I don't believe so, after all the Donatists with based in North Africa. There is an older Christian tradition there than that of the Celtic Church.
Effects of a Christian Mauro-Roman North Africa?
- Thread starter Richard Drummond
- Start date
I don't believe so, after all the Donatists with based in North Africa. There is an older Christian tradition there than that of the Celtic Church.
AFAIK North African Christianity was quite solidly Catholic after the Donatists were suppressed, and I don't think any new heresies arose between then and the Muslim conquest (Arianism doesn't count, because it was brought in by outside settlers). Plus, Latin would have been the prestige language and a significant portion of the population, especially in the more wealthy and populous coastal areas, would have spoken a language derived from Latin, which would tend to cement ties with the Papacy in Rome. So whilst it can't be ruled out that North Africa would break from Rome over something or other, I don't think it's any more likely to do so than anywhere else in Western Europe.
Richard Drummond
Banned
You raise some good points but the damage wrecked upon the Maghreb by the Banu Hilal was so major that is caused a shift from the inland regions to the ports and then is when we see the rise of the Barbary corsair since the inland regions had been laid waste to. Thus I believe it is fair to say that had the Banu Hilal not come over with their livestock, the Maghreb would be much healthier in terms of its agricultural output.
Richard Drummond
Banned
Morocco/Mauretania has the opportunity to become a huge powerhouse. Imagine a king barges his way into West Africa and seizes the gold mines becoming rich and establishing a major empire in the Western Mediterranean.
Richard Drummond
Banned
I believe that Carthage will be throwing its weight around with the Archbishop often ignoring the Pope whilst inland Berber tribes are rife with heresy and syncretism (just like in OTL except with Islam) whilst the coastal elites are good ol' Romanists.
You're right--the introduction of 200k-300k Banu Hilal and countless cows and goats was transformative, and their stewardship of the land was so phenomenally poor that agriculture was dragged down to some extent. But I don't think coastal raiding ever eclipsed inland agriculture as completely as you're saying, and certainly not for very long. One reason is that even before the Hilali migration, Tunisian Berber capitals tended to be near-coastal sites like Mahdia and Kairouan. Meanwhile Morocco either picked cool highland sites like Fez/Marrakech or coastal sites. So the post-Hilal prominence of coastal sites is not very new.
The other reason is that post-Hilal coastal raiding generally played second fiddle to coastal trading--and that more mutually beneficial trade with Europe involved North African exports of agricultural produce. The dynasties which took over after the Banu Hilal wore themselves out seem to have presided over a partially successful agricultural recovery. The Hafsids and the succeeding Ottoman Beys profited from corsairage and slave-raiding, but derived their most consistent source of income from trade in and taxing of agricultural produce**. While piracy was certainly good at enriched groups of private actors and the state that invested in them, it alone couldn't sustain the Tunisian state or provide a livelihood to the majority of the people.
So while a Christian Romance-speaking North Africa that avoided the whole Hilali mess might be more agriculturally healthy to some degree, I don't think it would be that different from North Africa OTL, as North Africa OTL wasn't a passive observer to its own agricultural decline. After every disaster, there's at least a partial recovery in the following century, and the disasters themselves are not so common. Plus, who's to say a Christian North Africa would be better at dispelling an alt-Hilali invasion? The Banu Hilal were told to go west by the Fatimids, but they listened because of the droughts in their native Hejaz. A similar drought TTL could probably send a similar horde on their own Taghribat. Worst case, you might even end up with multiple hordes that conquer North Africa in waves, each doing its own bit of damage and each disrupting the recovery efforts of the previous rulers...
As for corsairage, I'm sure it would have still occurred even if inland agriculture had been healthier. The Breton corsairs in Saint-Malo sprung up for no reason besides the fact that preying on English channel traffic was profitable. I'm sure English sea dogs thought the same of Spanish galleons. The TTL Barbary corsairs certainly wouldn't raid for European slaves as much, but maybe they'd just call it "impressment of sailors" instead.
** Of course, agriculture being a large proportion of the income doesn't say anything about the total size of that income. I'd have to find some more detailed accounts of Tunisia's productivity/GDP over time in order to really make my argument work.
Last edited:
They were in Roman North Africa but that was only a modest portion of the Mahgreb = really just (most of) Tunisia and a thin ribbon of coastal territory further west.
Over 90% of what became Morocco was outside the limes. Had Roman religion (Orthodox or heretical) made much of an impact there?
And Irish monks (notably St Columban) played a significant role in converting the Lombards from Arianism, despite Italy having somewhat of a Catholic tradition itself. <g>.
Richard Drummond
Banned
You raise very valid points. On the topic of economy, what would the economy of 2-4 Christian Maghreb kingdoms (Morocco, Mauretania, Numidia, Africa) be?
Probably something like this?
Dihya's core territories ran from the Aures to Ghadames, so I'm assuming her dynasty rules a sort of mega-Tunisia that is the pre-eminent Berber kingdom and first line of defense against the Caliphate's men in Egypt and Cyrenaica. This dynasty's hold further west probably fractures, and you get a western Algerian kingdom. I had Morocco split into its core (central lands + north coast) and an amalgam of its western and southern peripheries, probably under *Barghwata leadership.
The dotted line territories are areas of Berber settlement, but probably not strong/united enough to be distinct kingdoms. Likely they form a hinterland shared among the kingdoms, which then gets fought over as national borders stop being so permeable. I'm especially unsure about the fate of the Garamantes in southwest Libya-- its approach to land management is interesting and effective, but also very high-maintenance.
I'd also like to direct everyone to this great TL, which features (among many, many other things) the Vandal kingdom giving way to a Romance-speaking Mauri Empire that dominates the Western Med, but then gradually falls apart and is replaced by a handful of Berber kingdoms.
Dihya's core territories ran from the Aures to Ghadames, so I'm assuming her dynasty rules a sort of mega-Tunisia that is the pre-eminent Berber kingdom and first line of defense against the Caliphate's men in Egypt and Cyrenaica. This dynasty's hold further west probably fractures, and you get a western Algerian kingdom. I had Morocco split into its core (central lands + north coast) and an amalgam of its western and southern peripheries, probably under *Barghwata leadership.
The dotted line territories are areas of Berber settlement, but probably not strong/united enough to be distinct kingdoms. Likely they form a hinterland shared among the kingdoms, which then gets fought over as national borders stop being so permeable. I'm especially unsure about the fate of the Garamantes in southwest Libya-- its approach to land management is interesting and effective, but also very high-maintenance.
I'd also like to direct everyone to this great TL, which features (among many, many other things) the Vandal kingdom giving way to a Romance-speaking Mauri Empire that dominates the Western Med, but then gradually falls apart and is replaced by a handful of Berber kingdoms.
Last edited:
Bassarion Korax
Banned
So, I’m not as well-read on this period or the history as I would like to be, as I find this subject fascinating, but... if a Christian North Africa were to align itself with Rome (as is probable) then, if there is an equivalent to the Crusades I can see Egypt and the Levant falling permanently.
If you want to make an ATL Romano-Moorish kingdom in North Africa, you probably have to start before the Vandal invasion. If the Vandals don’t invade, but the rest of the west falls then North Africa can remain a united Berber state with Carthage as its capital and allied in some way to Byzantium. It would be a larger and stronger polity capable of standing against the Muslim invasions later on.
Massive immigration was already taking place. According to a recent paper, Visigothic-era southern Spaniards had experienced a massive genetic influx from North Africa compared to the middle Roman era population.
The Anti-Atlas in the south of Morocco could form its own state, as at times it did. Coastal Morocco in general would have both fishing and agriculture, and potentially argan oil as an export good.
The less Roman parts of Mauretania, modern Morocco south of Volubilis, would develop later. Not sure how strong Christianity was there, and unlike the rest of Mauretania where the coastal regions will speak an African Romance language, this part definitely won't since it's thoroughly Berber. It will be an interesting crossroads of European and non-European civilization.
Politically speaking we probably wouldn’t get a United North African Kingdom right away but there would most likely be a fair amount of inter-marriage.
These Mauri Kingdoms would also look across the Med. to Hispania and Italy as well? Probably get some fruitful alliances with the Lombards/Franks against Islamic incursions from Egypt.
These Mauri Kingdoms would also look across the Med. to Hispania and Italy as well? Probably get some fruitful alliances with the Lombards/Franks against Islamic incursions from Egypt.
Richard Drummond
Banned
- Thanks for the map. I've starting making a collection of maps of the time period and yours would be useful as what the Maghreb might look like after a century.
- In regards to Dihya's Confederacy, it will probably begin to break down after the reign of one of her sons (if our sources are correct, either Bagay or Khanchla). They seem to have been military men and thus would probably be able to crush any unrest which would definitely be rising amongst the urban populace. During the reign of Dihya's grandchild, we might see Dihya's dynasty at crossroads with the tribal elite battling with the coastal elite. Who would win such a conflict?
- The Garamantians were being wrecked by environmental issues. With a Berber kingdom right next though, they might migrate to the Tripolitanian coast and be used by Dihya's dynasty to defend the region from Arab raiders coming in from Cyrenaica and even launch their own raids.
- Thanks for recommending the TL, will definitely take a look.
- The Barghwata will be very interesting in this TL. From OTL Barghwata religion, I believe that ATL Barghwata will be developing a pretty fundamental religion with lots of rituals. The Muslims pray 5 times a day, these guys said 10 times a day and the Muslims took four wives whilst these guys said a man can take an unlimited amount of wives!
- I'm interested in taking a look once you find the link.
- Maybe you wouldn't have to wait for the Crusades. The Byzantines saw a resurgence in the 900s IIRC and the Berbers could involve themselves. However, you'd likely end up with the similar Crusader-Byzantine conflict with the Berbers replacing the Crusaders.
- The Muslim invasions, however, would be butterflied away.
- I'm not aware of this but if it is true, it is likely due to Berber raids into the region during this period and these would likely continue.
- Once they civilize, they would likely take Mauro-Roman influences.
- Doubt it. The Visigoths were unstable, the Lombards busy fighting the Pope and the Franks too far away to really care.
Richard Drummond
Banned
I was doing some thinking and I came up with three ideas
Urban vs Tribal Africa
In an Africa ruled by Dihya's dynasty, we will likely see the rise of tensions between the tribes who made up her confederacy and the urban elites. Maybe the tribes will assimilate to the urban lifestyle but I don't think this would happen. What do you lot think?
Berber Mercenaries in Iberia
I find it not to be a coincidence that the Muslims invaded Iberia right after Roderic became king. It seems to me that Count Julian was part of Oppa's rebellion and the invasion of the Muslims was originally more similar to a mercenary company than actual invasion. However, their immense victories changed the mind of the Muslims to conquest of the peninsula rather than just being what amounted to mercenary-ism? With no Muslims in the Maghreb, we might see Berber mercenaries come to Iberia rather than the Muslims. Tariq would also still be alive in TTL but he'd probably never rise to fame. I'm assuming he was a coastal Berber before being enslaved by the Arabs.
Urban vs Tribal Africa
In an Africa ruled by Dihya's dynasty, we will likely see the rise of tensions between the tribes who made up her confederacy and the urban elites. Maybe the tribes will assimilate to the urban lifestyle but I don't think this would happen. What do you lot think?
Berber Mercenaries in Iberia
I find it not to be a coincidence that the Muslims invaded Iberia right after Roderic became king. It seems to me that Count Julian was part of Oppa's rebellion and the invasion of the Muslims was originally more similar to a mercenary company than actual invasion. However, their immense victories changed the mind of the Muslims to conquest of the peninsula rather than just being what amounted to mercenary-ism? With no Muslims in the Maghreb, we might see Berber mercenaries come to Iberia rather than the Muslims. Tariq would also still be alive in TTL but he'd probably never rise to fame. I'm assuming he was a coastal Berber before being enslaved by the Arabs.
Count Julian is a character more recent historiography finds likely to be fabricated. He exists solely, to my knowledge, in Islamic accounts of the Conquest written roughly two centuries after, and, when the Islamic Empire had already conducted its own naval raids on Sicily in the previous decades, it is somewhat doubtful that the invaders required Visigothic assistance to reach Spain via ship.
Now, this is a more likely perception of how the conquest went. The initial conquest went surprisingly smoothly, with minimal resistance, and the Islamic Armies called reinforcements after the initial engagements. In part this can be attributed to the succession crisis and Roderic having insufficient time to cement his reign, combined with the less militaristic character of the Visigothic Kingdom in general, with there being no overmighty vassal armies to contest the country beyond the small royal force which was first defeated by the Muslims. It's entirely possible that the initial assumption on the part of the remaining Visigothic Magnates was that the Muslims would retreat after their initial raids, contributing to an anaemic resistance against the invasion.
Granted, you are correct insofar as the Visigothic Monarchy around 711 was heading into a succession crisis with several possible contenders, though of course, there is a regrettable paucity of evidence with regards to who all of these contenders may have been beyond a few chronicles.
Assuming a Visigothic succession crisis had the capacity to develop into a proper civil war, I can certainly see Berber mercenaries making the crossing as at least a possibility, given the military deficiencies of the Visigothic aristocracy beyond the Crown, and it is entirely possible that a conquest of the Iberian peninsula might occur as a result. Our knowledge of Spain in this period is simply so vague, however, that going into real specifics is difficult. The best we have is largely founded in supposition.
Richard Drummond
Banned
Who would likely win a civil war which has Achila II in the north fighting Roderic who suffers a rebellion from Oppa and his supporters?
Our knowledge of what sort of forces any of the candidates commanded is essentially nonexistent. However, based upon my understanding of the Visigothic military system based on readings from Kennedy and Collins, the support of many Visigothic nobles in the Senate for Roderic and the fact that he seems to have died with the only real organised military resistance in Hispania, I'd certainly say that Roderic may have been supported by a significant element of the army, if not the army in its entirety, which in itself was the only real military force worth mentioning in Visigothic Hispania prior to the Islamic invasion. That in itself gives him an advantage over the other claimants.
But that's all supposition. As I said; we have no real information on the kind of forces available to any of these claimants beyond a vague impression, as far as I am aware.