A Better High Middle Ages for the Abode of Islam

We see a lot of timelines around here where the Byzantines survive, and a lot of talk about an enduring outremer, but surprisingly little about a stronger Islamic World. Byzantium's fall was very unique; Al-Andalus's was nigh inevitable. And so on.

To some extent the middle ages reflects the economic and demographic growth of Europe, so a lot of the advances southwards aren't surprising. But, as the Ottomans showed only a few centuries later, the Muslim World was still up for quite a bit.

So, what PODs do we need to get Muslim Sicily to remain a thorn in the Christian side? For Al-Andalus to survive and blossom?

1) Avoid the Crusades... Ironically, this might start out with having the Muslims do a little bit worse (at first) against the Byzantines than they did in OTL. If the Byzantine Emperor doesn't feel compelled to petition Catholic Europe for aid, the Muslim world won't see an upset in its power dynamic and the Europeans may not even get the travel/exploration bug (or at least not get it as soon).

2) Avoid the Mongol invasions. The destruction of Baghdad and its halls of learning was an absolute disaster for the Islamic world.

3) Keep the philosophical/scientific tradition going. This may be accomplished through the other two points, though butterflying away some of the more rigidly conservative religious thinkers would also be great help.

On #2: Not just the destruction of Baghdad, but the Khwarezmian Empire crumbling as it did (and then a century of Ilkhanate rule) was done with massive destruction.

Not just of learning, but of the area being able to support a great polity - nomads and agriculture have never been so incompatible.

Break the tribal structures.

I think that's all the Muslims can do on their own. Other factors are actually beyond their control and have more to do with geography and climate than anything else. When you think about it, the ME is actually sited poorly in civilizational sense and it makes the Caliphate even more impressive and stronger when you consider what they did achieve.

I'm not entirely sure what tribal structures mean, in this context.

Faeelin said:

I'm not entirely sure what tribal structures mean, in this context.

Click to expand...

Well, litteraly tribal structures.

Arabs (and many islamized people) relied on clanic ties to their policies and administrations. It caused many disorder, crossing interest and conflicts that were at the Arabo-Islamic states disadvantages.

Only in Al-Andalus, it caused almost 30 years of civil wars soon after the conquest and division until the XI century. And it was one of the places were it was the more quiet about it.

As much as the destruction of Baghdad spelled the end of Muslim dominance over science and learning, I feel that it had little effect on Al-Andalus. After all, they were pretty independent of the Abbasids by that time anyways.

I think the most important factor in preserving a Muslim Spain would be to ensure Iberian unity. One of their major downfalls was the infighting experienced by various Muslim emirates and city states, just look at the stories of Al-Sayyid and how he was hired by every emir to lead armies against all the other emirs... Keep the Cordoban Emirate centralized in Cordoba, and you could have the very real possibility of a modern Muslim Spain.

Delvestius said:

As much as the destruction of Baghdad spelled the end of Muslim dominance over science and learning, I feel that it had little effect on Al-Andalus. After all, they were pretty independent of the Abbasids by that time anyways.

I think the most important factor in preserving a Muslim Spain would be to ensure Iberian unity. One of their major downfalls was the infighting experienced by various Muslim emirates and city states, just look at the stories of Al-Sayyid and how he was hired by every emir to lead armies against all the other emirs... Keep the Cordoban Emirate centralized in Cordoba, and you could have the very real possibility of a modern Muslim Spain.

Click to expand...

What would allow that to happen?

Centralizing power is hard in this era, but there's no reason it must be successful only for the polities that made it OTL.

Breaking the tribal structures needs something in their place, and some way to keep the sultan/emir/whatever trying in power long enough for him and his heirs to do it.

I'm sorry...I tought i heard "centralised Emirate" and "iberic unity". Surely a mistake.

Seriously, nothing was more far in Muslim Spain than a centralized emirate. The emirs litteraly passed their time to crush rebellions or to negociate with unwilling emirs and governors.
And for "islamic unity"...No. Simply, no. It was not at all a feeling of "us" and "they" regarding diplomacy in medieval Spain for the Muslims. In fact, many northern islamic leaders, nobles or generals have ties (even familial) with Christians and never hesitated to ask the northern kings to help them against Emir.

The only thing that could have allowed a longer surviving Islamic state in Spain would be no Aminid dictatorship. Almanzor had to hire mercenaries that were totally foreign to Al-Andalus (Christians, Africans) and that were not at all loyal to the Caliphate but to HIM only.
And, in order to streghten a poor legitimacy, he killed or crushed everyone more well placed than him, beheaded (sometimes litteraly) the elites and raided heavily the Christians.

For the latter, everyone tried to to that, it was the main justification to have a caliphe in Al-Andalus. But Almanzor didn't just raided Christians, he plundered in depth their kingdoms, all of them. Result : he managed to do something that not Conquista, not Charlemagne, not anything managed so far.
He created an unity of Christians against Al-Andalus, a real desire of revenge. When the Fitna happened, the Christian reacted promptly : they invaded, raided, created tributate states. Even with the Almoravid reaction, they managed to take too much of the peninsula to allow the surviving of a Muslim state.

Elfwine said:

What would allow that to happen?

Click to expand...

Napoleon.

asb?

LSCatilina said:

I'm sorry...I tought i heard "centralised Emirate" and "iberic unity". Surely a mistake.

Seriously, nothing was more far in Muslim Spain than a centralized emirate. The emirs litteraly passed their time to crush rebellions or to negociate with unwilling emirs and governors.
And for "islamic unity"...No. Simply, no. It was not at all a feeling of "us" and "they" regarding diplomacy in medieval Spain for the Muslims. In fact, many northern islamic leaders, nobles or generals have ties (even familial) with Christians and never hesitated to ask the northern kings to help them against Emir.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I thought this was the alternate history forum, one in which alternate history and how it would change real history can be discussed. Surely a mistake indeed, I don't know what i was thinking...

Delvestius said:

Indeed, I thought this was the alternate history forum, one in which alternate history and how it would change real history can be discussed. Surely a mistake indeed, I don't know what i was thinking...

Click to expand...

I think the most important factor in preserving a Muslim Spain would be to ensure Iberian unity

Click to expand...

Preserving : maintaining an existing situation.

Keep the Cordoban Emirate centralized in Cordoba

Click to expand...

Keep : maintaining something in said situation.

LSCatilina said:

Well, litteraly tribal structures.

Arabs (and many islamized people) relied on clanic ties to their policies and administrations. It caused many disorder, crossing interest and conflicts that were at the Arabo-Islamic states disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not sure how I can be more clear except to wave my arms and shout "tribal structures!"

Fortunately Ibn Khaldun is smarter than I.

Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization, from nomadic society to states and empires.[3] Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization advances.[3] As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out.[3]

Click to expand...

Another huge problem for the Islamic world was the plague because populations recovered more slowly than in Europe (even under the Ottomans you had sluggish population growth). So it also relates to the basic food surplus = more civilization idea.

Delvestius said:

Napoleon.

asb?

Click to expand...

Well, we do see other Muslim areas uniting. Why can't this one?

It's not as if fighting rebels and lords who have ties elsewhere with no objection to bringing in foreign help is unique to Al-Andalus.

LSCatilina said:

Preserving : maintaining an existing situation.

Keep : maintaining something in said situation.

Click to expand...

To be fair, another century of rulers like Abd ar-Rahman III might have done it.

But I read something recently that pointed out an important difference between the Christians and Muslims in Al-Andalus. As time went on, Al-Andalus was more concerned with disarming it's population by bringing in outside slave soldiers and decreasing dependence on the Kuras. Meanwhile the Christian states organized their entire societies around warfare, so that many more of their citizens could and did fight (ricos hombres, town militias). This had problems of its own obviously, but it's an example of developments on the road to having a person relate to a state after family with no other loyalties.

Elfwine said:

Well, we do see other Muslim areas uniting. Why can't this one?

Click to expand...

Well, mainly because you don't have the opportunity (that Napoleon had) to play on the division of the ennemies. Christian kingdoms were divided (and even with civil wars) with the Caliphe managing sometimes to arbitrate these disputes at his benefit.

But when a northern kingdom was strong enough, it was able to raid as far than OTL Andalucia, mainly because border's leaders were or unskilled (Caliphes preferrred to keep skilled ones, the most dangerous, at their side) or because they were tied with Christians.

A Caliphe, or his hajib, could have counter-attacked, but if he raided to deeply...it would lead quickly to a revolt or a plot in his core desmene, forcing him to leave. And even if he could end the attack, he would make just the Christian kingdoms more cautious and more likely to unite for a time.

An andalucian Napoleon is not ASB though, but more than ONE person you'll need many to alter the processus that happened OTL. Then maybe a good commander could use his skills to conquer and weaken enough the northern lands to preserve Al-Andalus.

But again, it would be really hard to do, as Al-Andalus was plagued by revolts, civil wars, plots...I don't know when a serial powerful emir/Caliphe could have done reforms without endengering his head.

LSCatilina said:

Well, mainly because you don't have the opportunity (that Napoleon had) to play on the division of the ennemies. Christian kingdoms were divided (and even with civil wars) with the Caliphe managing sometimes to arbitrate these disputes at his benefit.

But when a northern kingdom was strong enough, it was able to raid as far than OTL Andalucia, mainly because border's leaders were or unskilled (Caliphes preferrred to keep skilled ones, the most dangerous, at their side) or because they were tied with Christians.

A Caliphe, or his hajib, could have counter-attacked, but if he raided to deeply...it would lead quickly to a revolt or a plot in his core desmene, forcing him to leave. And even if he could end the attack, he would make just the Christian kingdoms more cautious and more likely to unite for a time.

An andalucian Napoleon is not ASB though, but more than ONE person you'll need many to alter the processus that happened OTL. Then maybe a good commander could use his skills to conquer and weaken enough the northern lands to preserve Al-Andalus.

But again, it would be really hard to do, as Al-Andalus was plagued by revolts, civil wars, plots...I don't know when a serial powerful emir/Caliphe could have done reforms without endengering his head.

Click to expand...

And...this is unique to Al-Andalus...how again?

That's the problem. Why can't Al-Andalus find the right combination when say, Scotland could?

It's not enough to list what has to be overcome, I'm curious as to why overcoming it would be more far fetched than any of the coulda-failed states that made it OTL.

MNP said:

To be fair, another century of rulers like Abd ar-Rahman III might have done it.

Click to expand...

Well, i think that Abd al-Rahman III maneged to keep into one piece Al-Andalus as far he could. I mean, he conquerred and "pacified" troubled and revolted regions, and i'm not sure about the capacity of some of his supporters or foes to revolt themselves if he tried to change the social and institutional background of the Caliphate more than he did.

But I read something recently that pointed out an important difference between the Christians and Muslims in Al-Andalus. As time went on, Al-Andalus was more concerned with disarming it's population by bringing in outside slave soldiers and decreasing dependence on the Kuras. Meanwhile the Christian states organized their entire societies around warfare, so that many more of their citizens could and did fight (ricos hombres, town militias).

Click to expand...

Almanzor is responsible for having dangerously reinforced this tendency. Having no faith into local armies (for the good reason everyone dreamed to kick him out of power), he could rely himself only on mercenaries.
After his death, both Christian and Berbers than know well the terrain and the andalucian features used it for their own purpose. Berber created taifas and ramsoned the cities, and Christians helped the northern kingdom to conquer more easily andalucian lands.

The problem is that Almanzor is what was more close of a "providential man" in late Caliphal Al-Andalus. It's possible that Hisham couldn't have held the land in one piece and that islamic Spain would have turned back to the pre-caliphal situation with independent local rulers (still better than Fitna, admitedly)

Elfwine said:

It's not enough to list what has to be overcome, I'm curious as to why overcoming it would be more far fetched than any of the coulda-failed states that made it OTL.

Click to expand...

My belief is it is because Islam is socially egalitarian in earthly life.

MNP said:

My belief is it is because Islam is socially egalitarian in earthly life.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on that? How that relates to the issue at hand, that is.