AHC Christian North Africa

The challenge is to make the north African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya (and possibly Egypt) majority Christian by 1950 (this is in the pre-1900 forum because the PODs will most likely be before 1900). PODs after 1500 and before 1950. Here are some of the ideas I had:
Morocco: have Spain controlling and colonising Morocco and converting locals almost treating it like a Re-reconquista.
Algeria and Tunisia: French colonisation and conversion, similar to OTL just on a larger scale.
Libya: Italian colonisation similar to OTL
Egypt: Egypt is hard because of its large population but maybe a very early Coptic insurgency and Coptic control or something, I'm not too sure with this one.
 
Difficult. With the exception of the Iberian Peninsula, I can`t think of any country completely or mostly reconverted from Islam to Christianity.
Perhaps the French deport their Hugenots to Algeria and Tunisia?
Spain, while it´s still strong, is quite busy with America, why bother with a dry spot like Morocco, even if it´s closer to home?
And "Italy" doesn`t exist as such until it´s basically too late for such a fundamental change to occur.
I suppose you`d have to use some sort of inner-Islamic conflict, too.
But even if you add it up, the "best" you can get with a PoD after 1500 is, I think, a more equal balance between Christians and Muslims, but not a wholesale Christian hegemony.
 
Morocco: have Spain controlling and colonising Morocco and converting locals almost treating it like a Re-reconquista.
Treating Morroco as a continued Reconquista is actually quite doable : it was more or less what was tought to happen even in the early XVIth century. But it quickly went out of fashion after the discoveries of America.

It would be possible to see a maintained coastal presence in North Africa, such as Spain had in Morroco and Algeria; or Portugal in Morroco, but it would ask for focusing on it more so (so, no Habsburgs) and probably no Ottomans in the region to dispute hegemony.

It would be, that said, essentially a non-continuous coastal presence.

Algeria and Tunisia: French colonisation and conversion, similar to OTL just on a larger scale.
There was no religious conversion in French North Africa. It was even officially discouraged, and who attempted this was often asked to leave without making a fuss.
As for an even larger settlement, thing is it didn't much depended on political will, but on an absence of deep inner motivation to do so. The average french peasant had a relativly good life (compared to migrating peoples such as Irish or Italians) and often owner of his own land.

Egypt: Egypt is hard because of its large population but maybe a very early Coptic insurgency and Coptic control or something, I'm not too sure with this one.
"Coptic insurgency" out of blue would look really weird. While you had a religious identity, it never translated well into a political one (mostly because it dependend of the protection of the local ruler, and that breaking it would have meant repression on a very short term)
 
Difficult. With the exception of the Iberian Peninsula, I can`t think of any country completely or mostly reconverted from Islam to Christianity.
Perhaps the French deport their Hugenots to Algeria and Tunisia?
Spain, while it´s still strong, is quite busy with America, why bother with a dry spot like Morocco, even if it´s closer to home?
And "Italy" doesn`t exist as such until it´s basically too late for such a fundamental change to occur.
I suppose you`d have to use some sort of inner-Islamic conflict, too.
But even if you add it up, the "best" you can get with a PoD after 1500 is, I think, a more equal balance between Christians and Muslims, but not a wholesale Christian hegemony.

Maybe Spain not fighting all those Europuan wars while other powers take larger shares of the Americas. Like a explorer goes to Portugal, France or England instead of Spain and they are the ones to find the Aztecs and Incas and get rich. So Spain might only have a relatively small colony like The area around Rio de la plate.

To try and get at the Sub Saharan trade and fighting against Islam Spain then focuses on attacking North Africa. Maybe Spain is the large scale slave exporter with Muslims that don't convert being sent to the Planations of the Americas. That could help with reducing rebellions and allowing the tide to be turned demographically.
 
The populations of these countries were quite small even into the 18th century, west of Egypt, there were less than a couple of million people if I understand correctly.

I have written an alt history novel with a subplot that the reconquest starts after a successful 7 years war (France and Spain/Naples win after 3 years, cutting up Hanover and Prussia with Austria/Russia), remain distant allies with Austria (thus eliminating any direct threat on European soil) and methodically conquer north Africa over the next fifty years.

In the meantime, bereft of a threat rom a dismembered Prussia, Russia and Austria push the Ottoman out of Europe, eliminating any threat of Ottoman intervention on behalf of the Magrebs.

Egpyt and Syria rebel, declaring independence.

It would require decades of attention normally not readily available but an extended peace on Continental Europe might all this window of opportunity.
 
Here are some key elements.

1) Spain and Portugal are more successful in conquering northwest Africa in the 1500s period. For example, Portugeuse win Battle of Alcacer Quibir.

2) The Ottomans are not able to stop them. Perhaps Hayreddin Barbarossa is killed early on so Spanish control of the coastal cities are continued.

3) When the Hapsburg Empire is divided, Spain is not given the Netherlands. This allows it to concentrate on the Mediterranean and not be distracted by Dutch Protestantism or trying to maintain the Spanish Road to there.

This would allow a Christian presence on the African coast to be uninterrupted for several centuries from Morocco to Tunisia (maybe even extending as far east as Tripoli).

The major problem is the interior would still be Muslim which presents a demographic challenge. At some point, the Spanish need to sortie out and hold the interior, break the Berber tribes, and allow for more colonization and conversion. This is a significant challenge that's in addition to winning the coastal cities and keeping the Turks out. But they do have several centuries to do so. If the Spanish expel the "Moors" at some point in the late 1600s or early 1700s, then northwest Africa could be secured for future Christian majority although it'll lose a lot of population and wealth just like Spain did.

Population of both the Christian and Muslim communities in northwest Africa are going to remain low until Europe's demographic explosion in the 1800s allows it to increase the number of settlers to "win" it perpetual majority status. By that time, the base of the Muslim communities have to be small enough that their increase in population in the 1900s won't overturn matters.

Assuming Christian control is made up to the Atlas Mountains, for a long time the Muslim population south will remain limited because of the Sahara. However, there will be danger of large number of migrants by the late 20th century as the African population explodes.
 
Egypt: Egypt is hard because of its large population but maybe a very early Coptic insurgency and Coptic control or something, I'm not too sure with this one.

I don't see it happening except in an unrealistic wank scenario with the period you outlined. The only time when Egypt might plausibly become once against Christian majority is during the Crusader-Mongol era of 1100-1300. A combination of Crusader success and Mongol slaughter might upend things enough that allows for Christian majority population to happen somehow, but this would be hard to maintain. After 1500? We'd need ASBs.
 
I think you would need ecological changes that made North Africa more worth colonizing. Perhaps a Muslim defeat at Ain Jalut can do it and have the fall of Islam be so grand and pathetic in the sight of the Mongols, that their conversion to the religion becomes unthinkable. Perhaps, then, they hang on longer which may butterfly the ascendance of the Turks.

However, you want PODs after 1500.

Perhaps no Protestant Reformation as we know it and a much stronger Holy Roman Empire that conquers the Italian city states plus Rome. However, an Anglican split for political reasons. Perhaps it can keep Germany, France, and the Spain from fighting each other quite as often, and once the Turks start getting driven back, they unite to kick the turks out of the Mediterranean, especially with Spain and the Holy Roman Empire controlled by the same dynasty, a stronger Germany may cow France into imperial wars of conquest against the Turks, in exchange for giving them African colonies or something of the sort.
 
The best opportunity for Christian Maghreb with a late POD is around the 13th century. Have the crusaders move their eyes to North Africa rather than the Levant (which they did in OTL, but too late for real action because crusader fervor had died down a considerable amount by then).

Roger of Sicily in OTL took control of coastal Tunisia up to Tripoli in Libya for a brief period of time until it was taken by the Almohads less than half a century later. Have them hold onto it somehow and you have a foothold for expansion. This would probably inspire more crusaders to the Maghreb. That being said, Roger never planned to force-convert the Muslims and actually encouraged the resettlement of Sicilian Muslims to Tunisia.

Spain took Tripoli in 1521 and gave it to the Knights of St John, but they only had it for 30 years until it was taken by the Ottomans.

Honestly though, the best opportunity is crusades to North Africa - you could then have at least a lot more of the coast (like Melilla and Ceuta in OTL) having Christian majorities. Perhaps you could even have as much as the entirety of the coast and some of the inland regions as Christian.

A POD of 1500 seems far too late, though - the best you could have at that point would be a large Christian minority.
 
I think many people seem to have the idea that widespread religious conversion is very difficult after a certain date, but the example of Korea suggests that it can happen. What happened there was that Christianity became attached to a political movement (Korean resistance to Japanese rule).

Perhaps if the Maghreb got in a major political fight with Ottoman rule, and Christianity became attached to the liberation mentality. Admittedly, it is harder when the existing faith is an Abrahamic faith, which seem to have more staying power than folk religion.
 
Stopping the tide of Islam during the initial conquest is certainly possible. Rechristianizing it? Ouch. That's going to require ethnic cleansing/genocide on a massive scale.
 
Stopping the tide of Islam during the initial conquest is certainly possible. Rechristianizing it? Ouch. That's going to require ethnic cleansing/genocide on a massive scale.

Genocide or a massive banishment of the local population to some other place, but it could come and bite them in the ass in the future. 1947 is a great indicator of this. Problem is the logistical problems. The Christens have mostly outdated maps of North Africa so you have that to deal with as well. Also its kinda hard to force 3 mill from a place the length of Europe that's a desert, and the fact they will all try to kill you so you have that as well.
 
There was no religious conversion in French North Africa. It was even officially discouraged, and who attempted this was often asked to leave without making a fuss.
As for an even larger settlement, thing is it didn't much depended on political will, but on an absence of deep inner motivation to do so. The average french peasant had a relativly good life (compared to migrating peoples such as Irish or Italians) and often owner of his own land.
I read somewhere that the French let some Algerian gain more prestigious position by a sort of conversion, more specifically renouncing to the Sharia Law but I´m not sure this is actually true. Anyway why was conversion not encouraged when it was very strong in Subsaharan Africa and was the cause of the invasion in Indochina in the first place?
Anyway what is the obstacle that blocks mass conversion after 1400-1500? I mean was the conversion to Islam relatively quick, no? Could the relative Maghreb decadence during 1500 give a reason for some people to convert to another religion?
 
I read somewhere that the French let some Algerian gain more prestigious position by a sort of conversion, more specifically renouncing to the Sharia Law but I´m not sure this is actually true. Anyway why was conversion not encouraged when it was very strong in Subsaharan Africa and was the cause of the invasion in Indochina in the first place?
Anyway what is the obstacle that blocks mass conversion after 1400-1500? I mean was the conversion to Islam relatively quick, no? Could the relative Maghreb decadence during 1500 give a reason for some people to convert to another religion?

The conversion to Islam by the North Africans actually was a very slow process, taking many centuries. Muslims conquered the region in the seventh century and yet Christianity survived another half-millennium in the Maghreb and still exists in Egypt today.

The French (as well as the British and Dutch, I believe) discouraged trying to convert Muslims as a way of keeping the peace, as it would be viewed as a great affront to the Islamic faith. (I did read that there were, nevertheless, some minor efforts at trying to convert the Kabyle people of Algeria, with a limited amount of success.) Under French rule, native Algerians could gain indeed citizenship through a process that involved renouncing Islamic law, which only a small percentage of the population was willing to do.
 
Top