Longer Lasting Granada?

It strikes me that in some ways the fall of Granada in the 1480s required a series of fortuitous events for the Iberian Christian powers; the unification of Castille and Aragon, civil war in Granada, and even then it took ten years to subdue the Emirate.

So, let's suppose that this doesn't happen. How long could Granada last before it falls?

Personally, I thnk it's the 1550s at the latest; by then you have a strong Ottoman power that's reaching into Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

But who knows? Granada was at the forefront of military innovation in the Islamic world, especially firearms. Maybe it proves to be too hard for Spain to take. Even if not, a longer lasting Islamic state might have some interesting effects.

Not to mention Spain would be unlikely to sponsor a crazy expedition to China by sailing west.

A book called "If it had happened Otherwise" has a collection of essays. One of them describes a Grenada in the present day but doesn't say how it happened, or what happened in the rest of the world.

I don't know, Granada was in decline for a long time. I think if you want to keep it around significantly longer, you'd have to go for a PoD before the 1400's.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. I'm always looking to learn more about Muslim Spain. Incidentally, can anyone recommend me any general history books about it? Possibly an introduction to Granadan history or something like that.

Granada was living on borrowed time sine the 1300s at least.

The fact it wasn't taken out earlier was because the Christian Iberean powers had more important things to do and Granada was already a tributary state since the 13th century, so why bother?

Indeed.

And by the way, wasn't Granada also economically quite dependant on Castille?

Through Granada, Castille had access to North- and West-African trade networks, and even though trade with Castille boosted Granada's economy, it also made Granada's economy quite dependant on Castille as a result.

SRT said:

I don't know, Granada was in decline for a long time. I think if you want to keep it around significantly longer, you'd have to go for a PoD before the 1400's.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. I'm always looking to learn more about Muslim Spain. Incidentally, can anyone recommend me any general history books about it? Possibly an introduction to Granadan history or something like that.

Click to expand...

True, but once the Ottoman reach extends into the West Med, all this is changed. An Ottoman alliance would make a huge difference to Granada - with a significant power-base in Algiers and an allied Granada, the Ottomans would be able to land significant forces to defend Granada...

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

True, but once the Ottoman reach extends into the West Med, all this is changed. An Ottoman alliance would make a huge difference to Granada - with a significant power-base in Algiers and an allied Granada, the Ottomans would be able to land significant forces to defend Granada...

Click to expand...

...and the fear that exactly that was going to happen (along with the possebility of another Muslim invasion of Spain)
was one of the main reasons why the Spanish were so hard-pressed to get rid of Granada in OTL.

As a harmless tributary state, Granada has IMHO the best chances of surviving for a bit longer, but as an Ottoman outpost, the Spanish would be extremely determined to put an end to Granada and the Muslim presence on the Iberian Peninsula.

Faeelin said:

But who knows? Granada was at the forefront of military innovation in the Islamic world, especially firearms. Maybe it proves to be too hard for Spain to take. Even if not, a longer lasting Islamic state might have some interesting effects.

Click to expand...

Well, it's necessary to bear in mind that Granada wasn't what was Al-Andalus. Though it is true that the Muslims introduced gunpowder in the Iberian Peninsula in the 13th Century, it is true as well that the Nasri Kingdom of Granada wasn't any leading power in the use of gunpowder. During the 1480s Granada's main weapons were universal "conscription" (for lack of a better word), horse lancers and poisoned arrows. Good weapons for a guerrilla war in the mountains, but nothing against the modern armies of Castile and Aragon and the decissive innovations in artillery design and tactics that Ferdinand introduced at this time. One of the reasons because Granada survived 200 centuries after the fall of Cordoba (apart of the tribute to Castile) was that besieging one by one their thousands of mountain castles and fortresses with traditional methods was pure madness. At the end of the 15th century, that same castles and walls were reduced to rumble by a simple line of cannons. Granada had everything to survive the Middle Ages, but very little chance against the Modern Age.

Ran exilis said:

And by the way, wasn't Granada also economically quite dependant on Castille?

Click to expand...

Granada's late relation to Castile (and to a lesser extent Aragon, Genoa and Northern Africa) was almost colonial. The terrain isn't suitable for cereals nor cattle, so the Granadines used to grow luxurious products (sugarcane, silk, etc) and then buy food and other common items to the Christians for an abusive price. This made Granada very vulnerable to blockades.

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

True, but once the Ottoman reach extends into the West Med, all this is changed. An Ottoman alliance would make a huge difference to Granada - with a significant power-base in Algiers and an allied Granada, the Ottomans would be able to land significant forces to defend Granada...

Click to expand...

But how could Granada survive till the Ottomans were able to do that? And could the Ottomans carry out a significant operation so far from their bases?

An alliance with a power, however, is still a good idea, and there are some easy PODs around. For example, if the pro-Portuguese faction won the War of Castilian Sucession instead of the pro-Aragonese one, Aragon could support Granada just for revenge.

Tocomocho said:

At the end of the 15th century, that same castles and walls were reduced to rumble by a simple line of cannons. Granada had everything to survive the Middle Ages, but very little chance against the Modern Age.

Click to expand...

Hohum. I did not know that.

Granada's late relation to Castile (and to a lesser extent Aragon, Genoa and Northern Africa) was almost colonial. The terrain isn't suitable for cereals nor cattle, so the Granadines used to grow luxurious products (sugarcane, silk, etc) and then buy food and other common items to the Christians for an abusive price.

Click to expand...

This sounds colonial, but to nitpick it doesn't necessarily sound like Granada was the colony.

Granada was really out of its weight, wasn't it?

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

True, but once the Ottoman reach extends into the West Med, all this is changed. An Ottoman alliance would make a huge difference to Granada - with a significant power-base in Algiers and an allied Granada, the Ottomans would be able to land significant forces to defend Granada...

Click to expand...

I think there was some speculation in an earlier thread about the Ottomans linking up with Grenada before 1492. It would lead to interesting strategic developments in the Iberian peninsula, and in fact the Western Mediterranean as a whole. This may keep Spain focused on the Ottoman threat, while Portugal continues to develop its trade network around Africa and into the Indian ocean.

One wonders whether the Philippines may become a larger version of Taiwan in TTL, being disputed by the Portuguese and the Dutch, and eventually being overrun by the Triad as a rear base to reclaim the mainland from the Qing.

Incidentally, within a few decades, geography will have progressed to the point where a roughly accurate idea of the earth's size is calculated, making any attempts at transatlantic crossing moot now that everyone expects to have a huge empty expanse of water between Western Europe and China. Meaning that TTL may have bought the New World quite a bit of time, until some Portuguese ship gets blown off course to the coast of Brazil or the Basques spread the word about their cod fishing grounds.

Vienna is very far from Ottoman power, but Spain, ironically, is not, for two reasons - one is that sea transport makes long-distance operations possible. Spain, for instance, was able to operate in the Netherlands, for example - and second, the Ottomans were established in Algeria, just a hop skip and a jump.

I agree that a lot would have to go right for Granada to last longer, but it wasn't the same as Constantinople - the Byzantines had nothing but a ruined city and 50,000 people - Granada was a large and populous state, relatively advanced. Ottoman sponsorship could have magnified it's military capabilities much like they did with the Crimea - which had a much more archaic military system, a lower population, a lesser level of civilization, and yet almost made it to the 19th c.

Tocomocho said:

Well, it's necessary to bear in mind that Granada wasn't what was Al-Andalus. Though it is true that the Muslims introduced gunpowder in the Iberian Peninsula in the 13th Century, it is true as well that the Nasri Kingdom of Granada wasn't any leading power in the use of gunpowder. During the 1480s Granada's main weapons were universal "conscription" (for lack of a better word), horse lancers and poisoned arrows. Good weapons for a guerrilla war in the mountains, but nothing against the modern armies of Castile and Aragon and the decissive innovations in artillery design and tactics that Ferdinand introduced at this time. One of the reasons because Granada survived 200 centuries after the fall of Cordoba (apart of the tribute to Castile) was that besieging one by one their thousands of mountain castles and fortresses with traditional methods was pure madness. At the end of the 15th century, that same castles and walls were reduced to rumble by a simple line of cannons. Granada had everything to survive the Middle Ages, but very little chance against the Modern Age.



Granada's late relation to Castile (and to a lesser extent Aragon, Genoa and Northern Africa) was almost colonial. The terrain isn't suitable for cereals nor cattle, so the Granadines used to grow luxurious products (sugarcane, silk, etc) and then buy food and other common items to the Christians for an abusive price. This made Granada very vulnerable to blockades.



But how could Granada survive till the Ottomans were able to do that? And could the Ottomans carry out a significant operation so far from their bases?

An alliance with a power, however, is still a good idea, and there are some easy PODs around. For example, if the pro-Portuguese faction won the War of Castilian Sucession instead of the pro-Aragonese one, Aragon could support Granada just for revenge.

Click to expand...

I don't recall ever seeing any evidence that fear of the Ottomans had anything to do with the "Spanish" invasion. The Ottomans did not have any reach into the Western Med for several decades later.

Ran Exilis said:

...and the fear that exactly that was going to happen (along with the possebility of another Muslim invasion of Spain)
was one of the main reasons why the Spanish were so hard-pressed to get rid of Granada in OTL.

As a harmless tributary state, Granada has IMHO the best chances of surviving for a bit longer, but as an Ottoman outpost, the Spanish would be extremely determined to put an end to Granada and the Muslim presence on the Iberian Peninsula.

Click to expand...

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

The Ottomans did not have any reach into the Western Med for several decades later.

Click to expand...

And when they did, they ended up getting their arses kicked at Lepanto.

Granada might be better looking for an alliance with the France a la the Auld Alliance the latter had with Scotland vis England. If Paris would avoid getting into too much trouble with a Pope over their Muslim friend, it would complicate any war the Spanish/Hapsburgs might have with them what with Spain potentially having to fight on two fronts. Then again the Scots often got screwed by the French patching up their differences with the English and leaving them in hot water so this might not be such a good idea

Michael B said:

And when they did, they ended up getting their arses kicked at Lepanto.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that the battle that ultimately failed to do anything significant, because the Ottomans managed to keep Cyprus, and rebuild a fleet?

I exagerrate somewhat for hyperbole; while I think a Granadine survival for centuries probably isn't likely, I don't think it's ASB for it to survive long enough to get Ottoman help; just as Algeria did.

Faeelin said:

Wasn't that the battle that ultimately failed to do anything significant, because the Ottomans managed to keep Cyprus, and rebuild a fleet?

I exagerrate somewhat for hyperbole; while I think a Granadine survival for centuries probably isn't likely, I don't think it's ASB for it to survive long enough to get Ottoman help; just as Algeria did.

Click to expand...

Charles V could conquer Tunis from the Ottoman Empire in 1535, implying Ottoman power projection at the time was not that great and naturally Grenada would have been an even easier target.

A state on the Iberian peninsula in the age of the Tercios only exist because Spain allows it.

I think you may be skipping a little history. The Ottomans lost one battle at Lepanto, and continued to maintain their hold on Algeria and project power into the West Med for centuries. In any case, Lepanto was nearly a century after the Ottomans had pushed into the West Med. There is nothing to prevent them from landing whatever troops they pleased to support Granada, and not only save it from extinction, but pose a mortal threat to Spain. In this period, the Hapsburgs did not engage the Ottomans in a single battle, preferring to literally flee for the hills, because they knew they'd get slaughtered. But in the case of Spain, they'd have little choice, or lose the country.

Michael B said:

And when they did, they ended up getting their arses kicked at Lepanto.

Granada might be better looking for an alliance with the France a la the Auld Alliance the latter had with Scotland vis England. If Paris would avoid getting into too much trouble with a Pope over their Muslim friend, it would complicate any war the Spanish/Hapsburgs might have with them what with Spain potentially having to fight on two fronts. Then again the Scots often got screwed by the French patching up their differences with the English and leaving them in hot water so this might not be such a good idea

Click to expand...

Charles landed a large force at Tunis and took it unopposed. The Ottomans had only gained nominal control over it, had no garrison there and had no particular reason to need it until later.

You'll note Charles did not attempt to attack the real center of Ottoman power in the West Med, Algiers, because he had no chance of success. From there Barbarossa even landed in Italy and would have sacked Rome, but the Sultan ordered him not to to avoid embarrassing France. If Charles couldn't even protect Rome, the Ottomans with a base in Granada would be a larger problem.

Archdevil said:

Charles V could conquer Tunis from the Ottoman Empire in 1535, implying Ottoman power projection at the time was not that great and naturally Grenada would have been an even easier target.

A state on the Iberian peninsula in the age of the Tercios only exist because Spain allows it.

Click to expand...

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

Charles landed a large force at Tunis and took it unopposed. The Ottomans had only gained nominal control over it, had no garrison there and had no particular reason to need it until later.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but if the Ottomans could not protect Tunis, why would they do better at distant Granada? Especially since it's at the immediate border of Castille and thus the base of Habsburg power.

You'll note Charles did not attempt to attack the real center of Ottoman power in the West Med, Algiers, because he had no chance of success. From there Barbarossa even landed in Italy and would have sacked Rome, but the Sultan ordered him not to to avoid embarrassing France. If Charles couldn't even protect Rome, the Ottomans with a base in Granada would be a larger problem.

Click to expand...

re Rome: if a sack of Rome would have embarrassing to France, there's your reason Charles V did nothing to stop it.

It's obvious he could have because he was able to besiege and sack the city of Rome himself in 1527.

Charles was Holy Roman Emperor - if Rome had been sacked, he would have been utterly humiliated. Suleyman didn't do it because he was allied to Francis, and sacking Rome would have made him guilty of abetting a Muslim conquest of the city.

The Ottomans could easily have protected Tunis, they just didn't bother to because it was irrelevant. That's why Charles went there - a quick propaganda coup with no risk.

Since we're yet again trying to minimize the power of the Ottomans at the absolute peak of their vitality and extent, can you please answer the simple question why it was Charles strenuously, studiously avoided ever having a battle with the Ottomans - to the point of Louis moving the court to Linz from Vienna whenever Suleyman so much as touched a toe to Hungary? I'm sorry, but if the Ottomans had decided to support a lasting Granada, Spain would be hurting.

Archdevil said:

Yeah, but if the Ottomans could not protect Tunis, why would they do better at distant Granada? Especially since it's at the immediate border of Castille and thus the base of Habsburg power.


re Rome: if a sack of Rome would have embarrassing to France, there's your reason Charles V did nothing to stop it.

It's obvious he could have because he was able to besiege and sack the city of Rome himself in 1527.

Click to expand...