Alas, Sighed Tariq: A TL (Planning)

Hey everyone! So, I am planning on starting a TL on this wonderful site and, because of my deep fascination with Islamic history, I have decided to do an interesting deviation.

What if: Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) never existed? Or, more precisely, what if Tariq ibn Ziyad's Invasion of Hispania failed.

Now, as of now, it is in the planning stages as I have to find some legitimate reasons for how Tariq's invasion could have failed/never happened beyond simply an act of God.

This will be the planning thread and I hope that many of you can offer some thoughts on the matter, some advice on TLs and other tips that may benefit me in the creation of my thread.
 
Hey everyone! So, I am planning on starting a TL on this wonderful site and, because of my deep fascination with Islamic history, I have decided to do an interesting deviation.

What if: Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) never existed? Or, more precisely, what if Tariq ibn Ziyad's Invasion of Hispania failed.

Now, as of now, it is in the planning stages as I have to find some legitimate reasons for how Tariq's invasion could have failed/never happened beyond simply an act of God.

This will be the planning thread and I hope that many of you can offer some thoughts on the matter, some advice on TLs and other tips that may benefit me in the creation of my thread.
Butterfly the Visigothic Civil War, by instead having Rodrigo be an unlikely but plausible Über-king who preemptively eliminates the rebellious nobles, and spends the rest of his reign centralizing and strengthening the state?
 
Hey everyone! So, I am planning on starting a TL on this wonderful site and, because of my deep fascination with Islamic history, I have decided to do an interesting deviation.

What if: Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) never existed? Or, more precisely, what if Tariq ibn Ziyad's Invasion of Hispania failed.

Now, as of now, it is in the planning stages as I have to find some legitimate reasons for how Tariq's invasion could have failed/never happened beyond simply an act of God.

This will be the planning thread and I hope that many of you can offer some thoughts on the matter, some advice on TLs and other tips that may benefit me in the creation of my thread.

This question was just raised in another forum; one of the possible PoDs was that the Byzantine governor of Ceuta did not lend ships to the Moors for the invasion. Dunno if this was really critical.


As to what happens later - no Ommayad Caliphate in exile.

The western end of the Dar al-Islam remains much smaller.

Christian Spain plays a larger role in France than OTL Christian Spain, which was small, or Moslem Spain, which was separated.

Possibly more interaction between the British Isles and Iberia.

Iberian mariners voyage down the coast of Africa sooner.

The power dynamics of the West are different. OTL, Charlemagne and the Franks established an "Empire" which could fairly claim to encompass the entire Christian West. There were no other Christian states in Western Europe, barring some barbarous fringe realms in the British isles and northern Iberia. ATL, Iberia is a Christian kingdom of stature to rival the Frankish state (whether the latter becomes an "Empire" or not). This means, among other things, a different status for the Pope (he's not just the primate of the Empire).

The Christian minority in NW Africa probably persists. It was removed by the Almohads in 1150-1250; the Almohads, unusually, rejected the mainstream Islamic doctrine that allowed conquered infidels to keep their religion by paying jizya. With Christian Spain nearby, Christian Maghreb persists.
 
The Christian minority in NW Africa probably persists. It was removed by the Almohads in 1150-1250; the Almohads, unusually, rejected the mainstream Islamic doctrine that allowed conquered infidels to keep their religion by paying jizya. With Christian Spain nearby, Christian Maghreb persists.

Moreover, a later Visigothic king probably uses it as a pretense to invade Morocco. If it occurs early enough it's probably a Christian majority in the Maghreb; this completely changes the history of West Africa.
 
I remain slightly skeptical of a Visigothic invasion of Morocco, let alone a successful one that takes more than the coasts. I think without a Muslim invasion you'd see Christian Spain be much more inward-focused. There will be a lot of internal problems and no external enemy to unite against - although I wouldn't rule out Berber raids on the southern coast and possibly even short/long term conquests even without an Islamic Spain.

The idea of the Christian Spanish conquering the North African coast doesn't seem very viable. All that gains the Visigothic Kingdom is a bloody war over territories they're ill-equipped to rule. The Islamic conquest of Iberia was just a more successful raid of the sort that had been going on for a long time and are unlikely to stop.

The future of a Christian Spain without a Moorish conquest is fascinating - but I'd also question if the Visigothic state could actually survive and persist. Also the lack of a Berber threat in Francia is going to be a factor in the politics of Europe. The lack of a reconquista will have fascinating knock-on effects for Catholicism, especially in Spain. A less militant faith, perhaps?
 
The idea of the Christian Spanish conquering the North African coast doesn't seem very viable. All that gains the Visigothic Kingdom ...

Why do you assume that it must be the Visigothic Kingdom in the 8th or 9th century that invades Morocco?

If the Moslems don't conquer Iberia, then Christian Iberia has a long time to get around to going south. The Visigothic Kingdom could be replaced by a very different polity, either by evolution or by invasion.
 
I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my two cents.

First, reasons for an absence of conquest of Spain are relatively easy to find. Conquest of the peninsula was clearly a continuation of the takeover of North Africa, especially in the latter part of VIIth century, and actually required it would it be only due to the necessity of military force building-up which was essentially made trough Berber recruitment IOTL.
An earlier and deeper crisis of the Caliphate in the VIIth, which would cripple the capacities to send reinforcements and management into the Islamic West (which was pretty much autonomous by the early VIIIth century), could delay enough a takeover of IOTL Maghrib to prevent the conquest (and possibly focus raiding advance in Sicily and southern Italy, earlier than IOTL).

Now the consequences.

While the Visigothic kingdom did managed to make a "Gothic" identity equivalent to Frankish identity in Northern Gaul (as fusing together), there is a whole anti-dynastical tradition, complete with sub-kingdoms (as the "eastern kingdom" of Paulus) that could play on regional particularism (as in the province of Gaul) or simply to better manage the territory (while, admittedly, giving sub-kingdoms to sons wasn't made for some time at this point).
It's possible, while not bound to happen, that such divisions wouldn't eventually last, more or less autonomously, if not independently (some sort of Proto-Portugal equivalent, for exemple)

The main macrohistorical consequence may be the loss of prestige, compared to IOTL, for Peppinids/Arnulfids/Carolingians : they won't be able to play as much as they did politically, or being able to crush the Duchy of Aquitaine that easily, the latter being spared the damages that Arabo-Berbers did (some of which definitely helped the Peppinid takeover), and generally Charles of Heristal won't have as much pretexts intervening in Aquitaine or Provence.

That said, even with a stronger Aquitaine, and less weakened Provencal patrices, Franks still will have a mediterranean policy, but it would be harder to pull in a first time : maybe Aquitaine and Provence would even end as some sort of mediterranean stem-duchies which may be (especially Aquitaine) more peripherical ITTL.

In a second time, that said, Peppinids may use quarrels or succession conflcits in Spain to intervene directly : Dagobert did that by supporting Sisenand in 632 by giving him men and resources.

Giving the anti-dynastic instability in Spain (not that instable actually, but it did make Goths vulnerable to "let's call a complete foreigner to settle our disputes" as they did three times with Byzzies, Franks and Arabo-Berbers), I won't be surprized that Peppinids won't pull a protectorate, at least in the eastern part, as Ostrogoths did two centuries before : placing frankish nobles at the head of some regions and/or treating some territories as an enlarged Aquitaine (as Gothia was IOTL, basically).

It would mean more limited (but maybe not less) Arabo-Berber piracy in Western Mediteranean basin (even if Frankish, Gothic or Lombard motivation to deal with some technically byzantine islands in the middle of nowhere will be less prioritary)

For what matter cultural development : I don't think the absence of Al-Andalus will be particularily problematic for the western civilisation. Points of exchange will subsist in Africa or Southern Italy, and the absence of conquest doesn't mean that contacts in Spain will disappear : we know about the intellectual relations between Spain and Byzantine Africa in the VI/VII centuries : while declining, Gothic culture is wealthy enough (especially in Betica) to be a close market for Dar al Islam, source of maintained contacts.
I could see Spain, which is Southern Spain, became an ATL equivalent of medieval Languedoc (even if this one was predisposed to intercultural exchange trough other reasons) for what matter cultural transmission to Latin Christiendom, and towns of North Africa having the role of cultural centers that al-Andalus had.

Tarraconensis, would be another interesting center for a post-711 Visigothic kingdom, mainly because it would be closer to the Aquitaine/Atlantic trade road. But there again, Franks could have an easy time taking it, or at least "influencing" it.

You'd have to keep a look at north-western regions, less Asturias than Galicia, because they might benefit more from the economical reshuffle of the era.
 
Butterfly the Visigothic Civil War, by instead having Rodrigo be an unlikely but plausible Über-king who preemptively eliminates the rebellious nobles, and spends the rest of his reign centralizing and strengthening the state?
This is largely incompatible with what we know about the political and institutional context of the late Visigothic Kingdom.
The anti-dynastic situation was, as they say, not a bug but a feature : gothic potentes actively searched to prevent the appearance of a strong dynasty that would monopolize honors and fisc at its benefit, most of the kings managing to be in place thanks to a large redistribution network.

Let alone to itself (even if, as I pointed above, it would be hard to butterfly away a Frankish interference), yu'd end up with a largely decentralized, relatively instable kingship, maybe with parts of the kingdom ending up more or less independent (I'm thinking especially on the eastern sides, where you did have an important autonomous drive in the VIIth centuries)

As to what happens later - no Ommayad Caliphate in exile.
I'm really unconcinved by this : Umayyad revival in Spain was largely made possible because Umayyads were seen as championing the "Arabity" or the defense of Arab elites against Berbers and Muladi; but it wasn't the first place where Abd al-Rahman attempted to settle;

Of course, depending on the PoD (especially the PoD with an earlier caliphal crisis) this may be moot, but if we're in a roughly similar situation then I could see an equivalent of Umayyad Spain for the same reason in Ifriqiya or a conquered Sicily that did suffered (or would suffer) from the same political/ethnic issues.

Christian Spain plays a larger role in France than OTL Christian Spain, which was small, or Moslem Spain, which was separated.
It would probably be the contrary, at least in a first time : Frankish and Aquitain campaigning or influence was felt strongly since a century, while being largely stuck to peripherical regions (Pyrenean mostly). While you do have presence of gothic coinage in Gaul (not mentioning the province of Gaul, of course), it's relatively limited to the bordering regions and quickly disappearing when it comes to big trade roads (altough I think we couldn't get rid of a possible joining with Aquitain trade roads).

It would be hard already to prevent Franks taking over significant parts of the kingdom, due to the aformentioned situation.

Possibly more interaction between the British Isles and Iberia.
Not in the first time : the essential part of communication and trade between Britain and the continent passed trough Gaul and the Rheinish axes. While you have many exemple of Frankish influence in Britain (going trough monetary finds to Christianity), the same can't be said for Gothic Spain, which was far more focused in Mediteranean basin and whom influence was quickly disappearing north of Pyrennees, would it be economically or politically.

Iberian mariners voyage down the coast of Africa sooner.
While Gothic Spain is the only Romano-Barbarian kingdom which had naval strength worth of mention, it was both relativerly reduced and mediterranean focused. There's simply NO incitative for an early medieval state to create out of blue an atlantic fleet.

ATL, Iberia is a Christian kingdom of stature to rival the Frankish state (whether the latter becomes an "Empire" or not).
I strongly disagree : Francia was undegoing a trend of unification which was basically ended in the late VIIth and already in the process to crush periphericala utonomous regions (Aquitaine, Bavaria, Thurungia, Provence, etc.).
In the same time, Gothia went trough a vicious circle of anti-dynastic and desunification of the peninsula, which implied regular foreign assistance to one or the other claimant, and the large independence of several potentes.

Gothia couldn't, by the VIIIth century rival Francia, and would probably fell at least partially, in its sphere of influence.

This means, among other things, a different status for the Pope (he's not just the primate of the Empire).
I don't think you have an accurate perception of the pontifical role before Carolingians.
Western churches always acknwoledged a spiritual primacy to the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, but the pope only intervened rarily in the organisation of different churches, whom matters were decided by councils gathered under royal authority. This moral authority was first reinforced by the active role of Anglo-Saxons on the continent that, as Bonifacius, consult the pope and submit to his opinion on different demesnes.

It's as well the pope that preside the constitution of new churches in Germania, with the agreement of princes.

But it's critically ties made between Rome and Carolingians, that allow the pope to play an acknowledged role on all Christiendom. To a Church considered as a federation of national Churches succeed a more unitarian conception of a Church under the control and rule of the pope. Political problems met by different carolingians kings in the IXth century motivated popes to pose themselves as arbitles of conflicts and to exercice a real moral mandate on the whole Christiendom

The moral authority, as well a political supremacy as acknwoledged, but complementary of the regional clergy and royal power. In this sense, the pope wasn't "just the primate of the Empire", but rather a monopolized religious authority, not unlike the Patriarch of Constantinople, altough with more autonomy.

ITTL, nothing much changed : Frankish hegemony is still pretty much likely a thing, and the Visigothic kingdom geopolitical weakness prevents it to really become the protector of Rome as Franks managed to historically. While I agree it could give more leverage for more autonomy for the pontifical authority, Spain would be on this regard as peripherical as the Anglo-Saxons kingdoms. Meaning not neglectible, but clearly secondary.

The Christian minority in NW Africa probably persists.
Probably, but more as a consequence of the PoD allowing survival of Gothia than survival of Gothia itself. The influence of early medieval Spain in North Africa is almost null.

Moreover, a later Visigothic king probably uses it as a pretense to invade Morocco
Not likely in a first time, and not that obvious safe geographical continuity : Gothic betica suffered Berber raids since some time at this point, and Goths never answered by putting the fight back on Maghrib, but rather as campaigning against raids whenever possible (as they did with Basques and Aquitains in the North). Again, ther's the problem of naval projection, huge decentralisation and prevention of the appearance of a strong king devised above.
 
While Gothic Spain is the only Romano-Barbarian kingdom which had naval strength worth of mention, it was both relativerly reduced and mediterranean focused. There's simply NO incitative for an early medieval state to create out of blue an atlantic fleet.

Why does it have to be right away?

OTL, Iberian Christian mariners only began to sail along Africa after 1250 or so, 500 years after the PoD. If (due to Christian control of Andalusia and southern Portugal), that begins in 1000 instead, surely that is a reasonable knock-on, and a considerable change.

Gothia couldn't, by the VIIIth century rival Francia, and would probably fell at least partially, in its sphere of influence.

Why does it have to be in the 8th century? OTL, there was no significant Spanish state until 1250, and France towered over Western Europe. A Spanish state which forms in say 900 makes a big difference.

ITTL, nothing much changed: Frankish hegemony is still pretty much likely a thing, and the Visigothic kingdom geopolitical weakness....

How long must that weakness persist? The Moorish conquest of Iberia killed off Iberian nationhood for 500 years; is it certain that Gothic political infighting would last as long?
 
Why does it have to be right away?
You listed it among mentions of Umayyads and Charlemagne : it looked like you supposed it would happen in the same time.

OTL, Iberian Christian mariners only began to sail along Africa after 1250 or so, 500 years after the PoD. If (due to Christian control of Andalusia and southern Portugal), that begins in 1000 instead, surely that is a reasonable knock-on, and a considerable change.
The changes for what matter spanish structure and cultures, particularily on seafare, would be great enough for that speculating on what happen 500 years later is a bit moot : we could say, with as much confidence, that an iberic seafare really appears after its IOTL counterpart.
Simply said, there's no cause to effect relation with the PoD on that matter.

Why does it have to be in the 8th century?
Because, by the VIIIth century, a simple comparison betwen Gothia and Francia highlight wells who's on the rise and who's not.
Again, we can speculate for what happens 200 or 500 years after the PoD, but it's a bit irrelevant giving it couldgo several ways with relatively equal chance.

OTL, there was no significant Spanish state until 1250, and France towered over Western Europe. A Spanish state which forms in say 900 makes a big difference.
Gothic Spain was a spanish state for what that matters, as well Muslim Spain. You're confusing a spanish state with the same background than ITOL, with a Spanish state forming differently.

How long must that weakness persist?
It's hard to say : at best you could have something of a shock therapy after the likelt Frankish overlordship or at least domination. But to be honest, the decentralized and anti-dynastical structure of Gothia was really well entranched and the various takover never really managed to pull it off historically : not to mean it couldn't be done, but as much you could have a unifying reaction to Frankish dominance, as much you could see peripherical regions of Spain (Galicia and Lusitania, for exemple) establishing principalties of their own with a split between various Spanish entities.

Goths will have to deal with a relatively long decline (one century at best IMO), from which they will emerge anew or shatter in pieces. Or both (you may end with a quite weird equivalent of late carolingian feudalisation, especially if eastern Spain fall into Aquitain/Frankish influence).

The Moorish conquest of Iberia killed off Iberian nationhood for 500 years
I don't think it's remotely true. The idea of "nation" as we understand it nowadays (as in a more or less free association of humans groups sharing similar values and considering themselves as a whole fused with institutions) didn't exist : how the conquest of Gothia was merade possible in first place was that various potentes simply felt little to no solidarity with each other (which was aggravated, admittedly, by the ongoing civil war).

Revolts such as Paulus' in eastern Gothia, with the revendication of establishing a separate kingdom; or the fact that several provinces (especially Gaul's) were xempted from decrets highlight that you had no such thing as a nationhood there.
Heck : how several Goths readily joined up with Arabo-Berbers does point that we can't talk about nationhood in this context.

What you had was the fusion of ethnic identities, as it happened in Gaul or Italy, under the "Gothic" label : but how it quickly disappeared both in al-Andalus and various Christian principalties shows its limits.

is it certain that Gothic political infighting would last as long?
It was something deeply ingrained since centuries, and litterally part of the political culture and institutions of Gothia. It was less infighting itself, than that fearing the establishment of a dynasty (or that a yahoo like Roderic could impose itself on them), that could impair their power, managed to provoke a cycle of anti-dynastic succession whom a good part did ended as avoiding civil war.
Simply said : it was part of their zeitgast, their cultural and political conception.

Now, I entierly agree it couldn't last long if it was harming their interests. I even think that it would eventually evolve out of a new situation as it happened in al-Andalus historically.
But as said above, I do think it would certainly come from an outer incident (like it happened with Frankish takeover of Italy or Saxony), mixing up ITTL Frankish and Gothic features.

The best case scenario would be Carolingians pullling a Theodoric and being content with establishing Gothia as a client/protectorate while having only limited conquests : and let's be honest, it's not really unlikely, especially in the case of an Arabo-Islamic threat popping up earlier in Italy. With the caveat that with Carolingian decline, you might end with return to old ways; but the early feudal model could be likely imported in at least part of Gothia.

If not, I'd be leaning to envision a factual division of the peninsula along the traditional line between the eastern third and the rest, at least for a time. The worst case scenario being that the remaining 2/3 explode in several principalties. At this point, I do not think that Frankish or Franco-Aquitain dominance (which would be barely felt in some regions IMO) would last forever (altough I could see an enlarged Aquitaine on both side of Pyreness), but just enough to let its cultural and geopolitical mark on the region.
After that, I do think you'd end up with unyfing tendencies in Spain : it's not because you didn't have a concept of nation, that you didn't have the concept of common identity and what I would call a "common geopolitical horizon".

As for all peripherical regions, it eventually depends what happen elsewhere to say what happen in Spain.
 
Wouldn't the Ummayads just use Morocco as their base and look to other directions to expand, maybe even to the west?
Just because they lost the invasion doesn't make them get to sleep and get conquered.
 
Wouldn't the Ummayads just use Morocco as their base and look to other directions to expand, maybe even to the west?
Western African development really raised after the Arabo-Islamic conquests : the desert roads were particularily impracticables before the introduction of camels and the transsaharan states as Ghana really blossomed from the trade.
Eventually, Arabs were fairly content with dominating and recieving tributes from outer Berber communities and using these as a reinforcement pool.

On the other hand, Spain was wealthy, know to be there (and subject to raiding in its southern parts since decades), and undergoing a civil war which pushed some of the potentes to actually call Arabo-Berbers to resolve it.

TL;DR
South of Maghrib : nothing but sand
West of Maghrib : nothing but sea
East of Maghrib : wait, we already conquered that.
North of Magrib : cha-ching!
 
Top