AHC: Have Al-Andalus and Byzantium continuing today

Oh no, the pendulum fallacy!

Al-Andalus is hard to save unless you solve the core issue of it being a racial hierarchy where a small conquering unit of Arabo-Andalusians rules over a massive body of Muladi and Mozarabic subjects they can't trust with any kind of power, forcing them to turn to Berber tribes or Christian mercenaries as a military. There are possibilities, of course. I'm exploring one in my ongoing TL, but you could pull stunts like averting the Berber Revolt. What doesn't work is the old CK2 "well why don't they just conquer the Northern Kingdoms" approach or the old "why don't they just not attack Santiago de Compostella" approach.

The problem is that saving al-Andalus is likely to set butterflies in motion which posit a weaker Christianity in general, so it's actually more likely to have a fallen ERE in a timeline where al-Andalus survives, and more likely for al-Andalus to fall early in a TL where the ERE survives.
 
see both survived is really tricky.

if ERE survive it involve an weakier Islam world and a stronger Christianity
If Al-andalus survive it involve an weakier christianity and a stronger Islam world

The only solution could be that Al-andalus in this AH convert to christianity but even here many problem will still exist and survival would be difficult for each PoD after if someone know better history of Al-andalus he could find a PoD that should allow both to survive.
 
Suppose we have a Carolingian type Empire in Western Europe that poses a threat to both the Byzantines (in Italy) and Al-Andalus-then we could have the two ally (sort of) against this behemoth to keep it contained. Andalusi and Byzantine interests are unlikely to be in direct conflict anywhere outside Sicily, so this sort of an alliance could work. The Byzantines were masters of realpolitik despite their religiosity, and they'd be not against cultivating such an alliance if it was useful.
 
Suppose we have a Carolingian type Empire in Western Europe that poses a threat to both the Byzantines (in Italy) and Al-Andalus-then we could have the two ally (sort of) against this behemoth to keep it contained. Andalusi and Byzantine interests are unlikely to be in direct conflict anywhere outside Sicily, so this sort of an alliance could work. The Byzantines were masters of realpolitik despite their religiosity, and they'd be not against cultivating such an alliance if it was useful.
Imagine Byzantine betray Umayyad after gained Italy, That would be hugest conflict between christain and muslim. Whonever won, They shall dominate western hemisphere and abharamical world as whole.
 
Imagine Byzantine betray Umayyad after gained Italy, That would be hugest conflict between christain and muslim. Whonever won, They shall dominate western hemisphere and abharamical world as whole.

Byzantines betray Umayyads? Difficult to do so, when the Umayyad are already at war with Byzantium.
 
Royalpsycho once made a scenario where both Byzantium and Andalus survive, albeit it's a byproduct of butterflies from a surviving Pala Empire.
http://royalpsycho.deviantart.com/art/Buddhist-Bengal-636324349

Back to the question,
I still believe an islamic Iberia and christian Constantinople can coexist in the same TL. Just because islam is stronger in one place, doesn't mean that all of "Dar Al-Islam" is stronger -- too many dynastic, religious, and ethnic conflicts in each part of the muslim world.
 
OK, I'll try this, and I'll try to come up with a single POD too.

The East Romans establish a secure hold over all of Italy, most likely do to Justinian's Wars being much more successful. You can have Justinian's wars in Italy being more successful with quite a few PODs, though no plague probably works best. The Lombards are either kept out, or more likely, absorbed within the East Roman system. There is no intervention in Spain, though this is less important.

Note that Justinian did very well to get what he got, a completely reversal at the hands of the Ostrogoths was more likely, but it was just possible for the East Roman conquest to be more successful.

Secure East Roman hold over the entire Italian peninsula produces a ton of butterflies that leaves the Middle Ages unrecognizable. One of the earliest is that Heraclius might give up fighting the Persians for Anatolia and retreat to there. But lets say that doesn't happen. They Byzantines get no Venice, no Italian maritime/ pirate cities, no Norman pirate kingdom in southern Italy, the tax revenue from Italy, and more manpower. There is no Holy Roman empire in this Middle Ages. This isn't a complete Byzantine wank, since they have to spend much more effort on Italian affairs and may lose the cities anyway like the Hohenstaufen did. But they are strengthened enough to hold on to or retake Anatolia. And no Crusades helps alot too.

To get a stronger Muslim hold on Spain is harder, but here no Crusades helps. The Visigoths are more fragile and the Franks are weaker and more focused on confronting Constantinople. Western Christians don't care that much about the requonquista, and may even ally with the Spanish Muslims against the Byzantines. And the Normans are hired as mercenaries by the Caliphs/ Emirs of al-Andulas. Maybe some of the ghazis who kicked the Byzantines out of Analtolia wind up in Spain too.
 
I agree that preserving a Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsular is difficult; Iberia was a popular destination of Crusaders from Western Christendom with the Popes declaring a Crusade against the Muslim presence there.
 
Top