Almohads surviving Las Navas de Tolosa : far reaching effects.

"Far-reaching" as in, "how global would it be ?"

This topic has been discussed several time in this site. Indeed, all of those discussions were solidly focused on Iberian Peninsula, and naturally so, for indeed survival of a good-sized muslim part of Iberian Peninsula alone will make significant change in moderate term, and certainly very enormous butterflies in the long term. However, I don't think people has discussed the changes produce by this PoD in both immediate in a century-long terms. I've noticed several interesting things that all of us might had unfortunately missed it.

For starter, we'll be talking within the time frame of 13th century, when maybe quite many events decisive in shaping of OTL history happened. For example : Mongols. Mongol invasion brought destruction to much of Eurasia, including the seat of Caliphate in Baghdad. IOTL, it resulted in the refuge of the seat to Egypt, under the custody of the Mamluk regime, which while by then received the status as the defender of the Caliph, it didn't seem to have the power nor the prestige to gain general recognition by the rest of Islamic World as Islam's capital(CMIIW though). Also that, possibly (and personally I'm not sure myself) due to impact brought by Mongol destruction and maybe also the following oppression of muslims under Ilkhanate regime before the later converted to Islam, boundaries between Sunnism and Shiism fell into a clear blurriness, explaining OTL religious attitudes of the Ottomans before they ran into the Safavids. Talk about Ottomans, along with Anatolian Beyliks. Basically, what would the presence of an Islamic power that also claimed over Caliphacy effect all those conditions ? Even if they were far off and basically quite alien to the Mashriqi, even a pessimism would seems to contribute a thing. Also IIRC, at their peak Almohad sovereingty strecthed east as far as Barca(Cyrenacia, if you know the region better under that name) .

Talk about territory, we also are oblivious of the nature of Almohad Empire. Especially since they fell into rabid decline after the defeat at Las Navas de Tolosa, which crushed their back bone, and they soon lost nearly all their other domains elsewhere. With their power pre-Navas de Tolosa retained, what would become of the overall development of the Almohad Empire, especially territorial wise ? Certainly that the Almohads will be primarily spending their sweat on Iberian Peninsula. So, what's next ? Will they be able to retain their African holdings(indeed their base was in Africa) or the focus into Iberian Peninsula will inevitably result in setback elsewhere ?

Also, south of Almohads, it seems that Mali Empire wouldn't be butterflied away (again, CMIIW). Simple question would be about what and how many differences be resulted from the coexistence of both Mali and Almohad Empires ? Will they be friendly or rivals etc ? If they would be friendly, will this affect Islam in Mali Empire, knowing Mali Kings IOTL were often quite zealous in promoting Islam within their domains ?

As for a thing in the north, north of Spains, there was also this.

Anything else I've missed ?
 
Pardon me for taking the magnifying glass view at first.

The battle of Navas de Tolosa could easily be lost by the Christians.
But while a defeat had devastating effects on the Almohads, I'm not sure whether the Reconquista would come to a standstill otherwise.

Of course, it would paralyze the Christian kingdoms for some while, especially if some of the kings are kill in battle. I don't know too much about the strategical situation, but it looks like the marginalization of the Islamic empire in Spain would take place nevertheless, just a bit delayed. A significant Almohad expansion at the expense of Navarra/Leon/Castilia/Porto/Aragon seems rather unlikely. Moreover, also a draw in battle might fulfill the condition of this thread ("surviving").
With your question, did you refer to the single battle, or rather assume "Reconquista never as successful as IOTL"?


Consequences in the next couple of decades: Christian kingdoms may be incapable of active military actions. Crusading in Spain will raise in prestige and prioritization against the Holy Land. Especially if the Caliph is sitting there (an intriguing idea!).
This will, of course, have effects on the Outremer states, not necessarily only negative ones.
 
Pardon me for taking the magnifying glass view at first.

The battle of Navas de Tolosa could easily be lost by the Christians.
But while a defeat had devastating effects on the Almohads, I'm not sure whether the Reconquista would come to a standstill otherwise.

Of course, it would paralyze the Christian kingdoms for some while, especially if some of the kings are kill in battle. I don't know too much about the strategical situation, but it looks like the marginalization of the Islamic empire in Spain would take place nevertheless, just a bit delayed. A significant Almohad expansion at the expense of Navarra/Leon/Castilia/Porto/Aragon seems rather unlikely. Moreover, also a draw in battle might fulfill the condition of this thread ("surviving").
With your question, did you refer to the single battle, or rather assume "Reconquista never as successful as IOTL"?


Consequences in the next couple of decades: Christian kingdoms may be incapable of active military actions. Crusading in Spain will raise in prestige and prioritization against the Holy Land. Especially if the Caliph is sitting there (an intriguing idea!).
This will, of course, have effects on the Outremer states, not necessarily only negative ones.

One thing that have to be noted that, contrary to popular beliefs, Reconquista was not literally an ever advancing snow ball, and by no means the northern christians of the north was continuously in "Reconquista Mode" for centuries. You'll note how visibly a drawn out affair the conquest of Granada was IOTL. How the Christians needed ten years to prepare the conquest of a city just 100 miles from the main base for Reconquista. It should be an evidence on how the spirit of Reconquista wasn't always on fire continuously, but there were gaps between.

Las Navas de Tolosa IOTL was very decisive in it utterly driving muslim presence from the Central Plains, and also further boosting the Christians' morale. With Almohads surviving it it will prevent both in addition to the prestige of Islamic Rule in Spains being saved. Those will make difference, in immediate-term it will certainly save Almohads' back bone, providing the chance for their empire surviving decisively longer, further providing a realistic(instead of deterministic) chance for muslim presence on Peninsula to last for some additional centuries at minimal. Effects on moderate-term, will be more visible for us to analyze, and this is my primary purpose for posting this thread, in addition to broaden our scoop regarding to the topic's consequences beyond Iberian Peninsula.


I'll repeat it once more. 1) Mongols won't be butterflied away, and they will still devastate both Middle East and the prestige of Abbassid dynasty. How will an albeit-far away-but-still-prestigious regime that also claim the Caliphal authority effect the things in Middle East, especially if Almohads will still be holding Barqa up to 1300s ? 2) This will be before the rise of Mali Empire in the south. Will Mali Empire still rise into power the same way it did IOTL, or with an Almohad regime in the north still having its back bone will effect the background abit ? 3) If John of England will still send his emmisaries and ask for Almohads assistance in return for his conversion to Islam, well this will make difference to boot in Europe !!
 
TBH, I was under the impression that the Almohads were not as intellectually vigorous as the Caliphate of Cordoba or the Hafsids.
 
TBH, I was under the impression that the Almohads were not as intellectually vigorous as the Caliphate of Cordoba or the Hafsids.

Indeed.

As a matter of fact, that's why I'm interested as to what kind of influence they will emit to the devastated Middle East post-Mongol invasion, that if any. If there will be some, will the boundary between Sunnism and Shiism in this world become somewhat less blurry ? Not to mention about Africa, if the Almohads would then coexisting side by side with Mali Empire, or whether the later would be instead butterflied away due to the former stay strong.....
 
One thing that have to be noted that, contrary to popular beliefs, Reconquista was not literally an ever advancing snow ball, and by no means the northern christians of the north was continuously in "Reconquista Mode" for centuries. ... It should be an evidence on how the spirit of Reconquista wasn't always on fire continuously, but there were gaps between.


In case there is any misunderstanding: I totally agree. I would even conjecture that Reconquista was considered completed shortly after 1250.

However, the time around Navas de Tolosa was still full of crusading excitement - only consider the number of people won for fighting in Palastine. Unless expansion on the Iberian Peninsula doesn't prove utterly out of reach, I would expect that this frontier will still attract eager warrior. If this leads to any real military success depends on the organizing minds behind the scenes, but they seemed at least a bit more effective and cooperative than their colleagues in the Holy Land.

Just my two escudos ...
 
I still think even if Las Navas is a hold for the Almohads they are going to slow sink in Spain. I'd say that they'll still lose any territories outside of Granada and Western Andalucia. They will however, probably retrench in Africa and will continue to defeat or maybe destroy the Marinids. They might even keep the Hafsids from breaking away but I think that will be about the limit of what they can do for a time.

I honestly am not familiar with Mali in this period compared to Ghanna and Sosso beforehand. I'd assume they would not pressure them and by friendly but I doubt they could help them at all militarily.

Anyhow, assuming they keep the Hafsids down, I think piracy in the Med. will reduced and the Normans of Sicily will end up being stronger since they'll face the fringes of the Almohads in Tunisia rather than the powerbase of the Hafsids. Maybe the Almohads will even ally with them to help keep that side of their empire quiet? They allied with Castile after Las Navas but maybe that was only due to the loss. So maybe you'll get a few Sicilian ports somewhere around Tunis?
 
In case there is any misunderstanding: I totally agree. I would even conjecture that Reconquista was considered completed shortly after 1250.

However, the time around Navas de Tolosa was still full of crusading excitement - only consider the number of people won for fighting in Palastine. Unless expansion on the Iberian Peninsula doesn't prove utterly out of reach, I would expect that this frontier will still attract eager warrior. If this leads to any real military success depends on the organizing minds behind the scenes, but they seemed at least a bit more effective and cooperative than their colleagues in the Holy Land.

Just my two escudos ...

I still think even if Las Navas is a hold for the Almohads they are going to slow sink in Spain. I'd say that they'll still lose any territories outside of Granada and Western Andalucia. They will however, probably retrench in Africa and will continue to defeat or maybe destroy the Marinids. They might even keep the Hafsids from breaking away but I think that will be about the limit of what they can do for a time.

I honestly am not familiar with Mali in this period compared to Ghanna and Sosso beforehand. I'd assume they would not pressure them and by friendly but I doubt they could help them at all militarily.

Anyhow, assuming they keep the Hafsids down, I think piracy in the Med. will reduced and the Normans of Sicily will end up being stronger since they'll face the fringes of the Almohads in Tunisia rather than the powerbase of the Hafsids. Maybe the Almohads will even ally with them to help keep that side of their empire quiet? They allied with Castile after Las Navas but maybe that was only due to the loss. So maybe you'll get a few Sicilian ports somewhere around Tunis?

Boto von Ageduch, good point. :) Personally, I guess the best chance to inflict maximum damage to the Christians is to have Battle in Las Navas de Tolosa still happen and make it the worst case for the Christian coalition, maybe by having at least some of the four kings involved died in the battle, though that's only a rough idea, as for how I will have to dig more about details of the battle.... :eek:

With a disgraceful lose for the Christians plus preventing ANYTHING that can be enable anything like "REMEMBER LAS NAVAS DE TOLOSA !!" rhetorics, which I believe as principally not so hard (and also, that we have to decide it carefully about how many of the kings that should die in the battle), I think we can inflict a good damage to Crusading enthusiasm. Basically we've got to ensure that, after the battle, Christians of the north will have in their hands many other problems other than the Almohads, that they won't be able/interested to ditch the rest for dealing with Almohads together (effectively, at least.)

MNPundit, because at the moment is limited, I'm afraid I will have to respond to your post later. Pardon me for my rushness for now.... :eek:
 
Boto von Ageduch, good point. :) Personally, I guess the best chance to inflict maximum damage to the Christians is to have Battle in Las Navas de Tolosa still happen and make it the worst case for the Christian coalition, maybe by having at least some of the four kings involved died in the battle, though that's only a rough idea, as for how I will have to dig more about details of the battle.... :eek:

With a disgraceful lose for the Christians plus preventing ANYTHING that can be enable anything like "REMEMBER LAS NAVAS DE TOLOSA !!" rhetorics, which I believe as principally not so hard (and also, that we have to decide it carefully about how many of the kings that should die in the battle), I think we can inflict a good damage to Crusading enthusiasm. Basically we've got to ensure that, after the battle, Christians of the north will have in their hands many other problems other than the Almohads, that they won't be able/interested to ditch the rest for dealing with Almohads together (effectively, at least.)

MNPundit, because at the moment is limited, I'm afraid I will have to respond to your post later. Pardon me for my rushness for now.... :eek:

Well, an almohad victory in Las Navas is not difficult. I'm not an expert in military history, but as far as I know the almohads made a terrible tactical decission presenting battle in an relatively narrow battlefield, therefore the mounted archery that gave the victory to the almohads in Alarcos (1195) couldn't move nor the numerical superiority profited. Also, the andalusi volunteers was not happy with the almohad leadership. specially after the execution of one of their leaders wich pacted the rendition of Salvatierra with the christians (that kind pacts were common in both sides in Iberia, but nor the almohads, nor the ultramontane crusaders liked it, causing dissension in both armies). The legend says that the christians could not cross the pass of Sierra Morena, well guarded by the almohads, and then a sepherd showed them a secret path, but it sounds like the typical legend for that kind a situations, so I have not idea how they crossed the sierra. Maybe it was not so well guarded. In short, you have lots of options to change the fortunes of the battle and make it a disaster for the christian.

Depending on what king do you decide to kill it could have interesting effects. My proposal:
If you kill Peter II of Aragon, who died one year later fighting agains the albigesian crusade in Muret, I wonder what could happen in "Occitania" in medium-term. Maybe the crown of Aragon keep his interest in southern "France", and Pedro's succesor, not less than James I the Conqueror, with a strong muslim power in the south, decides to try to restore his "rights" in "occitania" or press his claim over Navarre. Now France is a more important concern than the almohads, the navarrese nobility doesn't want James as king, Castille regards the development of events with interest and expectation. But in Castille the things are not calme. In 1214 the king Alfonso died, his succesor Henry was 10 yearrs old. The regency goes to his sister Berengela, wich on the other hand was in disputes about her marriage with Alphonse IX of Leon, who regarding him, profited the movilization in Las Navas to siege some places in the frontier with Castile, so with a castilian defeat in the battle maybe he tryes it harder. The house of Lara (a powerfull castilian familly) tryes to make profit from the situation as OTL, but with a weakened kingdom after the defeat in Las Navas, the other members of the nobility decide to take the arms against Lara's pretensions. That butterflies the (ridiculous) death of Henry, so, no unification of the crowns of Castille and Leon in the figure of Berenguelas' son, Ferdinand (future Ferdinand III of Castille and Leon). Thus, you have the christians divised and with serious troubles to think in teaming up another time against the almohads for a time.

Also note that only three christian kings participated in the battle (the king of portugal sent forces, but he didn't go to the battle). In OTL two of the kings died short after the battle (Peter II in 1213 and Alphonse VIII in 1214), the two died with their heirs in minority and Sancho of Navarre, died without offspring in 1234. So, even of you don't kill some of them, you can cause severe internal problems in the christian kingdoms with an almohad victory.

Anyway, I see the point of MNPundit, and I don't know who much time would last the almohad autority on Al-Andalus before being contested, despite a victory in Las Navas, only for the logic of the dynamics and religious practices inside Al-Andalus. If the almoravids are an example, the crushing victories in Ucles and Sagrajas didn't avoid that outcome.

Regarding the point of Botto von Ageduch I think the ultramontane crusaders were more an obstacle than a help for the iberian christians, as it was seen in the march to Las Navas itself. It's true that the crusader spirit and excitation was there, but iberian muslims and christians had created at some extent a sort of micro-cosmos with its own rules duing centuries. It's related with what was said about the "Reconquista mode". It was a political weapon used only when necessary, sometimes to justify the things a posteriori. But the main interest was more material (as for the Crusades in Holy Land, but moreover in this case in an scenario of cohabitation and interaction between christians and muslim during centuries) . I mean, the main reason for the Christians in 1212 was not the crusader spirit, was the fact that the almohads were in the Mounts of Toledo, and that was a threat. But, for example, they had no problems supporting Ibn Mardinis in the mediterranean coast. Also, ultramontane crusaders meaned less booty for iberian christians, specially because they had the nasty habit of killing what was seen as the main loot for the iberians: the vassals. Thus, if there is a notable influx of trans-pyreneic crusaders and the things are made like in the Levant or like those crusaders wanted during the march to Las Navas, I foresee harder resistance by the andalusies, even leaving aside their differences with the almohad rulers, because it would be a question of life or death.

Cheers.
 
Here's my conception of Alt-Almohad Empire. Thinking about it again, I don't see why it's impossible for it to last until the time of the Ottomans (if you assume the Ottomans emerge as per OTL). At that time they might become something of a rival in the west, keeping the Ottoman pirates from the western Med.

AltAlmohads.png
 
Last edited:
Here's my conception of Alt-Almohad Empire. Thinking about it again, I don't see why it's impossible for it to last until the time of the Ottomans (if you assume the Ottomans emerge as per OTL). At that time they might become something of a rival in the west, keeping the Ottoman pirates from the western Med.

That is exactly one of the things I tried to point out previously, that Almohad regime can survive a whole quite longer with Las Navas de Tolosa being a victory, in terms of centuries. Furthermore, I do also see realistic chance to see Islamic presence(not the Almohad regime) in Spain last until today as well.


Now, let's get back to my main question about more global consequences of this alt-Almohad Empire. I'm curious whether this alt-Almohad Empire can make some little bit differences across the Mediterranian Sea (Middle East) due to the regime's claim on Caliphal authority, whether the Mashriqis will either pledge allegiance to them or even criticize their claim, or Almohads were just to far from them to matter as anything ? But IIRC, prior to Las Navas de Tolosa, Almohad sovereignty did reach as further as Benghazi, so I wonder if a stronger Almohad Empire could've kept it for a while longer, at least until Mongol invasion of Middle East.....

EDIT : And also, many thanks for Niko Malaka's lengthy post ! :) It has cleared out many things for me....
 
Last edited:
And also, besides Middle East, if someone would know much about Mali to comment about how the coexistence between Mali Empire and Almohad Empire, both dominating each end of their own of the trans-Sahara trade routes. Will they become allies or rivals, basically ?

And also about the effects in Europe north the of Spains. There is the option Niko Malaka has suggested, and how the Albigensian Crusade be effected. Also, further north in England, there is still the John issue that I have been bringing up to the surface since I've started this thread..... ;)
 
And also, besides Middle East, if someone would know much about Mali to comment about how the coexistence between Mali Empire and Almohad Empire, both dominating each end of their own of the trans-Sahara trade routes. Will they become allies or rivals, basically ?

And also about the effects in Europe north the of Spains. There is the option Niko Malaka has suggested, and how the Albigensian Crusade be effected. Also, further north in England, there is still the John issue that I have been bringing up to the surface since I've started this thread..... ;)
I thought the consensus on the Renegade Emir of Angletierre was that it was a fun story but utterly impossible. Just assume John gets executed. Well I suppose if Simon de Montfort does the executing.... :eek:

So if Mali and the Almohads become rivals... will the Almohads try to conquer them or circumvent them navally?
 
1) I thought the consensus on the Renegade Emir of Angletierre was that it was a fun story but utterly impossible. Just assume John gets executed. Well I suppose if Simon de Montfort does the executing.... :eek:

2) So if Mali and the Almohads become rivals... will the Almohads try to conquer them or circumvent them navally?

1) Maybe you should re-read Leo's thread beyond skimming ? For that would be assuming that :
- John will immediately try to enforce Islam to every englishmen after he has converted.
- John won't be able accommodate a strong portion of the nobility without forcing Islam towards them in order to prepare for the incoming Crusade. Not to mention the possibility of John deciding to redistribute the lands of the clergy to the nobles in order to affirm their support for him.
- There will simply be no christians available for John's army after he converted, or that nobody will convert later.....
- There can't be possibly a relieve force from Almohads be sent to england.
- Invasion to England by France will simply be a piece of cake. Didn't England have a fairly respectable navy during this time ?

Problems that John will be facing after converting to Islam will certainly be many. The Scots and Wales will view this as an opportunity to push towards the-now kingdom of an apostate in the name of Christendom. Internal oppositions will certainly be there, too. OTOH, England was already so spiritually dry this time besides the the near antagonization of the country by the Papal interdict, that something like an ideological resistance would be limited at best. Pragmatic minds will get advantages from there.....

Certainly to make an Islamic England will require NOT only a long period of time. Immediate political consequences however, will be there and immense. Even if John will then fail and get executed(which in itself technically isn't inevitable), won't it furtherly decreasing the prestige of the crown and strengthening the nobility and thus, decentralization ? It will make a really different england and the British Isles......

What annoys me from all the immediate rejection towards this specific idea is the neglection of the basics of the related background's situation that is just as immediate ! :mad: It's no even an idea that emerged randomly out of nowhere, either.... :(

2) The founder of Mali Empire, Sundiata, IIRC was born 5 years after Las Navas de Tolosa. Depends on what will a still-strong Almohad Empire do to the trans-Saharan trade routes, I actually fear that maybe his birth will even be butterflied away... :eek:

EDIT : To once again re-address yet still un-discussed issues :

Now, let's get back to my main question about more global consequences of this alt-Almohad Empire. I'm curious whether this alt-Almohad Empire can make some little bit differences across the Mediterranian Sea (Middle East) due to the regime's claim on Caliphal authority, whether the Mashriqis will either pledge allegiance to them or even criticize their claim, or Almohads were just to far from them to matter as anything ? But IIRC, prior to Las Navas de Tolosa, Almohad sovereignty did reach as further as Benghazi, so I wonder if a stronger Almohad Empire could've kept it for a while longer, at least until Mongol invasion of Middle East.....

And also about the effects in Europe north the of Spains. There is the option Niko Malaka has suggested, and how the Albigensian Crusade be effected
 
Last edited:
I was interested in its effects on the idea of Crusading throughout the West. Riley-Smith, at least, doesn't think that Las Navas de Tolosa changed much. If his interpretation is correct, the PoD would likely have little influence on the Fifth Crusade or Outre-Meer generally:

Jonathan Riley-Smith said:
Las Navas de Tolosa was a turning-point in the Reconquest, though this would not have been apparent to contepmoraries. The Spanish Crusade, like the Albigensian, was set aside, at least as far as outsiders were concerned, by Innocent in 1213 and on several occasions his successor Honorius III expressed the opinion that it should not divert resources from the Crusade to the East...

I do, however, love the idea of more Aragonese intervention in Languedoc after the failure of the southern attack. Definitely plausible, IMO.
 
Top