Your challenge is to have a nation on the Iberian Peninsula, which is at the very least majority Islamic, survive until the present day.
Any POD before 1900 is acceptable.
Any POD before 1900 is acceptable.
AHC: Islamic state on Iberia
- Thread starter Colonel Levnekov
- Start date
Pelayo/Pelagius is defeated and killed by the Moors at any battle of your choice during his campaign against them. The integrity of Moorish control in Iberia is not threatened by Asturias and the consolidation of power is uninterrupted by constant war with the Christians. The Franks (or West Francia) has to lead the reconquista of Hispania instead of native Kingdoms, and the greater distance of command and the lack of great motivation that the Spaniards held leads to a stronger, less threatened Islamic control of at least Andalusia, perhaps all of Spain with the right subsequent butterflies.
Alternatively, you can go with the cliché of a victory at Tours for the Moors.
Alternatively, you can go with the cliché of a victory at Tours for the Moors.
Well, even with Pelayo's victory, it still took the Reconquest another 7 centuries to complete [mainly because the individual states on both sides kept getting too bogged down re petty skirmishes with each other].
I guess the key would have been would there be a way for the Moors to keep the squabbles amongst Christian leaders going so they'd never have an Isabel and Ferdinand emerge to unite them to make the final push.
The Moors were doomed long before Isabella and Ferdinand. By the time the Almohads were ruling Andalusia, most of Iberia was back in Christian hands. I think the latest time you can have a surviving Islamic state in Iberia is during the existence of the Caliphate of Córdoba. Getting rid of the balkanization of the Caliphate of Córdoba has the potential to see a stronger and more centralised Islamic power in Hispania.
Change Al-Mansur's regency and education of Hisham II, making the young caliph a strong leader and ruler. This would avoid the years of constant fight of the generals for the caliph's control, leading to more conquests in the north (Al-Mansur and his son Malik went as far as Navarre and Barcelona).
This way, the moderate Caliphate of Corboda might stabilize and hold the "Reconquista" back. And the more radical Almoravid and Almohadan wouldn't have the chance to conquer Al-Andalus.
This way, the moderate Caliphate of Corboda might stabilize and hold the "Reconquista" back. And the more radical Almoravid and Almohadan wouldn't have the chance to conquer Al-Andalus.
I personally think that a large Arabo-Islamic state in Spain, as how it appeared, was quite unsustainable. The Emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba had quite important structural issues, and it depended on strong rulers to take it off (and giving that ethnic AND factional infighting could favour "wrong" strong rulers as Al-Mansur...).
Which could have been dealy with, without northern pressure that, at the contrary of Al-Andalus, could count on strong support from its neighbours.
Getting rid of this northern pressure early would have been quite hard, less by their force : contrary to some popular belief, it's quite likely that these regions were occupied or under the dominance of Arabo-Andalusians. What really blostered them was the Great Berber Revolt (and it was something that threatened to happen since the beggining of the VIIIth century), when Berbers abandoned their garrisons in Northern Spain.
That said, while I don't think an Arabo-Andalusian state could maintain, it's possible IMO to see southern part of the peninsula being included onto a lasting Berber Empire (meaning some form of Greater Morroco spanwing on both sides of the sea).
It won't be easy though : historically, their empires was a managment hell. Arabo-Andalucians tried to reject their authority as soon they could, other Berber tribes or confederations tookover African regions (cutting the dynasties from reinforcement, income and security).
But, if you manage to weaken Christian states by civil war long enough, and prevent collapse of Maghrebi regions under rival's hands, you may end with a "Morocco" going from Granada or even Seville to Atlas mountains.
That alone wouldn't resolve it, and as much civil war is over, *Castillans would takeover. You'll need a strong Mediterranean empire (as Ottomans or something with a similar power) taking over and/or clientelizing *Morocco (or Morocoo pulling an Ottoman) and preventing a Christian takeover of what would remain of Muslim Spain thanks to naval superiority.
Which could have been dealy with, without northern pressure that, at the contrary of Al-Andalus, could count on strong support from its neighbours.
Getting rid of this northern pressure early would have been quite hard, less by their force : contrary to some popular belief, it's quite likely that these regions were occupied or under the dominance of Arabo-Andalusians. What really blostered them was the Great Berber Revolt (and it was something that threatened to happen since the beggining of the VIIIth century), when Berbers abandoned their garrisons in Northern Spain.
That said, while I don't think an Arabo-Andalusian state could maintain, it's possible IMO to see southern part of the peninsula being included onto a lasting Berber Empire (meaning some form of Greater Morroco spanwing on both sides of the sea).
It won't be easy though : historically, their empires was a managment hell. Arabo-Andalucians tried to reject their authority as soon they could, other Berber tribes or confederations tookover African regions (cutting the dynasties from reinforcement, income and security).
But, if you manage to weaken Christian states by civil war long enough, and prevent collapse of Maghrebi regions under rival's hands, you may end with a "Morocco" going from Granada or even Seville to Atlas mountains.
That alone wouldn't resolve it, and as much civil war is over, *Castillans would takeover. You'll need a strong Mediterranean empire (as Ottomans or something with a similar power) taking over and/or clientelizing *Morocco (or Morocoo pulling an Ottoman) and preventing a Christian takeover of what would remain of Muslim Spain thanks to naval superiority.
Possibly change the makeup or the nature of Islamic conquest of Iberia? If there had been more Arabs or more Berbers. Maybe if the conquests had been more gradual, ala Anatolia there could have been a more concentrated assimilation and settlement. It would still be fairly threatened by other powers but so long as Iberia remains fairly divided they could manage it (or at least had support from North Africa).
Emperor RyRy
Banned
Moors make it into Francia, Reconquista is for Southern France instead of Spain.
I'm not too sure how it's possible, at least for Arabs : they were pretty much widespread out in the Umayyad Empire and a fair number in Umayyad Spain came from Syrian junds that escaped defeat in North Africa.
As for Berbers, it's admittedly more doable : let's say that Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa is maintained as wali, (which would carry its own lot of issues), you could see an even larger use of Berbers. That said, I don't see why they would be better treated and why they wouldn't revolt eventually (which would be even more problematic than IOTL with larger numbers).
Keeping in mind that it's less about having more Berbers participating to the conquest, than having more of settling down on largely not that good lands.
Political situation in Spain didn't allow that much : Visigothic kingdom knew a vicious circle of dynastical unstability and political fragmentation, and contrary to Byzantium that beneficied from strong structures, Spain on the VIIIth was ready to fall into foreign hands (if Arabs didn't have showed up, Franks would have probably intervened as they did in 633).
Either it doesn't fall, or it falls entierly. You'd say that by postponing the conquest, you could wait for Spain being re-structurated. But that would only, IMO, hasten the political desintegration in Northern Africa, maling any large conquest quite hard to reach (while some equivalent to the Emirate of Bari on the peninsula is still possible)
Support from North Africa isn't much the problem, they regularly used Berber mercenaries and/or reinforcement (which brang problems, critically against the Arab ruling nobility, as Al-Mansur's military policies points out). Problem is that in order to keep such reinforcements, Al-Andalus had to intervene in North Africa (as it did against Fatimids).
Eventually, the key is then to have a same entity on both shores of the Mediterranean Sea, with whoever controls Maghrib having the upper hand on Islamic Spain if it manages to takes it and hold the line against Christians.
For several reasons, it's just not possible.
The problem with Arabo-Berbers army (rather than Umayyad, as the caliphal authority over Al-Andalus was limited, at best), was they were limited numerically. IOTL, you had only one lasting garrison north of Pyrennes, in Narbonne.
Arabo-Berbers forces were simply too few, too much widespread and having front of them powerful and relativly unified forces (at the contrary of Visigothic Spain, not only in the middle of a civil war, but with peripherical regions avoiding entierly royal power).
Even if Peppin loose the war in 710's, Hugonids are going to takeover in Francia, meaning at worst that Neustria survives formally (as during Peppin II's "reign").
Even with a victory at Tours, the very best Arabo-Berbers could reach would be a more important presence in Aquitaine (I would wonder how much actually, as on this side of Pyrennees, they favoured local rule and set up only one real garrison) with maybe a garrision in Toulouse and if they are really generous, one in Bordeaux, able to reach further points for their raids, with all the rest of southern Aquitaine being under local Christian rule
But there, it's probable that Arabo-Berber would loose it even before they loose Septimania : the region was a bit undefendable (safe on Pyrenean piemont), and the unstability of early Al-Andalus (Berbers revolts, factional conflicts, Yemenit vs. Syrians, etc.) wouldn't help at all.
The overused (and overblown) Battle of Tours isn't much workable as well.
The battle itself had not a great historical importance, but was a part of an ensemble of battles (Toulouse/Tours/La Berre) that had a marco historical one. Battle of Tours' importance was basically inflated by Carolingian hagiographs in order to point out Peppinids were truly the defeders of religion and France and were totally justified to overthrow Merovingians.
For instance the very successful raids of 725/726 that plundered all the Rhone valley and reached up to Sens (much northern than Tours is) are barely mentioned because they obviously not led to an occupation, and that Charles Martel didn't cared much about it.
Actually, the battle was another raid led by Arabo-Berbers, not really different (except maybe for its size) from the others that were lead in VIIIth Gaul. It would hardly cause a wave of occupation for two reasons :
- The campaign was more of a political point : Eudon of Aquitaine allied himself with rebelling Berbers and the wali of Al-Andalus was certainly not going to let that unpunished
- Really limited forces. Arabo-Berers represented maybe 20 000 people for the whole of Al-Andalus. North of Pyrenees (and even in several places south of them) you had one known Arabic garrison, all the rest being under submitted Christian nobility.
The question is : would Charles Martel lead the expedition of 737 or its equivalent?
I don't see why not : his ressources were untouched and Aquitaine certainly not in position to be a threat (even less than IOTL). If something Charles would be even more wary of Arabo-Berber presence in southern Gaul.
Well, that's not a TL, but I had a good discussion with Lord Kalvan about it some time ago, that continued by PM (
Basically, I think that it would have important consequences on Italy and Frankish mediterranean policies (LordKalvan used convincing arguments); while not toppling out Francia itself and maybe (probably IMO) not even Peppinid rule.