So, for whatever reason, the Arab invasions stop around Cyrenaica, either because they feel happy with their gains, or are struck by a sudden plague, or whatever. Do the Byzantines keep north Africa by default, or does it become independant, or does it just just get swept up by arab pirates from Egypt later? What effect does this have on Spain, Italy, and Sicily?
WI: No Arab Conquest of North Africa
- Thread starter Avitus
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I imagine it continues to have problems with an ambitious general or Exarch using Byzantine North Africa as a springboard to conquer the rest of the Empire, combined with the occasional raid or two against the Byzantines by the local Berber tribes. And there would probably still be some Arab tribal confederacies from Egypt and the Arabian peninsula migrating westward, though not to the extent as it happened in OTL.
JJohnson
Banned
If they stopped there, it's very possible that Gothic and Vandalic languages might last a bit longer in the west, and we can see some further written traces, perhaps a lasting language for a few more centuries, with Spanish being more influenced by Gothic than Arabic. At some point, I would suspect that the Arianism of the African Germanic tribes would be stamped out.
One question would be, how would Spain develop without the unifying force that was the expulsion of the Arabs, lasting till the 15th century? What about Portugal? The Goths could be seen as a parallel to the Normans in England, shifting the Spanish language with a large vocabulary of Germanic terms, maybe even replacing core lexical items like pronouns and affecting inflections. That would be interesting to see how that would develop.
Given that the Arabs are still around here, the age of exploration is still very likely to occur, +/- a few years. With the Germanic tribes not overrun in Africa, they might tie in with Europe and make at least northern Africa a bit more developed as of 2012 given the cultural ties and similarities between their cultures.
Taking it to the present, one possibility: Vandalia is an African republic, with its capital at Carthage, speaking an East Germanic language with a number of dialects, to various degrees influenced by Gothic Spanish, Italian, Latin, and Sicilian, and some Berber words. The Byzantines did not ship them all back to Constantinople to replenish their armies, instead relying on Goths and Slavs to the north. This paved the way for the Vandals and Hispanic Goths to aid the stop of the westward expansion of the Arab armies. Its territory covers most of the coastal region of northern Mediterranean Africa, while Spain's territory covers its European land along with much of the western coast of Africa, aside from the Gibraltar regions, owned by the United Kingdom.
Languages: Portuguese (about 70% Latin, 28% Gothic, 2% other); Spanish (58% Latin, 40% Gothic, 2% other), Vandalic (75% East German, 18% Gothic, 7% Romance); Spanish and Portuguese re-assimilate the comparitive/superlative from Latin under Gothic influence, unlike French and Italian; the article become þa (f), þo (m); þos (pl), relative þai, þoi, þois; verbs merge towards the following: a, is, i, amos, aþ, an in the present, ending now in o, es, e, amos, aþ, an with umlaut in the singular; strong verbs spread to Latin-root verbs; the 'to be' merges with Gothic as som, es, est; siomos, sioþ, sind; the verb wiljan replaces OTL querer. The adverbs ja and ne replace OTL si and no. "To go" is ganga, gangas, ganga; gangamos, gangaþ, gangan; past iddia, iddias, iddia, iddiamos, iddiaþ, iddian; future: gangé, gangás, gangá; passive: gangada, gangadas (d from other forms, -s from 2nd pres), gangada; future passive: gangadé; et al. Portuguese adds þreis (now þres) as a numeral, as opposed to Spanish tres; Portuguese prepositions include under, wiþra, and miþ; Spanish includes miþ, af (of, from a place, indicating motion, as opposed to de, which remains to denote ultimate origin). Negation for verbs is achieved by placing no (emphatic ni (es), ne (por)); sundro (various) (habemos þas sundras casas verdaba - we truly have the various houses (sp: verdamente)); portuguese preserves the gothic 'aba' more readily, while spanish use is mixed by dialect, influenced by French's 'amente' ending. Another: fundemos þos filios 'we found the sons'.
Map:
Possible, but just an idea to throw out there. Vandalia might be an interesting place to live, and this version of Spain might have a language a little easier to learn.
One question would be, how would Spain develop without the unifying force that was the expulsion of the Arabs, lasting till the 15th century? What about Portugal? The Goths could be seen as a parallel to the Normans in England, shifting the Spanish language with a large vocabulary of Germanic terms, maybe even replacing core lexical items like pronouns and affecting inflections. That would be interesting to see how that would develop.
Given that the Arabs are still around here, the age of exploration is still very likely to occur, +/- a few years. With the Germanic tribes not overrun in Africa, they might tie in with Europe and make at least northern Africa a bit more developed as of 2012 given the cultural ties and similarities between their cultures.
Taking it to the present, one possibility: Vandalia is an African republic, with its capital at Carthage, speaking an East Germanic language with a number of dialects, to various degrees influenced by Gothic Spanish, Italian, Latin, and Sicilian, and some Berber words. The Byzantines did not ship them all back to Constantinople to replenish their armies, instead relying on Goths and Slavs to the north. This paved the way for the Vandals and Hispanic Goths to aid the stop of the westward expansion of the Arab armies. Its territory covers most of the coastal region of northern Mediterranean Africa, while Spain's territory covers its European land along with much of the western coast of Africa, aside from the Gibraltar regions, owned by the United Kingdom.
Languages: Portuguese (about 70% Latin, 28% Gothic, 2% other); Spanish (58% Latin, 40% Gothic, 2% other), Vandalic (75% East German, 18% Gothic, 7% Romance); Spanish and Portuguese re-assimilate the comparitive/superlative from Latin under Gothic influence, unlike French and Italian; the article become þa (f), þo (m); þos (pl), relative þai, þoi, þois; verbs merge towards the following: a, is, i, amos, aþ, an in the present, ending now in o, es, e, amos, aþ, an with umlaut in the singular; strong verbs spread to Latin-root verbs; the 'to be' merges with Gothic as som, es, est; siomos, sioþ, sind; the verb wiljan replaces OTL querer. The adverbs ja and ne replace OTL si and no. "To go" is ganga, gangas, ganga; gangamos, gangaþ, gangan; past iddia, iddias, iddia, iddiamos, iddiaþ, iddian; future: gangé, gangás, gangá; passive: gangada, gangadas (d from other forms, -s from 2nd pres), gangada; future passive: gangadé; et al. Portuguese adds þreis (now þres) as a numeral, as opposed to Spanish tres; Portuguese prepositions include under, wiþra, and miþ; Spanish includes miþ, af (of, from a place, indicating motion, as opposed to de, which remains to denote ultimate origin). Negation for verbs is achieved by placing no (emphatic ni (es), ne (por)); sundro (various) (habemos þas sundras casas verdaba - we truly have the various houses (sp: verdamente)); portuguese preserves the gothic 'aba' more readily, while spanish use is mixed by dialect, influenced by French's 'amente' ending. Another: fundemos þos filios 'we found the sons'.
Map:
Possible, but just an idea to throw out there. Vandalia might be an interesting place to live, and this version of Spain might have a language a little easier to learn.
Last edited:
Awesome map, but I have to say that I don't know whether Vandalic surviving is that likely, especially given that a good chunk of "Vandals" that crossed to Africa were Alans who spoke an Iranian language (and as far as I know, it's not clear whether they ever adopted the Germanic of their rulers). The muddled language instability of the area, with Punic, local Romance dialects and Berber all being relevant may give an opportunity, but I still think getting an outcome where Vandalic remains dominant is unlikely. If there's even a short period of re-established Roman rule in North Africa I think a shift to Latin among the Vandal elite and the subsequent expiry of the language in total is still most likely.
Like the map, but I too have concerns. I think that Portugal or the Portugese language forming as OTL is rather unlikely with a PoD roughlythree centuries before Portugal started to become independant. Base on geography, you might end up with new dialects in the mountainous areas of northern Spain. Some form of Germanic in the west would certainly be interesting, so maybe it could hold on until some form of proto-nationalism forms and makes them want to start writing in their native language rather than Latin.
Do you guys think that Africa (the province) would fall on Rome's side in religious matters due to proximity, or Constantinople's due to it still being an Eastern Roman province at the PoD? I think that some degree of religious friction was inevitable by this point, even if the East-West schism wasn't. Would Islam still become prominent there too?
Do you guys think that Africa (the province) would fall on Rome's side in religious matters due to proximity, or Constantinople's due to it still being an Eastern Roman province at the PoD? I think that some degree of religious friction was inevitable by this point, even if the East-West schism wasn't. Would Islam still become prominent there too?
Delvestius
Banned
Pretty sure the vandals were wiped out long before the Arabs entered the equation... Though what was said about Gothic Spanish is pretty cool.
Ultimately I think North Africa would become its own entity under this scenario. There's nothing to stop Ottomans, Mongols, or Arabs from going after Constantinople at some point in time (even if one of the others don't). With the way history played out over there, it is no guarantee that the Byzantines would survive past the 1400s. By that point Carthage, Icosium, or Tangiers might see itself as the 'Third Rome.' It is easy to forget that North Africa is still a long, albeit thin, stretch of habitable land. It is highly possible that multiple dialects of various languages (I personally think Berber and Romance would be the strongest) would arise and possibly some proto-nationalist groups at some point. There might be numerous little states or fiefdoms pop up.
Of course, there could then be the unification of Africa, like there were with Spain or Germany, if threatened by an outside force or just for the nationalist 'heck of it.' </sarcasm>
Of course, there could then be the unification of Africa, like there were with Spain or Germany, if threatened by an outside force or just for the nationalist 'heck of it.' </sarcasm>
Massively increased sea trade in Europe, probably an increase in European trade in general. OTL entire coastal areas of European countries were abandoned because of Arab sea raiders.
In fact the entire power concentration of Europe might remain in the Mediterranean countries rather than shifting to the Northern European countries. A potentially massive change in history.
In fact the entire power concentration of Europe might remain in the Mediterranean countries rather than shifting to the Northern European countries. A potentially massive change in history.
Im afraid we have to figure out WHY the conquest stopped.
Anything that deals a big enough blow to islam at that point to stop the expansion in its tracks is going to have effects far greater than what happens in north africa.
If massive unrest happens in the core of dar al-islam, the byzantines might successfully retake some lost provinces, for instance. Or persia might not be conquered. (Not sure of the dates there. I think persia was conquered, but not yet converted, so a zoroastrian resurgence might happen. Say.)
There was a thread recently about an independent morrocco. That was tough enough with the extra advantages that morocco has in terms of distance from the core of islam, and in terms of defensible boundaries.
I dont see any defensible boundary in the middle of libya.
The conquest is not simply going to 'stop'. It could pause, but you either have to develop a polity than can resist expansion when it restarts, and i dont see one happening in algeria, really, or islam would have to stop expanding, which would be HUGE.
Anything that deals a big enough blow to islam at that point to stop the expansion in its tracks is going to have effects far greater than what happens in north africa.
If massive unrest happens in the core of dar al-islam, the byzantines might successfully retake some lost provinces, for instance. Or persia might not be conquered. (Not sure of the dates there. I think persia was conquered, but not yet converted, so a zoroastrian resurgence might happen. Say.)
There was a thread recently about an independent morrocco. That was tough enough with the extra advantages that morocco has in terms of distance from the core of islam, and in terms of defensible boundaries.
I dont see any defensible boundary in the middle of libya.
The conquest is not simply going to 'stop'. It could pause, but you either have to develop a polity than can resist expansion when it restarts, and i dont see one happening in algeria, really, or islam would have to stop expanding, which would be HUGE.
Last edited:
Unrest in the Caliphate doesn't have to be universal, but your point regarding the wider impact of a halted expansion, even if only halted in Africa, is important. A plague bad enough to prevent the Arab conquest of North Africa for example would scramble things worldwide--it's not like diseases know where the borders are. A more limited event though might have just the effects we're looking for, with fewer impacts elsewhere.
Perhaps the Arab conquest of Egypt goes less well? Not in the sense that the Byzantines are able to hold it, but rather that the Arabs manage to antagonize the locals. Then while the Caliphate is slugging it out with the Persians (and winning), Egypt erupts in revolt. Given that Muslims in general and Arabs in particular would be thin on the ground in Egypt at the time, and the Caliphate would be focused on the frontiers with the Romans and Persians, let's say the revolt is reasonably successful.
Electing to finish off the Persians before recovering Egypt, the latter has time to prepare for a counter blow. The Romans perhaps also launch their own counter-offensive into Syria, though due to their manpower/money problems they don't manage to push back down to Damascus or Tripoli. Eventually the Caliphate reorients itself to face the Egyptians and Romans, but at this point it would have been continuously at war for years.
Maybe Egypt is re-conquered, or maybe it manages a precarious independence. Either way, the momentum and resources that would have carried Arab armies across North Africa have ebbed, allowing for the Exarchate to prepare and for the Roman Empire in general to adjust to its losses and new threats.
There are several problems with this POD and mini-TL though. Somehow the Arabs really have to antagonize the Egyptian locals, the Egyptians have to be better organized, or both. They'd also need some luck for a successful revolt to succeed, even temporarily. The timing of these events could be problematic as well. If the Caliphate is not distracted or busy on other fronts, revolt in Egypt will be a minor footnote.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Will the Berbers adopt Islam or Christianity is probably the most important question. I can see them adopt Islam, and we get some Islamic Berber kingdoms in Tunisia, Tripolitania, Algiers and Morocco. I don't think the Vandals can survive, the Romans did sweep the floor with them recently. The Visigoths in Spain will survive though. But how will a continuing Visigothic kingdom work? They already had some problems before the Arabs arrived at the scene.
Last edited:
Lacking more knowledge, I would propose a local version of the Battle of Talas around the Chott-el-Djerid that somehow halts the Muslim advance and freezes the frontiers like this for a while:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Byzantiumby650AD.svg
Of course, the Armenian Genocide already mentions an OTL massive Muslim defeat in the general area (with death of commander included) and yet it only bought the Byzantines a total of - wait for it - ten years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Biskra
Still, this is probbly a necessary read. The conquest of the Maghreb took nearly 30 years (ten times more than Egypt and three times more than Persia) so there should be something that could work as a POD without totally screwing the Caliphate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_North_Africa
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Byzantiumby650AD.svg
Of course, the Armenian Genocide already mentions an OTL massive Muslim defeat in the general area (with death of commander included) and yet it only bought the Byzantines a total of - wait for it - ten years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Biskra
Still, this is probbly a necessary read. The conquest of the Maghreb took nearly 30 years (ten times more than Egypt and three times more than Persia) so there should be something that could work as a POD without totally screwing the Caliphate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_North_Africa
I think that a small epidemic, fiercer Egyptian resistance, a major Byzantine defensive victory, or even a change in leadership would probably be able to hold the Arabs back from the Africa province without halting the rise of islam an Asia and Egypt. It isn't as though getting held out of France and parts of Spain instantly broke the back of western Islam, it just halted their advance and allowed them to gather themselves into a true civilization rather than a horde. I imagine that same sort of stoppage could have happened at Egypt, since that leaves quite a bit of unpleasant desert to travel through in order to reach Carthage.
Something unexplored I think is the effect on Italy. Italy was very heavily affected by African piracy in the later first milennium, with Rome being sacked, Sicily conquered, and allot of southern Italy conquered as well. Without these raids and conquests we may see a stronger ERE and Papal states in Italy and Sicily, and Byzantium might even be able to hold on to Sardinia if they are lucky, or Sardinia could form its own ERE breakaway state. Stronger Papacy and ERE in Italy also likely butterflies the HRE, so this is a pretty huge bomb on Europe. It essentially allows the major players from the dark ages a chance to continue developing without the percieved immediate threat of Islam. I wonder how no HRE effects Brittan, or if the viking invasions are more or less damaging on the mainland.
Something unexplored I think is the effect on Italy. Italy was very heavily affected by African piracy in the later first milennium, with Rome being sacked, Sicily conquered, and allot of southern Italy conquered as well. Without these raids and conquests we may see a stronger ERE and Papal states in Italy and Sicily, and Byzantium might even be able to hold on to Sardinia if they are lucky, or Sardinia could form its own ERE breakaway state. Stronger Papacy and ERE in Italy also likely butterflies the HRE, so this is a pretty huge bomb on Europe. It essentially allows the major players from the dark ages a chance to continue developing without the percieved immediate threat of Islam. I wonder how no HRE effects Brittan, or if the viking invasions are more or less damaging on the mainland.
I think linguistically, it's most likely that North Africa would develop a Romance language that's Germanic and Berber influenced rather than an East Germanic one. Every place Germanic tribes took over a Latin-speaking population, they ended up adopting a Latinate language rather than the reverse. The only exception, Britain, was a place where Latins were rather thin on the ground and had in any case been hit by a plague shortly before.