A better-surviving Fatimid caliphate?

Can we have a Fatimid caliphate that lasts longer or at least is more stable for longer(obvious PoDs: Al-Hakim being less nutty and not getting himself assasinated, managing to break the "and now, let's import mercenaries of questionable loyalty who pick fights with each other" streak that caliphates seem prone to by either cultivating a levy system or else mixing the army units ethnically, such other ideas as others may come up with) and expands a tiny bit more. What would the effects be on the Islamic world and how would Italy be affected by what would likely be a stronger Muslim presence? For that matter, would this lead to Byzantium getting less trouble from Normans? Are there other interesting consequences?
 
Importing Turkish and African mercenaries and the resulting rivalries with the Berber founding element were exasperated both by the increasing autonomy military leaders gained from the Iqta (the tax farming system) and a serious drought and famine, which seemed to have been the straw that broke the Fatimid back. The need for these mercenaries was necessitated by the aggressive foreign policy of a succession of Fatamid caliphs, however, in and of themselves, they were not the key factor. These same ethnic elements figured in the armies of both the successor Zengids and the Mamelukes. If you can remove at least one of these elements (over-reliance on mercenaries, Iqta, Famine), you might prevent the "perfect storm" that did in the Fatamid Caliphate.

As to the ramifications of longer surviving Fatamids, there would be the continued rivalry with the Abbasids which might be taken advantage of by the Europeans and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:

Delvestius

Banned
As to the ramifications of longer surviving Fatamids, there would be the continued rivalry with the Abbasids which might be taken advantage of by the Europeans and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

I doubt that, the Abbasids were nothing more than a collection of city states (Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul, Baghdad) by the time of the Crusades, while the Fatimids were a powerful centralized state that was essentially lived on by the Ayyubids. The Egyptians would surely be focused on claiming the Levant first and expelling the Europeans, and only then attempt to conquer Mesopotamia. If indeed they can maneuver around the threat of the Turks, which is another question entirely.
 
I doubt that, the Abbasids were nothing more than a collection of city states (Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul, Baghdad) by the time of the Crusades, while the Fatimids were a powerful centralized state that was essentially lived on by the Ayyubids. The Egyptians would surely be focused on claiming the Levant first and expelling the Europeans, and only then attempt to conquer Mesopotamia. If indeed they can maneuver around the threat of the Turks, which is another question entirely.

Depends on whether or not we are talking before or during the 2nd wind that the Abbasids developed in the 12th century. But yes, surviving Fatamids would have to deal with Zengids and Ayyubids.
 
I think the easier PoDs are before the second wind(ditching the tax farming would likely be easiest, although it's probably hard for a medival dynasty to not fall into that). On the other hands, if it's during the second wind the Ayyubids and the Zengids could be less of a issue if they're squeezed by the Fatimids and Abbasids. I do also wonder if they Crusader states will be more easily dislodged by a strong and powerful Fatimid state or at least reduced to petty and scheming vassals who live largely at Fatimid convenience.
On the Turks: given that the Mamelukes managed to stop the Mongols, I could see Fatimids doing that too.
 
Fatimids

Perhaps had it been stronger, there would have been a viable and longer lasting alliance with the Latins in Jerusalem. Wars with it's Sunni neighbors would have kept the Muslims divided.
 
Top