankish power, declaring their own independence. In Bavaria the Agilofling Dukes, in an alliance with Liutprand the Lombard, had become virtual “kings” in their own right and in Alamannia, the Duke Lantfrid had grown so bold in his independence that he was even issuing his own law-code (Lex Alamannorum Lanfridus). While Ragenfrid is fighting to secure his authority in Germania, Odo (in the absence of Frankish aid) is forced to conspire with discontent Berber troops and treaty with Muslim governors. But this careful diplomacy is proved futile when in 730 the new governor of Al-Andalus ‘Anbas invaded Aquitaine with the purpose of sacking Tours (and punishing Odo for conniving with malcontent Berber rebels). Odo gathered his forces but his army was massacred as the Muslims crossed the river Garonne. Sending word to Ragenfrid requesting his aid, Odo retreated to Neustria followed by ‘Anbas’s army who burned and looted churches as they marched.

Ragenfrid at a gathering a meeting of his nobles announced (or at least according to the Spurius the Caralisian, 11th century historian, announced): “Like the swelling tide of the sea, the hordes of Islam have poured over our lands; and now through the Franks, a voice had spoken: “Hitherto shalt thou come and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.” Subsequently, provisioned with arms and men, Ragenfrid and Odo marched against the approaching ‘Anbas, the fate of Francia hanging in the balance...

steven24gordon

November 25th, 2009, 07:17 AM

Like the Swelling Tide of the Sea...

“Al Aqitiniyah was then under the rule of the Franks, a tribe of barbarians like the many others who overran the provinces of the Roman Empire in its decline...They were quite as corrupt and immoral as the Roman nobles who had preceded them, and their style of Christianity did not lead them to endeavour to improve the condition of their subjects. The serfs were in an even more pitiable state than before. The land was still in the hands of a few, and the large estates were indifferently cultivated by crowds of miserable slaves, whose dreary lives were brightened by no hope of improvement or dream of release before death... The rich were sunk in the same slough of sensuality that had proved the ruin of the Romans, and the vices of the Christian Franks rivalled, if they did not exceed, the polished wickedness of the pagans. Such was the condition of the Al Aqitiniyah when the Muslims approached her borders...
...On the other side of Garonne were the soldiers of Islam, all hardy warriors, fired with the fervour of a new faith, bred to arms from their childhood, simple and rude in life, and eager to plunder the rich lands of the infidels. Between two such peoples there could be no doubt as to the issue of the fight...”

- Spurius the Caralisian, 11th century historian and author of The Conquest of the West

“...our armies sacked Beaune, exacted tribute from Sens, and made numerous raids upon the neighbouring districts. At our approach Avignon was abandoned and we made her people subject of the vast empire of the Arab Khalifs, who held their court at Damascus and swayed an empire that stretched from the mountains of India to the shores of the Atlantic.”

-Pelayo, mercenary in the pay of ‘Anbas the governor of Al-Andalus

“Time after time the inhabitants were startled from their sleep, in the midst of the night, by cries of distress raised by the wretched peasants across the river, when the Muslims were setting the sword to their throats.”

-Anonymous monk of Toulouse

Basileus Giorgios

November 25th, 2009, 08:05 AM

Interesting stuff! I always enjoy your TL's and their setting; I'm eagerly anticipating the next update.

steven24gordon

November 26th, 2009, 06:29 AM

Interesting stuff! I always enjoy your TL's and their setting; I'm eagerly anticipating the next update.

Thanks for the support

Ridwan Asher

November 26th, 2009, 06:37 AM

I'm seconding the support, though I also want to do some nitpick.

Why not "Al Aqitiniyah" ? I guess it makes more sense as the Arabic adaptation of Aquitaine, isn't it ?

steven24gordon

November 26th, 2009, 06:41 AM

Well, I have never been good at maps but here we are ...any thoughts?

steven24gordon

November 26th, 2009, 06:45 AM

I'm seconding the support, though I also want to do some nitpick.

Why not "Al Aqitiniyah" ? I guess it makes more sense as the Arabic adaptation of Aquitaine, isn't it ?

Al Aqitiniyah? Instead of Al-Aquitane? An excellent suggestion, consider the change made.

FDW

November 26th, 2009, 06:58 AM

I like, and because of that I just subscribed to this thread.

Valdemar II

November 26th, 2009, 01:18 PM

Well, I have never been good at maps but here we are ...any thoughts?

Seems realistic enough, through maybe a little on the careful side if they have entered Aquitaine, my guess are that they would have conquered both the entire south and most of the coast reducing Aquitaine to Limousin.

steven24gordon

November 26th, 2009, 01:36 PM

Seems realistic enough, through maybe a little on the careful side if they have entered Aquitaine, my guess are that they would have conquered both the entire south and most of the coast reducing Aquitaine to Limousin.

My feeling here is that the Arabs would only have administrative control over the areas indicated, although they would be able to claim a much larger area. But your point is a fair one.

Valdemar II

November 26th, 2009, 02:05 PM

My feeling here is that the Arabs would only have administrative control over the areas indicated, although they would be able to claim a much larger area. But your point is a fair one.

You should remember that adminstrative control mean in a feudal society, either invade and replace ther local strongmen, or forced them to pay tribute and swear fealthy to you. The area I described are mostly the area I expect the local nobles to swear fealthy to Andalus, not a area they directly control. While I expect modern regions Limousin and Auvergne to be subjugated in the next few decades. My guess are that they rule through local Frankish and Gallo-Romance nobles, whom slowly* will convert to Islam. Of course that mean that likely we see few name changes in place names plus the Arabic loan words** will be heavy romantified (so I find something more like Al-Aquitaine more likely than Al Aqitiniyah)

*Through not in historical term, I expect that most of them will be Muslim in 3 or 4 generations.

**Likely it will receive a quite significant amount through more like Latin loan words in German, than French loan words in English.

steven24gordon

November 26th, 2009, 02:58 PM

You should remember that adminstrative control mean in a feudal society, either invade and replace ther local strongmen, or forced them to pay tribute and swear fealthy to you. The area I described are mostly the area I expect the local nobles to swear fealthy to Andalus, not a area they directly control. While I expect modern regions Limousin and Auvergne to be subjugated in the next few decades. My guess are that they rule through local Frankish and Gallo-Romance nobles, whom slowly* will convert to Islam. Of course that mean that likely we see few name changes in place names plus the Arabic loan words** will be heavy romantified (so I find something more like Al-Aquitaine more likely than Al Aqitiniyah)

*Through not in historical term, I expect that most of them will be Muslim in 3 or 4 generations.

**Likely it will receive a quite significant amount through more like Latin loan words in German, than French loan words in English.

About Al Aqitiniyah vs. Al-Aquitaine question: my initial gut feeling was to go with the Romanic rather than the Arabic but I could be persuade either way. As your reasoning is the very logical I will, at the moment, stay with the Romanic but I would not be adverse to any naming suggestions.

In terms of Limousin and Auvergne being conquered in the next few decades? I think we can see southern France bow before the Islamic yoke sooner than that. Remember Islamic expansionism is still at its height and effective Frankish government (represented by the Duke of Aquitania) is taking a beating. I expect Aquitaine, Septimania, parts of the Rhône valley, Provence and Gascoigne to be (more or less) conquered by 737 before Berber revolts and Frankish/Lombardi resistance bring this period of Islamic European expansionism to a halt. On the other hand, I could be wrong, any thoughts?

Valdemar II

November 26th, 2009, 03:41 PM

About Al Aqitiniyah vs. Al-Aquitaine question: my initial gut feeling was to go with the Romanic rather than the Arabic but I could be persuade either way. As your reasoning is the very logical I will, at the moment, stay with the Romanic but I would not be adverse to any naming suggestions.

In terms of Limousin and Auvergne being conquered in the next few decades? I think we can see southern France bow before the Islamic yoke sooner than that. Remember Islamic expansionism is still at its height and effective Frankish government (represented by the Duke of Aquitania) is taking a beating. I expect Aquitaine, Septimania, parts of the Rhône valley, Provence and Gascoigne to be (more or less) conquered by 737 before Berber revolts and Frankish/Lombardi resistance bring this period of Islamic European expansionism to a halt. On the other hand, I could be wrong, any thoughts?

I mostly agree, through if they conquer some of Rhone valley I expect it all to fall, through we likely see small Christian fiefdom survive in the low densisity hills and mauntain, in the long term I imaghine something like Ottoman Bosnia, Muslim living in the cities and lowland, while Christians clans/tribes/cantons live in the lower population density highland. At the same time we likely see a greater Swiss German/Alemanni expansion in the Alps down in the east of the Rhone Valley*. Beside that I expect a growing centralisation of Lombard rather than OTL decentralisation, with a existential threat in the south and west, likely we see Papal state end up part of Lombard.

I doesn't expect Neustria to fall but it will be victim of both warfare and raiding**, moving the centre of Frankia to the Rhine Valley, and making resulting a quite low population Neustria (by OTL standards), likely we see it become militarised marches.

I don't see Alamannia survive independent from Frankia in the long run, likely it split between a north directly under Frankish control and a Alpish south de jure under Frankish control, de facto independent cantons.

Bavaria, Thuringia, Frisia and Saxony easily stay free of the Franks, through Thuringia if it doesn't expanded fast will likely end up subjugated by the Saxons. Both Saxony and Bavaria will likely begin a drive to the east through Denmark threatens Saxony existents, and we likely see Denmark and Saxony fight over dominance of Wendia/Wendland. While Bavaria will likely end up thrown out of the lowland Pannonia if the Magyars turn up.

*We saw something like it in OTL, but I expect them to be even more succesful and agressive, without a central government keeping them in place and with the Lombard supporting them to gain a buffer against Islamic expantion, of course that's going to work both way, it will also serve as a buffer against Lombard agression.

**Likely the Franks and Muslims will exist in a permanent state of "war", as a excuse for slave raiding

steven24gordon

November 26th, 2009, 04:54 PM

I mostly agree, through if they conquer some of Rhone valley I expect it all to fall, through we likely see small Christian fiefdom survive in the low densisity hills and mauntain, in the long term I imaghine something like Ottoman Bosnia, Muslim living in the cities and lowland, while Christians clans/tribes/cantons live in the lower population density highland. At the same time we likely see a greater Swiss German/Alemanni expansion in the Alps down in the east of the Rhone Valley*. Beside that I expect a growing centralisation of Lombard rather than OTL decentralisation, with a existential threat in the south and west, likely we see Papal state end up part of Lombard.

I doesn't expect Neustria to fall but it will be victim of both warfare and raiding**, moving the centre of Frankia to the Rhine Valley, and making resulting a quite low population Neustria (by OTL standards), likely we see it become militarised marches.

I don't see Alamannia survive independent from Frankia in the long run, likely it split between a north directly under Frankish control and a Alpish south de jure under Frankish control, de facto independent cantons.

Bavaria, Thuringia, Frisia and Saxony easily stay free of the Franks, through Thuringia if it doesn't expanded fast will likely end up subjugated by the Saxons. Both Saxony and Bavaria will likely begin a drive to the east through Denmark threatens Saxony existents, and we likely see Denmark and Saxony fight over dominance of Wendia/Wendland. While Bavaria will likely end up thrown out of the lowland Pannonia if the Magyars turn up.

*We saw something like it in OTL, but I expect them to be even more succesful and agressive, without a central government keeping them in place and with the Lombard supporting them to gain a buffer against Islamic expantion, of course that's going to work both way, it will also serve as a buffer against Lombard agression.

**Likely the Franks and Muslims will exist in a permanent state of "war", as a excuse for slave raiding

Interesting and useful comments. I myself see the Neustrian "March" holding against the Islamic charge (nice thought about slave trading by the way). And the formation of small Christian mountain strongholds (happened in Islamic Spain sortof), a very insightful note. However I think the Bavarians may be pulled west rather than east: with Francia beset my internal rivalries and a vengeful Islamic nieghbour there would be a western power vacuum. Also the Avars will still be around in the ATL, and could discourage a Bavarian push east. I could see Bavaria being drawn into conflicts in Swabia and the Rhineland. On the other hand, I could be wrong here. So without the Frankish Empire of OTL, who is the big Christian power of Western Europe. Still the Franks? Multi-Polar World?

A thought about religion, if the Lombards conquer the Papal States would this not cause a religious divide in Christendom. Just a quick thought but: Pope embraces Iconoclasm to gain Byzantine aid against Lombards while the Lombards elect their own Pope (whom none of the other Christian bishops would recognise as he is obviously a puppet figure). Plausible?

Valdemar II

November 26th, 2009, 05:35 PM

Interesting and useful comments. I myself see the Neustrian "March" holding against the Islamic charge (nice thought about slave trading by the way). And the formation of small Christian mountain strongholds (happened in Islamic Spain sortof), a very insightful note. However I think the Bavarians may be pulled west rather than east: with Francia beset my internal rivalries and a vengeful Islamic nieghbour there would be a western power vacuum. Also the Avars will still be around in the ATL, and could discourage a Bavarian push east. I could see Bavaria being drawn into conflicts in Swabia and the Rhineland. On the other hand, I could be wrong here. So without the Frankish Empire of OTL, who is the big Christian power of Western Europe. Still the Franks? Multi-Polar World?

A thought about religion, if the Lombards conquer the Papal States would this not cause a religious divide in Christendom. Just a quick thought but: Pope embraces Iconoclasm to gain Byzantine aid against Lombards while the Lombards elect their own Pope (whom none of the other Christian bishops would recognise as he is obviously a puppet figure). Plausible?

I think the Bavarian would push east simply because the Avars was the easiest enemy, they had low population, they had lost any technological superiority they have had, so they would be the Bavarians primary goal, while even a split among the Franks are only last for a short while, before it reunifies, so there's only a short term oppotunity in the west.

I think the greatest Christian power would be split between Lombards and Franks, with a growing centralised Lombard they're going to be quite strong, while the Franks have the position through pure numbers (my best guess are that Frankia have have around 15 million inhabitants) Of course both powers will likely not expanded because they focus their might on the Muslim invaders. Military Frankia will likely evolve into a standard European army, based on feudalism, likely with a heavy cavalry and infantry. While the Lombard will likely adopt the Byzantine military model.

To Christianity yes we likely see no split in it, the Pope are reduced to be the Patriach of the Lombards in union with rest of the Othodox Church (which it likely won't be named), while the other Germanic states get their own Patriachs, the Pope are of course still seen as very important, more so than the Patriachs of Aarchen or Beograd, but he loses most of his political weight, and the position are reduced to a spiritual position, while the clerical bureaucracy are commanded by the secular powers, much as in the east.

Valdemar II

November 26th, 2009, 07:16 PM

steven24gordon

November 27th, 2009, 07:30 AM

As we consider the ATL Battle of Tours in 730 (fought between Ragenfrid and ‘Anbas) we would find it useful to compare it with the OTL Battle of Tours in 732 (fought between Charles Martel and Abdul Rahman). In OTL Martel revolutionised the traditional Frankish army by augmenting the usual levies with a core of professional soldiers (a fulltime army with the training necessary to conduct complex military manoeuvres and withstand an Islamic cavalry charge). But revolutions cost money, money which the Frankish monarchy did not have, so Martel seized church land and property (which naturally enraged the Church and Charles was almost excommunicated). In ATL not only is Ragenfrid not the visionary that ‘the Hammer’ was but he does not have the political capital or will to attempt a change of the Frankish army’s composition. Moreover while Abdul Rahman’s OTL assault was a raid (although that is debatable), this ATL invasion is intended as preparation for bringing Aquitania to heel and securing the path for the occupation of southern Gaul. Indeed, by this point ‘Anbas has all but conquered Aquitaine, destroying even the semblance of Frankish government and establishing a military governor in Avignon.
Given the advantages possessed by the Muslims ATL, the outcome of the battle seems a foregone conclusion: although the heavy infantry of the Franks are formidable, they wavered under ‘Anbas’ heavy cavalry charge and when Ragenfrid is killed the Franks abandon themselves to a route that leaves much of their army massacred. Tours is sacked by the victorious Muslims and on their return thorough Aquitania, ‘Anbas garrisons the city of Bordeaux as a Muslim stronghold.

In all Ragenfrid had not been a bad ‘Mayor of the Palace’. Indeed before his death in 730, he was at the high point of his career: through great blood and toil he had restored Frisia to Frankish sovereignty, elicited at least nominal suzerainty over the German duchies of the East and reduced the powerful Duke of Aquitania. But the foundations of his lordship were built on shallow ground and upon his death in battle, the superstructure began to splinter: a charismatic Frisian warlord emerged in the north and drove out his Frankish oppressors (along with their Christian missionaries); the Dukes of Alamannia and Bavaria re-asserted their independence; the Burgundian nobility elected Chilperic III (son of the late Chilperic II) their king in a direct challenge to Ragenfrid designated successor Childebrand. As civil strife consumed the centre, the Franks focused their dwindling energy on maintaining their flagging authority in the north, leaving the door open to Islamic penetration in southern Gaul.

But while the extension of Islamic power into Aquitania and Provence was relatively free of overt Frankish interference, this does not mean that the Arabs don’t face opposition: Odo’s sons Hunald and Hatto organise (with Frankish backing) Aquitaine resistance against the Muslims while Liutprand (King of the Lombards) makes a spirited attempt to defend and re-conquer parts of Provence (for which he is rewarded by the Pope). However in 733 Abdul Rahman replaces ‘Anbas as governor of Al-Andalus, and Islam regained the offensive: naval offensives lead to the occupation of much of Provence driving the Lombardi back; Islamic raids reach far into Burgundy burning the cities of the Rhône; and most fatefully Hunald betrays Hatto for the Umayyad cause (marrying a daughter of Abdul Rahman and accepting the military governorship of Poitiers). By 737, Abdul Rahman had established control over Aquitaine, Septimania, parts of the Rhône valley, Provence and Gascoigne, dividing these lands between the Arab and Berber occupied towns (mostly along the coast and the major rivers), and local ducal allies.

But then the great tide of Islamic conquest begins to run out of steam: a large army destined for an invasion of Burgundy is diverted to deal with a Berber rebellion in North Africa. Shortly afterwards, Abdul Rahman was replaced as governor and operations in Gaul were scaled back as gathering Berber revolts threaten to shatter Umayyad control of the West. The Berbers in Spain, North Africa and Gaul, were angered over their second class status within the Caliphate (which directly contradicted the tenets of equality within the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet). As the 730s become the 740s, conflicts between the Berbers and the Arabs become conflicts between Iberian settled Arabs and Syrian junds (Arab military units which the governor attempts to settle in Iberia and Gaul after crushing the Berber rebellions). But these wars are part of a much wider clash within the Umayyad Caliphate, as rivalries between the dominant Syrian army factions weaken the authority of Damascus and allow the Abbasids (in league with the old Persian nobility, the mawallads, and the Khurasân soldiery) to usurp the throne of power.

But it is not only the Islamic Empire where of the great foundations of loyalty and fidelity are in influx: in distant China the remarkable T’ang dynasty is collapsing, in India chaos and division run roughshod over the achievement of the Gupta Golden Age, and in Greece the once great Byzantium suffers the tyranny of religious oppression and doctrinal conflict. The future as they say is uncertain...

frozenpredator

November 27th, 2009, 09:06 AM

steven24gordon

November 27th, 2009, 10:39 AM

I think the Bavarian would push east simply because the Avars was the easiest enemy, they had low population, they had lost any technological superiority they have had, so they would be the Bavarians primary goal, while even a split among the Franks are only last for a short while, before it reunifies, so there's only a short term oppotunity in the west.

I think the greatest Christian power would be split between Lombards and Franks, with a growing centralised Lombard they're going to be quite strong, while the Franks have the position through pure numbers (my best guess are that Frankia have have around 15 million inhabitants) Of course both powers will likely not expanded because they focus their might on the Muslim invaders. Military Frankia will likely evolve into a standard European army, based on feudalism, likely with a heavy cavalry and infantry. While the Lombard will likely adopt the Byzantine military model.

To Christianity yes we likely see no split in it, the Pope are reduced to be the Patriach of the Lombards in union with rest of the Othodox Church (which it likely won't be named), while the other Germanic states get their own Patriachs, the Pope are of course still seen as very important, more so than the Patriachs of Aarchen or Beograd, but he loses most of his political weight, and the position are reduced to a spiritual position, while the clerical bureaucracy are commanded by the secular powers, much as in the east.

As always I welcome your comments and agree with many of them: you have convinced me in terms of the Bavarians who would push east against the Avars and we are going to see the other Germanic states getting sucked into the intellectual and cultural orbit of the Orthodox Church and Byzantium (with any German King of note seeking to emulate the Byzantine Emperors). Military and administratively the Franks, once they stabilizes, will probably centre on Austrasia at “Aachen” (or the equivalent thereof) near the Meuse River. Neustria and what is left of Burgundy will be “military marches” (although Burgundy will probably be more influenced by Islam than Neustria) and I think Swabia may be contested ground between Bavaria and this new Francia. In terms of Thurgingia I think the Bavarians may claim Regensburg and position it as stronghold against the pagan Czechs. Frisia remains independent of Francia but heavily influenced by them. Saxony will, as you say, prove resistant to Frankish conquest but I don’t see them pushing east and overwhelming the Wends (who, as pagans go, were hard-as-nails and very difficult to conquer OTL). I think sandwiched between Francia and the Wends, Saxony may get conquered by the Danes at some point, any thoughts?

But the question of Italia still concerns me. I have my doubts about a lack of a split within Christendom at least during the period currently under discussion. At the moment, Iconoclasm is the imperial doctrine in Byzantium, a doctrine that the bishops of the Western Europe (and Italia especially) oppose. The Lombardi will not join the Orthodox Church as long as Iconoclasm holds sway over it. Now what the Pope will do about his deteriorating situation in Italy is a difficult question: he could become a servant of the Lombards or turn to the Byzantine Emperor for aid (which would mean coming to terms with Iconoclasm). Either option is very pleasing to the Papacy. Any thoughts?

steven24gordon

November 27th, 2009, 10:43 AM

interesting timeline.

a question though: with the expulsion of the christian missionaries, do we see the Frisians maintaining their original religion (germanic/norse religion with heavy celtic influence) or have a slower conversion?

Well I think we can definitely say that the Christianisation of Frisia has been slowed but will they remain pagan? Still thinking about that one but I could see a drift towards Celtic Christianity. Certainly the Northwestern Europeans adopt a religious ethos very different from their Southwestern Christian nieghbours.

steven24gordon

November 27th, 2009, 10:50 AM

I have created a fast and very crude map of my idea. The map is shit mostly because the propotion doesn't fit and the rivers are semi random placed.

But I think you can get my idea.

Darkish green are faceless Islamic hordes

Blue gray are a mass of minor state/canton/clans.

While other colours are mostly unified states/tribes.

I like the map very interesting map but I have few questions: don’t you think the border between Francia and Al-Aquitaine would at the Loire? Also if the Lombardi are centralizing their control in Italia, I don’t see boot heel of Italy remaining under Byzantine sovereignty.

Valdemar II

November 27th, 2009, 04:57 PM

As always I welcome your comments and agree with many of them: you have convinced me in terms of the Bavarians who would push east against the Avars and we are going to see the other Germanic states getting sucked into the intellectual and cultural orbit of the Orthodox Church and Byzantium (with any German King of note seeking to emulate the Byzantine Emperors). Military and administratively the Franks, once they stabilizes, will probably centre on Austrasia at “Aachen” (or the equivalent thereof) near the Meuse River. Neustria and what is left of Burgundy will be “military marches” (although Burgundy will probably be more influenced by Islam than Neustria) and I think Swabia may be contested ground between Bavaria and this new Francia. In terms of Thurgingia I think the Bavarians may claim Regensburg and position it as stronghold against the pagan Czechs. Frisia remains independent of Francia but heavily influenced by them. Saxony will, as you say, prove resistant to Frankish conquest but I don’t see them pushing east and overwhelming the Wends (who, as pagans go, were hard-as-nails and very difficult to conquer OTL). I think sandwiched between Francia and the Wends, Saxony may get conquered by the Danes at some point, any thoughts?

But the question of Italia still concerns me. I have my doubts about a lack of a split within Christendom at least during the period currently under discussion. At the moment, Iconoclasm is the imperial doctrine in Byzantium, a doctrine that the bishops of the Western Europe (and Italia especially) oppose. The Lombardi will not join the Orthodox Church as long as Iconoclasm holds sway over it. Now what the Pope will do about his deteriorating situation in Italy is a difficult question: he could become a servant of the Lombards or turn to the Byzantine Emperor for aid (which would mean coming to terms with Iconoclasm). Either option is very pleasing to the Papacy. Any thoughts?

I more and less agree, through the Wends was easier to conquer than their reputation says, their land was just poor and far away from the areas really mattered for the Franks and East Franks, plus everytime they vassalised/conquered them the Danes stirred up trouble, for the Saxons they're going to be next door and needed to deal with.

I could see the Saxons be conquered by the Danes, likely they will be weaken by fighting with Danes, Franks and Wends, and their country are rather open for Danish conquest, while Denmark are much more defensible.

With the Pope, my best guess are that he turn into a Lombard puppet, through the Lombard will likely have a rather peaceful relationship with Byzans, mostly because they focus on the Moors which treathen their heartland in the north, so we may end with the Pope doing both things

Well I think we can definitely say that the Christianisation of Frisia has been slowed but will they remain pagan? Still thinking about that one but I could see a drift towards Celtic Christianity. Certainly the Northwestern Europeans adopt a religious ethos very different from their Southwestern Christian nieghbours.

I don't see Germanic Paganism survive at least not outside the the North Atlantic, while with a weaken Frankia, there will be little push for conversions, but the Church are good for centralise the state in the hands of the monarch, so they likely convert anyway, quite likely we see Denmark convert before both Frisia and Saxony, mostly because in TTL they have a good relationship with the Christian Franks (common enemies and no common borders), but the benefit will force them to convert.

Frisia are going to be interesting, it's sinking and are quite densely populated likely we will see largescale emigration from it as in OTL. Likely they will emigrate to Vendland and Neustria as yeomen in Neustria and taxfree experts in Vendland (as in OTL).

I like the map very interesting map but I have few questions: don’t you think the border between Francia and Al-Aquitaine would at the Loire? Also if the Lombardi are centralizing their control in Italia, I don’t see boot heel of Italy remaining under Byzantine sovereignty.

I let the Byzantine keep the exclaves on the foot because the Lombards focus on the north and centre, and because they likely have a good relationship.

With the Loire good point usual I hate river borders, but the Loire make sense, likely it's rather depopulated by fighting and raiding, and it serve as a easily controlled border for both sides, the border I made farther north would end up being one long border war.

steven24gordon

November 30th, 2009, 09:15 AM

“...then my master David Tiberius, filled the eyes of the Arab general with stories of the beauty and richness of Al-Aquitane, of its rivers and pastures, vines and olives, its splendid cities and palaces, and the treasures of the Frank: it was a land of flowing with milk and honey, he said, and ‘Anbas had only to go over and take it.”
-Anonymous servant to David Tiberius, the “Jew” of Toulouse

“The Franks across the Loire are a terrible curse to their victims; they are rude, unlettered people, and few of them could even read; their manners were on a par with their education; and their fanaticism and cruelty were what might be expected from such uncouth barbarians. Seldom do the soldiery of Francia give quarter to a defenceless foe, and we may look in vain for the fine chivalry and toleration of the Arabs; where the latter spared nobly, the rough robbers from beyond the Loire massacre whole garrisons, cities full of inhabitants, and those whom they did not slaughter they made slaves”.
- Spurius the Caralisian, 11th century historian and author of The Conquest of the West

“...‘Anbas cut through the ranks of the Franks with irresistible might, dealing right and left such ponderous blows that his path was paved with enemy dead. His loyal followers, inspired by their leader’s prowess, bore down upon the Infidel with crushing force; and the whole array of the Franks broke and fled in utter rout.”
-Yahva, famous historian and teacher of theology at Córdoba, recounting the Battle of Tours

“...and Ragenfrid had six times as many men to his back as our brave ‘Anbas. But we were bold and hardy men, used to war, and led by a hero; and the Franks were a crowd of ill-treated slaves, and among their commanders were treacherous nobles.”
-Iyad ibn Ghamm Captain of ‘Anbas at the Battle of Tours

“We beheld before us a great field of battle, where Christians and Muslims were engaged in deadly conflict. We heard the rush and tramp of steeds, the blast of trump and clarion, the clash of cymbal, and the stormy din of a thousand drums. There was the flash of swords and maces and battle-axes, with the whistling of arrows and the hurling of darts and lances. The Christians quailed before the foe. The infidels pressed upon them and put them to utter rout; the standard of the Cross was cast down, the banner of the Franks was trodden under foot; the air resounded with shouts of triumph, with yells of fury, and with groans of dying men...”
-Makarios of Scythopolis recounting the Battle of Tours

steven24gordon

November 30th, 2009, 09:20 AM

Does anyone know what the our ATL Muslims would call Islamic Europe (that is the collective name for Islamic France and Spain)?

The Professor

November 30th, 2009, 02:26 PM

Does anyone know what the our ATL Muslims would call Islamic Europe (that is the collective name for Islamic France and Spain)?
Al-Shamaal (the north) as opposed to Al-Maghrib (the west)?

steven24gordon

November 30th, 2009, 02:38 PM

Al-Shamaal (the north) as opposed to Al-Maghrib (the west)?

While Al-Shamaal has a nice ring to it I am not sure: are France and Spain north to be called "The North"?

steven24gordon

December 1st, 2009, 10:34 AM

In the mid-8th century, the great centres of power were consumed in revolt and strife inspiring adventurers of all stripes to take advantage of the chaos to build their own power bases on the shifting sands of history. One such adventurer was ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn, the last prince of the House of Umayyad, the former holders of the Caliphate now deposed by the Persian-backed Abbasids, and he was heading to Spain. Why Spain? The “Syrian” regiments (or junds) of the Arabian Empire were the traditional adherents and defenders of the Umayyad House (although divided by the factional politics of the last decade of that dynasty’s rule). It was the despatch of what had been a large army of these men to quell the Berber revolts in North Africa which had weakened Umayyad resistance to the Abbasids and subsequently it appears that these junds were settled in southern Iberia (Al-Andalus), southwest (Al-Aquitane) and coastal Gaul (Al-Narbonenus). The presence of these loyalist forces may have been the reason that the last Umayyad Caliphate had tried to escape to the West in 750 and it was certainly the reason that ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn landed on Iberia’s shores in 755.

The other of these adventurers was Dagobert, who became maior domus of the Frankish Empire around the same time that ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn arrived in Spain. Although both adventurers were committed to furthering the glory of their respective peoples, Dagobert definitely had the odds stacked against him. When Dagobert obtained his position of authority that the Franks were in dire straits: The Empire of Clovis had fallen from its heyday in the 7th century, and although many ATL historians blame the defeat of the Frankish Major-of-the-Palace Ragenfrid on the northern plains of Gaul in 730 the process had started long before that. Despite success of the battlefield in the 6th and 7th centuries, the political structure of the Franks –their divisive customs of royal inheritance and their Shogun-style-government –proved discordant with state-building. In the years following the Battle of Tours, most of the more rebellious duchies of the old Frankish Empire had fallen away –Aquitaine, much of Burgundy and Provence was conquered by Islam, Bavaria had gained independence under the House of Agilofling, and Swabia had become self-governing. Moreover, the largely pagan warlords of Germania East of the Rhine –principally Frisia and Saxonia –threw off the (albeit weak) bonds of subservience that they had been forced to show to their Christian overlords since the 6th century.

The first few years of his command, Dagobert spent much of his time in seemingly endless and ultimately fruitless campaigns against the Saxons and other pagans east of the Rhine. It was at this time that he developed a force of heavy cavalry (although this is disputed by later historians) that may or may not have been connected to his excommunication for confiscating church land (according to some to pay for his trained cavalry). Compared to this dubious record, Abd ar-Rahmãn went from success to success eventually defeating his last rival to the title of Amir and Malik (king) of Al-Andalus in 760. Subsequently ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn travelled into Al-Aquitane to secure his kingship there. Although most the cities and towns of southern Al-Aquitane went over to the new Amir of Al-Andalus rather quickly, Boudreaux and most of the ducal allies of the old Islamic regime in northern Aquitania refused to recognise the new sovereign and declared their independence. It was at this point that Dagobert (having presumably been re-admitted into the Church) crossed the Loire to aid the enemies of Abd ar-Rahmãn.

Dagobert’s most significant confrontation in Aquitaine –the Battle of Boudreaux –is poorly chronicled. But it seems that the Frankish maior domus surprised ar-Rahmãn’s forces near Boudreaux (apparently the Muslim troops, having scant regard for their adversaries, had failed to erect proper defences and were sacking the city when the Franks arrived). A secondary reason behind the loss was the first recorded incidence of Frankish heavy cavalry against Islamic forces, a development deeply disturbing to Muslims forces used to fighting barbarian infantry. This victory was highly inspiring to Dagobert who portrayed the battle as the moment that “saved Christianity and Francia from the Islamic advance” (source: Liber Historiae Francorum –a obvious piece of propaganda at the time since he was fighting with one Muslim faction against another). For ar-Rahmãn (who probably wasn’t even present) the Battle of Boudreaux was to prove disastrous: shortly afterwards, al-‘Ala’ ibn Mughit –an agent of the Abbasid Caliphate sent to regain control of Spain and Gaul –arrived in Al-Andalus. This usurper quickly gained the support of the Yemenis and others dissatisfied with Amir’s regime and soon over half of Spain had defected to the Abbasids. Alarmed to this new threat, ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn marched south to confront al-‘Ala’ but at the Battle of Turia ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn’s exhausted army (still recovering from the Gallic campaign) was defeated. Cut off from his capital Córdoba the Great Adventurer was force to take refuge in Carmona where his besiegers starved him into submission. The first Amir of Al-Andalus was then subjected to public humiliation in a triumphal entry into Toledo before being executed by crucifixion (a common punishment for traitors in early Islamic Spain).

Dagobert on the other hand, used the Battle of Boudreaux and subsequent campaigns in Aquitania and Burgundy, to propel his status. By 769 his fame had reached such heights that Dagobert, was crowned ‘King of the Franks’ by ‘the election by all the Franks ...consecration by the bishops and the acknowledgement of the princes’ (Liber Historiae Francorum again). Of the two great adventurers, it was the Frank –the uncouth barbarian –that ultimately was able to claim the final prestige and glory. History, they say, is an untrustworthy mistress.

The Professor

December 1st, 2009, 11:12 AM

While Al-Shamaal has a nice ring to it I am not sure: are France and Spain north to be called "The North"?

Yeah possibly.
Hmmm, Al-Avrup - a shortening of Al-Avrup Al-`Arabi meaning Arabian Europe? As Al-Maghrib Al-`Arabi is the Arabian West.

And nice update.

steven24gordon

December 1st, 2009, 11:22 AM

Yeah possibly.
Hmmm, Al-Avrup - a shortening of Al-Avrup Al-`Arabi meaning Arabian Europe? As Al-Maghrib Al-`Arabi is the Arabian West.

And nice update.

Al-Avrup? I like it, thanks.

Basileus Giorgios

December 1st, 2009, 01:07 PM

steven24gordon

December 1st, 2009, 01:36 PM

Interesting work; what's happening regarding Byzantine Italy? Are the Romans under Constantine V being able to take a more proactive approach to securing and holding at least Ravenna, if not Rome, due to reduced Arab pressure on their frontiers thanks to Western adventures?

I wonder how this will affect the Vikings, and the emerging Saxon kingdoms too. Will the Norsemen be used as Christian mercenaries against the wealth of Arab Europe, I wonder?

Holding Ravenna? Given the ambitions of the Lombards and the lack of a Frankish protector, I would say that Ravenna falls to the Lombards in the late 750s. Also I am not sure how much adventures in the Western reduce the Arab drive against Constantinople. Even if it did, would the Byzantines concentrate their efforts on Italia when the Bulgars are marching towards their gates?

Norsemen mercenaries for the Christians? Well on the one hand, the Norsemen would be keen to raid rich Al-Avrup (New Arabic for Islamic Europe… what do you think?) but then we must consider the Arabs have more money to hire Norsemen as mercenaries. Probably you will mercenaries on both sides. Moreover the Norse would probably raid the hell out of Northern Europe to acquire slaves for the market in Al-Avrup. On the other hand (and I have mentioned this before) I think that Norway does well in this ATL, conquering the Saxons and establishing a stronger kingdom that OTL (which probably does adopt Christianity).

But of course I could be wrong and am open to persuasion on both points.

Hmmm... just a thought: Viking raiders combine with the Islamic lords of Al-Avrup to crave a big chunk out of Neustria (kinda an independent Normandy under Islamic protection). Good idea? Bad idea?

Basileus Giorgios

December 1st, 2009, 02:27 PM

Norsemen mercenaries for the Christians? Well on the one hand, the Norsemen would be keen to raid rich Al-Avrup (New Arabic for Islamic Europe… what do you think?) but then we must consider the Arabs have more money to hire Norsemen as mercenaries. Probably you will mercenaries on both sides. Moreover the Norse would probably raid the hell out of Northern Europe to acquire slaves for the market in Al-Avrup. On the other hand (and I have mentioned this before) I think that Norway does well in this ATL, conquering the Saxons and establishing a stronger kingdom that OTL (which probably does adopt Christianity).

The rough idea I had in mind was for the battered Christian communities of England and the North Sea to offer baptism and the promise of eternal life to the Norsemen, in exchange for a God given license to plunder al-Avrup. This would probably come in response to several decades of raiding to supply slave markets, as you put it above.

You're probably right about the Byzantines, but then, Constantine V was a very successful general, and if, butterflies included, he can score a heavy and decisive defeat against the Bulgars, and permanently shatter them, then he may well attempt to show more interest in operations in Venetia and the Exarchate. At the very least, I'd expect him to fortify Sicily and Sardinia against this greatly expanded Arab threat in the West. This may or may not cause resentment in Italy; since Constantine's armies will be largely iconoclastic, while the Italians themselves (together with most of Constantinople's subjects west of a line drawn down the middle of Anatolia) were iconodules.

Some things to consider alongside the main story, anyway...

Valdemar II

December 1st, 2009, 03:26 PM

Holding Ravenna? Given the ambitions of the Lombards and the lack of a Frankish protector, I would say that Ravenna falls to the Lombards in the late 750s. Also I am not sure how much adventures in the Western reduce the Arab drive against Constantinople. Even if it did, would the Byzantines concentrate their efforts on Italia when the Bulgars are marching towards their gates?

Norsemen mercenaries for the Christians? Well on the one hand, the Norsemen would be keen to raid rich Al-Avrup (New Arabic for Islamic Europe… what do you think?) but then we must consider the Arabs have more money to hire Norsemen as mercenaries. Probably you will mercenaries on both sides. Moreover the Norse would probably raid the hell out of Northern Europe to acquire slaves for the market in Al-Avrup. On the other hand (and I have mentioned this before) I think that Norway does well in this ATL, conquering the Saxons and establishing a stronger kingdom that OTL (which probably does adopt Christianity).

But of course I could be wrong and am open to persuasion on both points.

Hmmm... just a thought: Viking raiders combine with the Islamic lords of Al-Avrup to crave a big chunk out of Neustria (kinda an independent Normandy under Islamic protection). Good idea? Bad idea?

I find it unlikely, Danes was behind most of the raiding of Frankish land, and any noble which tries to conquer some Frankish territories without royal support* will be seen as a threat to the King, which will result in the king taking action. Of course with a free Friesland we may see the Friesians take over the Danish raiding of Franks, and we could maybe see the a Friesian "Viking" state in Neustria.

I find the use of Danish mercenaries by the Franks more likely, some of whom could be given land there as vassals of the Frankish kings. I doubt they would be hired by the Moors on more common basis than in OTL, mostly because they would seen as ungodly Barbarians (in a way the Christian Franks wasn't). Of course we could see Danish raiders setting up a alt-Normandy in Muslim territorium (while converting to Islam).

*Which they won't have because the Danish and Frankish king will likely have cordial relationship.

Geekhis Khan

December 1st, 2009, 06:33 PM

Another great TL, S24g. I'm subscribed. Also, I hope you can continue WW Mohammad as well. I was digging that one.

Wasn't al Faranj the Arabic name for the Frankish kingdom? Or am I totally anachronistic here?

On the Vikings, I'm assuming a lot of them, traders especially, may convert to Islam for financial reasons, assuming a trader "of the Prophet" may see better, erm, profit. Might we see an interesting mix of Christian, Islam, and Pagan among the chiefdoms? OTL IIRC there was a religious pragmatism and (for lack of a better word) "tolerance" among the Norse at the time.

King Gorilla

December 1st, 2009, 08:16 PM

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 11:09 AM

I'm also wondering if there would be as great of a schism between eastern and western Christianity in this TL. While there will obviously continue to be disputes between Rome and Constantinople over issues of liturgy and religious primacy, Rome is missing the presence of the Carolingian empire to serve as its protector and patron. While the Lombards are to some extent filling this role, they are a much weaker power. Given this, Rome might be unable to completely cut its ties to Constantinople due to the basic demands of geopolitics. While Rome may remain the premiere religious center for most of western and central Europe, Constantinople would still eclipse it in power and influence.

Also, I'm wondering I'm wondering what effects Cyril and Methodius will be having in this TL. Presuming they A: still exist and B: are as successful as both linguists and missionaries, we will probably see a much wider spread of "Eastern Orthodoxy" without the Franks mucking around in central and eastern Europe. It would be especially interesting if an "Eastern Orthodox" Great Moravia survives, particularly as it stands to cut eastern europe off from "catholic" missonaries.

Now this is an interesting question: will Rome split with Constantinople? I think there will be a short “split” between the two capitals of Christendom over this whole Iconoclasm business. The prohibition of images is just too much for the Italians to stomach despite their desire for Christian unity in the face of a possible “Moorish” invasion (although Al-Avrup will not be able to threaten fair Italia until at least the late 8th century). Moreover I think we may see the Lombardi take over Rome (probably under Aistulf and probably in the late 750s), and I think Lombard-Byzantine animosity may invade relations between Rome and Constantinople. But when the Lombards take Rome this may cause a short-term schism within the Italian Church. The split would be between those who support/willing to tolerate the Lombard takeover and those who oppose it. I think the opposition faction may go into exile in what is left of Byzantine Italy and try and get the support of Constantine V (who is pretty much fighting an all-fronts-war at this stage). As a result this opposition faction may give tacit support to Iconoclasm which would cause even more problems in the Church. I will post an Italian update tomorrow regarding the above but before I do any comments on the ideas expressed above.

Long term, however, I can’t see this “split” (or extended period of mutual animosity) continuing indefinitely. Once the Byzantines renounce Iconoclasm for good (which would be 847 wouldn’t it?), the ideological basis for separation will disappear and I see a strong union between Rome and Constantinople against their mutual Muslim enemies. Remember that Byzantium is going through a cultural, intellectual and military revival in the 9th century and the Italians, the Lombards and the Pope will need Byzantine help against their “corsair” enemies (which will probably be worse than OTL). By the end of the 9th century, I see Rome (and Italia) firmly within the orbit of Orthodox Church and her civilization. We may even see Constantinople achieve a level of superiority over Rome in doctrinal matters but I am still thinking about that –any thoughts on this issue?

Now in terms of Cyril and Methodius, yes I think they still exist (or if not then their analogues do) and will still convert Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe. But I see the “Eastern Orthodox Church” having a wider spread than OTL, encompassing much of southern Germanium –Bavaria, Bohemia and Hungry. Now one of the things the Muslims have done in Europe is effectively cut off Southern/Eastern Europe from Northern Europe. As a result I think Christianity may develop differently in the North, becoming more localized (and perhaps Celtic) and deeply critical of Rome and her alliance/subservience to Constantinople. This religious drift will develop over centuries and could see a split between the North and the East. But that is just a thought –any ideas?

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 11:22 AM

I find it unlikely, Danes was behind most of the raiding of Frankish land, and any noble which tries to conquer some Frankish territories without royal support* will be seen as a threat to the King, which will result in the king taking action. Of course with a free Friesland we may see the Friesians take over the Danish raiding of Franks, and we could maybe see the a Friesian "Viking" state in Neustria.

I find the use of Danish mercenaries by the Franks more likely, some of whom could be given land there as vassals of the Frankish kings. I doubt they would be hired by the Moors on more common basis than in OTL, mostly because they would seen as ungodly Barbarians (in a way the Christian Franks wasn't). Of course we could see Danish raiders setting up a alt-Normandy in Muslim territorium (while converting to Islam).

*Which they won't have because the Danish and Frankish king will likely have cordial relationship.

Why would the Frankish and Danish kings have a cordial relationship if they both have interests in conquering Saxony? Maybe Franks conquer part of the south while the Danes conquer part of the north?

Why I was thinking about Neustria was that with Neustria being a frontier March against Muslim aggression, it would be weaker than OTL and the Vikingr would have an easier time in pushing into what is now Normandy. Moreover I was thinking that the Vikingr would take advantage of the warfare between the Muslims and the Christians to fight on both sides in Neustria, craving out a sizeable chunk of independent territory for themselves.

In terms of a Norman Islamic territorium, it sounds like an interesting idea but where? Anjou? Near Bordeaux? In Portugal?

You know I kinda imagined that Frisia would be more or less semi-independent for much of the 8th century, fighting a lot of little wars for liberty until finally breaking free in the early 9th century thanks to the Vikingr incursions into Francia and a weak Frankish monarch. Any thoughts?

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 11:28 AM

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 11:30 AM

“Governors were appointed, deposed, or murdered in defence to the mandates of some faction, who resented the government being entrusted to a man of the Medina faction or would not have a clansman of Kays, or objected to the nomination of a member of the Yemen party...”

-Aurora, second wife of Yūsuf the governor of Bordeaux

“The struggle was only decided when the Khalif of Damascus sent over a new and able governor, Abd al-Malik, who divided the hostile factions by giving them settlements in cities far apart from each other, and banished the more turbulent of their leaders.
...the Egyptian contingent was settled in Landes [which they re-named “Misr” or Egypt]; the men of Palestine at Comtat Venaissin; the people of the Jordan at Languedoc; those of Damascus in Provence and the battalion of Kinnersin at Guyenne. The Berbers, on the other hand...”

-Ibrahim of Cazlona the ‘Traveller’, recounting the governorship of Abd al-Malik

“We have cause to grudge the Arabs their loin share of the spoils of conquest, which had been the trophies of the Berbers’ bow and spear. While Arabs, who had only arrived in time to reap the advantages of the conquest had appropriated all the best lands, we the Berbers found ourselves relegated to the most unlovely places, to the dusty plains and the icy mountains...”

-Shāqya ibn ‘Abd al-Walīd, who led the Berbers at the Rebellion of Jaen

Geekhis Khan

December 2nd, 2009, 11:40 AM

al Faranj sounds right, doesn't it?

I always thought that Islamic Norseman would be the most interesting part of this PoD but I am still thinking about this one. I am not sure how pausible it is but what do you guys think?

Maybe al Faranj for Gaul/Germania/Frankia, al Avrup for the greater (sub)continent (al Andalus + al Faranj + ...)?

And I'd see at least a notable Islamic minority among the Norse, at least among traders. How big I'm not sure or how prohibitions on alcohol and pork go over. At least this is pre-Akavit. :D Did the Norse use much pork, or were they more a beef/mutton culture?

Also, wondering how Norse paganism would fare and whether Muhammad or the Arabic view of Allah will be recast among Aesir the way old gods like Baldir & Loki took on more respective Christlike/Satanlike characteristics OTL.

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 11:44 AM

Any thoughts on this map?

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 11:46 AM

Maybe al Faranj for Gaul/Germania/Frankia, al Avrup for the greater (sub)continent (al Andalus + al Faranj + ...)?

And I'd see at least a notable Islamic minority among the Norse, at least among traders. How big I'm not sure or how prohibitions on alcohol and pork go over. At least this is pre-Akavit. :D Did the Norse use much pork, or were they more a beef/mutton culture?

Also, wondering how Norse paganism would fare and whether Muhammad or the Arabic view of Allah will be recast among Aesir the way old gods like Baldir & Loki took on more respective Christlike/Satanlike characteristics OTL.

I was thinking Al-Aquitane for Islamic France.

The Professor

December 2nd, 2009, 12:03 PM

Wasn't al Faranj the Arabic name for the Frankish kingdom? Or am I totally anachronistic here?

Well, if I'm remembering correctly, Al-Faranj was the Frankish Empire, which now doesn't exist.
And Al-Aqwitain is Islamic France (especially as the area wouldn't really be part of France for a good few hundred years OTL anyway ;))

Geekhis Khan

December 2nd, 2009, 12:05 PM

I was thinking Al-Aquitane for Islamic France.

Faranj = Franks (literally), so perhaps al Faranj is Neustria/Austrasia while al Aquitane is southern Gaul?

Edit: just missed your post, Prof. That's along the lines I'm thinking now.

The Professor

December 2nd, 2009, 12:10 PM

Any thoughts on this map?

Quite interesting.
Also looks like the Burgundians are in prime position for an ATL Reconquista :cool:.

I'm torn between having Islamic Norseman and not.
My gut says that they'll adopt Christianity but make it a distinct branch of their own - neither Catholic or Orthodox - and with lots of Islamic and Pagan influence (more so than OTL anyway).

EDIT: no worries GK I thought that when thinking up names but luckily didn't post it before my memory came back!

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 12:40 PM

Quite interesting.
Also looks like the Burgundians are in prime position for an ATL Reconquista :cool:.

I'm torn between having Islamic Norseman and not.
My gut says that they'll adopt Christianity but make it a distinct branch of their own - neither Catholic or Orthodox - and with lots of Islamic and Pagan influence (more so than OTL anyway).

EDIT: no worries GK I thought that when thinking up names but luckily didn't post it before my memory came back!

Burgundy looks strong now but Al-Avrup is going through somewhat of an internal power struggle during the recent period but once they bounce back from this one, Burgundy has BIG problems. Moreover, the Burgundians would probably take advantage of the weakening Frankish centre to strengthen their own independence. I could see the Islamic lords of Europe being very helpful in such a move ...maybe Burgundy becomes like Georgia, a Christian allied to an Islamic power what do you guys think?

Geekhis Khan

December 2nd, 2009, 01:35 PM

I like the Georgia analog idea, s24g.

It's good to see *Realpolitik trends at work in keeping with OTL Iberia rather than the typical AH.com assumption of "United Christian Crusade against the Infidels" in any Islamowank scenario. Hmm...now I'm curious how and if Papal "Crusades" happen ATL and how organized such events would be without a solid Frankish Empire or strong Catholic church...

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 01:50 PM

Valdemar II

December 2nd, 2009, 01:57 PM

Why would the Frankish and Danish kings have a cordial relationship if they both have interests in conquering Saxony? Maybe Franks conquer part of the south while the Danes conquer part of the north?

E#xactly because the Saxons are common enemies for both, for Denmark Saxony are a threat to it dominance over the Wends, while for the Franks the Saxons are a constant nuisance while they try to deal with the Moors.

Why I was thinking about Neustria was that with Neustria being a frontier March against Muslim aggression, it would be weaker than OTL and the Vikingr would have an easier time in pushing into what is now Normandy. Moreover I was thinking that the Vikingr would take advantage of the warfare between the Muslims and the Christians to fight on both sides in Neustria, craving out a sizeable chunk of independent territory for themselves.

I think in many way Neustria are going to be less tempting target, it has less riches, the Franks has heavy fortified it, and much of the former serfhood has been replaced by free yeomens with martial training. It's simply a less tewmpting target than OTL Neustria.

In terms of a Norman Islamic territorium, it sounds like an interesting idea but where? Anjou? Near Bordeaux? In Portugal?

I though about Portugal, but my guess are near Bordeaux are more likely, because it farther away from the central power, and most of the local rulers are already of barbarian (Frankish) descent.

You know I kinda imagined that Frisia would be more or less semi-independent for much of the 8th century, fighting a lot of little wars for liberty until finally breaking free in the early 9th century thanks to the Vikingr incursions into Francia and a weak Frankish monarch. Any thoughts?

I think they will likely be free but in the long term they're going down, of course Dithmarschen stayed mostly autonome until the 16th century, so we could see Frisia evolve the same way. Through they may have to swear fealthy to the Frankish kings by the 11th century at latest.

steven24gordon

December 2nd, 2009, 02:25 PM

E#xactly because the Saxons are common enemies for both, for Denmark Saxony are a threat to it dominance over the Wends, while for the Franks the Saxons are a constant nuisance while they try to deal with the Moors.

[

I think in many way Neustria are going to be less tempting target, it has less riches, the Franks has heavy fortified it, and much of the former serfhood has been replaced by free yeomens with martial training. It's simply a less tewmpting target than OTL Neustria.

I though about Portugal, but my guess are near Bordeaux are more likely, because it farther away from the central power, and most of the local rulers are already of barbarian (Frankish) descent.

I think they will likely be free but in the long term they're going down, of course Dithmarschen stayed mostly autonome until the 16th century, so we could see Frisia evolve the same way. Through they may have to swear fealthy to the Frankish kings by the 11th century at latest.

In terms of a Viking territorium: Portugal? Possible but I was thinking about a Berber breakaway state in Portugal and Estremadura(where the Berbers were always strong) Near Bordeaux? Again possible but I thinking that the centre of power in Al-Avrup would shift northward to be near the frontier armies and maintain a watch on the cities of the old Roman provinces of Provence and of Narbonenus. I was thinking maybe Toulouse or Narbon. Now of course this will cause problems with the old centre in the Guadalquivir Basin, and we could see a "Tulunides/Egypt" scenario develop in which the governor of Al-Andalus creates a semi-independent emirate centred at Córdoba. Any thoughts?

steven24gordon

December 3rd, 2009, 06:09 AM

In the pillared halls of Rome, the Islamic victories in Gaul gripped the faithful with a sense of the coming Apocalypse and the End of Days. But the Pope was more concerned with local affairs than the rising power of Islam: the enemies at his Gates were not the Islamic “horde” but the power-hungry Lombardi. This was nothing new, for decades the Lombardi Dukes and Kings had been fighting the Papacy and the Pope’s temporal “sovereign” the Byzantine Emperor for control of the Italian peninsula. However, the Byzantines had been distracted from their Italian adventures for years and their hold on the peninsula had deteriorated to a few fortified towns and cities along the southern and eastern coast. By the mid 8th century, this decline had reached critical point as the situation in the East forced the Empire to all but abandon Italia.

But far worse than their declining strength was the Byzantine attitude towards the Papacy: in the mind of the Basileus the Pope was a servant like any other and should takes his cues from the Emperor. The Papacy had been fighting this sort of thing since the 6th century but lately the relationship between Emperor and Pope had become even more complicated with the rise of the Iconoclasm in Byzantium (which had become imperial doctrine). In order to avoid committing themselves to the unpopular (in the West at least) commendation of images of Christ, the Papacy desperately sought other alliances in Bavaria, Burgundy and Francia. However, the Christian lords of these European kingdoms had their own problems (fighting against pagans, against each other and against the Islamic invaders of southern Gaul) and the help they sent (when they sent any) was insignificant to drive back the Lombardi threat.

Despite these difficulties the Papacy managed to hold the Lombardi at bay for some time (diplomacy is a wonderful thing). But then came that fateful day in 756: Ravenna itself is besieged, and after cutting off the city’s water supply, the Lombardi stormed the key Italian stronghold of the Empire pushing the Ramaoi into the sea. After the collapse of the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Pope Stephen II desperately organised the defence of Rome but against the overwhelming might of the Lombardi King Aistulf there is no reprieve: the Eternal City falls to the Lombardi assault in 758 and Stephen escapes into the last significant Byzantine stronghold in Italy (Apulia). Here he attempts to maintain his control over Western Europe’s Christian faithful but many in the Christian West refuse to accept his Papacy due to his tacit support of Iconoclasm (a necessary condition of Byzantine support).

Securing Rome, Aistulf organises a council of bishops who are prepared to accept Lombardi domination of the capital of Western Christendom. After much deliberation this council proclaimsits own Pope, a devoted Iconodule, to stand in stark contrast to the ‘heretical’ Byzantines. To this new appointment there is a mix reaction, some accept the new Pope but a few refuse to acknowledge this ‘Lombardi’ Pontiff, seeing him as a mere marionette of a secular prince. Christian unity throughout the West was tragically weakened by this ecumenical power vacuum and increasingly the clergy gain great independence from Rome. Many abandon the cruel politics of the world all together, seeking to isolate themselves in monasteries where they could pray and await the Day of Judgement. As the Church fragmented, missionary activity among the Germans began to wane and the European monarchs sought the opportunity to bring their clergy more firmly under their thumb.

For Aistulf, who increasingly donned the regalia of Western Emperors after their capture of Rome (including the title ‘Patrician of the Romans’), the Iconoclast Stephen was only a minor annoyance compared to the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. The Lombardi notables of the southern duchies had never tolerated lightly the overlordship of their northern sovereigns and after the ‘Fall of Rome’ Desiderius sought to centralise his government, attacking their former independence. As a result of this (as well as Byzantine encouragement) civil war soon erupted after his death. However despite these civil conflicts, Byzantium was never able to effectively threaten a re-conquest of her lost territories or stem the Lombardi advance despite her clever politics.
For Italia, the Empire had no resources to spare for she was stretched as it was: the Abbasids were sabre-rattling along the Asia Minor border; Muslim pirates were raiding Sicily and Greece; rebellious factions abounded at court and worst of all Bulgarians threatened the very gates of Constantinople. In Despite losing all realistic hope of reinstalling a Papacy loyal to Constantinople, the Byzantines continued to oppose the Lombardi Pope.

steven24gordon

December 4th, 2009, 11:53 AM

Tyranny, cruel and perfidious, brings its own punishment. The tyrant may force submission, but he cannot compel the devotion of his people, and the empire that is won by the sword must be sustained by the same weapon. Honest men refused to enter into the service of a lord who could betray and slay as did Desiderius the King of the Lombards; his old supporters, those who had first welcomed him to the throne, now turned coldly away when they saw the tyrant in his naked cruelty; his own relations, who had flocked over to his Court, found his despotism so intolerable that they plotted again and again to depose him...”
-Ibn-Hayyān, Islamic historian and teacher, lecturing his class on Marinus’ Kings of Christendom

steven24gordon

December 5th, 2009, 10:03 AM

Prior to his death, and with the consent of the Frankish nobles and the bishops presented with him, Dagobert divided up his kingdom between his two sons. To Grifo he gave the primary Frankish territory of Austrasia and guardian of the Eastern Marches against the pagans while to Pippin he gave what was left of Frankish Burgundy and Aquitaine as well as much of Neustria (although a portion of that territory went to Grifo). The reign of Dagobert had been a moment of great success for the Franks and in his last years this unconquerable Frankish warlord had even able exploit infighting in Al-Andalus toinvade Al-Aquitane and besiege Toulouse. And it was hoped by some, including the prominent author and exiled Visigoth Theodemir (who wrote A History of the Goths), that his sons would launch a re-conquest of old Frankish territory and restore the borders of Christendom.

Certainly the prospects for such an enterprise looked good. The Western Abbasid Caliphate was critically unstable at this point –Berberunrest (this was a time when a number of ‘messianic’ figures among the Berbers inspire revolts among their brethren –Salīh ibn Tārif in Western Morocco is a good example) erupted throughout North Africa, Spain and southern Gaul. Perhaps even more problematic were the junds (army factions) although willing to accept Abbasid lordship were fundamentally opposed to any attempt to reduce their powers of taxation and their place within Iberian and now Gallic society. Moreover, the governors sent from Ifrīqīya (Arabic for North Africa) were unpopular and ineffective.

However, the period of co-existence of the two kings, which lasted from 771 to 782, could not be described as a success: it seemed that both sovereigns disputed Frankish Aquitania at the same time as the Duke Waiofar (backed by the wali –Islamic governor of Al-Aquitane) was rebelling against Frankish overlordship. While distracted by their own petty politics, the Frankish kings ignored important developments in the Islamic South: in 774, after winning a string of victories along the Rhône, ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn ibn Habīb al-Fihrī gained a prominent military command in Al-Narbonenus and then Al-Aquitane. Soon after his time in Provence, Ibn Habīb turned back Frankish forces bent on raiding Bordeaux. Winning popularity among the Arab aristocracy from this victory, Ibn Habīb easily unseated his Abbasid master (the governor of Al-Andalus) after the latter failed to crush a revolt by the lords of Zaragoza and Ebro valley. Although Ibn Habīb’s rise to power (and subsequent recognition as governor of Al-Andalus) doesn’t represent a complete break with the Abbasid Caliphate, the end has begun.

The new “native” regime sees the growth of regional autonomy in Iberia and series of defensive wars against the Franks in Gallic Marches where Ibn Habīb spends most his time. Although later historians will paint these wars as essentially ones between religious groups, it is important to understand the politics behind these campaigns. Waiofar colludes with Ibn Habīb against Pippin who is also locked in a protracted cold war with his brother for control of the Frankish Empire. In 778, open war broke out between Pippin and Grifo, and the former ratified a treaty with the Islamic governor, establishing the border between Dar-Islam and Christendom at the Loire with Waiofar getting autonomy (under Islamic sovereignty) in his region of Al-Aquitane. Although Pippin eventually lost the contest with his brother, the time of Islamic weakness had past. In fact Grifo, detesting the Neustrian aristocracy, anchored the Frankish capital at Aachen conceding Aquitania and allowing the Loire borders to stand.

The failure of the Frankish resurgence to take back the lands captured by the Muslims in the early 8th century needs at this point to be explained. The answer lies in the nature of military power in Francia. Control of the Frankish Duchies east of the Rhine had been an important resource for the Merovingians, and the rulers of Austrasia in particular had called upon levies of Saxons, Thuringians and others to assist them in their wars. Failure of Ragenfrid to re-open access to these sources of manpower can explain his losses to the Arabs in the early 8th century. Similarly the failure of Dagobert’s sons to maintain his father precarious hold on levies could also explain their inability to make substantial gains against the armies of Islam.

After defeating his brother Grifo spent much of his subsequent reign fighting pagans in Frisia and Saxonia. However, while campaigns against the Frisians brought success and at least partial control of the region, campaigns along the Lippe proved more difficult with the king able to check Saxon pressure but not make Frankish rule a reality in the area. Having secured peace with his Frankish rival, Ibn Habīb (together with Kairouan) continues naval operations in the Western Mediterranean, raiding Italy and the islands of Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia. After a long and on occasions glorious rule, Ibn Habīb was buried in Narbon in 784, having secured the power of the Abbasid Caliphate in the West. But his successors were less successful: accused of corruption and weakness they proved an ill-fated legacy for the great man that was ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn ibn Habīb al-Fihrī.

Basileus Giorgios

December 5th, 2009, 11:36 AM

In the pillared halls of Rome, the Islamic victories in Gaul gripped the faithful with a sense of the coming Apocalypse and the End of Days.

As a Byzantine fan, I'm afraid I may be obliged to go for you somewhat over this post. Though I can certainly see the Lombards overunning the Exarchate, and maybe even installing a puppet Pope, I doubt very much that they'd be able to conquer Southern Italy as easily as you have them doing here. Remember, this area had been "Greek" for well over a millenium by this time, and was always very loyal to Constantinople, as was Sicily, at the time, probably the richest and most secure province of the Roman Empire. So here, I doubt that we'd see a Lombard conquest of South Italy, especially since they'll be busy attempting to crush likely Byzantine dissenters in the North, and Constantinople will likely send its ally Venice to harry the Lombards, as it did to good effect when Ravenna briefly fell in 737.

My second point is this; with a POD in the 730s, Irene is unlikely ever to become Empress. Instead, the ruler will be her OTL husband Leo IV, a surprisingly moderate ruler for the time; he was personally an Iconoclast, but was more or less willing to let the Iconodules have free reign to practise whatever religious behaviour they chose. In OTL, Leo died while leading a millitary expedition in 780, but there is no reason to suppose this will happen ITTL. I can see Leo IV as being a consolidatory figure and peacemaker, who will be able to build on the work of his father and grandfather to secure, if not really expand, the borders of the Roman Empire, while at the same time gradually moderating Iconoclasm.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Sorry if I was rude. :)

steven24gordon

December 5th, 2009, 01:43 PM

As a Byzantine fan, I'm afraid I may be obliged to go for you somewhat over this post. Though I can certainly see the Lombards overunning the Exarchate, and maybe even installing a puppet Pope, I doubt very much that they'd be able to conquer Southern Italy as easily as you have them doing here. Remember, this area had been "Greek" for well over a millenium by this time, and was always very loyal to Constantinople, as was Sicily, at the time, probably the richest and most secure province of the Roman Empire. So here, I doubt that we'd see a Lombard conquest of South Italy, especially since they'll be busy attempting to crush likely Byzantine dissenters in the North, and Constantinople will likely send its ally Venice to harry the Lombards, as it did to good effect when Ravenna briefly fell in 737.

My second point is this; with a POD in the 730s, Irene is unlikely ever to become Empress. Instead, the ruler will be her OTL husband Leo IV, a surprisingly moderate ruler for the time; he was personally an Iconoclast, but was more or less willing to let the Iconodules have free reign to practise whatever religious behaviour they chose. In OTL, Leo died while leading a millitary expedition in 780, but there is no reason to suppose this will happen ITTL. I can see Leo IV as being a consolidatory figure and peacemaker, who will be able to build on the work of his father and grandfather to secure, if not really expand, the borders of the Roman Empire, while at the same time gradually moderating Iconoclasm.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Sorry if I was rude. :)

I understand your deep affection for the Byzantine Empire and your desire to see it remain strong and prestigious. However, all my reading on the subject suggests that the Byzantium had its back to the wall at this point and would not be able to defend its last few holdings in Italia from a sustained Lombardi assault. I am also under the impression that Venice was not strong enough –at this stage –to openly challenge this centralising Lombardi state.
That being said I am certainly not an expert on the complex history of Byzantium in the 8th century –although I think it would be difficult to be an expert on this period due to the rather shaky history narrative we have from Byzantine contemporaries –and all suggestions are welcome. Do not feel that I have some cavernous desire to see Byzantium do poorly in this ATL. If you present a convincing counterargument to the concerns I have raised above –or indeed feel strongly about this issue –I will edit the “Italian Troubles” post to allow the Byzantines to keep Apulia.

In terms of Leo IV surviving due to a butterfly in the timestream? I am not sure, I do not usually like to allow the “butterfly affect” too much free reign in my TLs due the sheer unpredictability of those damn beating wings. On the other hand, I am all about the exchange of ideas and comprise. Hey listen if you want to write a section of this TL in which Leo IV survives and we avoid Empress Irene –whose reign could not be described as a bed of roses for Constantinople –I would be more than happy. Just email it to me –for final editing, questions and feedback –and I would love to post it as part of this TL.

And if anyone else would like to contribute, they are more than welcome –subject, of course, to some kind of census with me on key ideas.

And I don’t mind suggestions or criticism. All comments welcome –as long as said suggestion/criticism does not violate the standards of companionship, respect and plausibility that this group (I hope) encourages. I will take all ideas under consideration.

Basileus Giorgios

December 5th, 2009, 01:57 PM

I understand your deep affection for the Byzantine Empire and your desire to see it remain strong and prestigious. However, all my reading on the subject suggests that the Byzantium had its back to the wall at this point and would not be able to defend its last few holdings in Italia from a sustained Lombardi assault. I am also under the impression that Venice was not strong enough –at this stage –to openly challenge this centralising Lombardi state.
That being said I am certainly not an expert on the complex history of Byzantium in the 8th century –although I think it would be difficult to be an expert on this period due to the rather shaky history narrative we have from Byzantine contemporaries –and all suggestions are welcome. Do not feel that I have some cavernous desire to see Byzantium do poorly in this ATL. If you present a convincing counterargument to the concerns I have raised above –or indeed feel strongly about this issue –I will edit the “Italian Troubles” post to allow the Byzantines to keep Apulia.

In terms of Leo IV surviving due to a butterfly in the timestream? I am not sure, I do not usually like to allow the “butterfly affect” too much free reign in my TLs due the sheer unpredictability of those damn beating wings. On the other hand, I am all about the exchange of ideas and comprise. Hey listen if you want to write a section of this TL in which Leo IV survives and we avoid Empress Irene –whose reign could not be described as a bed of roses for Constantinople –I would be more than happy. Just email it to me –for final editing, questions and feedback –and I would love to post it as part of this TL.

Oh you're quite right about the Empire being in a very bad way in the 8th century; had it not been for the exceptional skill and cynicism of Leo III and Constantine V, the Eastern Empire would undoubtedly have gone the way of the Western. Still, I do find it implausible for the Imperial presence to be completely removed from southern Italy; in OTL, it took such an aggressive and powerful foe as the Normans the best part of sixty years to destroy Byzantine Italy; and furthermore, this was in a period where supreme power in Constantinople was largely in incompetent hands. I agree with you that North Italy is likely to fall without too much fuss; but the South is a different matter; it is likely that Constantine V and Leo IV will play all sorts of divide and rule games to maintain at least some Byzantine presence on the coastal strongholds at the very least. PM me if you want to discuss this further. :)

steven24gordon

December 7th, 2009, 07:31 AM

“To go to Rome is great labour and little profit. Thou wilt not find the King that thou goest to seek there unless thou bring Him with thee. It is folly, frenzy, insanity, unreason –since thou goest out to meet certain death –that thou shouldest call down upon thee the wrath of the Son of Mary”

The Codex Boernerianus

Even though the Muslim advance has run out of steam at the Loire (and thus leaving all the great Frankish kingdoms –Burgundy, Neustria and Austrasia –shaken but more or less intact), the damage done to the Catholic Church is incalculable. In the previous century (the 7th century), the Roman Church had seemed to have resurrected itself from the catastrophic events of the 5th (the Gothic Wars, the Plague of Justinian, etc.) and was slowly gaining ground. Into the pagan lands of Germanium, the Church sent missionaries to convert and baptise while representatives of Rome travelled to the kings of Europe to organise the local clergy. But after the Battle of Tours –that bloody contest between Ragenfrid and ‘Anbas –the position of Rome began to weaken. Without a strong Frankish monarchy, the evangeliser Boniface found it impossible to carry on his missionary work in Central Europe and wrote the Pope dire reports of the conditions in the North. But fortunately for this English preacher, he died before the real decline began. After Boniface’s death in 745, the position of Rome began to deteriorate rapidly: the Lombardi wars of conquest, the Iconoclasm of Constantinople, the anti-popes and the further weakening of the Frankish monarchy all undermined Rome’s capacity to project her power northward. But if the Papacy had dropped the ball (so to speak) what happens now? Who picks up the slack?

In many ways, this timeline is inspired and informed by Arnold J. Toynbee’s essay: “The Forfeited Birthright of the Abortive Far Western Christian Civilisation” in which he postulates a similar set of circumstances (Islamic armies break the Franks in Aquitaine and advance to the Loire). So what does the Great Master of History Himself have to say about such as an alternative history of Europe?

Toynbee –“The Forfeited Birthright of the Abortive Far Western Christian Civilisation”:
“The first effect would have been once again to isolate the Far Western Christendom of the British Isles from the Roman Church –as it had been isolated once before, three centuries earlier –by the interposition of an alien society. In this respect, the Muslim Arabs in Southern Gaul would have preformed the same function as the pagan English in Eastern Britain; only, this time, the barrier would have been drawn along a line which would have given a much greater geographical advantage to the Far Western embryo of a nascent Western Civilisation than to its Roman competitor. In the first place, the Western Church would assuredly have retrieved the defeat which it had suffered at Whitby half a century earlier, and would have drawn the English, as well as the Irish and the Welsh and the Bretons, into its fold. In the second place, the Far Western Church would then almost certainly have captured from the Roman Church the whole existing and surviving extent of Continental Northern European Christendom. The country between the Loire and the Rhine was already honeycombed with Irish monastic cells; and in AD 732 the Irish missionaries in the Continental pagan marches of the day –Frisia and Hesse and Thuringia and Bavaria –had not yet been suppressed by the English Romanising interloper Boniface.”

While I think that Master Toynbee (perhaps) lets his admiration for Celtic Christianity run away with him a bit, how in good consciousness could I ignore direction from the most eminent historian of the 20th century? And therefore I offer to you –my dear audience – a dramatic turning point in world history: that of a Celtic Church triumphant in Britain! As the Catholic bishops of Orthodox Christianity convene in Councils and squabble and grow divisive over which enfeebled Pope to acknowledge, the monasteries of the Irish multiply still further and grew bolder. The lords of Northumbria welcome back the Irish to their courts and the Pictish Kings threw out their Catholic preachers in favour of their Celtic brethren. Letters poured forth from the articulate hands of Irish monks to criticise the Popes for their deference to either the Lombardi Kings or in other matters the Romaoi Emperor and finally accusing the Papacy of appearing “as a heretic and rejected with scorn by the Churches of the West”.

And where does it go from here? Again we turn to the words of that paramount scholar Toynbee:
“And we imagine Irish scholars, with their lively intellectual curiosity and their restless Wanderlust, resorting to the seats of Arabic learning –not merely to Cordova but to distant Baghdad and Samarqand –and bringing back a knowledge of Aristotle, not to Oxford or to Paris but to Clonmacnois: the metropolitan university of a Western World which looks for intellectual light to Ireland. Assuredly these active and brilliant Irishmen would have acquired this precious knowledge from the Arabs at least three centuries earlier than the date at which it was actually conveyed from Toledo to Paris by the stolid descendants of Charles Martel’s Franks who have deflected the course of our Western history for ever, but perhaps not for good, by refusing to accept defeat at Tours at the hands of ‘Abd-ar-Rahmā’s Arabs!”

steven24gordon

December 7th, 2009, 07:45 AM

Oh you're quite right about the Empire being in a very bad way in the 8th century; had it not been for the exceptional skill and cynicism of Leo III and Constantine V, the Eastern Empire would undoubtedly have gone the way of the Western. Still, I do find it implausible for the Imperial presence to be completely removed from southern Italy; in OTL, it took such an aggressive and powerful foe as the Normans the best part of sixty years to destroy Byzantine Italy; and furthermore, this was in a period where supreme power in Constantinople was largely in incompetent hands. I agree with you that North Italy is likely to fall without too much fuss; but the South is a different matter; it is likely that Constantine V and Leo IV will play all sorts of divide and rule games to maintain at least some Byzantine presence on the coastal strongholds at the very least. PM me if you want to discuss this further. :)

On the advice of Basileus Giorgios, please note changes in the Italian Troubles post. I appreciate the feedback.

steven24gordon

December 9th, 2009, 09:01 AM

“The reign of Leo IV (775-798) the Khazar is difficult to piece together as the sources of information relating to it are very sparse, and come to us principally in the form of the relevant entries in the Chronicles attributed to abbot Theopanes of Megas Argos in the north-west Asia Minor (d. 818). However, Theopanes is by no means a friendly witness. Deeply hostile to the policies of Leo III and Constantine V, he seems to have tried to paint Leo IV as an emperor consistently antagonistic towards Iconoclasm. However, on the contrary, it would appear that Leo IV (perhaps influenced by his second wife Theophanu) was merely more tolerant of Iconophiles than his predecessors. From this vantage point Leo’s repealing of some of Constantine V's iconoclast legislation can be seen as a conciliatory gesture to the Iconophiles not a rejection of Iconoclasm itself. Certainly there are several documented cases in which courtiers were executed for the veneration of icons, although this may have been done to appease certain factions within the army. Indeed, the actions of Leo’s successor, his son Constantine VI, need here to be divorced from those of his father. It is clear that…”

“…we should approach Theophanes’ account of Leo’s military affairs with equal caution. His annalistic account of the emperor’s campaigns is fairly brief, and Theophanes lent himself to the dramatic in support of Leo. His description of the Battle of Iconium, for example, is fairly detailed (considering his recording of other events) and superbly poetic but it has been suggested that he over exaggerates Leo’s victory over the Arabs. Certainly, if the forces of Harun al-Rashid were crushed so decisively, we would not find Leo fighting back Arab invasions in the military themes of Anatolikon and Cibyrrhaeot. And there is, as yet, no evidence to back up Theophanes’ claim that Leo pillaged Arab Cilicia or evacuate Christian communities there after Iconium.
Nor can we so readily believe Theophanes’ brief descriptions of Leo’s victories against the Bulgars. While a successful Byzantine campaign might have taken place in 780 and 782, it is clear that by the early 790s (at the latest) the Bulgars were active again (as is demonstrated by their sacking of Thessalonica). Certainly the Bulgars were an active element in the revolt of Heraklonas, although Theophanes blames the revolt solely on Leo’s support for the Iconophiles (an assertion we must also treat with caution). Both this abortive rebellion and the continuing wars with the Arabs (which intensified in the late 790s) forced the emperor to make significant concessions to the Bulgars (including the marriage of his daughter to the Bulgar Khan). Interestingly, this marriage served as the focal point for later claims by the Bulgar Khans to…”

“No doubt Leo IV was a good emperor (or at least a partially successful one), and he is credited with preserving the integrity of the Byzantine state when it seemed that the walls were caving in. However, as outlined above, many problems remain in the interpretation of the events of his reign and their causes, which in the absolute absence of the necessary evidence will probably never be fully understood.”

-Wu Zetian, Chang’an University (Part of Lecture Series #14-1).

(This latest post was joint venture between myself and Basileus Giorgios, that great historian of the Byzantine Empire)

steven24gordon

December 9th, 2009, 09:09 AM

History will record the character of the Abbasid Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd with a mixture of admiration and disappointment. Haroun’s time was a golden age, but it was also one of violence and internal conflict: even as the Caliph pursued his holy war against the Byzantines, a treacherous spirit of independence spread like a disease among his territories causing men to challenge his divine will for their own glory. Nowhere was this pestilence stronger than in the lands of Islamic Europe. Haroun’s senior wali (governor) in this barbarous land, Hisham (wali of Al-Andalus),was too hard-pressed by the disloyalty of independent-minded Berbers and the junds (Arabic army factions) to keep his seditious counterparts in Al-Narbonenus (Mediterranean lowlands of Gaul) and Al-Aquitane(southwest Gaul) in check. The governor of Al-Narbonenus, known as Almanzor (Arabic –“the Victorious by the Grace of God”), in particularenjoyed a harboured a lust for glory and power that surpassed other men.
But behind every strong man, it is said, there is an even stronger woman and for Almanzor that woman was Hildebründ queen of the semi-independent kingdom of Burgundy. In 787, the Frankish warlord Lothair sought to unite Burgundy with his lands in Neustria and Austrasia, declaring war on his brother (the son of Hildebründ). Seeking aid against her bitter rival the Christian queen, forsaking the bonds of Frankish unity, pledged an alliance between herself and Almanzor. The decision proved a good one: her Islamic ally displayed not only a keen eye for tactics but a sheer tenacity for victory. In a series of bloody battles on the Rhône, Lothair tasted defeat after defeat and was eventually abandoned his ambitious hope of a claiming Burgundy.

Flushed with his victory in Burgundy, Almanzor received a message from the lords of Zaragoza and the Ebro valley in 794. Growing tired of the vulgar rule of Hisham, who had been trying to centralise his authority in Al-Andalus to the detriment of the junds, they were ready to rebel and proclaim Almanzor Malik (king). Gathering his allies (which included numerous mercenaries and adventurers drawn from Burgundy and the Alpine cantons), Almanzor moved his army southward, pausing to defeat loyalist forces at Nîmes, before entering the Iberian Peninsula and joining with his Spanish allies. Meeting the rebel near the Ebro, Hisham’s own heavy cavalry proved formidable but Suleyman’s employed a “wall of steel” – trained Gallicinfantry –that broke their charge. After two days of savage fighting, the army of Hishamwere routed and forced to retreat in disarray.
In the aftermath of the battle Almanzor journeyed north to secure his northern flank against the loyalist governor of Al-Aquitane, while his rival, Hisham, tried to raise a new army. However, Almanzor had declared himself in favour of decentralised governance, attracting the support of the Iberian junds, and Hisham’s efforts floundered. He sent word to the Muhallabid dynasty (rulers of Ifrīqīya –North Africa) asking for aid but they were too preoccupied with their problems (rebellious Berbers) to offer the wali anything more than emotional support. Hopelessly outmatched Hisham is again defeated when Almanzor (having subjugated the governorof Al-Aquitane) crosses into southern Iberia. Fearful of his possible crucifixion, the last Abbasid-appointed governor of Al-Andalus abandons Spain for safer climes in North Africa in 798.

Almanzor now sent messengers to Abbasid Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd, and through long negotiations the Caliph agreed to recognise Almanzor as rule of the Al-Avrup(with hereditary rights to the office) in exchange for tribute. Although criticised by later historians, it is difficult to see what else could have been done: the Abbasid Caliph was at the time pre-occupied with more local problems and the most possible staging ground for military action against Almanzor – Ifrīqīya –was unstable. Almanzor subsequently assumed the title Emir of Al-Avrup.But despitethis grandiose endorsement, Almanzor knew the precarious nature of his position: the real rulers of Islamic Europe were the local strongmen, the junds, whose passions could easily turn against him. He would have to challenge their destructive energies away from internal conflict and possible insurrection towards some more noble purpose. Luckily enough, such a noble purpose did exist: jihad.
While Francia seemed to the Arabs of Europe a proverbial wasteland and the Germanic forests of the North abounding with nothing more valuable than hairy barbarians, a short journey from the fertile fields of Al-Narbonenus was Italia. The Italian Peninsula still possessed the veneer of civilisation, and despite the long years of war and carnage, still harboured cities worthy of plunder, pillage and conversion to the true faith. Moreover Rome was in Italia, the Holy City of Peter and Paul, and the focal point for the only international organisation capable of resisting the Islamic conquest of Europe. Oh sure, the vicious infighting between Lombards-Byzantines had kept the Church disunited but how long could that last? No Italia had to fall, and Almanzor returning to his more secure powerbase at Narbon, began to ready his army for conquest.

In 804 the Emir’s army crossed the Alps into Lombardy –accompanied by numerous Christian mercenaries –and challenged the Lombard King for the sovereignty of Italy and the heart of Christendom. What followed at the Battle of Alessandria (as it was to be later called) was perhaps Almanzor’s finest hour: his Arabic knights outflank their inferior Lombardi counterparts and the enemy infantry, cut off from their King Sigipert, was massacred as they fled. In a single engagement Lombardi kingship in northern Italy was struck down: soon afterwards Pavia was placed under siege while Sigipert fled to gather his forces. As the spectre of Islam cast its shadow over Italy, the Lombardi Pope Theodo offered a last pray to a frightened populace...

Geekhis Khan

December 9th, 2009, 04:16 PM

King Gorilla

December 9th, 2009, 05:47 PM

I wonder how long it will be before the first Bulgar khan adopts the title of Tsar.

It will be interesting to see the the fate of rome and the italian peninsula. While it would be perhaps the richest prize in Al-avrup, there is the matter of holding onto one's gains as in OTL the kings of france and germany were often rather quickly deprived of their italian holdings.

If rome falls, it will probably mean the death of the papacy, and its conversion to just another patriarchy. I'd imagine the Frankish and German kings would use its fall to as an opportunity to promote their own bishops, and in effect create state churches.

If it holds out due to some miracle, the it will give the papacy its first real boost in years. Its salvation would be declared a miracle, it will slowly begin to regain its influence amongst the western kings, and will when the time arrives, begin to slowly inch away from Constantinople again.

Incidentally I'm wondering if syncretic elements will begin to appear in "Frankish" Islam as conversions gradual begin to occur. Wine will probably continue to be consumed in great quantities, (not that religious restrictions have ever done much to eliminate vice) christ's importance as a prophet will be mostly be emhapsized, and perhaps mary's as well.

Valdemar II

December 9th, 2009, 06:38 PM

Basileus Giorgios

December 9th, 2009, 06:53 PM

Valdemar II

December 9th, 2009, 07:15 PM

In terms of a Viking territorium: Portugal? Possible but I was thinking about a Berber breakaway state in Portugal and Estremadura(where the Berbers were always strong) Near Bordeaux? Again possible but I thinking that the centre of power in Al-Avrup would shift northward to be near the frontier armies and maintain a watch on the cities of the old Roman provinces of Provence and of Narbonenus. I was thinking maybe Toulouse or Narbon. Now of course this will cause problems with the old centre in the Guadalquivir Basin, and we could see a "Tulunides/Egypt" scenario develop in which the governor of Al-Andalus creates a semi-independent emirate centred at Córdoba. Any thoughts?

Sorry for my late answer (I was sure I had answered this one:confused:).

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea "Norman" state in Portugal, maybe it could be establish with "Norman"* as kind of Confederalis, which keep the Berber in line and keep raiders out. Mixing Iberian, Arabic and Norse warfare are going to be interesting, my guess are that they develop a style which lay weight on mobility and skirmishing, making them efficient warriors in North Africa, Iberia and South Italy (Muslim Norman state in South Italy:p).

*I unsure about the name, Norman make sense but it of French origin, more likely we a Arabisation/Iberisation of "Dane".

steven24gordon

December 10th, 2009, 08:49 AM

Oh man! Jihad in Italy! Gettin' mighty juicy here! :D

Will the possibility of Islamic "Heretics" taking Rome bring the Lombards and Byzantines together?

"Interestingly, this marriage served as the focal point for later claims by the Bulgar Khans to…”

Tease... :p

I don't see immediate Byzantine help during the early 9th century. The Bulgars are still a problem and there is still significant Iconoclast tension that weakens the state. The way I see it: Constantine VI has a lot of problems with unruly Bulgars and sends only token support to the Lombards while he concentrates on strengthening his grip on his northern interlopers. Besides the Byzantines may be happy to see the northern cities in Italia decay under the jihad while shoring up their own control over southern Italy and its Lombardi dukes. However from the early 840s onwards I was thinking that Byzantine influence in the peninsula would grow (especially in the south and maybe in the centre) as the Lombardi become more dependent on the Byzantines for military aid. In the long-run this would mean the Papacy recognizing Constantinople as its spiritual superior but it is either that or face destruction. Just some initial thoughts, what do you guys think?

steven24gordon

December 10th, 2009, 08:58 AM

Interesting work; with the Bulgars ITTL much more firmly integrated into the Byzantine world due to Imperial marriages, I wonder if this will become something of a "permanent feature" for peace; with the daughters of Khans marrying Byzantine Caesars, and Imperial princesses marrying the sons of Khans. Either way, I'd expect this daughter of Leo IV to be an active missionary amongst the Bulgarians.

What's going to happen with the Magyars ITTL? If, as I suspect, the Bulgars have converted to Christianity by this point, and the Islamic world stretches east into Germany, could we see Christian Magyars launching wars of "reclamation" into Islamic Europe?

An interesting idea regarding the daughters of Khans marrying Byzantine Caesars although I think the imperial desire of the Caesars to subjugate Bulgaria may override any long-term alliance. Here is a thought (albeit a rather crazy one) maybe we could evolve the title: Emperor of the Romans and Bulgars with Bulgaria playing the Scotland to Byzantine’s England. But since it was your suggestion that sparked this ATL event, I am going to seek your council and approval of all aspects of Byzantium in this ATL. So what are your thoughts on this issue?

On the Magyars, hmmm…. While the Magyars only turn up at the end of the 9th century so we still have some time until we get to them. However, I think the Magyars "crusader" spirit will be tempered by the Bavarians who would be none too pleased with a Magyar "crusader" army marching through their territory. Moreover, the Magyars would be more inclined to war with the Bavarians or the Bulgars than trek out against Islamic Europe. On the other hand, France, Germany and England joined together (well not really but sorta) to send out a crusade against the Muslim East, so what do you guys think?

steven24gordon

December 10th, 2009, 09:02 AM

The Professor

December 10th, 2009, 12:42 PM

I don't see immediate Byzantine help during the early 9th century. The Bulgars are still a problem and there is still significant Iconoclast tension that weakens the state. The way I see it: Constantine VI has a lot of problems with unruly Bulgars and sends only token support to the Lombards while he concentrates on strengthening his grip on his northern interlopers. Besides the Byzantines may be happy to see the northern cities in Italia decay under the jihad while shoring up their own control over southern Italy and its Lombardi dukes. However from the early 840s onwards I was thinking that Byzantine influence in the peninsula would grow (especially in the south and maybe in the centre) as the Lombardi become more dependent on the Byzantines for military aid. In the long-run this would mean the Papacy recognizing Constantinople as its spiritual superior but it is either that or face destruction. Just some initial thoughts, what do you guys think?

An interesting idea regarding the daughters of Khans marrying Byzantine Caesars although I think the imperial desire of the Caesars to subjugate Bulgaria may override any long-term alliance. Here is a thought (albeit a rather crazy one) maybe we could evolve the title: Emperor of the Romans and Bulgars with Bulgaria playing the Scotland to Byzantine’s England. But since it was your suggestion that sparked this ATL event, I am going to seek your council and approval of all aspects of Byzantium in this ATL. So what are your thoughts on this issue?

These do fit in with what I think but BG is the Byz expert here ;)

On the Magyars, hmmm…. While the Magyars only turn up at the end of the 9th century so we still have some time until we get to them. However, I think the Magyars "crusader" spirit will be tempered by the Bavarians who would be none too pleased with a Magyar "crusader" army marching through their territory. Moreover, the Magyars would be more inclined to war with the Bavarians or the Bulgars than trek out against Islamic Europe. On the other hand, France, Germany and England joined together (well not really but sorta) to send out a crusade against the Muslim East, so what do you guys think?

The Bavarians may also recruit the Magyars to do so in order to divert them from attacking them; they'll play the role that the French/Frankish nobles did in leading the crusades.

My thinking was to have Almanzor the ‘Conquer’ (after a long and eventful rule) capture Genoa and much of northwest Italia but be unable to do anything but raid the rest of Italia. Your right about the French and the Germans, and I don’t think Almanzor has much opportunity to conquer all of Italia. Any thoughts?
Seems reasonable.
What are your thoughts after Almanzor's death? Do we get a bunch of successor states who resist Al-Andalus reoccupation?

steven24gordon

December 10th, 2009, 02:25 PM

Sorry for my late answer (I was sure I had answered this one:confused:).

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea "Norman" state in Portugal, maybe it could be establish with "Norman"* as kind of Confederalis, which keep the Berber in line and keep raiders out. Mixing Iberian, Arabic and Norse warfare are going to be interesting, my guess are that they develop a style which lay weight on mobility and skirmishing, making them efficient warriors in North Africa, Iberia and South Italy (Muslim Norman state in South Italy:p).

*I unsure about the name, Norman make sense but it of French origin, more likely we a Arabisation/Iberisation of "Dane".

You know I was thinking that the Danes get Portugal and Gascony, whereupon these Danish settlers get co-opted into the military system of Al-Avrup. These Danes would be kinda like military adventurers, fighting overall Europe (including Iberia, Sicily and maybe central and southern Italia). I think they might blunt their axes on North Africa though due to fierce Berber resistance (although they might take Ceuta). Any thoughts?

Since the Danes would be employed in other parts of Europe, maybe the Frisians could take control of Normandy (New Frisia? Frisiandy?) as a breakaway state or maybe part of the Frankish Empire. On the other hand, maybe the Franks hang onto the whole area. Thoughts on a Frisian Normandy? Moreover, since the Danes may be kept busy on the continent (especially if they colonize Saxony), we might get a pure Anglo-Saxon dynasty ruling Britain in the 11th century. Thoughts?

Does anyone have any idea what we would call Arabised Danes?

steven24gordon

December 10th, 2009, 02:31 PM

These do fit in with what I think but BG is the Byz expert here ;)

The Bavarians may also recruit the Magyars to do so in order to divert them from attacking them; they'll play the role that the French/Frankish nobles did in leading the crusades.

Seems reasonable.
What are your thoughts after Almanzor's death? Do we get a bunch of successor states who resist Al-Andalus reoccupation?

Not sure about the Magyars we have to cross that bridge when we get there. In terms of Italia, I was thinking that Islam lays claim to Genoa but fails to take Milan. The aftermath is a board Italian anti-Islamic coalition in the north against future invasion (kind of like the Delphi League with maybe Venice as Athens?). However the 9th century is going one of big problems for Italy -North Africans are going to invade Sicily and southern Italia, Muslims in Corsica and Sardinia will launch raids on central Italia and Islamic armies from France will march over the Alps into the northern plains. It is going to be chaos...

Basileus Giorgios

December 10th, 2009, 03:50 PM

An interesting idea regarding the daughters of Khans marrying Byzantine Caesars although I think the imperial desire of the Caesars to subjugate Bulgaria may override any long-term alliance. Here is a thought (albeit a rather crazy one) maybe we could evolve the title: Emperor of the Romans and Bulgars with Bulgaria playing the Scotland to Byzantine’s England. But since it was your suggestion that sparked this ATL event, I am going to seek your council and approval of all aspects of Byzantium in this ATL. So what are your thoughts on this issue?

On the Magyars, hmmm…. While the Magyars only turn up at the end of the 9th century so we still have some time until we get to them. However, I think the Magyars "crusader" spirit will be tempered by the Bavarians who would be none too pleased with a Magyar "crusader" army marching through their territory. Moreover, the Magyars would be more inclined to war with the Bavarians or the Bulgars than trek out against Islamic Europe. On the other hand, France, Germany and England joined together (well not really but sorta) to send out a crusade against the Muslim East, so what do you guys think?

I suggested the Magyars going for Islamic rather than Christian Europe because I suspect Islamic Europe will be far richer pickings than Christian Europe ever could be, especially since ITTL Christendom will be much more eastern centred, and the Byzantines were always strong enough to repel Magyar attacks. If Muslim Europe breaks up as the Islamic world did in OTL in the ninth and tenth centuries, then the Christianised Magyars will be in ideal position to strike repeatedly, perhaps after bringing the other Christian powers into their orbit?

Regarding a Byzantine/Bulgarian match, this doesn't seem like too bad an idea to me. In my own TL, the technical title for the Emperor is "Basileus of the Romans and of the Bulgarians", and I can't see why this is particuarly implausible. Perhaps Bulgaria south of the Danube will be fully integrated into the Empire, while the parts of the Bulgarian Khanate that make up modern Romania will become a sort of vassal buffer state?

steven24gordon

December 15th, 2009, 08:25 AM

“Almanzor was kind-hearted and well disposed to mercy. He was eloquent in his speech, and endowed with a quick perception. He was very slow in his determinations, but constant and preserving in carrying them into effect. He was active and stirring; he would never lie in repose, or abandon himself to indulgence. He never entrusted the affairs of government to any one, but administered them himself; yet he never failed to consult in cases of difficulty the men of wisdom and experience. He was a brave and intrepid warrior, always the first in the battle-filed; terrible in his anger, and intolerant of opposition: his countenance inspired awe in those who approached him, friends and foes alike. He was wont to follow biers and pray over the dead, and in the mosque on Fridays he would enter the pulpit and address the people. He visited the sick, and mixed with the people in their rejoicings.”

-Es-Seffāh, poet and favourite at Hisham’s court before he embraced Almanzor

“When the Enemy was in sight, Almanzor gathered together his army, kindled a great fire, and saying that it was now a question of death or victory, flung his scabbard into the flames. His loyal hosts followed their sovereign’s example, in token of their resolution never to sheathe their swords again till they were victorious, and sallying out after their leader, fell upon the Lombards tooth and nail. The armies of Sigipert were utterly annihilated. Then Almanzor, with a ferocity that disfigured him, put the high ranking nobles’ heads in a bag, descriptive labels attached to their ears, and confided the precious parcel to a pilgrim bound for Rome, by whom it was put into the hands of the Pope. When the Holy Priest had seen the contents of the bag, he was very wroth and could not help exclaiming: “I wish there was a sea between this man and me!”

-Yahva, famous historian and teacher of theology at Córdoba, recounting the Battle of Alessandria

“Wonderful is the daring, wisdom and prudence, he has shown! To enter the paths of destruction, throw himself against formidable foes, and cruel tyrants; to make profit by the jealousies of the rival parties, to make them turn their arms against one another instead of against himself; to win the homage and obedience of his subjects; and having overcome every difficulty, to rule supreme lord of all! Of a truth, no man before him has done this!”

-Bedr emissary to the court of Hildebründ Queen of the Burgundians after the capitulation of Pavia

steven24gordon

December 15th, 2009, 09:11 AM

In 806 Almanzor, the self-styled Emir of the Al-Avrup stood poised to destroy that most ancient institution: the Holy ‘Catholic’ Church of the West. His armies had broken through the Maritime Alps, besieging Pavia and terrifying the populace of the most sacred city in all Christendom: Rome. At Milan, the Lombardi King Sigipert sought to raise a new army against his Islamic foes, but the noose around his kingdom was tightening: in 807 Corsica was taken by storm and raids were launched from this island into central Italia. Soon Pavia surrendered to Almanzor and Sigipert’s Milanese army was outclassed and his armies driven back to the gates of Milan. As Sigipert readied the city for a last desperate siege he sent desperate emissaries to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VI pleading for help. But Constantine was busy with wars of his own and besides he was happy to see Lombardi power weakened in the north as this only increased his own strength in the south.

With no relief in sight, one of the city’s more treacherous citizens opened the gates to the Muslims. In the carnage of the storm that followed, and Sigipert fled to a church to seek sanctuary. Almanzor agreed to respect the holiness of the Lombardi king’s asylum but dragged his commanders naked and beaten to the city’s square where they were publicly beheaded. However the Emir did not remain long in Milan, returning west to a new city that Almanzor was founding on the Gulf of Genoa: ‘al-Kahira’ (but not before much of the city's treasure and many of her citizenry were catered off). However in 809 he returned, and this time Almanzor was ready to take his army across the Apennines into Tuscany: Sigipert put a brave defence at the battles of Bolsena and Bracciano but again was defeated and forced to flee to Spoleto. With no army to stop him, the Islamic armies of Al-Avrup beset and swiftly captured the poorly defended city of Rome (which the Pope had chosen to abandon for Spoleto rather than defend).

The ‘Fall of Rome to the Infidel’ had awakened the religious passions of Constantine VI (or at least that is what Theopanes recorded) and the Byzantine fleet under Barbatus was sent to aid the Lombards. The cost of this alliance was a rapprochement between the Western and Eastern Churches which left the issue deftly in Constantinople’s favour. Although final recognition of the superiority of Constantinople over Rome would take another two centuries, the stage had been set. Meanwhile, Almanzorretired across the Apennines (abandoning Rome) to re-organise his forces for a renewed invasion of central Italia. But then tragic news reached the Emir’s camp: Carloman the Bold (the new Frankish king) had broken through the Loire frontier and burnt the Islamic town of Poiters in the name of the Pope and “Christian justice”. Soon Bordeaux and Toulous were threatened with siege. Hemmed on all sides, it seemed that the whole of Christen Europe had joined together in their determination to resist Islamic conquest.

With a heavy heart Almanzor journeyed west to Al-Aquitane (southwest Gaul) to check the Christian invaders, leaving the fate of Islamic Italia in the hands of his sons:Ismā’ȳl and Mūsā. Both were talented commanders but Ismā’ȳl got the lion share’s of the glory when he succeeded in capturing Sardinia (with the aid of the Ibrahim ibn al-Aghlab –the new hereditary ruler of Ifrīqīya). Mūsā, however, was faced with the unglamorous position of a fighting a number of close inconclusive battles against the Venetians under the command of Barbatus and the Duke of Venice.

But while the momentum of the Muslims had been lost, the Christians were not able to eject them from the Gulf of Genoa. In 812Barbatus launched a joint attack into Muslim occupied Lombardy but the Byzantine foolishlyallowed his Muslim enemy to choose the battlefield –an open plain near the Arno River –where a feign retreated became a decisive counterattack, inflicting a bloody defeated on Barbatus.Sigipert died soon after the battle (despite the claims of Es-Seffāh the two events were probably not related) and the new regents of the young Lombardi monarch Aistulf II squabbled with their Byzantine allies as well as amongst themselves. Barbatus was accused of attempting to usurp the Lombardi throne, and Constantineissued for his arrest: not waiting for his trial, the general escapes his captors and was admitted into exile at al-Abbasiya the new capital of Ifrīqīya. And then in 813, another blow to the Christians, Karl “the German” King of Bavaria made a pact with the Muslims (in exchange for much gold) and attackedCarloman’s allies, the Alemanni. Without Bavaria support (and the war-weary Byzantine still reluctant to take chances) the Lombardi were forced to abandon their planned counteroffensive.

But just when the tide was again turning in Almanzor’s favour, Mūsā was murdered (Christian writers accused Ismā’ȳl while their Muslim counterparts suggest Byzantine assassins) in 814. When the Emir, fighting upon the fertile soil of the Massif, heard the news he fell into a deep despair and became ill. It seemed that all those long years of war and suffering were for nothing: his dreams of conquering Italy was slipping away and now the old man realised that it could not be achieved in his lifetime. Some days later he died, and Ismā’ȳl quickly moved to claim his title, abandoning the campaign in Italy. While Ismā’ȳl enjoyed his accession, the Christian lords of Italy continue to busy themselves with their own internal squabbling and the Pope (making the journey back to the ravaged city of Rome) contemplate the finality of History.

steven24gordon

December 15th, 2009, 09:26 AM

“...he made for the Campagna di Roma in preparation for the siege of the ancient city of the Romans, and the cities emptied as he approached, so terrible was the dread he inspired. But nothing could exceed the heroic determination of the defeated Christians; barbarous they were, but they had the courage of men; routed again and again, they ever rose with fresh heart from disaster.”

-Hasdai, personnel physician to Almanzor, on the march to Rome

“And Almanzor and his company succoured Sigipert, and they rode through the host of the Lombards, slaying as they went, and they rode back again in like manner; ten thousand did they kill in this guise. Whenever Almanzor went, the Lombards made a path before him, for he smote them down without mercy.
...and while the battle still continued, our soldiers killed the horse ofSigipert, and his spear was broken, and he fought bravely with his sword afoot. And my lord Almanzor, who rode upon a good horse, gave his horse to the Enemy and bid retire from the field of battle saying you have fought bravely.”

-Sancho of Arles, mercenary, Christian and chronicler of the Battle of Bracciano

“The brave general Mohammed, seeing that the fight was lost, threw himself among the enemy, and died sword in hand. The Venetians had the pitiful cowardice to nail the head of this gallant solider to the gate of their fortress, side by side with that of a pig.”

-Anonymous cavalier and survivor of the Battle of Piave

“...and the Franks fell upon Mus-hafy, and beset him on all sides, giving him many and great blows to beat him down; nevertheless, his arms were proof and they could not pierce them, neither could they beat him down for he was a right brave man and a strong and a good horseman, and of great heart. And when the Sultan saw him thus beset, he called to his people to move on and help. Then placed they their shields before their hearts, and lowered their lances with the streamers thereon, and bending forward, rode on. Five hundred lances were they, each its pendant, and every man at the first charge slew his Frank. Smite them, knights, for the love of charity! cried the Mus-hafy. Many a shield was pierced that day; and many a false corselet was broken, and many a white streamer dyed with blood, and many a horse left without a rider. The misbelievers called on Christ and the Muslims on God and the Prophet, and the noise of the trumpets was so great that none could hear his neighbour.”

-Ibn-Hayyān, Islamic historian and author of the Deeds of Heroes: The Francian Campaigns

“Incensed by the obstinate defence of the Corsicans, Ismā’ȳl put the garrison to the sword; and it is unfortunately true that in some of these campaigns we Muslims have imitated the barbarities of our antagonists, especially when our armies include a considerable admixture of African troops, who are notoriously savage”

-Gonzalez, commander in the Corsican campaign in a letter to the prince Mūsā

The Professor

December 15th, 2009, 11:15 AM

Good update Steven.

Italy is going to be a mess indeed! It's practically Balkan ;)
Especially if we have Magyars raiding in too.
In the long run, I think northern Italy is going very feudal in order to maintain some kind of order and preserve something of the economy. And if Bavaria isn't distracted by the north or the Magyars Italia may enter its orbit (tho this depends on Burgundy going west). Apulia on the otherhand looks like it will stay East Roman, especially with the new "bulgar blood". :D

Geekhis Khan

December 15th, 2009, 11:19 AM

I would not have thought it possible before, but you have surpassed WW Muhammad with this TL. Keep it coming!

Basileus Giorgios

December 15th, 2009, 12:07 PM

I second the others! If you need any more Byzantine help, please contact me. :)

steven24gordon

January 7th, 2010, 05:14 AM

I have finally returned from a long overdue holiday and am ready to resume the epic story of A World Without Martel (WWM). Thanks for the all the encouragement guys, and please remember that I welcome all comments and suggestions.

steven24gordon

January 7th, 2010, 05:15 AM

The accession of Ismā’ȳl, son of Almanzor ‘the Conquer’ in 814 was celebrated by royal procession in the growing merchant towns of Narbon, Barcelona, and Arles and beyond. Indeed, Ismā’ȳl, the ‘Emir of the Al-Avrup’ came to the throne at time of great prosperity for the Abbasid Caliphate in the West: the ‘Islamification’ of the Western Mediterranean had sparked a Commercial Revolution and the trading cities that washed the shore of this corner of the Dâr al‑islâm basked in an upsurge in wealth and an accompanying interest in art and culture. This opulence wasn’t confined to the Western Mediterranean: throughout the Abbasid Caliphate cities grew bringing a brisk trade in all manner of goods and knowledge. But at the heart of this ‘Golden Age’ –this flowering of art, culture, commerce and knowledge –lurked a darker side. Conflicts over religious dogma and naked ambitious for power conspired against the dream of unitedDâr al‑islâm that would cover the world. After the death of the Abbasid Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd a dispute over the succession between his two sons al-Amin and al-Ma’mun, degenerated into a civil war and in 813 the Baghdad was left in ruins and the caliphs left for the city on the opposite banks of the Tigris.

But the bloody civil war did not dampen Ismā’ȳl’s enthusiasm for the Abbasid Caliphate, and the ‘Emir sought to replica the institutions of Baghdad. Revitalising the bureaucracy he appointed visirs, chamberlains and numerous diwan or officers in charge of different areas of government: chancellery (kitaba), post (barid), army (jund), and taxation (kharaj). However, despite an overt attempt to imitate the administration of the Caliphs in Mesopotamia, Ismā’ȳl during his long reign adopted by design or expediency a system of administration similar to the previous rulers of Spain and Gaul. The Emir (or in his later years a series of court favourites) had the power of appointment to the principal offices that conveyed local authority, the walis and jundis (often described by the Christians as ‘dukes’ and ‘counts’). Although their titles were Arabic these office-holders did not differ much, in terms of the functions they performed, from the military administrators of the Late Roman Empire. The walis commanded regional armies, and jundis were the principal royal officials in the old civitates (the main towns and their related territories which enjoyed a revival in this period) of the Islamic West. These local officials were responsible for any garrison troops and for the maintenance of local order, and occasionally oversight of the collection of royal revenues from estates and custom duties.

No doubt ‘Emir of the Al-Avrup’was very much influenced by the far off Commander of the Faithful al-Ma'mun. The reign of this remarkable Caliph had seen the blossoming of remarkable cultural activity, notably the translation of Greek science and philosophy into Arabic. al-Ma'mun himself had collected texts, employed translators like the celebrated Hunayn ibn Ishaq, and established an academy in Baghdad, the Bayt al-Hikmah ("House of Wisdom"), with a library and an observatory. This activity had a profound effect not only on Ismā’ȳl but on the intellectual life of Islamic Western Europe, where any man of means sought to emulate this wise ‘Eastern’ ruler and vied with each other to attract poets, philosophers and scholars to his court. Certainly Ismā’ȳl shared al-Ma'mun’s indulgence of unorthodox Islamic doctrines. In particular, his closeness with the Mutazilite –who claim that the Qu’ran was not divinely inspired –could have been influenced by al-Ma'mun own ideas.

Despite his initial popularity and enjoying an exceptionally long rule (almost twenty-six years), Ismā’ȳl eventually became the object of growing resentment among the junds and the common people. Many of his more ambitious projects –a new navy, new palaces, new public works –required new taxes which was resisted and decidedly unpopular. Moreover, Islamic scholars attacked the Emir for his loose living, his close associations with Christians and unorthodox beliefs. Growing increasingly fearful of usurpation or assassination, after growing unrest in Córdoba, Ismā’ȳl ringed himself with interlocking layers of security and began the large-scale recruitment of māmlūkes (slave soldiers) to offset the rebellious Arab aristocracy. But, even more divisive than these new measures was the location of the royal seat of power. While his father Almanzor had spent his reign on campaign away from Iberia, he had still acknowledged the primacy of Córdoba. Ismā’ȳl, in his early years also ruled from this most southern capital but after the infamousCórdoba riots he shifted his seat of power northward to Narbon. Here he could survey the endless war with the Franks and keep a watchful eye on the independent-minded walis of his northern “Marches”. However, the Iberians did not take their marginalisation quietly and in the late 820s the Islamic scholars of Córdoba inspired fierce rioting (again), which saw half the city burn in clashes between rebels and loyalists (many of the rioters were expelled from the city, some re-settling on the Italian March while others found homes further a field).
However, the Iberian rebellions were just beginning...

steven24gordon

January 11th, 2010, 05:45 AM

“To Barcelona came from all parts of the world students eager to cultivate poetry, to study the sciences, or to be instructed in divinity or law; so that it became the meeting-place of the eminent in all matters, the abode of the learned, and the place of resort for the studious; its interior was always filled with the eminent and the noble of all countries, its literary men and soldiers were continually vying with each other to gain renown, and its precincts never ceased to be the arena of the distinguished, the racecourse of readers, the halting-place of the noble, and the repository of the true and virtuous.”
- Nasr the Bishop of Barcelona in a letter to his mistress Mary of Seville

“...Narbon is the Bride of the Mediterranean. To her belong all the beauty and the ornaments that delight the eye or dazzle the sight. Her long line of governors forms her crown of glory; her dress is the banners of learning, well knit together by her men of science; and masters of every art and industry are the hem of her garments. All the poets of the Gahreb [Arabic for ‘West’] clothe her with the fair verses and indeed, no other city of Europe could compare with her in the beauty of her buildings, the luxury and refinement of her life, and the learning and accomplishments of her inhabitants. The Franks skulk in their wooden hovels and trod upon dirty straw, their language unformed, and such accomplishments as reading and writing confined to a few monks. Indeed, my time among them has been...”
-Eulogius of Elvira, envoy to the King of Neustria, to his father in Narbon

“...Toulouse is a fortified town, surrounded by massive and lofty walls, and has very fine streets. It was in times of old the residence of infidel kings, whose palaces are still visible within the precincts of the walls. The inhabitants are famous for their courteous and polished manners, their superior intelligence, their exquisite taste and magnificence in their meals, dress, and horses. There thou wouldst see doctors shining all sorts of learning, lords distinguished by their virtues and generosity, warriors renowned for their expeditions in all kinds of warfare.”
- Sancho ibn Hafsūn, merchant of Arles and author of the Books of Roads

“The Lord of Marseille was distinguished for his patronage of poets and the arts; his halls were raised upon marble pillars, and the walls were encrusted with marble and gold; all that makes life enjoyable was to be found within his palace”
-Hajjaj, doctor of law, at Qayrawan

“His city was admirably governed, order reigned there undisturbed, and evil-doers were sternly but justly punished. He kept his state like an emperor; five hundred cavaliers formed his escort, and his royal robe was of brocade, with his name and titles embroidered on it in gold thread. Kings from over the sea sent him presents: silken stuff from Egypt, learned doctors of law from Medina, and matchless singers from Baghdad.”
-Mundhir, travel writer and advisor to the Wali of Córdoba

steven24gordon

January 11th, 2010, 01:29 PM

As the 9th century matured, a new and terrible threat burst out of the frozen northlands: the Viking! Fierce, uncomprising and with scant regard for the symbols of any Prophet, the Vikings represented a threat to the nations of Western Europe.The clinker-built longships used by these pirates were uniquely suited to both deep and shallow waters, extending the reach of Norse and giving them unrivalled access to the major river valleys of the Atlantic seaboard and beyond. But too singular a view of these wild-eyed raiders has been adopted by contemporary historians, particularly in terms of the wars between the Frankish Empire (the principal power in Northern Europe) and the Danes. Although these wars have often been explained purely in terms of Viking invasions, the reality is far different. Frankish attempts to conquer Saxonia and Frisian aspiration for autonomy support brought Francia into conflict with the Danish monarchy in the early 9th century.

In 810 the Danish king Godefred sent a fleet to aid the Frisians in their bid for independence (the fleet later diverted to raid the coastal towns of Flanders). In the 830s political conflict within the Frankish royal family allowed annual raids to be conducted on Empire’s northern border. Weakened by successive years of Muslim/Christian warfare, Neustria was highly vulnerable to such raids and, by 839, the Danes had grown bold enough to sail down the Seine (after sacking Rouen) and threaten Paris (which was spared thanks to a significant tribute payment). Frisia, where direct Frankish control had long been weak, also reacted badly to these raids and the central authority of the Empire in this half-pagan wilderness rapidly declined.

Often the goal of Viking raids was not as may be presumed –while they were keen to get their hands on golden objects of all kinds and even stole books –it was slaves that the Norse had to come to gather. In the Islamic world an enormous market for slaves opened up in the 9th century as the Arab tribal forces in Gaul, Spain, North Africa and the Middle East were modified with armed slaves (sometimes known as māmlūkes) although household slaves did a fair trade. However, the Vikings did not come only to trade, Norsemen sent extensive raiding parties along the waterways of Aquitaine raiding as a far as Toulouse, and some brave souls even travelled as far as Al-Andalus, threatening Seville.

But the Vikings were not the only seaborne adventurers hunting for gold and glory on the seas –the Mediterranean had their indigenous brand of pirate. These corsairs came not from the coarse lands of the north but the refined quarters of Dâr al‑islâm, and their activities became legendary in the 9th century Sicilian War.In 827 the Aghlabid ruler of Ifrīqīya (North Africa) responded to a call for help from the rebelling Byzantine magistrate of Sicily (who had, allegedly, been pushed into rebellion following his summary dismissal from office for seducing a nun). This further weakened Byzantine control of their sea-lanes and opened the Lombard kingdom to new encroachments. This new war against Byzantium renewed Ismā’ȳl’s commitment to the jihad in Italy (which he had initially abandoned in the early part of his reign settling many of the Syrians and Egyptians, who had come over to fight the Christians, in Provence and Lombardy). From his bases in the Gulfs of Lion and Genoa, corsairs raid not only Byzantine Sicily but Byzantium’s Lombardi allies in Latium, Campania and Calabria.

Many of the corsairs are (more or less) privateers, operating with the support of Emir of Al-Avrup or Ifrīqīyabut not under anyone’s direct authority. But they were savage fighters, and with their aid, Sicily was conquered in less than a decade. But Sicily was not their only target and by 838 the corsairs had established bases at Taranto, Brindisi and Bari, and challenged the divided Lombardi magnates (dominated by the Dukes of Benevento and Spoleto). This threat, merely cemented Lombardi loyalty to Constantinople, as the Dukes of southern Italy swore fidelity to their old rival the Emperor of Byzantine. But while the Christians desperately sought to protect their frontier in southern Italia, Rome in the north was left vulnerable.

The vulnerability of this ancient city soon became an opportunity for Sicard ibn Hassan, an avid political climber who once been a mirwah —think servant or escaped slave— of the Emir of Al-Avrup (probably a Lomardi convert to Islam). Sicard, with a mixed army of Christian mercenaries, seasoned veterans and enthusiastic jihadists, established himself at the old Roman town of Florentia on the Arno River. From this fortress he raided much of central Italia and assisted the corsairs to attack Rome in 836 and 839, eventually forcing the Pope to abandon the Eternal City. For a time the Lombardi Duke of Spoleto maintained the independence of the Eternal City (in alliance with Byzantium and Venice) against the Muslim tide, which allowed the Pope to return. But then the hammer blow: in 843 the Duke was defeated by Sicard on the banks of the Tiber and his army routed. Sicard’s Tiber battle also netted him the Pope, John V, who had been present in the Duke’s camp. John was soon ransomed back to the Christians of Venice (Sicard later received a letter from the Emir of Al-Avrup chastising him for his treatment of the Pope –described in the letter as “a most respected Christian priest”). Only a few days after his battle on the Tiber, Sicard occupied the city of Rome in the name of Islam. But the occupation was short-lived, less than a year later a joint-army under the command of Venice and Milan liberated the city. But much of Rome had been ruined in the years of devastating war, and the new Pope maintained his court in the safer confines of Venice. For House of Christendom, these were troubled times...

Geekhis Khan

January 11th, 2010, 01:39 PM

Consider yourself Turtledove Nominated, s24g. :D

King Gorilla

January 12th, 2010, 01:44 AM

Wonderful, please continue.

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 05:00 AM

Thanks for all your support guys. More to follow.

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 05:08 AM

“In the year of our Lord 841 and but a night or two after festival of the most blessed Easter, the inhabitants of Reims were sunk in profound sleep; the very sentinel had deserted his post, and sought shelter from a tempest which had raged without end for three nights in succession; for it appeared but little probable that an enemy would be abroad during such an uproar of the elements. But the evil spirits work best during a storm. In the midst of the night an uproar rose within the walls of Reims, more awful than the raging storm. A fearful alarm-cry ‘The Enemy!’ ‘The Enemy!’ resounded through the streets, mingled with the clash of arms, the shriek of anguish, and the shout of victory. While the storm pelted the sentinel from his post and howled around tower and battlement, Eric the Trickster, at the head of a powerful force, had planted his scaling-ladders and mounted securely in the town. The garrison was unsuspicious of danger until danger and massacre burst forth within its very walls. It seemed to the affrighted inhabitants as if the fiends of the air had come upon the wings of the wind, and possessed themselves of tower and turret...

Whenever lights appeared, the flashing of Eric’s axe was there also, and all who attempted resistance fell beneath its edge. In a little while the struggle was at an end. Those who were not slain took refuge in the secret places of their houses, or gave themselves up as captives. The clash of arms ceased and the storm continued its howling, mingled with the occasional shout of a Vikingr roaming in search of plunder...

I was taken captive among the Vikingr. It was nightmarish sight to behold the path of desolation felt by Eric the Trickster; the volumes of black smoke, mingled with lurid flames, that rose from the burning suburbs of my home; the women of my house wringing their hands in the dust and shrieking at the desolation of their dwellings; to behold the sleek ships of the Vikingr laden with good Christian men, the hosts of captive slaves, men, women and children...

We arrived in the City –a wretched train of humanity, worn out with fatigue and haggard with despair, and driven like cattle into the city gates by Eric the Trickster and his Vikingr acting the part of traders. And the people of Toulouse were dismayed at the cruelty of Eric and cried: “Woe to the Pagan! He who desecrates both friend and foe! The hour of our desolation is at hand!” Such was our arrival in Bordeaux...

Wilfully to stir up strife and injuriously to abuse another faith are no deeds for Christians but I weep for the treatment of my dear brothers in Christ in this City. For all the church bells of the City must be silent for if it was forbidden to let them sound where an Infidel might hear and be offended...
...while in the City some of our parry adopted the Mohammedan faith, and bade us convert and listen to the most cruel teachings of the Infidel. That most frightful Savage Eric was infuriated at his former compatriots and in his great rage cursed the name of the Mohammed of the Muslim Faith for all men to hear! ...But the Governor of Bordeaux did not condemn him to death –as he was bound to do under the law –or even to imprisonment; but Eric found no pleasure in this mercy and gathered all those who had not been seduced by the riches of the City and returned to the sea and his wayward life. As for me, I remained as my Christian brethren had arranged for my release.”

-An Arabic translation (by Sancho ibn Hafsūn) of Beornred’s Autobiography

Basileus Giorgios

January 12th, 2010, 11:45 AM

Nice updates: tell me, how's this for a map of the Mediterranean world ITTL somewhere around 840?

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 12:08 PM

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 12:11 PM

Despite his unpopularity, Ismā’ȳl was a man that was hard to replace and his death was lamented by later historians. However, his contemporaries, it seemed, could not wait for his demise. The annalist Moāwia wrote: “In 837 Ismā’ȳl was struck by a grave illness, may he die soon and be buried in hell!” However, the ‘Emir of the Al-Avrup’ recovered and was subsequently motivated to find a successor. But, increasingly inflicted with early senility, Ismā’ȳl’s decision fell under the influence of a series of court favourites. With no surviving sons, this self-serving entourage pushed the elevation of the Emir’s nephew al-Hakam to the royal title over his son-law al-Husayn. This policy provoked al-Husayn to stir up the rebellious spirit of the Andalusians who in 841 offered him the royal title at Seville, touching off an Iberian-wide rebellion.Unable to take the field due to his deteriorating health, and fearful of disloyalty in this world of court factions and revolutionaries, Ismā’ȳl abdicated completely in 843, appointing al-Hakam Emir.

Although the pomp of his coronation was grandiose, the job al-Hakam had long desired was an unhappy one. The Emir was forced to leave his father’s northern capital in Narbon and lead a large army south to re-capture Córdoba (which had recently fallen to al-Husayn). Although the fighting is harsh, bitter division within al-Husayn’s camp allows the Emir to advance into the Guadalquivir Basin. The Berbers of the western Andalusia who had at first supported al-Husayn now fell out with him and established their own independent anti-Ismā’ȳl movement under Ṣāhib al-Himār. Thanks to the Berber’s desertion, and after a fierce siege, al-Hakam enters Córdoba victorious and makes the city his capital (after expelling many of the city’s residents) in order to more effectively challenge his brother at Seville. Despite his victory, al-Husayn remains strong and al-Hakam soon becomes bogged down. While in Andalusia the Emir’s power in Islamic France (Al-Gallia) weakens as the local walis become increasingly autonomous. But this growing decentralisation is not limited to Al-Gallia, and al-Hakam is forced to grant the Islamic lords of Catalonia and Aragon (centred along the Ebro Valley) greater freedoms of administration and autonomy.

Despite the bitter enmity that existed between al-Husayn and al-Hakam, the war between them was crowded with sporadic cease fires as each side jockeyed with the other for superiority. These periods of relative quiet allowed al-Hakam, although re-occupied in Al-Andalus, to (haphazardly at times) direct policy in Al-Gallia. Not completely ignoring the traditional war against the Frank (like his father had been accused of), the Emir hoped to weakened his northern Christian opponents by supporting their enemies. In this regard, he allied himself with Conrad the Breton who, sensing that the Franks had been weakened by successive years of Muslim/Christian warfare and dynastic struggles set his sights on Neustria. Laden with Al-Avrupian gold and aided by her armies, Conrad advances from his base in Brittany into Maine and Normandy besting a Frankish army under Charles the Fat (the Neustrian king was captured at the Battle of Sarthe, and later ransomed back to his brother in Aachen). By the end of his life in 859, Conrad will have expanded his kingdom past the Loir towards Orleanais in the south and past the Orne in the north. Consolidating his new state, he will name her Armorica (after that ancient kingdom of Roman history) and allow Muslims to trade and live freely in her towns.

But despite these successes against the Neustrians, al-Hakam’s conflict with his brother weakened the capacity of Al-Avrup to defend herself against external enemies, principally the Vikings. Unlike the cumbersome lumbering armies of the Germanic Christians, these Nordic pagans were swift and fearsome, striking terror into the hearts of all who encountered them. By the early 850s, the Vikings had become so numerous that they started to expand their purely trader/raider roles and had become emboldened enough to purse bigger dreams. In 855, Olaf (known to the Christians as ‘the Mad’) landed a large army of Norse in the Landes (in Aquitaine), sacked Bordeaux and occupied Gascony (a region always weakly controlled by the Muslims and rife with banditry). Olaf’s success was so striking, that it forced al-Hakam to march his army north to confront this Nordic invader near Toulouse. But instead of engaging Olaf in battle, the Emir of Al-Avrup offered him a deal: he could keep his conquered territory in Gascony, as well as a sizable tribute for not attacking Toulouse, if he would ally himself with the Emir and make war on the walis of Angoumois and Limousin (who had recently rebelled against him). Olaf accepted and after a long and profitable career in Al-Avrupian politics, he would eventually convert to Islam, and erect a large mosque in his Gascon capital near modern-day Biarritz (using loot from a lifetime of Viking raids and slave trading). Despite his conversion, however, Olaf never stopped drinking and an Islamic traveller to his court called it a “den of depravity and debauchery”.

But al-Hakam was not the only Islamic lord to use the Norse for their own ends, nor Olaf the only Viking to profit from a close cooperation with Al-Avrupian politicians. At the same time that Olaf was fighting the Emir’s enemies on the Aquitaine lowlands, al-Husayn allied himself with the Norseman Sitric against his rival Ṣāhib al-Himār who had recently taken Badajoz, effectively taking control of Portugal and Estremadura. Sitric, with a fleet of forty ships, took Lisbon by storm and launched a raiding party through Berber controlled Marca. As war and strife weakenAl-Andalus defences, others take advantage of the chaos: from their holdouts in Asturias, Leon and Navarre, the savage Christians of northern Iberia launch terrifying raids and advance their political authority over the Iberian Mesta.

Scholars would later call this violent period in Al-Avrupian history, the ‘First Fitna’...

Basileus Giorgios

January 12th, 2010, 12:24 PM

Nice map (I always life it when you make maps as I was never any good at the map-making) but I have a few issues:
*First I think by 840 Sicily is lost to the Aghlabids and you are going to get small Muslim pirate holdouts in southern Italia (until a resurgent Byzantine Empire -with Lombardi help -drives them out in the later part of the 9th century).
*There is no reason to suppose that the Alid dynasty of Idrisids will be butterflied out by this TL, so they should still control Morocco (in defiance of the Abbasid Caliphate -united in name if not is reality).
*I think if the Lombards loose their northwest Italians port then Sardinia and Corsica slip out their hands

Any thoughts?

Here's an updated map.

1. I'm having the Byzantines maintain control over Sicily at this point: but the Muslims hold Palermo, and parts of the west of the Island. Who knows if this will expand to the Sicilian heartland. I've also added pirate enclaves in south Italy.

2. Duly noted and added.

3. Both were Byzantine, never Lombard. I've had the Arabs conquer Corsica, due to its proximity to Genoa, but let the Byzantines keep Sardinia for a while, due to naval supremacy. What happens next is up to you.

4. I've also given northern Spain "independence" as mentioned in your latest update. How's this?

Burakius

January 12th, 2010, 12:25 PM

Sahib al-himar??? U know that means Sahib the donkey. I'm sorry but in the Arab world calling someone a donkey is a big insult.

Geekhis Khan

January 12th, 2010, 12:25 PM

Masterfully done! I love the chaotic diplomacy and politics. There's such a realism and believability to this TL that makes it stand out beyond the norm.

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 12:42 PM

Sahib al-himar??? U know that means Sahib the donkey. I'm sorry but in the Arab world calling someone a donkey is a big insult.

You know, I didn't know if anyone would notice that. Sorry but I had to make up a lot of names for this TL and just could resist slipping this in. But interestingly enough, my Sahib al-himar is based on Abu Yazid Mukhallad ibn Kayrâd(أبو يزيد مخلد بن كيراد), from the Berber Zenata tribe (whose nicknamed Saheb Al Himar, in Arabic: صاحب الحمار‎) who led a mostly Berber revolution against the Fatimids in the 9th century (or maybe it was the 10th, can't remember).

His wikipedia entry reads as follows:
"The revolution, almost a success, was finally crushed (Arabic: الخليفة المنصور بالله‎). Sahib Al Himar was finally caught hiding in a cave. He was ordered executed, skinned and stuffed with cotton. His mutilated body was put on display at the southern main entrance to El Mahdia (Arabic: المهدية‎), a Tunisian coastal city. Ironically, Saheb-Alhimar started his revolution by implanting his spear in the very same door few years earlier."

But if it annoys you I'll change it, any ideas on a good strong Berber name?

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 12:44 PM

Masterfully done! I love the chaotic diplomacy and politics. There's such a realism and believability to this TL that makes it stand out beyond the norm.

Thanks and remember all comments are welcome.

steven24gordon

January 12th, 2010, 12:55 PM

Here's an updated map.

1. I'm having the Byzantines maintain control over Sicily at this point: but the Muslims hold Palermo, and parts of the west of the Island. Who knows if this will expand to the Sicilian heartland. I've also added pirate enclaves in south Italy.

2. Duly noted and added.

3. Both were Byzantine, never Lombard. I've had the Arabs conquer Corsica, due to its proximity to Genoa, but let the Byzantines keep Sardinia for a while, due to naval supremacy. What happens next is up to you.

4. I've also given northern Spain "independence" as mentioned in your latest update. How's this?

1. Given that it took Sicily a hundred years to be conquered OTL, maybe I was naive to think that the Byzantines would loose it all in less than a decade. But I think that eventually it will fall, with the Byzantines choosing to focus their energy on holding/re-conquering southern Italia.

2. You know the Idrisids have not played a part in this TL so far, any ideas on what they are up to?

3. Sorry about that ...forget my own head next.

4. Speaking of northern Spain, I think that cut off from Christendom, these Christian holdouts might convert to Islam. But not to the regular Sunni Islam of their lowland neighbours, but maybe fiery and democratic Kharijite Islam. Just an idea, any thoughts?

Burakius

January 12th, 2010, 12:56 PM

You know, I didn't know if anyone would notice that. Sorry but I had to make up a lot of names for this TL and just could resist slipping this in. But interestingly enough, my Sahib al-himar is based on Abu Yazid Mukhallad ibn Kayrâd(أبو يزيد مخلد بن كيراد), from the Berber Zenata tribe (whose nicknamed Saheb Al Himar, in Arabic: صاحب الحمار‎) who led a mostly Berber revolution against the Fatimids in the 9th century (or maybe it was the 10th, can't remember).

His wikipedia entry reads as follows:
"The revolution, almost a success, was finally crushed (Arabic: الخليفة المنصور بالله‎). Sahib Al Himar was finally caught hiding in a cave. He was ordered executed, skinned and stuffed with cotton. His mutilated body was put on display at the southern main entrance to El Mahdia (Arabic: المهدية‎), a Tunisian coastal city. Ironically, Saheb-Alhimar started his revolution by implanting his spear in the very same door few years earlier."

But if it annoys you I'll change it, any ideas on a good strong Berber name?
Nah its fine. Just think it's funny thats all :)

steven24gordon

January 13th, 2010, 05:15 AM

What does everyone think of this map?

Valdemar II

January 13th, 2010, 01:25 PM

1. Given that it took Sicily a hundred years to be conquered OTL, maybe I was naive to think that the Byzantines would loose it all in less than a decade. But I think that eventually it will fall, with the Byzantines choosing to focus their energy on holding/re-conquering southern Italia.

2. You know the Idrisids have not played a part in this TL so far, any ideas on what they are up to?

3. Sorry about that ...forget my own head next.

4. Speaking of northern Spain, I think that cut off from Christendom, these Christian holdouts might convert to Islam. But not to the regular Sunni Islam of their lowland neighbours, but maybe fiery and democratic Kharijite Islam. Just an idea, any thoughts?

Doubtful I see it ending up more like the Caucasus or Ethiopia, in general independent Christian enclaves didn't convert to Islam, any ruler whom tried would have a full scale revolt and I don't see it happening bottom up either. How I see them develop are that the "highland" will be populated by backward poor clannish monoreligeous (Christianity) Basque and Romance speakers. while the valleys and coastal cities will be more sophisticated and more religeous diverse, through with a clear Christian majority, likely Jews are the biggest minority with Muslim coming in second, linguistic this area will likely be mostly Romance through we likely see a large Arabic and Berbian influence and a lesser Germanic (mostly Frankish and English) one. The cities will likely be focused on being the mercantile middlemens between the Muslim and the Northern Christians

steven24gordon

January 13th, 2010, 02:05 PM

“The throne was occupied by incapable sovereigns; for al-Hakam was incapable of dealing courageously with the numerous sources of danger which then menaced the State. His policy was shifty and temporising; he alternately tried the effects of force and conciliation, with the usual consequence that both policies failed; and he was personally so despicable, cruel and vile that all parties in his dominions seemed for once to be agreed in their detestation of him, and their resolve to cast off his rule.”

-Noseyr, author of the Secret Histories

“The City is menaced with total dissolution, disasters follow one another ceaselessly; thieving and pillaging go on; our wives and children are dragged into slavery.”

- Moāwia, a favoured pupil of learned theologians of Holy Medina, on his return from Córdoba

“Toulouse is in a condition of a frontier town exposed to all the attacks of the enemy. Without being yet actually besieged, she was already suffering all the ills of beleaguement.”

-Mughīth, rabbi who led the Jews of Toulouse

“It seemed that every nobleman or chief, seized the opportunity of a bad and weak sovereign, and general anarchy to benefit and from behind his ramparts to defy the Emir. The old Arab aristocracy, the descendents of the Arab tribes who complete the conquest of such a great portion of Christendom, were few and greatly outnumbered by other races; but though weakness should have kept them loyal to the Arab King, they too turned against him, and established themselves in independent princedoms.”

-Constantine, Spanish exile at the court of Eudes Count of Paris

“Nothing but the jealousies and divisions of the Christians of the north prevent them from re-conquering their lost territory. Split up as it was into numberless little siegniories, resembling rather the estates or counties of some petty chieftain than portions of a once powerful realm, this land could offer but an ill-directed resistance to a determined invader.”

-Julian Bishop of Milan in a letter to the Pope at Venice John V

“The Berbers resemble the Arabs in their physical strength but not in their unrivalled brutality... they carry fire and sword through the land, and burn, sack and massacre wherever they go.”

-Roderick, mercenary in the pay of al-Husayn

“You are mistaken, if you think that a man like myself can find any gratification in listening to these base calamities.”

- Eudes Count of Paris to Constantine

Iñaki

January 13th, 2010, 04:06 PM

King Gorilla

January 13th, 2010, 07:29 PM

4. Speaking of northern Spain, I think that cut off from Christendom, these Christian holdouts might convert to Islam. But not to the regular Sunni Islam of their lowland neighbours, but maybe fiery and democratic Kharijite Islam. Just an idea, any thoughts?

I am going to have to agree with Vlademar on this. I think it is rather unlikely that the upland christian holdouts will convert in mass to Islam. The christian statelets will simultaneously be difficult to conquer, and of little territorial value. Christianity will be yet another cultural characteristic that they will use to distinguish themselves from their neighbors and to solidify their ethnic identity. This militant christianity would be strongest in the militant rural areas, while the regions cities would likely have a more islamicized cosmopolitan attitude. I think the Balkans will be a vary good analogy for this, possibly with a Basque serbia analog.

Incidentally, I'm looking forward towards seeing the upcoming split between the Berber and Arab elite. I definitely could see the core of a Berber state emerging in estremadura.

steven24gordon

January 14th, 2010, 07:23 AM

It is an interesting TL steven24gordon

I want to ask a question about this Tl, Are the Avars surviving more in TTL than in OTL, in OTL the avars were defeated by Charlemagne, in TTL no Charlemagne and well the franks have a lot of problems in the west, so how are the avars performing in TTL?

The Avars are an interesting question, my initial feeling is to that they are engaged in a long war with the Bavarians which will ultimately lead to their destruction. The problem with the Avars is that they are not in a very strong position in this period: you have Christians in Southern Germany pushing east, their Slavic vassals growing more and more assertive and the ever present danger of steppe nomads moving in from the west. On the other hand, nothing has been decided and I certainly would appreciate any ideas or suggestions you may have in regards to the Avars.

steven24gordon

January 14th, 2010, 09:49 AM

As the Al-Avrupian civil war reaches its 20th year, al-Hakam dies at Córdoba. His son and decorated war-hero al-Fihri succeeds him as Emir, and in his next campaigning season achieved such victories that it becomes clear that this energetic warrior was gaining the upper hand against his rival al-Husayn. Anxious for peace, the nobles of fair Seville, murdered al-Husayn and offered al-Fihri terms. The Emir of Al-Avrup accepts, giving Seville generous terms and a command over much of southern Andalusia. Toledo, however, refuses to relinquish the fight and continues to rebel for another five years before finally surrendering in 867. Under Ṣāhib al-Himār, the Berbers continue to holdout in western Andalusia, and Sitric (still holdup in Lisbon) even makes a deal with al-Himār, gaining himself a governorship and his warriors a Norse enclave in Portugal. Unenthusiastic for another long war in Andalusia, al-Fihri agreed to recognise al-Himār’s Berber dynasty in Iberia in exchange for peace.

Although he honoured his father al-Hakam, al-Fihri knew that al-Hakam’s reign had seen much of this Ismā’ȳl’s authority slip away as the dizzying ambitions of Almanzor’s dreams were negated under the crushing weight of reality. Power-hungry governors throughout the Emirate of Al-Avrup had sapped the strength of the centre, the royal treasury had been emptied to pay brides and outfit armies and much of Al-Avrup’s fighting spirit had been lost on the battlefields of Al-Andalus. But al-Fihri thought he could repair much of the damage that had been done. Maybe he could have but history would not give al-Fihri this chance for he died suddenly in 868. The throne pasted to his young teenage brother, Jahwar.

Jahwar, though he was no great statesman or administer, was one of the great "characters" of history. He embellished his palace at Córdoba with exotic gardens, with tropical trees, roses, jasmine, lilies and shrubs. It was said that not liking the stalks of the trees, he had every trunk and branch coated in sheets of copper and lined with water pipes, so that each tree now became a fountain. A consummate lover of pleasure and beauty, the new Emir spent a great deal of time with his concubines and court favourites (which included numerous musicians pilfered from the East). This left him with less time for the affairs of state, which was not a problem as the walis of Al-Avrup (particularly those in Al-Gallia) sought even greater autonomy during his reign. Short on money for his ostentatious building projects,Jahwar was happy to oblige them and some Islamic governors quite literally brought fiscal autonomy for and hereditary rights to their offices. So while Jahwar busied himself designing lavish gardens in Córdoba, his authority outside the Guadalquivir Basin become increasingly worthless.

If we were to compare Jahwar with his Frankish contemporary, the King of Francia Childeric IV, never would we find a greater difference between men. Childeric, known as ‘the Brave’, was not one to see disunity fracture his realm: when he was still a prince in his father’s service, he played a prominent role in subduing rebellious Frankish duchies in Swabia in the 860s. While Jahwar ignored the jihad and devoted himself to a life of pleasure, Childeric swore revenge against the Muslims for their implication in the assassination of his father (or so his biographers later wrote). And while Jahwar preferred his gardens to the fields of battle, Childeric was famed as warrior who had served his late father well fighting to bring the Rhine and the Eastern Duchies back into the Frankish fold. Childeric was to prove his superiority to his Arabic rival in 871, with a succession crisis in Burgundy.

Burgundy had long been allied to the Emirs of Al-Avrup and as such had been hostile to reviving Frankish power. However, one of the Burgundian princes, Grimoald spurred the Muslims who favoured his brother Chlodulf for the Burgundian throne and sought Childeric’s support. Support the Frankish was only too happy to give and within the year, civil war erupted on the Saône and Chlodulf’s own supporters were overwhelmed by the invading Franks. An Islamic army marched from Marseille to push outChilderic and his puppet Grimoald but instead suffered a decisive defeat. A bloody siege of Lyon felt half the army dead and all of Lyonnais had to be surrendered to the Franks. Humiliated and beset by rebellions on all sides, the Governor of Al-Narbonenus beg Jahwar for help but none came and the campaign faltered. In the face of this defeat, the Emir’s courtiers sue for peace with the Frankish king. In the treaty that followed, Chlodulf was delivered to his brother for beheading, and much Islamic gold was sent to Childeric as tribute (which included the famous Christian relic: the Iron Crown).

But the Frankish sovereign did more for his people than mere territorial expansion: at Aachen he established a new religious school which attracted numerous visiting scholars most notably Ethelbert of York, a man with a passionate devotion to the Christian faith. He advised Childeric on the holding of a number of synods on religious questions, at which he and his adherents attacked the Byzantine Emperor for his hold over the Christian Church and condemned many aspects of the Orthodox doctrine. Although the Christians of Northern Europe and distant Constantinople had been drifting apart for centuries, Ethelbert’s strong ideological programme clearly articulated the split for the first time. However, while Ethelbert was preaching against heretical Byzantine Emperors, a far different religious problem was developing in Al-Avrup...

Iñaki

January 14th, 2010, 11:10 AM

At this moment I am at work, so the sources that I try to search are from Internet (when I go to home, I try to search some books), in any case, it seems after searching some in google in english, french and spanish that the avars were in a proccess of slow decadence after their defeat by Heraclius in 626 when at the peak of his power (and at the same time that the sassanids attacked the Eastern Roman Empire) for a moment they seemed that could take Constantinople.

The sources (different articles from Internet) indicates that apart from this defeat, the irruption of others powers from the steppes like the bulgars weakened the position of the avars, apart from this although they had a khan as a more or less central authority, this had to take an eye to the the different chiefs of tribes (the Avars were a Confederation of Tribes) because these had certain tendency to try act independently.

In OTL at the times of Charlemagne the avars but showed that although in a certain decadence compared with past times they could try some offensives, this was the case of the offensive coordinated with Tasilon duke of Bavaria, that permitted the avars to enter in Italy, arriving to Verona (although this last with the tacite aprovation of Tasilon -that had not very good relations with Charlemagne- duke of Bavaria).

The war against Charlemagne showed that the avars could have the sufficient strength to resist this, but that a prolonged campaign could weak the internal cohesion of the Avar Confederation (at the end the avars were finally defeated when first the defection of the avar chief Tudun to Charlemagne and after the murder of the khan in 796 prepare the terrain for the final frankish campaign).

My personal analisis is that without Charlemagne, the avars could at least survive another century than in OTL, in fact they could try to made incursions like in OTL against the lombards of TTL (If I followed well the TL, the lombards are surviving better than in OTL) and surely they will have conflicts against Bavaria and the bulgars, the position of the avars would be in any case more strong than in OTL.

An interesting article about the avars and Charlemagne (although not in english, it is in spanish, but well I think that it could be interesting to use the translator because it is a very good article) could be find here

http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/media/avaros/avaros.htm

Giladis

January 14th, 2010, 12:33 PM

About the Avars and the Slavs along the Adriatic coast.

First thing to understand is that Avars were a heterogeneous group. A slav, bulgar, german serving the Khagan would be considered an Avar.

The peak of the 1st Khaganate was during the 626 siege of Constantinopol.

Folloing that was a period of some 50 years when the Khaganate restructured itself. The finalisation of that process was the arriaval of the fresh nomadic elements from the east.

The 2nd Khaganate though not as agressive as the 1st was a powerfull state that based on archeological evidence reached its peak around 730, but remained stabile untill its eventual defeat by the Franks. But between the first Frankish attack and the last reported Avaric resistance nearly 20 years passed. That show us that though the "Hring" was sacked in 796 the Avars had strength to fight for another cca 15 years before abandoning the cause, no small thanks to the fact Bulgars (which were once part of the Khagante) conqered much of the eastern parts of the Khaganate.

Without the Frankish attack I can see the Khaganate surviving for centuries to come only with changing the dominant war group within it. Had the Khagante still stood at the time Magyars arrived I am sure there would be no Magyar state but imersion of the Magyars into the Khaganate as the new leading group. By the same logic it is not impossible to imagine some Slavic group taking the leading role in the Khaganate and shifting the centre of power within the Khaganate.

Without the Frakish advance from the west and presured by the Khagante from the north I can see the Slavs along the Adriatic expanding across to the other shore. These people were in OTL well known as priates, raiders and seamen of skill equal to the vikings (though their renown is far lesser). I can see this people starting their exapnsion towards a weakened Lombard shores on the other side and causing problems to the byzantians further south. These people would not be christianized to a great extent in OTL before 850 and some for significantly longer, the deeper you enter the Dinaric Alps.

So with the Khagante still going strong and Slav territories geting crowded along the coast an entire new scene opens for you.

Valdemar II

January 14th, 2010, 12:36 PM

I must say in the best case for the Avars they go the way of the Bulgars, they and their Slavic subjects integrate into a new Slavic nation*. Their primary problem was that they lacked the population to become a permanent part of Europe. But that's a best case scenario. I agree with Steven that the Avar will likely end up a speedbump in history for either Bavarians or some other group of steppes Nomads.

*Of course that nation risk going the way of the Pommeranians (ending up shifting to a "German" dialect) later on.

Iñaki

January 14th, 2010, 06:24 PM

After reading some written sources that I have at home (principally some historic encyclopedias) I have the personal feeling that although the avars could not stay at the peak of his power they had the sufficient strenght to even attempt an uprising against Charlemagne in 799, so the scenario indicated by Giladis could be plaussible.

There is also the factor that Giladis living in Zagreb could have access to books about avars better than us in public libraries, the same with me although we have in Barcelona good public libraries or bookshops, the theme of the avars is not usually treated but spanish and catalonian history have surely a lot of more books than in other european countries.

It is possible so that Giladis could have a better access to books about avar and slavic history than us, so could be his scenario has been thought after reading some interesting sources.

If this is the case, the scenario depicted by Giladis would be fascinating and plaussible.

But naturally it would be one possible path of destiny, other scenarios that made a longer avar existence in the history but at the end disappearing attacked by bulgars? byzantines? bavarians? could be also factible (also being a confederate of tribes his internal cohesion as showed during the Avar campaigns of Charlemagne in OTL could arrive to be so weak in crucial points that the end could be almost so fast than in OTL).

steven24gordon

January 15th, 2010, 06:59 AM

I am going to have to agree with Vlademar on this. I think it is rather unlikely that the upland christian holdouts will convert in mass to Islam. The christian statelets will simultaneously be difficult to conquer, and of little territorial value. Christianity will be yet another cultural characteristic that they will use to distinguish themselves from their neighbors and to solidify their ethnic identity. This militant christianity would be strongest in the militant rural areas, while the regions cities would likely have a more islamicized cosmopolitan attitude. I think the Balkans will be a vary good analogy for this, possibly with a Basque serbia analog.

This idea was sparked while I was reading a part of Toynbee’s ‘A Study of History’ where he discussed the conversion of the Transoxania and the lands around the Caspian Sea of Central Asia to Islam. His words: “Conversely, what actually happened in the north-east enables us to reconstruct, with some confidence and even in some detail, the first stages of what would presumably have happened in the north-west had the fate of Aquitaine, like that of Transoxania, been decided between AD 732 and 741. With the Arab Empire permanently established in their rear, as well as in front of them, and with their co-religionists in Aquitaine apostatizing in increasing numbers to Islam, the Christians of the Asturian enclave could no more have resisted assimilation than the Zorasrians of the Caspian Provinces found themselves able to resist it after the Arab conquest of Transoxania. The Asturians, like the Daylamites, Tabaris and Jurjanis, would almost inevitably have been converted to Islam in the course of the ninth and tenth centuries of the Christian Era. It is true that such conversion, had it taken place, would not have prevented the Asturian mountaineers, in the course of the tenth century, and thereafter, from issuing out of their fastnesses and beginning to push down across the Castilian Plateau towards the lowlands of Andalusia, as they actually did. That historical movement was a consequence of the growing and political weakness, at that time, of the Arab Empire, through its whole extent, both under Umayyad sovereignty in the Peninsula and under ‘Abbasid sovereignty elsewhere. It was not affected by the religious factor, and the converted Daylamites therefore took the offensive in Iran simultaneously with the unconverted Asturians in the Peninsula. In the sequel, however, the religious factor made a world of difference. The Buqayhids, descending as Muslims (though as Muslims of the Shī’ī persuasion), were not, by their conquests, diminishing the territories of Dār-al-Islām. For this reason, these conquests were not so fiercely opposed as those of the Christian Asturians, and were therefore not only more rapid in their extension, but also more superficial and transitory in their effects.”

steven24gordon

January 15th, 2010, 07:23 AM

About the Avars and the Slavs along the Adriatic coast.

Without the Frankish attack I can see the Khaganate surviving for centuries to come only with changing the dominant war group within it. Had the Khagante still stood at the time Magyars arrived I am sure there would be no Magyar state but imersion of the Magyars into the Khaganate as the new leading group. By the same logic it is not impossible to imagine some Slavic group taking the leading role in the Khaganate and shifting the centre of power within the Khaganate.

Without the Frakish advance from the west and presured by the Khagante from the north I can see the Slavs along the Adriatic expanding across to the other shore. These people were in OTL well known as priates, raiders and seamen of skill equal to the vikings (though their renown is far lesser). I can see this people starting their exapnsion towards a weakened Lombard shores on the other side and causing problems to the byzantians further south. These people would not be christianized to a great extent in OTL before 850 and some for significantly longer, the deeper you enter the Dinaric Alps.

So with the Khagante still going strong and Slav territories geting crowded along the coast an entire new scene opens for you.

An interesting proposal, although my concern is threefold:
*First that while the Frankish push east will not happen with the same force as OTL, the Bavarians will be drawn eastward by their constant wars with the Slavs. While Bavaria could not “conquer” the Avars like Charlemagne did, Bavarian-Avar Wars would de-stabilize and weaken the Avars.
*Second, that Byzantium and Venice possess enough naval power to prevent the Slavic/Adriatic pirates from becoming too much of a threat to Italia. On the other hand, certainly a scenario involving them would be interesting…
*The threat presented by the Bulgars (and other steppe nomads) who would be likely to take advantage of a weakened Avar Empire for damaging raids or even conquest of key Avar lands.

But if these doubts are answered, I see no reason why the Avars can't assume the position you suggest. If you would elaborate on the road you think the Avars would take and their relationships with Bavaria, Byzantium and Venice, then I will consider incorporating your version of the Avars into this TL.

Iñaki

January 15th, 2010, 09:21 AM

This idea was sparked while I was reading a part of Toynbee’s ‘A Study of History’ where he discussed the conversion of the Transoxania and the lands around the Caspian Sea of Central Asia to Islam. His words: “Conversely, what actually happened in the north-east enables us to reconstruct, with some confidence and even in some detail, the first stages of what would presumably have happened in the north-west had the fate of Aquitaine, like that of Transoxania, been decided between AD 732 and 741. With the Arab Empire permanently established in their rear, as well as in front of them, and with their co-religionists in Aquitaine apostatizing in increasing numbers to Islam, the Christians of the Asturian enclave could no more have resisted assimilation than the Zorasrians of the Caspian Provinces found themselves able to resist it after the Arab conquest of Transoxania. The Asturians, like the Daylamites, Tabaris and Jurjanis, would almost inevitably have been converted to Islam in the course of the ninth and tenth centuries of the Christian Era. It is true that such conversion, had it taken place, would not have prevented the Asturian mountaineers, in the course of the tenth century, and thereafter, from issuing out of their fastnesses and beginning to push down across the Castilian Plateau towards the lowlands of Andalusia, as they actually did. That historical movement was a consequence of the growing and political weakness, at that time, of the Arab Empire, through its whole extent, both under Umayyad sovereignty in the Peninsula and under ‘Abbasid sovereignty elsewhere. It was not affected by the religious factor, and the converted Daylamites therefore took the offensive in Iran simultaneously with the unconverted Asturians in the Peninsula. In the sequel, however, the religious factor made a world of difference. The Buqayhids, descending as Muslims (though as Muslims of the Shī’ī persuasion), were not, by their conquests, diminishing the territories of Dār-al-Islām. For this reason, these conquests were not so fiercely opposed as those of the Christian Asturians, and were therefore not only more rapid in their extension, but also more superficial and transitory in their effects.”

There is a third way in reference to a Northern Spain isolated from the Continental Europe by the islamic conquests of TTL, that they develop in TTL an own christianity, heretic and mixed with paganism (that in this zone remained well alive and mixed with christianity even at VIII-IX centuries of OTL -even today there is a mixture of semi paganism in the Galicia folklore with the figure of the meiga (a kind of sorceress), that at the difference of the witch could exerce also benefical and positive influence and could help the persons as clairvoyant and folk healer-).

Galicia was the origin of the priscilianism, an heretic form of the christianity that mixed this with pagan beliefs and that longs strong at least until the end of the VII century although it seems that could be some remainders until the VIII century although probably very weak.

Te paganism and its mixture with christianism was as I say very strong in Northern Spain and even in the kingdom of Asturias of OTL they remained strong.

Far more isolated than in OTL, Asturias could follow a different way, with a paganism strong in the northern combined with an isolated christianity (with could be some links with the celtic christianity of the British Isles, also I think christianism with its pletora of saint men and women with their magic propieties could have far more facility to mix with paganism than the islam that prohibited precisely these kind of beliefs) Asturias could develop in TTL a very different christianity: a mixture of some kind of celtic christianity mixed with pagan beliefs and traditions.

steven24gordon

January 15th, 2010, 12:23 PM

“They remembered the former power and prosperity of their church, and the priests especially could no longer restrain their hatred of the Moslems who had taken away from their authority and substituted a false creed for the religion of Christ. The very tolerance of the Muslims only exasperated such fervent souls; they preferred to be persecuted, like the saints of old; they longed to be martyrs, and they were indignant with the Moslems, because they would not persecute them for righteousness sake and ensure them entry into the kingdom of heaven.”
-Saint William of Verdun, The Chronicle of Kings (translated into Arabic by Ibn-Hayyān)

“The motives that provoked ‘radical’ Christians –monks and laymen –to curse Muhammad publicly are difficult to unravel. It was clear that the ‘martyrdom activity’, if it could be called that, was poorly prepared and broke out intermittently in periods both Al-Gallia and Al-Andalus between 858 and 879. And can assume this was more a cultural phenomenon than organised religious movement. But why? The emirs had continued to honour the statutory protection accorded in the Qur’ān to Christians and Jews and the Mozarabs [From the Arabic musta’rab, ‘Arabised’; having assimilated Arabic customs’. The word is used to denote non-Arabs living within Arab communities and came to be applied to those Christians living in Al-Avrp] knew that they were safe from persecution as long as they desisted from public blasphemy against Muhammad. It is established that the Mozarabic laity by the mid-9th century were to a considerable degree Arabicised, customarily wearing Arabic clothes and speaking Arabic. They had their own civil head, the comes, who represented their interests, and whose appointment was approved by the Muslim authorities. As for the Mozarabic priesthood, it remained outside of the drift to ‘Celticism’ in Francia and Britannia or the return to Orthodoxy in Italia. The priests even lost their awareness of the significance of ecclesiastical garments, preferring to wear Muslim dress.
It has been argued that the decadence of the Mozarabic Church as an institution encouraged fervent believers to a public confession of their faith, but there may also have been provocation from the muwalladūn. These converts to Islam were eager exponents of their newly adopted religion, and also vehement opponents of their compatriots who had remained Christian. More intolerant than the ruling emirs, they may have sought, and perhaps created, opportunities for preferring charges of blasphemy against Mozarabs.

Support for the ‘martyrdom’ movement came from several prominent Christian –notably in Al-Narbonenus where St. Eulogius wrote his De memoriale sanctorum before his unexpected death in 851. The Mozarabic clergy saw their privileged position being rapidly undermined by these advocates, and a meeting between representatives of the emir and Mozarab elders secured the calling of the Councils of Córdoba beginning in 853, which sparked corresponding Councils to be held in Toulouse and Arles. At these Councils the voluntary martyrs were declared guilty of suicide –and consequently condemned to hell –and the Mozarab clergy prohibited public blasphemy against Muhammad. However, a number of radical Christians refused to follow the dictums of the Córdoba Councils and split with the Mozarab leadership. This crack in Mozarab unity mirrored an earlier division within the Christian Church in Al-Avrp –when thecontroversy over the anthropomorphist teachings of Hostigesis (Bishop of Málaga) had caused much fiery debate and division. The ‘martyr movement’ continued unabated for the next few years before morphing into the reclusive ‘Cult of Reccafred’ which established a number of monastic communities in the Pyrenees Mountains and the Alps in the 10th century. The movement was obviously symptomatic of a religious melancholy among the Mozarabs –perhaps an inevitable consequence of their separation for so long from contact with other Christians, though there may well have been other reasons involved of which we know nothing.”
-Wu Zetian, Chang’an University (Part of Lecture Series #12-3)

“Especially hateful to these earnest people was the open gaiety and sensuous refinement of the Moslems; their enjoyment of life and all its pleasure, their music and singing, their very learning and science, were abhorrent to these ascetics. Life, to the true believer, meant only scourges and fasts, penances and confessions, purification through suffering, and mortifying the fresh and sanctifying of the spirit.”
-Ibrahim of Cazlona the ‘Traveller’, recounting the martyr of Gregory the Mourner and his compatriots

“The suicides of our former brothers were really no whit more reasonable or honourable to God than the sufferings of the worshipers of pagan gods who cut themselves with knives, or those mad Easterners that let their nails grow through the palms of their hands. Christianity does not teach its disciplines to fling away their lives wantonly, out of mere joy in being tortured and killed.
...these men can only guarantee their deaths by leaving the paths of the Gospels and setting aside the great lesson of Christ, “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecuted you”. Wilfully to stir up strife and injuriously to abuse another faith are no deeds for Christians; voluntarily to transgress a law which carries with it capital punishment is not martyrdom, but suicide. The victims were, indeed, martyrs to disease, and their fate is as pitiable as though they had really been martyrs for the Faith.”
-Paulus at the Council of Córdoba 853

Incognitia

January 15th, 2010, 04:00 PM

Giladis

January 15th, 2010, 06:12 PM

An interesting proposal, although my concern is threefold:
*First that while the Frankish push east will not happen with the same force as OTL, the Bavarians will be drawn eastward by their constant wars with the Slavs. While Bavaria could not “conquer” the Avars like Charlemagne did, Bavarian-Avar Wars would de-stabilize and weaken the Avars.
*Second, that Byzantium and Venice possess enough naval power to prevent the Slavic/Adriatic pirates from becoming too much of a threat to Italia. On the other hand, certainly a scenario involving them would be interesting…
*The threat presented by the Bulgars (and other steppe nomads) who would be likely to take advantage of a weakened Avar Empire for damaging raids or even conquest of key Avar lands.

But if these doubts are answered, I see no reason why the Avars can't assume the position you suggest. If you would elaborate on the road you think the Avars would take and their relationships with Bavaria, Byzantium and Venice, then I will consider incorporating your version of the Avars into this TL.

I will try to adress each of these in time.

First thing is Carinthia(Carantania). The borders shown on your maps are the borders of Markgraviate of Carinthia created by Ludovic the Pious following the Slav rebellion in Carantania and Pannonia in 819-822. The territory of the Carantanian slavs was much smaller.

These slavs were part of the Samo slav state until 658 when it well apart and they became "independant". In truth their state is unknow and many believe their land was really a no-man's land between Bavaria and the Avar Khaganate. In year 745 these Slavs became dependant of the Bavarians and were later fully incorporated into the Empire by Charlemange.

In reallity between 680 and 796 Bavaria and the Avar Khaganate were direct neighbours any turmoil in the Frankish Kingdom would cause Bavaria to look westwards and present itself vulnerable for Avar raids. Conquest is out of question for the Avar Khaganate had no use for Bavarian lands. Turning Bavaria into a vassal state is another thing altogather.

The Avars were at least made out of these groups:
Kutiguri - later formed the core of the Bulgars
Utiguri - later formed the core of the Bulgars
Onoguri - later formed the core of the Bulgars
Onoguzi
Huns
Anti - more eastern slavs that inhabited the lands between the Carpathians and the Black Sea
Vari
Tarniaci
Varohoniti
Kuchagiri
Gepids
Pannonian slavs

After 680 the first three groups were no longer part of the Khaganate and went to form Bulgaria. In their place came new unindentified nomad groups from the Pontic stepps. Apart from the power struggles between 630 and 680 that saw "Bulgars" expeled for trying to usurp power the reformed Khaganate and the new Bulgar Khaganate were on friendly terms. Some suggest they mainatained a sort of an alliance as it was quite commong among the nomadic peoples.

The thing to understand about the Khaganate is that unlike the germanic kingdoms of the west which favoured their kin to be in power, the rulers made their promotions based on skill for in ther view of the world that was much important. This can be seen among the Huns(another heterogenuos group dispite popular view) and among the Avars. Archelogical research showed us that people which were clearly slav or germanic in origin held positions of power within the Khaganate.

In a world you have created with a shatered Frankish empire the Avar Khagante is probably the most powerful "barbarian" realm in Europe made out of groups that had benefits from such an alliance and owing alligance to the most powerfull warlord. Such a state is both very powerful because it does not depent on a single ethnic group to keep others in check, but at the same time is very fragile since as soon the guys in power show weakness other will try and jump them not to liberate themselves but to replace the current leading wargroup with their own. The "Bulgars" made that gambit after 626, they lost and for their troubles fleed the Khaganate to avoid retribution.

The naval power of the Adriatic slavs is often forgoten or simply unknown to the people beyond those that actually examine it.

It is generally accepted tha Slavs settled along the Adriatic coast between 626 and 640. In 642 they allready have a powerful enough fleet to raid Sipont on the other side of the Adriatic and to start raiding and colonsing the paninsula of Gargano (this would peak in the first quarter of the 10th century when it is speculated the peninsula was breafly held by the Prince of Zahumle). These slavs would attacks ships the lenght and breath of Adriatic with sporadic raids as far as Corfu.

During the 9th century, more precisely between 837 and 840 the Venetians launched a military expedition against the Croats and the Narentians which ended in a disaster for the Venetians. In 846 Narentians sack Caorle in the Venetian lagoon.

The Croats and the Narentians were vassals of the Frankish empire in OTL when siege of Bari happened in 867-871. The Byzantian expedition numbering 400 vessels raids the eastern Adriatic coast precisely while the fleets of Croats and Narentians are helping Ludovic II besiege Bari. When the Croats return home the battles with the Venetias begin once more because it seams Venetia though itself powerfull enough to chalange the Slavs for the control of the waves. The fighting is so vicious and it goes so badly for the Venetians that the Croatian prince of the time Domagoj is dubed by the Venetian historians "pessimus Sclavorum dux", the worst Prince of the Slavs. During the first half of the 10th century Croatian fleet alone was second only to that of Byzantium and it would not be till year 1000 that Venice would turn the tide due to the civil war in Croatia.

If you add the naval might of other slav principalities to that of Croatian principality one must wonder what would have happened if their intantions were more agressive than just maintaing Adraitic sea as "mare nostrum", our sea.

For Croatia at least the absence of Frankish supremacy during most of 9th century (cca 803-21. May 879) would see their power grow more rapidly as would their ambitions.

While still being only Frankish vassals in 846 they defeated the Byzantian Strategos of Dalmatia and in 855 defeated invasion by Bulgarian Khan Boris.

There is an interesting mistery connected with the Arab raids into the Adriatic during the 840's. It seams none of the raids targeted the slavs and some are speculating that slavs and the arabs colaborated in raiding the venetian, italian and byzantian possesisons during the period.

The awser to the third point is held in the first part of this post. Any new nomadic group very likely wouldn't destroy the Khaganate, they would get absorbed by the Khaganate, either as the new ruling group or as a new vassal in the alliance. The thing that happened in OTL when the Hring fell was that Bulgars absorbed the parts of the Khaganate which Franks didn't conquer.

This existed until Magyars arrived and in turn absorbed the some parts of the Bulgarian Khaganate (now developed into a kingdome/tzardom at least in the south) into their own Khaganate that had the fortune to develop into an european style kingdom before the arrival of the next nomad Khaganate from the east the Kipchaks.

In truth there is much doubt the Avar Khaganate was actually called an Avar Khaganate. The Avars never came to Europe, they remained somewhere in the stepps, nomadic groups fleeing from them took their name to sound more terrfying so actually the Avara Khaganate in Europe is the Pseudo-Avar Khaganate.

I believe the Avar, Bulgar, Khazar Khaganates didn't have an ethnic name. It was just the Khaganate which just happened to be rulled by the Khagan of the Avars or Khan of the Bulgars. If for exaple Knez of Pannonia became the new leading figure it would still be the Khaganate with very little to diferentiate it from the previous incarantion.

So Bavaria has no Slav realms(for the lack of better word) to expand into to the east, they have the Khaganate right on their door step, if they touch just one group they will have the whole alliance to deal with.

I hope I helped.

steven24gordon

January 18th, 2010, 05:12 AM

A very interesting work Steve. Thanks for the enjoyable read so far, and I look forward to seeing how it develops.

A thought does occur to me; with the greater development, wealth and population of England, if England goes over to Celtic Christianity, will the leadership of the Celtic/Western Church gravitate towards Canterbury?

Also, what impact will so many Vikings going elsewhere have? Will there be fewer raids on England, and what impact will this have on unification of the Saxon kingdoms, and their spread across the Isles?

Sorry for being so unabashedly Anglo-centric, but it's the one bit I know enough about to ask questions.

1. At the moment, I think that England is too divided and too distracted by Viking invaders to aspire to the leadership of the Celtic/Western Church. However, when the Saxons are able to kick the Viking out and establish a unified kingdom, I think things may change.

2. Well you see it is difficult to say about Vikings going elsewhere. On the one hand, yes we are going to have a lot of Vikings settling and running around in France and the Low Countries so fewer Vikings to hammer the Saxons. On the other hand, there won't be a Normandy in this ATL (as Valdemar skillfully argues), so less Vikings in that part of Northern Europe. I was thinking about a united Anglo-Saxon Kingdom and no 'Norman Invasion' style scenario but I am still in two minds about it. Sometimes I feel inclined to go towards a successful ‘Dane Conquest of England’. What does the forum think?

3. Don't worry about being Anglo-centric, as a person of proud Scottish ancestry I always spare a thought for my long-lost Anglo-Oppressors.

steven24gordon

January 18th, 2010, 05:39 AM

If we are to trace the life of Bjorn Ironside, we must first consider the political reality of his world. As the civil conflict of the 9th century drained the military strength of the Al-Avrup Emirate, local governorsstruggled to recruit and maintain sufficient forces to replace the armies that had been lost in the fight with al-Husayn or against local rebels. All the governors handled the loss of manpower in different ways but by far the most successful (if such a word could be used) was the wali of Al-Aquitane [the Aquitaine region in France] Ja’far. Desperate for replacements for his wars, Ja’far became increasingly dependent on his younger brother, Sultānah Subh, who had gathered a highly efficient force of Nordic mercenaries from Gascony many of them ex-raiders of Muslim lands (although often identified as Norse many of these mercenaries were Basques or local Gascons). It seems certain that Bjorn’s father was one of these mercenaries (who was himself native to Gascony), and his induction into the Islamic faith and Al-Avrupian culture took place during his father’s service in Al-Aquitane.

With the help of his mercenaries, Sultānah drove out Danish pirates from the Bay of Biscay (many of whom joined his army), and secured deals with prominent Danish lords who had established settlements on the Lower Loire, Île de Noirmoutier and beyond to secure the Atlantic coast against Nordic raids and promote trade with the Norse. It is rumoured that Bjorn played a prominent role in these campaigns and thus earned the respect of Sultānah but there is little hard evidence of that. So powerful did these mercenaries make Sultānah, that he not only unseated his brother to become governor of Al-Aquitane but was able to demand great privileges from the Emir of Al-Avrup who granted him the title of Malik [King]as well as the right to appoint his own qadis, and raise armies for his own purposes. His reign marks the introduction into Al-Gallia of a ‘Norse’ military class, which was to dominate the political life of the country for centuries to come. From this time Al-Gallian Arabs were rarely employed in military positions, though they continued to be influential in the civil administration. Bjorn seems to have done very well from Sultānah’s rise to glory, and he was appointed to a senior position in the new government despite his youth.

While these early years of Bjorn’s life are rather haphazardly recorded by history, his diplomat mission to Al-Andalus [I][Islamic Spain] is where the available evidence becomes more substantive. In 877, acting as an emissary on behalf of Sultānah, Bjorn was sent south to conclude a treaty with the lords of the Ebro Valley against his rivals the wealthy port-cities of Al-Narbonenus [Mediterranean lowlands of France]. Accompanied by a considerable force of predominately Norse followers and other soldiers of fortune, this warrior-diplomat forced the Christian king of Pamplona to make allow his army to cross Navarre to reach the river Ebro (concluding a peace treaty with the king in exchange for a raid against his rivals, the Cantabrians). At Catalonia, he negotiated with the Arabs lords of Barcelona, and gained their support after he masterminded the fall of a Christian rebellion at Saragossa (after which he gained the title ‘the Besieger’). Operating from Tortosa, the ‘Besieger’ then organised a flotilla of pirate shops to embark on a remarkable mission in the Mediterranean Sea. Originally designed to merely disrupt the trade of Narbon and Marseille, Bjorn’s journey would take dramatic turn after dramatic turn. The whole story of this Viking-turned-statesmen’s journey lasted more than 12 years, and was later the subject of some of the most influential Muslim literature of the twelfth century including Abū al-Walīd ibn Ma’mar’s epic tale: ‘A Hundred Days of Night’. Although it is difficult to piece together fact from fiction, the basic outline of Bjorn’s journey will be traced here.

After two successful years attacking shipping off the coast of France, the ‘Besieger’ abandoned this mission for more profitable prospects. The cunning Nordic adventurer allied with the Emir of Palermo to seize the last Byzantine stronghold on the island, Messina. Reportedly taking the city by stealth, Bjorn acquired great frame for his role in the fall of Messina. But his Sicilian venture was to acquaint him with one of Islam’s oldest enemies: the Byzantine Empire. Allegedly seeking revenge for the poisoning of one of his brother-in-arms (although in ibn Ma’mar’s version his actions are motivated by love of a captured Sicilian Muslim), the impious Nordic pirate launched a series of bloody attacks on Apulia and Campania to aid the Muslim emirs of southern Italia. But his efforts in this distant land proved futile amid a rapid Byzantine re-conquest of southern Italia in the late 9th century. Although Muslim pirates, from a few heavily fortified bases in Calabria, would continue to raid Italia for another century, the establishment of military themes in southern Italia put a stop to Bjorn’s adventures there.

However, the stalwart Nordic warrior was not to be daunted, and sometime in the spring of 885 he journeyed east (leaving many of fellow Norse in Sicily). After spending some time at the court of the Emir of Crete, Bjorn (joining up with the Swedish Varyags who had come across from Russia) attacked Constantinople. Despite a successful naval battle, an assault on the city proved unsuccessful, but Bjorn managed to obtain a commercial treaty from the Byzantine Emperor intended to serve both his friends in Crete and Sicily although Bjorn himself was able to procure a great deal of Byzantine gold (and according to ibn Ma’mar a Byzantine princess) before leaving the East. His new found wealth was obviously enough to buy himself back into the good graces of his former Masters, the Maliks of Al-Aquitane, in whose courts he served as honoured advisor. Although literature is divided over his end –with ibn Ma’mar having him engage in another journey across the seas to a mythical Western Utopia –that his life was inspirational there can be no doubt.

steven24gordon

January 18th, 2010, 06:22 AM

I will try to adress each of these in time.

First thing is Carinthia(Carantania). The borders shown on your maps are the borders of Markgraviate of Carinthia created by Ludovic the Pious following the Slav rebellion in Carantania and Pannonia in 819-822. The territory of the Carantanian slavs was much smaller.

These slavs were part of the Samo slav state until 658 when it well apart and they became "independant". In truth their state is unknow and many believe their land was really a no-man's land between Bavaria and the Avar Khaganate. In year 745 these Slavs became dependant of the Bavarians and were later fully incorporated into the Empire by Charlemange.

In reallity between 680 and 796 Bavaria and the Avar Khaganate were direct neighbours any turmoil in the Frankish Kingdom would cause Bavaria to look westwards and present itself vulnerable for Avar raids. Conquest is out of question for the Avar Khaganate had no use for Bavarian lands. Turning Bavaria into a vassal state is another thing altogather.

The Avars were at least made out of these groups:
Kutiguri - later formed the core of the Bulgars
Utiguri - later formed the core of the Bulgars
Onoguri - later formed the core of the Bulgars
Onoguzi
Huns
Anti - more eastern slavs that inhabited the lands between the Carpathians and the Black Sea
Vari
Tarniaci
Varohoniti
Kuchagiri
Gepids
Pannonian slavs

After 680 the first three groups were no longer part of the Khaganate and went to form Bulgaria. In their place came new unindentified nomad groups from the Pontic stepps. Apart from the power struggles between 630 and 680 that saw "Bulgars" expeled for trying to usurp power the reformed Khaganate and the new Bulgar Khaganate were on friendly terms. Some suggest they mainatained a sort of an alliance as it was quite commong among the nomadic peoples.

The thing to understand about the Khaganate is that unlike the germanic kingdoms of the west which favoured their kin to be in power, the rulers made their promotions based on skill for in ther view of the world that was much important. This can be seen among the Huns(another heterogenuos group dispite popular view) and among the Avars. Archelogical research showed us that people which were clearly slav or germanic in origin held positions of power within the Khaganate.

In a world you have created with a shatered Frankish empire the Avar Khagante is probably the most powerful "barbarian" realm in Europe made out of groups that had benefits from such an alliance and owing alligance to the most powerfull warlord. Such a state is both very powerful because it does not depent on a single ethnic group to keep others in check, but at the same time is very fragile since as soon the guys in power show weakness other will try and jump them not to liberate themselves but to replace the current leading wargroup with their own. The "Bulgars" made that gambit after 626, they lost and for their troubles fleed the Khaganate to avoid retribution.

The naval power of the Adriatic slavs is often forgoten or simply unknown to the people beyond those that actually examine it.

It is generally accepted tha Slavs settled along the Adriatic coast between 626 and 640. In 642 they allready have a powerful enough fleet to raid Sipont on the other side of the Adriatic and to start raiding and colonsing the paninsula of Gargano (this would peak in the first quarter of the 10th century when it is speculated the peninsula was breafly held by the Prince of Zahumle). These slavs would attacks ships the lenght and breath of Adriatic with sporadic raids as far as Corfu.

During the 9th century, more precisely between 837 and 840 the Venetians launched a military expedition against the Croats and the Narentians which ended in a disaster for the Venetians. In 846 Narentians sack Caorle in the Venetian lagoon.

The Croats and the Narentians were vassals of the Frankish empire in OTL when siege of Bari happened in 867-871. The Byzantian expedition numbering 400 vessels raids the eastern Adriatic coast precisely while the fleets of Croats and Narentians are helping Ludovic II besiege Bari. When the Croats return home the battles with the Venetias begin once more because it seams Venetia though itself powerfull enough to chalange the Slavs for the control of the waves. The fighting is so vicious and it goes so badly for the Venetians that the Croatian prince of the time Domagoj is dubed by the Venetian historians "pessimus Sclavorum dux", the worst Prince of the Slavs. During the first half of the 10th century Croatian fleet alone was second only to that of Byzantium and it would not be till year 1000 that Venice would turn the tide due to the civil war in Croatia.

If you add the naval might of other slav principalities to that of Croatian principality one must wonder what would have happened if their intantions were more agressive than just maintaing Adraitic sea as "mare nostrum", our sea.

For Croatia at least the absence of Frankish supremacy during most of 9th century (cca 803-21. May 879) would see their power grow more rapidly as would their ambitions.

While still being only Frankish vassals in 846 they defeated the Byzantian Strategos of Dalmatia and in 855 defeated invasion by Bulgarian Khan Boris.

There is an interesting mistery connected with the Arab raids into the Adriatic during the 840's. It seams none of the raids targeted the slavs and some are speculating that slavs and the arabs colaborated in raiding the venetian, italian and byzantian possesisons during the period.

The awser to the third point is held in the first part of this post. Any new nomadic group very likely wouldn't destroy the Khaganate, they would get absorbed by the Khaganate, either as the new ruling group or as a new vassal in the alliance. The thing that happened in OTL when the Hring fell was that Bulgars absorbed the parts of the Khaganate which Franks didn't conquer.

This existed until Magyars arrived and in turn absorbed the some parts of the Bulgarian Khaganate (now developed into a kingdome/tzardom at least in the south) into their own Khaganate that had the fortune to develop into an european style kingdom before the arrival of the next nomad Khaganate from the east the Kipchaks.

In truth there is much doubt the Avar Khaganate was actually called an Avar Khaganate. The Avars never came to Europe, they remained somewhere in the stepps, nomadic groups fleeing from them took their name to sound more terrfying so actually the Avara Khaganate in Europe is the Pseudo-Avar Khaganate.

I believe the Avar, Bulgar, Khazar Khaganates didn't have an ethnic name. It was just the Khaganate which just happened to be rulled by the Khagan of the Avars or Khan of the Bulgars. If for exaple Knez of Pannonia became the new leading figure it would still be the Khaganate with very little to diferentiate it from the previous incarantion.

So Bavaria has no Slav realms(for the lack of better word) to expand into to the east, they have the Khaganate right on their door step, if they touch just one group they will have the whole alliance to deal with.

I hope I helped.

An insightful synopsis. But let me ask a few questions:

1. It seems that your hypothesis is that the Avar Khagante (if we can call it that), in the absence of a powerful Frankish Empire, would become stronger and would raid a Bavaria distracted with events on the Rhineland. How does this stronger Khanagate affect the operations of Bulgaria? Would this Khanagate be able to resist the Magyar invasion?

2. So are you suggesting a Slavic Croatia that dominates the Adriatic Sea (and maybe beyond) and challenges the Byzantines for power in southern Italy, hammers Venetia and maybe even raids mainland Greece. A more powerful Croatia is not something I had envisioned for this ATL, but that is why I need this dynamic forum. Indeed, I like the idea, it has a superb originality. However, my own knowledge of the Croats is spartan indeed, and I doubt I would be able to do these rugged pirates justice. If you want to put together a rough timeline or something for the 'World Without Martel' concerning Croatia (and maybe even the Avar Khangate) then I be more than happy to work on it and (with your permission) include it in my ATL.

Valdemar II

January 18th, 2010, 10:17 AM

A important aspect about the Avars vs. the Bavarians are demography even with vassals the Avars made at best up around a half million souls, while the Bavarians had between 1-2 million souls. Beside that we have geography beside the Donau valley there are no easy invasion routes into Bavaria and much of the population live protected in the Alpine highland. The Avars have the problem that they was a nomad people, and it was only their superior mobility which made them able to control the Hungarian steppes, but Hungary can only feed a quite limited semi-nomads and the moment they settle down, they make themself open either for the Bavarian "Drang nach Osten" or for new group of steppes nomads.

To the whole England, the question are how a England united without external pressure or one unified by the Danes would look. My guess are that a England which unifies itself cultural would look a lot more like Germany a confederation of Stem duchies which slowly develop a unified identity. While a Danish conquest could end up either two ways either something like OTL England and (Ireland ironic enough) a nation unified in their disaster and dislike for the foreign conquers, or they could be end up as a nation remade by the Danes in their own images (as it happened for the continental Jutes and Angles*) as some kind of greater Denmark.

*Even the mythical heroes and kings of these two group was assimilated into Danish identity, to the point where it's almost impossible to see the origin anymore.

Incognitia

January 18th, 2010, 11:08 AM

1. At the moment, I think that England is too divided and too distracted by Viking invaders to aspire to the leadership of the Celtic/Western Church. However, when the Saxons are able to kick the Viking out and establish a unified kingdom, I think things may change.

2. Well you see it is difficult to say about Vikings going elsewhere. On the one hand, yes we are going to have a lot of Vikings settling and running around in France and the Low Countries so fewer Vikings to hammer the Saxons. On the other hand, there won't be a Normandy in this ATL (as Valdemar skillfully argues), so less Vikings in that part of Northern Europe. I was thinking about a united Anglo-Saxon Kingdom and no 'Norman Invasion' style scenario but I am still in two minds about it. Sometimes I feel inclined to go towards a successful ‘Dane Conquest of England’. What does the forum think?

3. Don't worry about being Anglo-centric, as a person of proud Scottish ancestry I always spare a thought for my long-lost Anglo-Oppressors.

A Danish conquest is possible. However, what I would prefer to see would be Mercia uniting England, rather than Wessex.

At or around the PoD of 676, the Mercians are the strongest Anglo-Saxon Kingdom; if I remember rightly it's only in the early 9th century that Wessex becomes dominant, and only later in the 9th century that swathes of Mercia fall to the Vikings.
Equally, even when Wessex was threatened by Danes, only the Eastern part of Mercia had fallen.
Thus unless there is a major point which I've missed, Mercia could be the one to lead the counter-attack against the Danes without substantially changing the broad narrative; just a more effective and popular Mercian King than OTL, and Wessex not having a King of the abilities of Alfred the Great should suffice.

A quick wiki-walk even shows suggestions that the Carolingian Empire may have helped subsidise Wessex's rise to power at the expense of Mercia prior to the Viking incursions. If true, then TTL with no Carolingian Empire, Wessex should be weaker, and Mercia perhaps stronger - more likely to hold domination over East Anglia and Essex, and draw upon their resources to fight the Vikings.

Also, I like Bjorn Ironside - quite a character. Reminds me somehow of Thomas Cochrane...

steven24gordon

January 18th, 2010, 11:14 AM

To the whole England, the question are how a England united without external pressure or one unified by the Danes would look. My guess are that a England which unifies itself cultural would look a lot more like Germany a confederation of Stem duchies which slowly develop a unified identity. While a Danish conquest could end up either two ways either something like OTL England and (Ireland ironic enough) a nation unified in their disaster and dislike for the foreign conquers, or they could be end up as a nation remade by the Danes in their own images (as it happened for the continental Jutes and Angles*) as some kind of greater Denmark.

*Even the mythical heroes and kings of these two group was assimilated into Danish identity, to the point where it's almost impossible to see the origin anymore.

I think, as Incognitia suggests, there are going to be fewer Danes attacking Britain when compared to OTL. The way I see it, the Danes are able to establish successful settlements in Frisia and Saxony as a result of a weakened Francia distracted with the Muslim south. These settlements (as well as better continental opportunities than OTL) will redirect many Danes away from Britain. My immediate preference for England would to have the Saxons (perhaps under an 'Alfred the Great' style figure) drive out the Danes. However, since we have fewer Dane invaders ATL than maybe we don't need a hero of his calibre. Although, our lesser 'Alfred" may manage to create the Confederation that you suggested. Does this sound reasonable?

Given your insight into this area of history, let me take this opportunity to ask you about Denmark, Saxony and northern Germany. In your opinion, what is going on up north? This is my thinking on the religious front: on the one hand "Celtic" Christians will be making their presence felt in the north but I believe paganism will be stronger than OTL. How does this affect the political scene in northern Germania? And of course, there are other questions: I know you suggested a Danish conquest of Saxony but what is the timeline for such a conquest? Are we going to see an earlier unification for Denmark? And what are your thoughts on an independent Frisia, what kind of kingdom are we looking at here? And then there are the Thuringians…

Analytical Engine

January 18th, 2010, 11:19 AM

I think the title of Bretwalda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) is going to be more important ITTL... ;)

steven24gordon

January 18th, 2010, 11:26 AM

Also, I like Bjorn Ironside - quite a character. Reminds me somehow of Thomas Cochrane...

You OTL there was a Viking named Bjorn Ironside, although I must say that my Bjorn is a far cooler adventurer.

...interesting idea about Mercia by the way but lets flesh this out: in what ways would a Mercia-dominated England differ from a Wessex-dominated one?

Basileus Giorgios

January 18th, 2010, 02:27 PM

You OTL there was a Viking named Bjorn Ironside, although I must say that my Bjorn is a far cooler adventurer.

...interesting idea about Mercia by the way but lets flesh this out: in what ways would a Mercia-dominated England differ from a Wessex-dominated one?

The centre of gravity of England will be based around Tamworth politically rather than London, and Lichfield spiritually rather than Canterbury. The whole country will be based around the Midlands, with the south coast something of a frontier region. Since Mercia held her northern boundary on the River Ribble, I suspect she won't try to expand northwards, and instead will focus her energies on arguing with the Welsh. London will be a port city, rather than a major metropolis: we could also see the earlier emergence of a city in either Liverpool or Preston as a slave market for Irish and Welsh captives, and trade with the Caliphate.

Giladis

January 18th, 2010, 02:37 PM

An insightful synopsis. But let me ask a few questions:

1. It seems that your hypothesis is that the Avar Khagante(if we can call it that), in the absence of a powerful Frankish Empire, would become stronger and would raid a Bavaria distracted with events on the Rhineland. How does this stronger Khanagate affect the operations of Bulgaria? Would this Khanagate be able to resist the Magyar invasion?

I wouldn't say Khaganate would be become more powerfull if we look it individually but when we look at it on the european scale their power without more powerful negibours would have greater influence.

The "Avars" were oportunists just like any other nomad group and if a chance presents itself they will raid Bavaria. It will not be an easy task considering the geography doesn't favour their preffered fighting style. But history showed us that this geography wasn't much of a hindrance to the Huns, earlier Avar raids that reached as far as Austrasia in the 6th century or Magyars that came later and raided as far as the North Sea and La Manche coast (not to mention Catalonia).

This more influential Khaganate I believe would have little influence on the Bulgars. In OTL they peacfuly coexisted for 130 years, before the remnants of the "Avar" Khaganate were absorbed by the Bulgars following their defeat by the Franks. On the other hand should Bulgars get their asses handed to them by the Byzantians I can see their remanats geting absorbed by the Avars.

I personaly believe that with the Khaganate in place there is no Magyar invasion. Dispite popular belief the Khaganate did not stop on the Carpathian mountais but stretched further until it reached the Khazars. It was the "fall" of the Khaganate that in a way allowed once more the movement of people towards the west.

Magyars when they invaded had a maximum of 25 000 warriors and the reason why they managed to build a realm for themselves was because there was no one strong enought at the moment interested to stop them. The carpathian basin was at that time divided between Bulgaria, Great Moravia and Eastern Frankish Empire. The region was weakened by wars. Local Slav princes were more concerened with their balancing act between their growing independence and loyalty to the EF emperor then watching the passess. Great Moravia was considerably weakend from internal unrests and battles with the EFE. Bulgaria was occupied in the south with rebelious slav dukes and the Byzantine Empire. If the Khaganate was there the Magyar would encouter ressitance long before reaching the Carapthians and since they would allready fleeing from the west turkish Khaganate I doubt they would attack the Avars, more likely they would seek their protection and try to become a member of the Khaganate.

On the other hand if you opt to weaken and then remove the Avar Khaganate you face with another problem from the East and North East. The period of the 9th century is sometimes called the second Slav wave because it was period when slav states quickly rose to power and played important roles in European politics. It was only the existance of the strong Frankish Empire that kept these emerging states in check.

Without the Frankish Empire, Byzantine Empire that is under siege by the Arabs and with a crumbling Avar Khaganate you would see a slavic explosion. Croatia, Pagania, Zahumle, Doclea on the coast, Pannonian principality and Rascia further inland, Nitra principality, Great Moravia, Chechia and White Croatia beyond the pannonian plain. Any of these could become centres of a powerful slavic central european state.

2. So are you suggesting a Slavic Croatia that dominates the Adriatic Sea (and maybe beyond) and challenges the Byzantines for power in southern Italy, hammers Venetia and maybe even raids mainland Greece. A more powerful Croatia is not something I had envisioned for this ATL, but that is why I need this dynamic forum. Indeed, I like the idea, it has a superb originality. However, my own knowledge of the Croats is spartan indeed, and I doubt I would be able to do these rugged pirates justice. If you want to put together a rough timeline or something for the 'World Without Martel' concerning Croatia (and maybe even the Avar Khangate) then I be more than happy to work on it and (with your permission) include it in my ATL.

I can do that but you will have to give me a few days, to do it right.

I am in the proces of preparing an exam on early medevial archeology so this subject is very close to what I am now immersed. I have been thinking about this scenario of yours a lot over the past days and came to a conclusion that you can go into pretty much any direction you want.

The Frankish Empire of Charlemange is the fundation of the process and development of the developed middle ages. Without it who know what can happen.

Cheers

Valdemar II

January 18th, 2010, 08:52 PM

I think, as Incognitia suggests, there are going to be fewer Danes attacking Britain when compared to OTL. The way I see it, the Danes are able to establish successful settlements in Frisia and Saxony as a result of a weakened Francia distracted with the Muslim south. These settlements (as well as better continental opportunities than OTL) will redirect many Danes away from Britain. My immediate preference for England would to have the Saxons (perhaps under an 'Alfred the Great' style figure) drive out the Danes. However, since we have fewer Dane invaders ATL than maybe we don't need a hero of his calibre. Although, our lesser 'Alfred" may manage to create the Confederation that you suggested. Does this sound reasonable?

Yes and his lesser status without the Danish invaders being as strong as they was in OTL, will result ina much more decentral unification, where the local "subkingdoms"/duchies keep a greater amounts of right, and the "Empire" may break up several times before it finally unified. Of course with a stronger local nability we may see "HRE" England* evolve. With small noble/princely and ecclessial domains and free cities and weird leagues and all that.

Given your insight into this area of history, let me take this opportunity to ask you about Denmark, Saxony and northern Germany. In your opinion, what is going on up north? This is my thinking on the religious front: on the one hand "Celtic" Christians will be making their presence felt in the north but I believe paganism will be stronger than OTL. How does this affect the political scene in northern Germania? And of course, there are other questions: I know you suggested a Danish conquest of Saxony but what is the timeline for such a conquest? Are we going to see an earlier unification for Denmark? And what are your thoughts on an independent Frisia, what kind of kingdom are we looking at here? And then there are the Thuringians…

Yes likely Paganism are going stronger but in Saxony, in Denmark the state was under pressure gfrom Christian power in 2 centuries (whom more than onced tried to install a Christian king) before it converted, and mostly it converted out of a wish to centralise the state, and public human sacrifies are still rapported a century later (through not by the most neutral source Adam of Bremen). To the whole Danish unification it's overrated, there's little doubt that many of pre-"unification" King was rule of the entire Denmark (and was called so by the primary source the Frankish chronicles). But Denmark had two tendencies one was Germanic idea of splitting the inherience up between the family, which resulted in a Denmark split several time (including after the "unification"). What likely have happen in the "unification"
are that Harald Bluetooth has conquered his relatives territories and maybe inherited some of them. My guess are without the Danish-Saxon alliance against the Franks in the 8th century, we will likely see a Danish takeover in the 9th Century, and likely a conversion around the same time. But likely we see some infighting between the King and the noble over the centralisation issues, which will in later history be translated into a strugle between Christianity and Paganism. Much as Svend Tweskægs strugle with his father Harald was translated into. We will likely see a almost universal conversion, but many will still keep the old Pagan ritual for centuries to come, and likely with a weaker centralised Church many of them will likely be incorperated into Christianity, I can also see runes being used for much longer time with a weaker contact with Rome and Classical literature.

The Thüringes I don't really see what will happen to them, I think either the Franks or Bavarians will conquer them, through we may see them push into Bohemia thanks to the pressure from the other Germanic states.

A aspect I have thought of, with a stronger Arabic presense in Europe we could see a wider and faster spread paper to Europe including the north (especially without the Church condemning the use of paper). Both the Latin and Runic alphabeth lend itself easier to printing presses than the arabic so we could see a earlier develop of the westen printing press.

*Of course by medieval the HRE wasn't especially fractured, it was just Normannic England which was unusual unified.

steven24gordon

January 19th, 2010, 05:16 AM

The centre of gravity of England will be based around Tamworth politically rather than London, and Lichfield spiritually rather than Canterbury. The whole country will be based around the Midlands, with the south coast something of a frontier region. Since Mercia held her northern boundary on the River Ribble, I suspect she won't try to expand northwards, and instead will focus her energies on arguing with the Welsh. London will be a port city, rather than a major metropolis: we could also see the earlier emergence of a city in either Liverpool or Preston as a slave market for Irish and Welsh captives, and trade with the Caliphate.

Ah Giorgios it has been awhile since I saw your inventive posts on this thread. I like your thoughts on a Mercia-dominated England but a question: if the Mercians are less keen to expand northward do we get a stronger and more independent Scotland?

I was thinking about putting together a post of the Byzantine Empire at the start of the 10th century. Since this TL hasn't directly covered Byzantium (well you can't cover everything) there is a lot of creative room available although the board outline of a resurgent Roman Empire seems obvious. I would appreciate your thoughts on this regard.

steven24gordon

January 19th, 2010, 05:38 AM

On the other hand if you opt to weaken and then remove the Avar Khaganate you face with another problem from the East and North East. The period of the 9th century is sometimes called the second Slav wave because it was period when slav states quickly rose to power and played important roles in European politics. It was only the existance of the strong Frankish Empire that kept these emerging states in check.

Without the Frankish Empire, Byzantine Empire that is under siege by the Arabs and with a crumbling Avar Khaganate you would see a slavic explosion. Croatia, Pagania, Zahumle, Doclea on the coast, Pannonian principality and Rascia further inland, Nitra principality, Great Moravia, Chechia and White Croatia beyond the pannonian plain. Any of these could become centres of a powerful slavic central european state.

I still have my doubts about an Avar Empire that lasts beyond the 9th century, and I’m inclined to believe that Avar-Bavarian wars weaken the Empire leading to its collapse (and replacement by other nomad groups in the late 9th/early 10th centuries). Indeed, your suggestions on the 'Second Slavic Wave' makes me even less inclined to be swayed by 'strong Avar' argument than before. The rise of a 'Powerful Slavic Central European State' that plays a big part in Western European politics is an ATL situation that is too good to pass up. Any thoughts on who is going to be the unifying Slavic element here and what the geographic dimensions of such a state would be?

I can do that but you will have to give me a few days, to do it right.

No worries, I have a little more on Childeric's Francia to do, and then a post or two about the conflict between Al-Gallia [Islamic France] and Childeric's successors so we have a little time.

I am in the proces of preparing an exam on early medevial archeology so this subject is very close to what I am now immersed. I have been thinking about this scenario of yours a lot over the past days and came to a conclusion that you can go into pretty much any direction you want.

The Frankish Empire of Charlemange is the fundation of the process and development of the developed middle ages. Without it who know what can happen.

Cheers

You’re writing exams now? At my university we are just about to register the incoming students and the start of a new academic year is only a week away. Good luck.

steven24gordon

January 19th, 2010, 06:56 AM

Yes and his lesser status without the Danish invaders being as strong as they was in OTL, will result ina much more decentral unification, where the local "subkingdoms"/duchies keep a greater amounts of right, and the "Empire" may break up several times before it finally unified. Of course with a stronger local nability we may see "HRE" England* evolve. With small noble/princely and ecclessial domains and free cities and weird leagues and all that.

In our ATL *England, I think the role of the kings (or Bretwalda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda), thank you Analytical Engine) would be much more difficult one than OTL. As there would not be much to distinguish them from the other "ducal" houses on the island, the kings will face far more rebellion and have less power than OTL. This might lead them to attempt to enhance their status by various ecclesiastical devices -to turn them into 'sacral kings' like what the Ottonian kings in OTL's Germany tried to do. However, I doubt this will be very successful (it wasn't very successful in Germany) and the power of the Mercian kings will largely depend on a mixture of continuing military success and political dexterity (always a tricky prospect). In order to increase their status in their homeland, these kings may become involved in the affairs of continental Europe (although obviously they wouldn't have the connection to France that the Norman kings had). On the other hand, the exact same reason could lead them to be more isolationist. What do you think? Initially I had an idea about a conflict within the 'Celtic Church' between Francia and *England (maybe involving some other actors as well).

My guess are without the Danish-Saxon alliance against the Franks in the 8th century, we will likely see a Danish takeover in the 9th Century, and likely a conversion around the same time. But likely we see some infighting between the King and the noble over the centralisation issues, which will in later history be translated into a strugle between Christianity and Paganism. Much as Svend Tweskægs strugle with his father Harald was translated into. We will likely see a almost universal conversion, but many will still keep the old Pagan ritual for centuries to come, and likely with a weaker centralised Church many of them will likely be incorperated into Christianity, I can also see runes being used for much longer time with a weaker contact with Rome and Classical literature.

Based on your suggestions, my thinking is that a Danish-Frankish alliance develops as the Danes push into those pagan countries that the Franks just can’t conquer. As a result I think we may see three Danish states or “areas of settlement/occupation” in mainland Europe by the late 9th/early 10th century:

* one in the Low Countries, where a "Viking" dynasty(ies) replaces the native ones and some kind of land distribution occurs amongst the followers of the Danish leaders.
*one in Saxony where something similar to the situation in the Low Countries occurs although there is a larger concentration of Nordic settlement and the whole area is more tied in to the politics of Denmark. I think this area will also include the land around the Mecklenburger Bucht.
*and one in Pomerania where fortified coastal settlements became centres of territorially small but powerful local kingdoms that finally coalesce into a large state as the local Danish kings become more involved in the interminable wars of the indigenous inhabitants.

My thinking is that these states united into some form of Danish Kingdom between the late 9th and mid 10th centuries (the delay I think will occur, as you suggest, over problems of centralization and a lot of Christian vs. pagan conflict of course). Consequently, we could see this United Danish Kingdom as a strong player in 10th century European politics, especially as ‘Celtic’ Christianity makes its journey eastward.

Any good? Or am I way off base?

A aspect I have thought of, with a stronger Arabic presense in Europe we could see a wider and faster spread paper to Europe including the north (especially without the Church condemning the use of paper). Both the Latin and Runic alphabeth lend itself easier to printing presses than the arabic so we could see a earlier develop of the westen printing press.

Well I think we are going to see the diffusion of a lot more 'Arabic' knowledge into Europe when compared to OTL. Paper will just be one example although a very revolutionary one. Indeed, by the late 11th century I think we could see paper mills throughout Western Europe. Although that may be a little optimistic. Still I technological advancement will proceed more quickly in this ATL than OTL (always popular in an ATL).

Basileus Giorgios

January 19th, 2010, 12:41 PM

Ah Giorgios it has been awhile since I saw your inventive posts on this thread. I like your thoughts on a Mercia-dominated England but a question: if the Mercians are less keen to expand northward do we get a stronger and more independent Scotland?

I was thinking about putting together a post of the Byzantine Empire at the start of the 10th century. Since this TL hasn't directly covered Byzantium (well you can't cover everything) there is a lot of creative room available although the board outline of a resurgent Roman Empire seems obvious. I would appreciate your thoughts on this regard.

Re. Scotland, yes, I believe this is plausible. I suspect that the Mercians will be more interested in asserting hegemony over Wales and then interfering in continental affairs than they will be bothered about Scotland. Though it's possible if this comes about, Northumbria could end up amalgamating Scotland, since it did include cities like Edinburgh at the time. So we could see an English Mercia, as well as a partly English Scotland. Their boundaries would lie along the River Ribble and the River Humber, at a guess.

A few thoughts on Byzantium ITTL.

- Without Charlemagne, Constantinople will be fully regarded across the world at seat of the Roman Empire: this will give the Byzantines much more prestige when dealing with the Lombards, Burgundians and Franks. Less so with the Muslims, who rightly considered Byzantium to be the Roman Empire anyway, and consequently ignored Charlemagne's claims.

- With a far weakened Papacy, Byzantium will reign supreme in spiritual matters: but ironically, this will quite possibly lead to a slower Christianisation of Europe, which occured to a large degree in OTL's early middle ages as something of a "cold war" between the Latin and Byzantine branches of Roman Christianity. I think the line of Christianity ITTL is unlikely to penetrate much beyond the Elbe/Danube until the year 1000 or later.

- Regarding millitary affairs, it depends on the strength of the Abbasids to the East. If they remain powerful, then the Byzantines will likely be quite content to continue to hold the defensible Cilician/Caucasus frontiers, and not bother with reconquering Syria and Palestine, as they did in in OTL's tenth century. If the Abbasids are weak, then predatory Byzantine emperors and generals will likely restore Cyprus, Cilicia, Antioch and Armenia to the Imperial sphere of influence, and may even do better than in OTL.

- In the West, I think that the Byzantines will play "divide and rule" games- if Islamic Europe collapses into civil war, then the Byzantines will certainly attempt to permanently fragment the Islamic West, and to expel the Muslims from Italy at the very least. They may also attempt to integrate their Lombard and Bulgarian allies into the Empire, and it's possible there could be opportunistic attempts to conquer them outright: let's say if a pro-Byzantine Lombard monarch is deposed, then a Byzantine invasion of the Lombard kingdom is a possibility.

- Beyond this, for the Empire's long term survival, all that is needed is for less mediocre Emperors in the crucial eleventh century. This done, a Byzantium holding Anatolia, and dominating Europe, stands a very good chance of survival well into the future

Helpful?

steven24gordon

January 19th, 2010, 01:01 PM

Thanks for the feedback, I have to go teach a class now but just a few quick thoughts before I run.

Re. Scotland, yes, I believe this is plausible. I suspect that the Mercians will be more interested in asserting hegemony over Wales and then interfering in continental affairs than they will be bothered about Scotland. Though it's possible if this comes about, Northumbria could end up amalgamating Scotland, since it did include cities like Edinburgh at the time. So we could see an English Mercia, as well as a partly English Scotland. Their boundaries would lie along the River Ribble and the River Humber, at a guess.

What kind of relationship would this "English Scotland" have with our "Mercia England"? Would the "English-Scots" be part of the "HRE England" that seems to be on the cards or would they spend their time in conflict with it? In a more de-centralised empire I guess being part of "HRE England" would not be as oppressive to the Scots as OTL. Any thoughts?

With a far weakened Papacy, Byzantium will reign supreme in spiritual matters: but ironically, this will quite possibly lead to a slower Christianisation of Europe, which occured to a large degree in OTL's early middle ages as something of a "cold war" between the Latin and Byzantine branches of Roman Christianity. I think the line of Christianity ITTL is unlikely to penetrate much beyond the Elbe/Danube until the year 1000 or later.

I kinda see a conflict developing between 'Celtic' Christianity (Francia and England) and 'Orthodox' Christianity, although I think distance will mean that the fire of the debate will be a great deal less than between the OTL Latin and Byzantine branches of Roman Christianity.

In the West, I think that the Byzantines will play "divide and rule" games- if Islamic Europe collapses into civil war, then the Byzantines will certainly attempt to permanently fragment the Islamic West, and to expel the Muslims from Italy at the very least. They may also attempt to integrate their Lombard and Bulgarian allies into the Empire, and it's possible there could be opportunistic attempts to conquer them outright: let's say if a pro-Byzantine Lombard monarch is deposed, then a Byzantine invasion of the Lombard kingdom is a possibility.

I was thinking about having Venice control Christian northern Italy (as an ally of the Byzantine Emperors) while southern Italy came under direct Byzantine rule with maybe a Lombard Spoleto as a buffer state in the middle. Thoughts?

steven24gordon

January 19th, 2010, 01:07 PM

It is often asked, by those of a more inquiring mind, why the Muslims of Europe, after defeating the Christian armies of Spain and Gaul, were brought low by the Italians in the 9th century. Indeed, the failure of the Muslimsto pursue the initial success of their Italian campaign seems to the modern mind strange. Despite obvious military and material advantages over the Lombards (and their at times erstwhile Byzantine allies), Al- Al-Avrpian advances into central and northern Italy faltered and petered out during the later part of the 9th century. While traditionally historians have examined political events in Italy itself I instead argue that the situation in the peninsula cannot be divorced from the context of 9th century Europe. At this stage we can identify four primary external causes for the failure of the 9th and 10th century Italian jihad:

(1) The lack of military support from Al-Gallia . The lords of the Al-Gallian provinces were unable to provide substantive aid to the governor of Al-Italiya . One reason for this was that the Alpine mountains formed a formidable barrier for Al-Gallian armies travelling into [I]Al-Italiya, especially since much of the Alpine passes were often outside Al- Al-Avrpian control. The inglorious massacre of the rearguard of Ubayd of Venaissin’s army by Alpine tribes in 864 is perhaps the most singular example of the dangers involved.
(2) The expansion of the Swiss Germans/Alamannians following the collapse of the Old Merovingian Empire. By the end of the 9th century, the Swiss Germans/Alamannians had established cantons, city-states and minor kingdoms throughout the vast and inhospitable Western Alps. Although loosely organised, these states formed a vast buffer zone between Al-Gallia and the largely ‘Orthodox’ Christian East that both sides found difficult to navigate.
(3) The intervention of Bavaria in Italia. Although the Bavarian princes were often pre-occupied with their continual war against the Avars and struggles with their former Frankish masters in Baden and Hesse-Nassau, the lure of Italia was too strong for even these obstinate Germans. Indeed, Bavaria rather than Al-Gallia was more ideally placed to interfere in Italy: the Tyrol was the easiest and primary route into Italy from mainland Europe.
(4) Political disunity within the Emirate of Al- Al-Avrp. After decades of faction-fighting, the power of the Emirs in Córdoba to act outside Al-Andalus and parts of Al-Gallia became highly constrained. Perhaps due to its geographic isolation, Al-Italiya was effectively abandoned by the Emirs and resources were diverted to help alleviate problems closer to home. This placed the governors of Italiya in quiet a desperate state, and by the end of the 9th century we find them sending a series of frantic emissaries throughout the Muslim world (with one even going as far as the court of the distant Abbasid Caliph) seeking military aid against their enemies.

Indeed, given the challenges faced by the Al-Italiyains it would be more prudent to ask why the Muslims were not driven out of Italy in the late 9th century rather why the conquest was not successfully completed. Although in part we can attribute their 9th century success to their own ingenuity, again external forces play a role. Political disputes between the Bavarians and the Christian-controlled cities of Northern Italia (frequently led by Venice) often obstructed any anti-Muslim coalition. During these confrontations between Germans and Italians, the Venice-backed Pope became a national figure in Italia fighting for the independence of Italian Church. These early quarrels would set the stage for a larger spiritual and secular conflict between the Popes and the Bavarian Kings during the 10th and 11th centuries. Furthermore, the Swiss Germans/Alamannians were not always friends of the Eastern Christians, and fought against them (as well as amongst themselves) almost as much as with the Al- Al-Avrpians. Indeed, the Alpine peoples often acted as middlemen between Al- Al-Avrp and ‘Orthodox’ Europe with a small but significant trade in goods and knowledge making its way across the treacherous Alps. It is also important to remember that even when Al-Italiya was cut off from the political machinery of Al- Al-Avrp, she stillattracted a large number of migrants from across the Muslim World. Although many of these immigrants were brigands, vagabonds and rejects from other Muslim countries, their influx into the peninsula provided an often rewarding source of manpower in a frontier society with a high degree of social mobility.

Although the above only gives you a glimpse of a complex period in history, it is clear that Al-Italiya and the Italian jihad in the 9th century cannot be separated from the wider European landscape of the time.

-Valamar T. Fichtenau, [I]The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy, University of Ladoga

Incognitia

January 19th, 2010, 04:12 PM

Ah Giorgios it has been awhile since I saw your inventive posts on this thread. I like your thoughts on a Mercia-dominated England but a question: if the Mercians are less keen to expand northward do we get a stronger and more independent Scotland?

Depends, surely, what happens to Northumbria; if Northumbria remains strong, then we have *England (including much of the Scottish Lowlands IIRC) split into two, and Scotland consisting of the remnant to the North.

If Northumbria collapses, much of that territory could end up in *Scotland the way Lothian did OTL.

Personally I like the idea of a 3-cornered struggle for dominance in Great Britain, but I don't know how likely Northumbrian survival as a contestant is, nor how united Scotland is capable of being at this point.

Valdemar II

January 19th, 2010, 07:57 PM

In our ATL *England, I think the role of the kings (or Bretwalda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda), thank you Analytical Engine) would be much more difficult one than OTL. As there would not be much to distinguish them from the other "ducal" houses on the island, the kings will face far more rebellion and have less power than OTL. This might lead them to attempt to enhance their status by various ecclesiastical devices -to turn them into 'sacral kings' like what the Ottonian kings in OTL's Germany tried to do. However, I doubt this will be very successful (it wasn't very successful in Germany) and the power of the Mercian kings will largely depend on a mixture of continuing military success and political dexterity (always a tricky prospect). In order to increase their status in their homeland, these kings may become involved in the affairs of continental Europe (although obviously they wouldn't have the connection to France that the Norman kings had). On the other hand, the exact same reason could lead them to be more isolationist. What do you think? Initially I had an idea about a conflict within the 'Celtic Church' between Francia and *England (maybe involving some other actors as well).

Seem realistic, but I think that a Celtic Church are going to be decencral to see major infighting between the countries. It lack a central authority and no one has the prestige to set one up. Of course some of these national Churches may in time become strong enough that they come to dominate their kingdoms, or some may even succed through wast ownership of land conquering territories in other states setting themself up being first among the Bishops of the north. But the churches coulds also serve as a tool to declare each other heretics and starting religeous wars, but that will be with the churches as tool of realpolitik and the state, not the other way.

Based on your suggestions, my thinking is that a Danish-Frankish alliance develops as the Danes push into those pagan countries that the Franks just can’t conquer. As a result I think we may see three Danish states or “areas of settlement/occupation” in mainland Europe by the late 9th/early 10th century:

Yes I agree

* one in the Low Countries, where a "Viking" dynasty(ies) replaces the native ones and some kind of land distribution occurs amongst the followers of the Danish leaders.
*one in Saxony where something similar to the situation in the Low Countries occurs although there is a larger concentration of Nordic settlement and the whole area is more tied in to the politics of Denmark. I think this area will also include the land around the Mecklenburger Bucht.
*and one in Pomerania where fortified coastal settlements became centres of territorially small but powerful local kingdoms that finally coalesce into a large state as the local Danish kings become more involved in the interminable wars of the indigenous inhabitants.

Seems good the of course Slavs may also be integrated in a greater Denmark without settlements, but with marriges between the nobles, conversions and swearing of fealthy. Much as we saw with some Slavic states in OTL with Germany. Of course like we see the more densely populated Danes-Saxons(-Friesians) begin to settle in those new territories but under Slavic descendent lords (much as the Germans did in OTL)

My thinking is that these states united into some form of Danish Kingdom between the late 9th and mid 10th centuries (the delay I think will occur, as you suggest, over problems of centralization and a lot of Christian vs. pagan conflict of course). Consequently, we could see this United Danish Kingdom as a strong player in 10th century European politics, especially as ‘Celtic’ Christianity makes its journey eastward.

Any good? Or am I way off base?

Seenms good.

Well I think we are going to see the diffusion of a lot more 'Arabic' knowledge into Europe when compared to OTL. Paper will just be one example although a very revolutionary one. Indeed, by the late 11th century I think we could see paper mills throughout Western Europe. Although that may be a little optimistic. Still I technological advancement will proceed more quickly in this ATL than OTL (always popular in an ATL).

I think I agree, the primary reason to that are that the western Mediterranean aren't cut into a Cold War border but stay a more stable mean of transportation. Of course the Arabs weaknesses in building infrastructure in Mahgreb are still going to hit them, but with a stable presence in Spain, there stay a greater centre of exchange of ideas. Of course early spread of paper are also goingf to help in North Europe. Likely we see North Europe staying cultural backward (through not technological) but military strong for uptil early modern time. The Germanic biggest weakness are their tendence to split the inherience, but the Franks continues war with the Muslims will beat that out of them, while Denmark will do the same to keep up with the Franks. England which are more isolated will likely be the last to produced a centralised state. Cultural the most advanced will be the Bavarian-Lombards whom will likely end up with great cathedrals, impressive paladses, mighthy citywalls and rich markeds, mostly because the better climate give them a large urban population (the primary reason the North will stay/stayed cultural backward was low urban populations), while the North will build utilitarian castles, dirt road and defensive monasties to control the large rural territories. The cities of Italy will compete with any in the Muslim world, while in the north they will pitiful in size compared to the richer lands to the south.

Giladis

January 20th, 2010, 06:05 PM

Ok this will be a rudimentary timeline. I am not really used to this kind of stuff since I mosty frequent this forum to see what people come up with and see alternative viewpoints from those I usually encounter in books(I did try to make a timeline for a tabletop wargaming campaign but that failed raight after it started).

I will write this under the fact that you want to remove the Khaganate and that you are interested in having a strong central european Slav state/s.

626. Avars and Slavs besiege Constantinopol but decied to withdraw under undisclosed circumstances.

623-626. Samo, a Frankish merchant(some reports say he was a Slav) comes to the Wends (one of the Slavic tribes that serve the Avars as borderguards in the west). He is proclaimed King and leads a rebbelion against the Avars and defeats them bringing a considerable part of the western Khaganate under his control.

626-630. Khagan dies, anarchy and power struggles sunder the Khaganate.

around 630. A portion of Croats and Serbs leave their northern homelands and push south. Croats arrive in Dalmatia and after years of fighting take it from the Avars. Serbs go further south and settle on Byzantian held land.

630-635. Bulgar Khan Kubrat unites Utigurs and Kutigurs forming Old Bulgaria on the shores of the Black Sea. Bulgar Khanate involved in power strugles within the Avar Khaganate. At periods parts of the Khaganate not under control of the emerging Slav bodies bow to Khan Kubrat.

631/32. Dagobert leads 3 armies against the Wends provoked by "violent unrest in the Pannonian kingdom of the Huns(Avars)". The Frankish armies are routed at Castrum Wogastisburc(location unknown). As a result the White Serbian(OTL history will know these people as Sorbs) prince decides no longer to be a vassal of the Franks and joins Samos realm.

631/32-641. Samo launches several raids into Thuringia.

around 640. A portion of Dalmatian Croats moves to Pannonia and establishes there a separate realm, the leader of this realm exchanges gifts with the leader of the Dalmatian realm.

641. Samo supports the rebelion of duke Radulf of Thuringia against Sigebert III.

642. Adriatic Slavs (most probably Croats) raid Sipont.

658. Samo dies. The realm he has built breaks apart. The most powerful tribes form the core of future states of Wends, Carantanians, Moravians, Czechs, Nitirans and Sorbs.

660-664. Missionaries operating among the Slavs report to Rome of a Regnum Carantanum ruled by certain prince Vulk of the gens Sclavorum just beyond river Isonzo.

665. Kubrat dies and Batayban become the ney Khan. Unrest and strife once more peaks in the Carpathian basin. The remnants of the romanized population in Transdanubia support the Carantanians advance and driving of the Avars across the Danube. The Great Hring is abandoned and the centre of Avar power moves further east to the eastern part of Alfeld.

668. Khazars break the Old Bulgaria scattering the 5 sons of Kubrat to form the realms of their own. Batayban and his horde were subdued by the Khazars and subsequently relocated to the Caucausus. Kotrag led his people north and on the banks of Volga established a new Khanate that would play an important role in the coming centuries. Kuber fleed to the Avar Khaganate, where he joined a Kutigur leader by the name of Altzek in the struggle against the Avar Khagan for the control of the Khaganate. Asparukh led his people south to the Danubian valley.

675. A coalition of Adriatic Slavs led by Croat prince Porga raids the northern coast of the Adriatic. Venice is sacked, population flees to Grado. Slavs attack Ravenna but at beaten back after heavy fighting. These attacks hearld Slav naval acendancy in the Adriatic.

680. Asparukh defeats the Byzantine army at Ongala and founds the First Bulgar Empire.

681. Altzek and Kuber are victorious. Altzek founds the Kutigur Khaganate while Kuber is given Syrmia along with Sirmium to rule over.

683. White Croats found the city of Cracow along with the Vistulans, starting the formation of the Crawats. Serbs use the weakened Byzantine Empire to relocate to Tesally founding a principality under Dervan.

686. A new wave of nomads enters the Carpathian basin from the pontic steppe, coenciding with the Avar uprising against Altzek. They defeat Altzek with the help of Kuber, who takes Singidunum as his new centre.

687. A portion of Docleans and Travunians cross over to Apulia, pillaging and buring before retreating back across the sea laden with ritches. Ancient city of Doclea is rebuilt and made the centre of the emerging princedom.

689. Led by Tarkhan the Gepid, various germanic, slav and turkic groups within the Khaganate rebell. Prince Borut of Carantania fights two inconclusive battles with the Bavarians at Salzburg.

702. Tarkhan is defeated. The weakened Khaganate is overtaken by Kuber, who razes the Great Hring and founds the Unughur Khanate. The Avar Khaganate is no more.

704. Asparukh and Dervan jointly strike against the Byzantians. Bulgars surround Solun, while the Serbs expand both north and south.

707. A coalition of Crawats, Moravians and Silesians pushes Czechs out of the Bohemian basin and forces them to relocate into Thuringia. Conflict erupts and Czechs are supported by the Sorbs.

714. Pannonian Croats and Carantanians clash over the control of Aqua Iasse.

715. Pannonian Croats are attacked by the Unughur Khanate and conqered. The Pannonian prince flees to Dalmatia to his relatives and Carantanians invade Pannonia from the north determied to take it for themselves.

717. Kuber dies fighting the Carantanians and his Khanate collapses. Eastern Carpathian basin becomes a quagmire of small slav, tukic, germanic and romanic polities.

718. Defeated by the Franks Czechs migrate southwards into Carantania. Dalmatian Croats "liberate" Pannonia, but in truth they do not cross river Sava except for a few vital locations like Siscia. The reminder of the land up to river Drava is no man's land between Croatia and Carantania.

730. Docleans absorb Travunians. Preasured by both Zahumlians and Croats, Narentians leav the east coast and settle on the Gargano peninsula in Italy. Czechs fight their way across Carantania, which is preasured by Moravia from the north, and settle around Emona founding a new pincipality. Byzantians push the Bulgars away from Solun, Serbs take Athens. Crawats assimilate the Vah slavs.

And a very rude map
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f355/Giladis/WorldWithoutMartel730.jpg

I made the timeline just up to the point where you start as I don't want to infringe on your story.

steven24gordon

January 21st, 2010, 05:40 AM

As king of the Franks, Childeric ‘the Brave’ brought new glory and prestige to the Frankish Empire which had long suffered civil strife in its royal house and viscosities from her pagan enemies. But as much as Childeric has been portrayed by history as a strong secular ruler, his religious aims and ideals have had almost equal importance. This is due in part to the nature of the contemporary literature available to modern historians, principally the Annals of Ethelbert which primarily concern the role of the king in supporting a revival of religious learning in Francia. Although arguably this could be seen as an attempt to improve the capacity of his own bureaucracy, the role of Childeric in sending missionaries (notably Hugh of Strasbourg) to the pagan Saxons, Wends, Obotrites, Frisians and Veleti showcases the man’s devotion to Western European Church. Many of these medieval evangelists took up residence in, or sought the support of, the Danish nobles who were settling and forging kingdoms in Saxony, the Low Countries, the wild lands beyond the Elde. Indeed, Frankish diplomacy and missionary work could not easily be distinguished in the late 9th century, and Frankish alliances with Danish lords often coincided with the increased presence of Christian preachers in their lands.

But while Childeric’s court buzzed with scholars who openly challenged the pre-eminence of the Byzantine Emperor in the affairs of the Western Church, other German kings adopted a more pro-Constantinopolitan stance. The most powerful of these sovereigns at the time of Childeric’s kingship was Henry ‘the Bald’ of the House of Agilofling King of Bavaria. Seeing himself as the defender of the Orthodox Church and her civilisation against the barbarity of paganism, Henry imported Byzantine artisans and scholars to build “civilisation” in his corner of Germania: instituting new architectural, financial and administrative reforms. These reforms were heavily inspired by the King’s visit to the City of Constantine as a young man, and the German ‘King’ was grant a German Patriarch – Michael –who encouraged the study and reading of Greek in the spartan German monasteries of Bavaria and assisted Byzantine missionaries heading into Bohemia.

These two versions of Christianity would meet head on in a furious clash of men and steel in 879 when Childeric and Henry went to war. Although later scholars would cast the struggle between Childeric and Henry as one of ‘Cetlic’ vs. ‘Orthodox’ Christianity, the truth may be more mundane. It is evident both from Childeric’s early years and his conquest of Burgundy that the main foreign policy initiative of the Frankish king was to restore the Rhineland duchies of the old Merovingian Empire to Frankish control. The kingdom of Bavaria –itself a breakaway duchy of the old Empire –was perhaps the most direct threat to this restoration of Frankish power. Moreover, it seemed that during the late 870s, Henry was interfering in the Duchy of Swabia (which seems to have been only loosely under Frankish control at that stage). Therefore the reason for the Francia-Bavaria Wars of the late 9th century could have been nothing more than a purely secular conflict between Germanic kings rather than the ‘clash of civilisations’ that later historians often portray.

However, this analysis shouldn’t lead us to overlook the religious component of these wars. The active diplomatic support given to the Bavarians by the Byzantine Emperor may have influenced the Frankish kings to have adopted a more anti-Byzantine line than might otherwise have been the case. Regardless of the causes of the conflict, one of its most important consequences was to distance Childeric from events in Dâr al‑islâm (despite Ethelbert’s appeals for a ‘grand alliance of Christians’ to drive the Muslims out of Europe). Indeed, in the later part of his reign, Childeric seems to have treated Islamic Europe as nothing more than a source of tribute. The failure of the Frankish King to purse wholeheartedly the war against the Muslims was a source of deep concern to Christian ecclesiastics like Ethelbert. As a result, the Annals of Ethelbert reflect a depressing view of this period in European Christendom. ‘Pagans’, in the forms of the heathen Vikings in the north and west and Muslims in the south, pillage, burn and enslave with apparent impunity, while Christian kings squabble over increasingly weakened and diminishing kingdoms.

However, if Childeric had been successful and re-incorporated Bavaria along with the other Eastern duchies back into the Empire, history might have redeemed his wars with Henry. Such a victory would have netted him the resources to launch a definitive re-conquest of Al-Gallia and [I]Al- Al-Italiya [Islamic Italy] pushing the European Muslims irrevocably into a permanent retreat. His failure to achieve this lofty goal represents, however, the limited capacity of Frankish state in the late 9th century. Francia after long years of deprivation no longer had the resources to re-build her Empire. And so, to the eternal commendation of the ecclesiastics, the Francia-Bavaria Wars ended with Henry stripped of land in Franconia and Swabia under firm Frankish control but without the unconditional victory that Childeric had craved. Disgusted at the frugality of imperial politics, Ethelbert eventually grew tired of his place at the royal court and returned across the Channel to Kent never to return to the continent. Despite the distain of the ecclesiastics, when Childeric’s health suddenly worsened and he lay on his death bed in 885, Francia was stronger and richer than it had been in a century. It would take his sons to squander all his success...

steven24gordon

January 21st, 2010, 06:07 AM

Valdemar II

January 21st, 2010, 03:48 PM

I was thinking of some of the aspect of TTL

The centre of Francia are at the Rhine and the more unstable Swabia have pushed it toward the North, so it lies around the Aachen, which likely stay capital for longer if not permanent, the better relationship with Denmark and a continued good relationship with the Anglo-Saxons make the North Sea more important for trade for them all making them more hostile to piracy.

So what consequenses do this have well pirates are unwelcome and will likely be dealt with. But there's also a need for greater trade the intependence of Frisia and it peoples lifestylegives them a oppotunity to become mercantile middleman likely with the growth of some kind of proto-Hanse in its towns.

Linguitic Low Frankish, Saxon, Friesian, Danish and Anglo-Saxon are all mutual intelligible, so we likely see some kind of Low German become the Lingua Franca of the North Sea and later spread to the rest of the North. We may even see Denmark, England, Saxony and Frankia grow into a common sprachraum.

Cultural will the lesser connection with former Roman Empire and the hostility to the East Romans lead to less respect to Greco-Roman history and philosophy. While the still will be aware of it, they will likely be a lot less respectful of dead Greek dudes, and cultural the fact that the North doesn't inherited as rich aspect of Roman culture as in OTL will lead to a romantised view of the Empire and more focus on future rather than looking to the past for answers. So I expect the monasties (the main centres of learning in the north)to more focused on development and adoptions of new technologies and tools than in OTL.

Another aspect with a more peaceful England we will likely see a increased population growth, which need to spread while some of them may push west into the Celtic states, we may also some them moving south into Neustria or join the Danish drang nach Osten.

How will feudalism develop? with low density Neustria split in marches we will likely see something like the Wendish marches here just more militarised, we will see the population split between nobles, yeomens and serf. The nobles will be mostly Franks, while the Yeomen will be a mix of Germanic settlers, and the serf will be a mix of natives and captured slaves. Likely with a growing focus on more heavily armed knights, we see the position of the yeomen change to tenants, while some will join the nobles as minor landlords. Likey with the loss in prestige for the yeomens we will see the the Serfs move into the tenant class, because the difference between a well off serf and a tenants will be harder and harder to see.

steven24gordon

January 22nd, 2010, 05:13 AM

“...he was only twenty-one when he gained the title of Malik at Toulouse, and there were several uncles and other kinsmen who might be expected to oppose the appointment of a mere youth at so troublesome a time. Yet no one made any resistance; on the contrary, his accession was hailed with satisfaction on all sides. The young prince had already succeeded in winning the favour of the people and the court. His handsome presence and princely bearing, joined to a singular grace of manner and acknowledged powers of mind, made him generally popular, and it was with a feeling of renewed hope that the people of Toulouse, watched the first proceedings of the new Malik. Ibn-el-Ahmarmade no attempt to disguise his intentions. He abandoned once and for all the policy of his grandfather, which, in its alternative weakness and cruelty, had worked such injury to the State; and in its place he announced that he would permit no disobedience throughout his dominions. He summoned the disaffected nobles and chieftains to submit to his authority; and he left it be clearly understood that he would leave no portion of his kingdom under the control of rebels....

His troops were inspirited to see their gallant young sovereign at their head –a sight that his predecessor had not permitted them for many years –and they followed him with enthusiasm. The rebels, already tired of their anarchic condition, opened their gates after a mere show of resistance. One after another the great cities of Al-Narbonenus [Mediterranean lowlands of France] admitted Ibn-el-Ahmar within their walls, and after a council with distant Emir of Al-Avrup he re-installed the rightful governors of the towns...

Seeing the scrupulous justice and honour of this Prince, who kept his treaties with even the Christians in perfect good faith, and observed the utmost clemency to those who submitted to him, fortress after fortress surrendered. The great rebel and brigand Formosus of Levanna himself, in his fastness, remained unconquered and defiant as ever, but he was old, and soon he died, and then it was only a matter of time for the arms of the Malik to penetrate even into the Piedmont. When Ibn-el-Ahmar stood at last upon the ramparts of Formosus’ once redoubtable fortress, and looked down from its dizzy heights upon the cliffs and precipices that surrounded the rebel stronghold, he was overcome with emotion, and fell upon his knees to render thanks to God for the great victory.”

-Ibrahim of Cazlona, traveller, historian and author of A Tale of Muslim Prince

“In all the west I find no right noble man save Ibn-el-Ahmar, but he is nobility itself. When one has known the delight of living with him, to dwell in any other land would be misery”

-The beautiful lady Fora, a court favourite of Ibn-el-Ahmar, renowned for lovely voice, and poetic fire

“...a great scoundrel and an abominable thief.”

-Ziryāb, the uncle of Ibn-el-Ahmar, sent into exile in Egypt 889

steven24gordon

January 22nd, 2010, 06:04 AM

The centre of Francia are at the Rhine and the more unstable Swabia have pushed it toward the North, so it lies around the Aachen, which likely stay capital for longer if not permanent, the better relationship with Denmark and a continued good relationship with the Anglo-Saxons make the North Sea more important for trade for them all making them more hostile to piracy.

So what consequenses do this have well pirates are unwelcome and will likely be dealt with. But there's also a need for greater trade the intependence of Frisia and it peoples lifestylegives them a oppotunity to become mercantile middleman likely with the growth of some kind of proto-Hanse in its towns.

True, I was thinking that the Viking period of raiding would peter out in the mid 10th century (although we will probably see a few sporadic raids and occasional periods of piracy). I like the proto-Hanse League idea with greater reliance on Northern trade, we will see a series of 'defensive leagues' by the coastal trading centres of northern France/Germany. These leagues will act to protect shipping lanes against pirates, but what would the attitude of these leagues be to the kingdoms of the time? Could be quiet confrontational. Although it would depend on how strong the individual states are I guess.

Linguitic Low Frankish, Saxon, Friesian, Danish and Anglo-Saxon are all mutual intelligible, so we likely see some kind of Low German become the Lingua Franca of the North Sea and later spread to the rest of the North. We may even see Denmark, England, Saxony and Frankia grow into a common sprachraum.

Cultural will the lesser connection with former Roman Empire and the hostility to the East Romans lead to less respect to Greco-Roman history and philosophy. While the still will be aware of it, they will likely be a lot less respectful of dead Greek dudes, and cultural the fact that the North doesn't inherited as rich aspect of Roman culture as in OTL will lead to a romantised view of the Empire and more focus on future rather than looking to the past for answers. So I expect the monasties (the main centres of learning in the north)to more focused on development and adoptions of new technologies and tools than in OTL.

The main problem with the North is that literacy levels are low. The other problem is that the Northerners might not be willing to accept the fact that Islamic learning as value. On the other hand, with a more open border between Islam and Christianity in the North then we may see more technology diffusion and more technological development. The degree to which the Christian states of the North are influenced by Christianity is an interesting question. OTL Asturias and Leon were heavily interested by the Spanish Muslims and a similar interaction between Islamic France and Christian France could see a flowering of culture and technology.

Another aspect with a more peaceful England we will likely see a increased population growth, which need to spread while some of them may push west into the Celtic states, we may also some them moving south into Neustria or join the Danish drang nach Osten.

This population bloom could be increased by a technological diffusion from Islamic France where the introduction of new crops and farming methods there heightens production yields. Also if we postulate that Al-Avrup has a more developed economy and merchant class than the French Christians states of OTL, then what are the effects of this on the North? If we concede that there will be good trading relationship between Al-Avrup and the North, then this act as a drive on North Sea trade leading to economic growth in the North.

Valdemar II

January 22nd, 2010, 04:16 PM

True, I was thinking that the Viking period of raiding would peter out in the mid 10th century (although we will probably see a few sporadic raids and occasional periods of piracy). I like the proto-Hanse League idea with greater reliance on Northern trade, we will see a series of 'defensive leagues' by the coastal trading centres of northern France/Germany. These leagues will act to protect shipping lanes against pirates, but what would the attitude of these leagues be to the kingdoms of the time? Could be quiet confrontational. Although it would depend on how strong the individual states are I guess.

My guess are that it depend on the strenght of royal power, if royal power are weak in Frsia, they likely turn it into some kind mix between Netherland and the Hanse slowly developing into a mechant republic. So the noble are reduced to rural landowners, while the patricians turn into the rulers of the Republic. It will likely swear fealthy toward either the Franks or Danes (likely the Danes because of its greater navy), but de facto being independent, through it may also hold hard on the ancient independece of the Fries, likely cities and towns around the North Sea will join into some kind alliance/league with them But Friesia (which also includes Holland and Zeeland at this point) has a good defensive and strategic position.

The main problem with the North is that literacy levels are low. The other problem is that the Northerners might not be willing to accept the fact that Islamic learning as value. On the other hand, with a more open border between Islam and Christianity in the North then we may see more technology diffusion and more technological development. The degree to which the Christian states of the North are influenced by Christianity is an interesting question. OTL Asturias and Leon were heavily interested by the Spanish Muslims and a similar interaction between Islamic France and Christian France could see a flowering of culture and technology.

Literacy was around 40% at the time in Denmark, and if a cheap medium of writing (like paper) spread to the north, we likely see it staying high. There was big economical benefits to be able to write. But the lack ofwriting media lessen it value, with the spread of paper in OTL, we saw a increase in it again. Without a central authorities to ban and allow ideas, knowledge and tinkers, we will likely see a greater adoption of them. It's important to remember that the church are a lot different here, bishops and parish priest are public servant and a extention of royal power, while monasties are large secular landowners. It's more likely we see strong Abbed-princes in TTL than Bishop-princes. Beside that because Monasties doesn't split with inherience they're going to more stable than nobles domains leading them to become centre of medieval industries and craft (as in North Europe in OTL*). This also give the monasties a incentiment to adopt new technics to increase production, and likely without a Catholic ban against interest we also see them grow into the early bank of the North. Likely the extra sons of the nobles will be a major source of monks to keep them out of inherience, while clergy won't be forbidden to marry, the fact that the loss the right to inherince they will not marry other nobles, but will take wives and concubines among the peasants and burghers (and the children will belong to those classes). So monasties are going to be interesting places.

This population bloom could be increased by a technological diffusion from Islamic France where the introduction of new crops and farming methods there heightens production yields. Also if we postulate that Al-Avrup has a more developed economy and merchant class than the French Christians states of OTL, then what are the effects of this on the North? If we concede that there will be good trading relationship between Al-Avrup and the North, then this act as a drive on North Sea trade leading to economic growth in the North.

While the North and Al-Avrup won't have a good relationship there will be much trade between them especially because geographic make sea trade easier than raiding along the Frence and Spanish coast. Likely the major two product send south from the North are slaves and furs, both likely comes from the Baltic and the slaves are mostly going to be pagan Balts and Slavs. While Al-Avrup will send refined products to the North, likely the three primary middlemen will be the Christian of Spanish north coast, the Friesians and the Jews, the Danish settlers in Muslim land will also play a role but it will disappear as they integrate into Muslim society as major land owners. Likely we see a increase in Friesian power as they get rich as middlemens, while we will see a bigger Jewish population around the North Sea.

A interesting aspect are that the close contact with Muslims will likely result in the adoption of the agressive religeous war doctrine: the Crusade. The Franks will use it as a apology for creating a permanent state (at least in theory) of war with their Muslims neighbours, while the Danes will use it as excuse invade and raid (especially for slaves) their Pagan neighbours.

*The Belgian and French monasties whom make cheese and beer are a example of this continued to modern day, in medieval day their stability made them major centre of production.

The Professor

January 24th, 2010, 07:01 PM

Interesting updates.
Some ideas for the Angelcynn (Anglo-Saxon) kingdoms.

Prior to the Danish invasions the strongest Kingdoms IIRC were Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria. Mercia and Northumbria spent most of the 7th and 8th C in a slugfest or "marriage" dominated by one or the other. It's not too much of an oversimplification to say that the Danish invasions knocked out Northumbria and intensified Mercia's neglect of the south & west in favour of the north & east thus allowing Wessex to become the dominant kingdom.

So in the absence of the Danes we have either Mercia or Northumbria ascendant. If Mercia then most of Northumbria and OTL England would be under Mercian overlordship or union, with Wessex likely serving as a Brittany analogue. If Northumbria then *England could well be divided between it and a Greater Wessex with a border roughly along the Danelaw ;) - in such a case Northumbria will likely extend up past Edinburgh and Strathclyde may be its vassal Kingdom.

Though with less Danish vikings then Norwegian could well extend futher south and have their own Kingdom centred around Edinburgh much like Dublin was.

steven24gordon

January 25th, 2010, 05:23 AM

When Childeric died he passed his territories to his three sons, as outlined in the Divisio Regnorum: Louis in Neustria, John in Burgundy and finally Arnulf in Austrasia and the recently captured Rhineland territories. While similar to the earlier transfers of power, the Dvisio Regnorum and the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks suggest a rather sophisticated political concept: that the proposed three kingdoms, while separate, were to be seen as also constituting a single greater Regnum. It is suggested by the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks that this three kingdom/one kingdom idea was influenced by the theology of the Trinity, to which some renewed attention was being given in the Western Church at this very time.

Arnulf, the oldest son and nominal leader of the Frankish Empire, was (unlike his father) not willing to simply exhort tribute from his rich and cultured Muslim neighbours. A true convert to the dream of a revived Merovingian Empire, Arnulf and his advisors (notably the famed student of Ethelbert’s, William of Verdun) were eager for war with the lands of Dâr al‑islâm. In 888 the Frankish king launched a series of attacks on the principalities ofAl-Narbonenus [Mediterranean lowlands of France], killing the powerful wali Abd ar-Rahmanof Limousin. Further raids reached the Lower Loire valley, including Anjou and Touraine and beyond into the heart of Al-Aquitane [the Aquitaine region in France]. Thus by 894, all the major provinces of Al-Gallia had suffered at the hands of the Franks.

In response to the warlike behaviour of Arnulf, the magnates of Al-Gallia selected the infamous Al-Aquitanean Malik [king] Ibn-el-Ahmar or “the Red man” [because of his fair skin and hair] to lead an alliance of the Al-Gallian principalities against the Franks. That a matter as potentially contentious and divisive was settled with such apparent ease was largely due to the serious military problems that Al-Gallia was then facing. This decision also had the official backing of the Emir of Al-Avrp who seems to have sent a limit degree of military aid to “the Red Man” and his Al-Gallians. But the events in southern France were complicated by events in northern France.

The Vikings had been rowing up the Seine to attack Paris since the 840s, each time leaving only when the acquisition of loot or bribes was acceptable to them. But in 898 Bjarni Herjolfsson, an infamous Viking leader was driven out of Wessex by the Mercian King Burgred. Keen to exploit the momentary weakness of the Frankish Empire, this indomitable Dane led 700 ships (an obvious exaggeration of contemporary historians) down the Seine towards Paris. When Robert ‘the Child’ Count of [I]Paris received reports of Bjarni’s immediate arrival he called on his king Louis for aid. But no help came and the Norse dug themselves in around Paris, making trenches and attacking the walls of the city with ballistae, catapults peppering the tower with arrows and stones. Finally wakened to the danger Louis of Neustria gathered his army and headed west.

Seeing Bjarni’s siege as an opportunity, Ibn-el-Ahmar sought to exploit internal divisions in the Frankish Empire. Some of the Burgundian nobility were ill-pleased with their king John, not least amongst them Lothar the Younger who had been replaced as Duke of Lyonnais by John’s own son. As a result Lothar rebelled (or was inspired to rebel by Muslim agents) and Ibn-el-Ahmar, after calling the lordsof Al-Gallia to council at Narbon, launched a large surprise offensive into Lyonnais. Marching from their base in Auvergne, Ibn-el-Ahmar sought to join up Lothar and besiege Lyon but was intercepted by John and his hastily gathered Franks.

The initially contest between Ibn-el-Ahmar and John near the Monts du Forez was a textbook example of Al-Avrpian battle tactics in the 9th century: skirmishing before the main battle saw the Franks harassed by Muslim light cavalry with feigned charges, false retreats, and a great deal of dashing to and fro. When the battle was finally joined, a cavalry charge under the command of John himself was received with a defence of spearmen supported by archers. The attack failed and John’s cavalry forced into bloodied withdrawal. Properly timed to perfection, the “Red Man” ordered a counterattack with cavalry charging out from behind the infantry line. With the early impetuous charge, the Frankish cavalry was spent, and they were disorganized, tired, and easily routed. The supporting infantry (most of low quality) were then left exposed by the absence of their own cavalry were then quickly overrun. With the Frankish army destroyed in the field, Lyon fell and together with Lothar, Ibn-el-Ahmarencountered little resistance as he marched into Upper Burgundy.

When he heard the news, the Frankish king Arnulf, after calling a Reichstag at Cologne, gathered together a great Christian army –including numerous pagan mercenaries –to invade Burgundy. Although Louis of Neustria did not join the expedition due to the Viking threat on Paris, later historians would suggest that Louis’s resentment of his brother’s lordship led him to deliberately keep his forces out of Burgundy.
The War was on...

steven24gordon

January 25th, 2010, 05:38 AM

So in the absence of the Danes we have either Mercia or Northumbria ascendant. If Mercia then most of Northumbria and OTL England would be under Mercian overlordship or union, with Wessex likely serving as a Brittany analogue. If Northumbria then *England could well be divided between it and a Greater Wessex with a border roughly along the Danelaw ;) - in such a case Northumbria will likely extend up past Edinburgh and Strathclyde may be its vassal Kingdom.

I was thinking that Viking raids still hammer into the kingdom of Northumbria, trategically weakening that once great realm, but are not strong enough to conquer north & east. With Northumbria weakened, the Mercians are able to cement their control over England (although without such a serve Viking threat Mercian control will be less complete than the power excerised by Wessex).

Though with less Danish vikings then Norwegian could well extend futher south and have their own Kingdom centred around Edinburgh much like Dublin was.

Nice idea. With most of Northumbria under a Mercian union, and the Mercian now concentrating on Wessex and Welish, then we could see Nordic/Norwegian state in Scotland. Any thoughts?

Valdemar II

January 25th, 2010, 10:21 AM

Nice idea. With most of Northumbria under a Mercian union, and the Mercian now concentrating on Wessex and Welish, then we could see Nordic/Norwegian state in Scotland. Any thoughts?

Interesting idea and it seems likely that if the Norvegian conquer the area, that they will assimilate the local Angles. So we see the Scottish Lowland become a united Norvegian state. Linguistic it will likely split from the other West Norvegian dialects and descendent languages (Faroe and Islandic) rather fast, West Scandinavian only kept it conservative traits because of their isolation. A Scottish Lowland Kingddom are not going to be very isolated.

steven24gordon

January 25th, 2010, 01:15 PM

Interesting idea and it seems likely that if the Norvegian conquer the area, that they will assimilate the local Angles. So we see the Scottish Lowland become a united Norvegian state. Linguistic it will likely split from the other West Norvegian dialects and descendent languages (Faroe and Islandic) rather fast, West Scandinavian only kept it conservative traits because of their isolation. A Scottish Lowland Kingddom are not going to be very isolated.

How powerful will this Scottish Nordlagen be? Will it be able to dominate all of Scotland or do will our Norvegian conquistadors be too busy fighting the Mercians for their independence?

Valdemar II

January 25th, 2010, 01:26 PM

How powerful will this Scottish Nordlagen be? Will it be able to dominate all of Scotland or do will our Norvegian conquistadors be too busy fighting the Mercians for their independence?

I think it will come to dominate the entire Scotland to the same extent the Scottish kings did in OTL. It's more or less in the position. Of course like OTL Scotland they will still be busy fighting southen invaders (but I think it's likely to survive at least as long as Scotland did), throught the more decentral structure of England may put Nordlagen (good name by the way) in a better position. Maybe it position becomes something like Denmarks toward the HRE, a independent state with extented possesion in it, or Bohemia a semi integrated part of England.

steven24gordon

January 25th, 2010, 01:35 PM

So monasties are going to be interesting places.

Sounds like.

Likely we see a increase in Friesian power as they get rich as middlemens, while we will see a bigger Jewish population around the North Sea.

Although some people may think this is ironic, but Al-Avrup could be considered a paradise of tolerance, economic opportunity and social mobility for Europe's Jews (or at least when compared to OTL Europe). Moreover, disputes and theological competition between the Northern kingdoms and Byzantium could lead to a vilification of the Roman Empire in the North, and the blame for the death of Jesus could be transferred from the Jews to the “Romans” (although this may take centuries to develop).

A interesting aspect are that the close contact with Muslims will likely result in the adoption of the agressive religeous war doctrine: the Crusade. The Franks will use it as a apology for creating a permanent state (at least in theory) of war with their Muslims neighbours, while the Danes will use it as excuse invade and raid (especially for slaves) their Pagan neighbours.

I hope you have been noticing that I have been slipping references to the formation of such a doctrine into the narrative (notably with Ethelbert and William of Verdun). But a thought struck me: if the Danes (and others) are converting people to 'Celtic Christianity' in Northern Germany and the Bavarians (and others) preaching 'Orthodox' Christianity' to the same people then what happens when the two branches of Christianity come into conflict in Eastern Europe? Could see a quiet an ideological (and physical) conflict. Any thoughts?

Valdemar II

January 25th, 2010, 03:40 PM

Although some people may think this is ironic, but Al-Avrup could be considered a paradise of tolerance, economic opportunity and social mobility for Europe's Jews (or at least when compared to OTL Europe). Moreover, disputes and theological competition between the Northern kingdoms and Byzantium could lead to a vilification of the Roman Empire in the North, and the blame for the death of Jesus could be transferred from the Jews to the “Romans” (although this may take centuries to develop).

Sounds interesting, two important fact should be remembered one; until the crusades, Jews was more and less left alone in Europe. Two; while the Muslim did treat the Jews better than their Christian neighbours, the degree of freedom Jews had in Muslims Spain are at best overestimated. One of the primary reason for that are that Jewish 18-19th century historians used it to shame the Europeans of the day to adopt a less intolerant behaviour towards Jews.
I like the idea about transferring the guilt to the Romans. Likely we will see Jews turn into Europes dhimmis, tolerated but clearly second class citizens. Rather than OTL post crusade attitude barely tolerated and scum of the earth.

I hope you have been noticing that I have been slipping references to the formation of such a doctrine into the narrative (notably with Ethelbert and William of Verdun). But a thought struck me: if the Danes (and others) are converting people to 'Celtic Christianity' in Northern Germany and the Bavarians (and others) preaching 'Orthodox' Christianity' to the same people then what happens when the two branches of Christianity come into conflict in Eastern Europe? Could see a quiet an ideological (and physical) conflict. Any thoughts?

I think the conflict will be a mix of bare toleranrance of each other to open war. Weak Othodoxs states will likely be treated as pseudo Pagans, while strong Othodoxs states will be treated as misled but fellow Christians much like OTL. The Franks whom have to deal with the Muslims, will likely adopt the second attitude, while Danes and Anglos will adopt thefirst.

Giladis

January 25th, 2010, 04:26 PM

Valdemar II

January 25th, 2010, 04:42 PM

With fractured christianity and such influential Islam we could easly see Slavs taking the road of Khazars and opting for Judaism rather then joing eithr of the two poles.

On the other hand with such pressing matters at home and states that are not as influential as in OTL to serve as exaples of blessed christianity Slavs of the east could very well continue to develop their own religon. A prophet of Perun (god that was in it aspects not that dissimilar to Odin) could lead a pagan revolution in europe based on Nordic and Slavic gods.

I disagree the East Slavs of TTL has a even greater incetiment to convert to Christianity, because they control one of the primary trade routes between the North and Constantinoble with the weaken position of the Mediterranerean route.

While the West Slavs has little contact with the Jews and will be under a continued pressure from Danes, Franks, Thüringers and Bavarians.

While the South Slavs are badly placed for adopting a non-Christian religeon.

steven24gordon

January 25th, 2010, 05:02 PM

I think I have to agree with Valdemar here, I think the Slavs will be split between the 'Celtic' Christians in the North and the 'Orthodox' in the South. Doesn't mean you won't get strong Slavic states though.

steven24gordon

January 25th, 2010, 05:18 PM

Exploiting the unpopularity of the Frankish regime in Burgundy, Muslim forces and their partisan ally, Lothar the Younger (Frankish rebel and leading member of the Burgundian nobility) quickly seized Lower Burgundy [Rhône Valley up to Lyon and the mouth of Saône] before crossing into Upper Burgundy [or Transjurane Burgundy around Lake Geneva]. Arnulf of Austrasia, the senior Frankish King, planned to counterattack the advancing Muslims from Franche Comté and crush them under the weight of his numerically superior army. In the battle up head (as in all battles in the medieval period), the importance of cavalry cannot be over-emphasised, nor the dual qualities of morale and mobility. Discounting the mobility of the Al-Avrpian, Arnulf of Austrasia allowed much of his heavy cavalry to ravage the land (in order to punish the Transjurane Burgundians for supporting Lothar). However, this proved a mistake, as Ibn-el-Ahmar and Lothar seized the moment to attacked Arnulf when he was unprepared. When belatedly informed of his enemies approach, the Frankish King arranged his troops in two lines: at the rear were the Franks; in front were pagan mercenaries whose role was to break the assault of the Al-Gallian cavalry (which was known for its mobility and tenacity).

In the initial engagement, a javelin assault forced the Frank’s first line to retreat behind their second more heavily armoured comrades. Rather than engage in a mêlée, the Muslims harassed the Franks from a distance, with their skilled javelin-throwing horseman. Although the return of the Frankish cavalry staved off an initial route, in the next two days Frankish losses in men and horses mounted to dangerous levels. Ibn-el-Ahmar alternated furious charges, feints and sudden withdrawals, drawing out the Franks and encircling over-extended groups. As morale in the Frankish camp disintegrated, Arnulf withdrew from the field during the night. When his disappearance was noticed the following morning, panic seized the Frankish soldiers and a retreat quickly became a route. The Al-Gallians quickly raided the camp, taking booty and weapons and killing as many fugitives as they could.

After this disastrous battle, Francia appeared newly weak and the war quickly spread becoming something of an ‘All Gallic Free-for-All’. The Armorican King Erispoë [who ruled Brittany, Maine and parts of Normandy and Anjou], keen to regain the period of expansion that had so characterised his predecessor’s Conrad the Breton, joined Ibn-el-Ahmar against the Franks. Fighting broke out in Nivernais, Orleanais and Berry. Inspired by their success in Burgundy, the Muslims hoped to seize the strategic border towns along the Loire, and from there possibly launch a major invasion of the Frankish heartland.
Of all these towns, Orleans was perhaps the most valuable and heavily defended, and it was hoped the Muslims could take it before before Louis of Neustria (who had recently concluded a peace with the Viking Bjarni Herjolfsson the invader of Ill de France) could arrive to reinforce it. Returning to the western theatre, Ibn-el-Ahmar led a large army marched towards the Orleans in 901. However, while within a day’s march of Orleans, the Armorican King’s sudden death disrupted the plan. Ibn-el-Ahmar was subsequently forced to accompany Erispoë’s son back to Armorica to secure his lordship over his brothers (whose rebellion could knock Armorica out of the war).

Sensing the low morale in the Al-Gallian camp, Louis of Neustria (seeking to mirror the mobility of the Muslims) attacked. In confrontation in the woodlands around the Al-Gallian position, the Franks completely surprised their foe (who had kept a bad watch). The legendary Al-Gallian calvary were caught in the flank and those brave cavaliers who wheeled to take the shock were scattered to the winds. Although the Al-Gallian commanders were able to rally their men and form defensive lines, they were shaken by what they had seen, for the army was eventually driven back in confusion with heavy loss. Much credit must be given to Bjarni Herjolfsson and his Norse (who allying with Louis of Neustria) had added much to the tenacity of Frankish shock tactics with their wild and ferocious savagery.

Louis’s victory in Orleanais weakened the position of Arnulf whose resumption of the Burgundian campaign had produced poor results. Moreover, it seemed that there was a conspiracy against him (probably related to his mismanaged of said campaign) and one of his sons from his first marriage was implemented. Eager to secure his royal succession and free his armies up for a possible war with his brother, Arnulf opened negotiations with Ibn-el-Ahmar (who was also eager for peace owing to the new demands of the western theatre). The Frankish King agrees to cede the loss of Burgundy with the passing of the Treaty of Strasbourg. Subsequently this former Frankish kingdom is divided between the Muslims who control Lower Burgundy while Lothar the Younger takes Upper Burgundy as a Muslim ally. As the lords of Islam settled the Rhône Valley, die-hard anti-Muslims flee under the mysterious Bernard of Geneva into mountainous Savoy where they waged a guerrilla war against the Al-Avrupians.

Basileus Giorgios

January 25th, 2010, 07:38 PM

Interesting developments: when will we see a Byzantine update? :p

steven24gordon

January 26th, 2010, 05:18 AM

The costly peace with the Al-Gallians obtained at the Treaty of Strasbourg, however, did not buy the respite that Arnulf craved. Hoping to root out treachery in his own house, the Frankish King favoured the sons of his second marriage to Judith of Franconia rather than that of his first. This led to his murder in 905. His brother Louis ambitious to increase his own power seized control of Arnulf’s lands through one of his disinherited sons (Pippin III) from the dead king’s first marriage. Although it seemed at first that Louis would renew the war in Burgundy, the Frankish King soon found himself confronted with more pressing internal enemies. His decision to merely imprison the widow Judith at Cologne had dire consequences, for she escaped and sought to rally Louis’s enemies. The man she chose to lead the uprising was John (the former king of Burgundy) who, fearing that Louis would soon gain all of Francia, gathered an army and (aided by Bavaria) rebelled. While Louis took up residence in Austrasia (deposing of the infant Pippin and proclaiming himself King), he made his son Charles King of Neustria. With his position in the west thus secured, Louis marched east where he and John cut bloody trails through the Rhineland.

With his father in the West and open war with Bavaria, Charles found himself vulnerable to the Armorica-Muslim alliance in the south. Therefore, and (according to the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks)despite the wishes of his father, the King of Neustria concluded peace with his enemies. The Al-Gallian leader of the Muslims, Ibn-el-Ahmar eagerly embraced peace and attempted to establish a secure border with the Franks. The death of Arnulf was a severe blow for the ‘Celtic’ Christens, who seemed to have lost interest in St. Ethelbertdream of a ‘Christian War against Islam’. In exile at Innsbruck, St. William of Verdun wrote his [I]Chronicle of Kings about the events depicted above: his was a tale of woe and opportunity lost.

In light of his victories and (probably more importantly) in light of the continuing Frankish threat, Ibn-el-Ahmar was elected Emir of Al-Gallia by the walis of Islamic France in 907. The Emir of Al-Avrup, powerless to prevent this appointment, was forced to concede to it although he maintained that “the Red Man” was still his subordinate.For his part, Ibn-el-Ahmar never declared his own autonomy from the Emir in Córdoba, but did claim hereditary rights to his office and from then on Al-Gallia was an independent sovereign kingdom controlled by his family.

The new Emir of Al-Gallia, reorganized the tax system and increased his power by supporting the local elites and the trading class. One of Ibn-el-Ahmar main allies in creating his new emirate were the Norse.Although some have converted to Islam, many are still pagan something that the both menfind unproblematic although the more pious imams of their realms find this closeness with the al-majus (“fire-worshippers" a derogatory reference to their perceived paganism) immoral. In fact their unpopularity makes them ideal candidates for military recruitment (as they would not be able to usurp their masters) and many Norse spend a considerable amount of time in the Islamic armies.Over the preceding years, he settled large numbers of allied Norse at Tours, Angers and Nantes to strengthen Muslim authority in central France. Many of the Norse were former pirates and brigands who had infested the Loire Valley but after the War were quickly integrated into the administrative system of the Al-Gallians (and their allies the Armoricans) under the strong leadership of Ibn-el-Ahmar.

But the Red Man was not the only one forging independent domains in Al-Avrup: in Al-Italiya (Islamic Italy) the Governor of al-Kahira, on the Gulf of Genoa, Abdallahwas sending an emissary to the Caliphate of Abbasids to request his lands be recognised as a separate emirate. But while Ibn-el-Ahmar basked in the summer of his success, Abdallah faced a more uncertain future. Although Milan had fallen in the long wars with the Lombards, and his predecessors had extended their rule as far as Umbria and the very gates of Rome, the situation was still grim. Venetia was controlled by Venice (backed by the Byzantium and their allies the Bavarians), and was an ever present threat. In Apulia and southern Italia, the Islamic emirates of the mid 9th century had collapsed, re-conquered by the re-invigorated Byzantine Empire. Without outside aid Abdallah (and his ally the Governor of Florentia on the Arno River) faced a troubled future.

But trouble abounded everywhere, and in 909 Muhammad II the Emir of Al-Avrup receives startling news: the Aghlabid Emir, Ziyadat Allah III, had fled North Africa. The people responsible were the followers of the Ismailite mission led by Abu ‘Abd Allah, a faction claiming to represent the true Caliph, a Caliph who claims to descend from Fatima (daughter of the Prophet). The Fatimid conquest was extremely rapid, and the Berber tribes flocked to their banner. Soon all of North Africa was consumed and the Caliph’s army had advanced through Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, winning control of a large share of the Maghreb. The Fatimid Caliphate represents more than a merely military challenge to the lords of Al-Avrup. The Shi’ite Fatimids of Ifriqiya had put an end to the myth of a united Dâr al‑islâm under the rule of the Caliphs of Baghdad. What philosophers had been saying for over a century now, suddenly became reality for all to see: the Abbasid Caliphate was decadent, weak and morally bankrupt. The rise of the Fatimids was but the final nail in the coffin of Abbasid de-legitimacy in the West.