AHC: European Morocco

The title may have been misleading; the challenge is not to make Morocco owned by a European, but to have Morocco be considered a European Nation, specifically a western european nation, with all the perks that come with it (colonial stuff). And it can't be a former spanish or french colony colonizing Africa.
 
The vandale invasion doesn't happen at the end of the Roman Empire, Morroco stays in European culture and resists islamisation.
 
Morroco itself being an Arabo-Islamic concept to begin with (issued from the conquest of the western North Africa), it's going to be tricky to have such a state being considered as European.

The best bet would be having a Morroco-Algravi or Morroco-Grenadi state managing to get the lead in Maghrib, Sudan and Ifryqia, sort of competer of Ottoman power (if it exists, of course).
It's not the most plausible situation ever, but you may end with a Turkey-like situation : if it holds a bit of Europe, it could be considered as European. Somehow. Maybe.
In a pre-1900 PoD, I'm not sure you have real good choices.

A post-1900 PoD *may* be more interesting.
Morroco issued a candidacy for the EEC in 1987, but it was rejected on the grounds the country wasn't in Europe.
*Maybe* with a Cold War far more tensed, with Algeria (and possibly other Western African) countries being definitely pro-Soviet, acceptance of the candidacy may lean to consider Morroco as part, somehow, of Western Europe.
 
Have the Arab Conquest of the Maghreb stall out, leaving them with just Egypt, Libya and maybe Tunisia and Eastern Algeria, leading to Christianity not only continuing to spread naturally in Morocco, but having the Christian and Jewish populations from the conquered areas moving to Morocco (among other places), thus creating a 'Christian Bullwark' in the Maghreb that's tied to Europe and eventually becomes seen as part of it.
 
The vandale invasion doesn't happen at the end of the Roman Empire, Morroco stays in European culture and resists islamisation.

Morroco itself being an Arabo-Islamic concept to begin with (issued from the conquest of the western North Africa), it's going to be tricky to have such a state being considered as European.

The best bet would be having a Morroco-Algravi or Morroco-Grenadi state managing to get the lead in Maghrib, Sudan and Ifryqia, sort of competer of Ottoman power (if it exists, of course).
It's not the most plausible situation ever, but you may end with a Turkey-like situation : if it holds a bit of Europe, it could be considered as European. Somehow. Maybe.
In a pre-1900 PoD, I'm not sure you have real good choices.

A post-1900 PoD *may* be more interesting.
Morroco issued a candidacy for the EEC in 1987, but it was rejected on the grounds the country wasn't in Europe.
*Maybe* with a Cold War far more tensed, with Algeria (and possibly other Western African) countries being definitely pro-Soviet, acceptance of the candidacy may lean to consider Morroco as part, somehow, of Western Europe.

Have the Arab Conquest of the Maghreb stall out, leaving them with just Egypt, Libya and maybe Tunisia and Eastern Algeria, leading to Christianity not only continuing to spread naturally in Morocco, but having the Christian and Jewish populations from the conquered areas moving to Morocco (among other places), thus creating a 'Christian Bullwark' in the Maghreb that's tied to Europe and eventually becomes seen as part of it.

Yeah I was thinking it would have to be rather far back. In OTL it was the only Arabic nation to resist and ward off the Ottomans, so maybe in ATL they are the only Maghreb to fend off the Arabs?
 
In OTL it was the only Arabic [(?)] nation to resist and ward off the Ottomans, so maybe in ATL they are the only Maghreb to fend off the Arabs?

Doing that would immediatly butterfly Morroco as one entity. As Maghreb, it is a political-geographical concept directly issued and defined from Arabo-Islamic geopolitics, that not only individualised the region but gave it its first real unity.

Admitting Arab conquests are limited to Africa/Ifriqiya, you'd end up with the traditional division between coast/hinterland/desert, rather than West/Center/East, that came back from Carthagians.
Basically, you won't have an unified berber (rather than Arab) entity but several, cut on layers.

Admittedly the coastal centers (Lixus, Tanger, Ceuta) would probably be considered as part of Europe (as Ceuta IOTL) either under Byzantine or Hispanic control; but the inner kingdoms and the tribal heartlands further would completly escape it.
 
Admittedly the coastal centers (Lixus, Tanger, Ceuta) would probably be considered as part of Europe (as Ceuta IOTL) either under Byzantine or Hispanic control; but the inner kingdoms and the tribal heartlands further would completly escape it.

That makes sense, but what if one of the coastal centers grew into a nation, and conquered the inner parts of OTL Morocco? Could the idea that the coast was part of Europe expand into the center that way?
 
That makes sense, but what if one of the coastal centers grew into a nation, and conquered the inner parts of OTL Morocco? Could the idea that the coast was part of Europe expand into the center that way?

That's possible, but that would be likely under the control of a neighbouring power (Spain, Byzantium, post-Byzantine Africa, etc.) rather than a rise of an independent coastal center (that without control on the hinterland, would be likely swalloed up by a neighbouring tribal kingdom).

(Wouldn't that be contradictory with your OP, as you asked a non-colonized or european held *Morocco?)

Admittedly, such entity could go its own separate way after a while, and Atlas mountains could form a good geographical border/marker, and while it would be quite different than what Morroco is IOTL on almost all regards, it could pass from afar for an European Morroco (meaning orthodox christian, culturally integrated with Northern mediterranean basin)
 
That's possible, but that would be likely under the control of a neighbouring power (Spain, Byzantium, post-Byzantine Africa, etc.) rather than a rise of an independent coastal center (that without control on the hinterland, would be likely swalloed up by a neighbouring tribal kingdom).

(Wouldn't that be contradictory with your OP, as you asked a non-colonized or european held *Morocco?)

Admittedly, such entity could go its own separate way after a while, and Atlas mountains could form a good geographical border/marker, and while it would be quite different than what Morroco is IOTL on almost all regards, it could pass from afar for an European Morroco (meaning orthodox christian, culturally integrated with Northern mediterranean basin)

When I asked the question I wasn't expecting OTL Morocco. I guess if it is held by some Roman successor state for a while, then gets independent that could count. When I said 'non-colonized' I meant more along the line of France or Spain not owning it in the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
The title may have been misleading; the challenge is not to make Morocco owned by a European, but to have Morocco be considered a European Nation, specifically a western european nation, with all the perks that come with it (colonial stuff). And it can't be a former spanish or french colony colonizing Africa.

Prevent the Almoravids from losing to Abd al'Mumim (Almohad/Muwahhid). The Almoravids were much more in line with the Umayyad line of thinking with regard to Islamic rule, while the Almohads turned the clock back with their reactionary fundamentalism.
 
When I asked the question I wasn't expecting OTL Morocco. I guess if it is held by some Roman successor state for a while, then gets independent that could count.
I don't think so : Mediterranean Sea is the most obvious border between Europe and Africa, and that was quite well definied by the Ist Millenium BC.
You'd need to have a distinguished Africa, in order to make this *Morroco looking more European.

That's pretty much go against roman-successor : if some entity appears as such in Mauretania, it's even more likely to survive in Africa as well making the distinction moot.

Either an even more differenciated Latin/Greek Christianity could do it (assuming that *Morroco leans to Latin, while Africa goes full Greek, but I'm a bit dubious on it) with no Arab invasions (meaning, not probably but most plausibly giving the OP, a Spanish-Mauretanian continuum).

But frankly, giving the huge links between Mauretania and Africa (again, the division was more transversal), it's going hard to have an "european" (while I think that the concept of Europe would become more moot if similar cultures are present on both sides of Mediterranean Sea) Morroco when Africa wouldn't be.
 
When I asked the question I wasn't expecting OTL Morocco. I guess if it is held by some Roman successor state for a while, then gets independent that could count. When I said 'non-colonized' I meant more along the line of France or Spain not owning it in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Reconcista goes on and the Spaniards there create a crusader state it creates there a new Mauritanian identity. Because it is catholic and ruled by a cadet branch of a Spanish royal house (Barcelona's?, Trastamara?, Burgundy?, Avis?, Habsburg?) it is seen as part of Europe.
 
Come on, people!!!
"Europe" is a continent. Always has been. It is not "us", it is not "white", it is not "civilization", it is not even "Western Civilization", it is a piece of land.

Africa, Asia and Europe were specifically the three continents. You can't arbitrarily decide to move bits around without geographical PoDs.
 
Actually, it isn't.

Europe, originally and likely ethymologically as well, is merely a direction, a cardinal point : West (while Asia is East).

You really have to wait the Antiquity for that Europe really designates a continent, and it's not even a continuous thing (the first safe mention I can remember is during the carolingian era).

When people says Europe is merely a peninsula of Asia, there's many good points : safe Mediterranean Sea (and that's the small issue there), you don't have a single good border that wasn't dictated by cultural matters (Russia is the obvious exemple). Would Greenland be continuously held and settled by Scandinavians, it would have been considered Europeans by now.

I said Mediterranea is kind of problematic, because it's the big clear border of Europe (again, right from the start "Europe" was a direction used by sailors). It's not totally unbreakable : hence the discussion about Turkey nowadays.

Allow me to disagree then, and to point that an "European" Northern Africa isn't *that* far fetched if you manage to have a really distinctive cultural border, and a reason for that "regular" Europeans consider it as such.
 
About the boundaries of Europe, I'd recommend Delanty's "Inventing Europe", it's a bit dense and repetitive but it's interesting nonetheless.

If Morocco (and North Africa) had remain Christian, it's likely that the identification of Europe = Christendom would not have happened, so Europe would remain more or a less a mere geographically indicative sign, without much meaning, as it's likely the Mediterranean civilization link would not be broken, and since being Christian was more important, what we sort of understand as a 'European civilization' would also exist in the south bank of the Mediterranean.
 
Even if not Europe per se, having Morocco be considered part of 'the West' shouldn't be at all impossible.
 
Come on, people!!!
"Europe" is a continent. Always has been. It is not "us", it is not "white", it is not "civilization", it is not even "Western Civilization", it is a piece of land.

Africa, Asia and Europe were specifically the three continents. You can't arbitrarily decide to move bits around without geographical PoDs.

To be fair, IOTL there are countries that don't have a sq cm of territory in Europe and yet they're considered European due to its culture and proximity to the European continent.
Look at Cyprus and Armenia.
 
Come on, people!!!
"Europe" is a continent. Always has been. It is not "us", it is not "white", it is not "civilization", it is not even "Western Civilization", it is a piece of land.

Africa, Asia and Europe were specifically the three continents. You can't arbitrarily decide to move bits around without geographical PoDs.

Technically, the proper term should be Eurasia if we're defining a continent as a piece of land. But Europe is defined more by culture than geology. While during the Greek age you had places like Ionia that were considered European in culture yet Asian in location, you also have places like Georgia that are considered European only because of culture.
 
I like the idea of a Crusade. Spain gets Pope to expand war against Almohads. Crusaders recapture Morrocco along same lines as Baltic Crusade. Subsequent settlement changes culture group.
 
I like the idea of a Crusade. Spain gets Pope to expand war against Almohads. Crusaders recapture Morrocco along same lines as Baltic Crusade. Subsequent settlement changes culture group.

Baltic Crusades didn't really provoked Germanic settlement : while they certainly made it easier, it was more along the lines of a general germanisation (both institutional and cultural) of towns (including the ones created by Germans, obviously).

You could have a similar presence in a "crusader Morocco" (while it's really unlikely at this point. Maybe a Reconquista Morroco) where coastal cities may turn the same way (with less demographic changes : the region wasn't that interesting for mass settlement), similarly to the last Latin holdings (mix of Arab/Arabized and Latin population) in Syria.
 
Top