Bigger Morocco

Well, the latter obviously works within our definition. That's like writing off the Soviet Union when asking about a 'bigger Russia.' True, it isn't exactly the same. But the fact that Russians dominated said union, would allow us to use it as an example. The same way, a Maghrib with Morocco holding the power still fits within the demand of the OP.

Except that with a state encompassing all of the Maghreb, "Morocco" isn't holding the power because there is no "Morocco".

It's not like the Kaiserreich where one state is the overwhelmingly largest component or the USSR - you butterfly the development of Morocco as a kingdom apart from the neighboring lands by creating a pan-Maghrebian state that lasts.

There's no basis for "Moroccans" as a distinct people from "Algerians" there in the sense there is today.
 
Except that with a state encompassing all of the Maghreb, "Morocco" isn't holding the power because there is no "Morocco".

It's not like the Kaiserreich where one state is the overwhelmingly largest component or the USSR - you butterfly the development of Morocco as a kingdom apart from the neighboring lands by creating a pan-Maghrebian state that lasts.
But if the people are those that maintain their centre of power in Morocco, it is still *Morocco.
 
Would you say that the Roman Empire is just "Bigger Italy"?
Yes. I do. And I know that seems rather stupid, but frankly I'm basing this on geography. Rome's original centre of power was in Italia, and as such, I consider it an Italian (at least through origin) Empire. The same way, I, and indeed many others, consider the Byzantines Greek.
 
Sigh.

I think most people would agree that there's a substantial difference between "Morocco, as one state within the Maghreb", and "a state encompassing all the Maghreb including the present day Kingdom of Morocco but not the same as the present kingdom".

Everyone else would find ways to endless argue for no apparent reason or benefit.
I'm not altogether sure what you're trying to argue beyond semantics - every history book and source I've seen has referred to every dynasty from the Idrisids to the modern Alouitids as 'Moroccan'
 
I'm not altogether sure what you're trying to argue beyond semantics - every history book and source I've seen has referred to every dynasty from the Idrisids to the modern Alouitids as 'Moroccan'

Because, for reasons of geography, they were centered in what is now Morocco. It's not like the earlier ones thought of themselves as having a specifically "Moroccan" identity aside from their identity as Arabs, Berbers, or members of the Community of the Faithful (or Jews and Christians in the days there were numbers of them).

Going to the Rome/Italy analogy, would Greeks from the bootheel of Italy consider themselves more "Roman" than Greeks from the Agean? Gallics from the north more Roman than ones from Gaul? How about Samnites? In any event, the history of Rome is of expansion and conquest outwards from a clearly defined location: no such element in the creation of Morocco, as far as I know.

In any event, I'd say "create the biggest state centered in what is now Morocco" is fine as a question, although I'm not sure how meaningfully different from "create a big Mahgrebi state": "create a bigger Morocco" probably only makes sense for PODs starting in relatively modern times. (Even today some Moroccans - Berbers in particular - aren't particularly invested in the national identity thing).

Bruce
 
I'm not altogether sure what you're trying to argue beyond semantics - every history book and source I've seen has referred to every dynasty from the Idrisids to the modern Alouitids as 'Moroccan'

I'm not entirely sure how much clearer I can make it.

There's the Kingdom of Morocco, which is a part of the OTL Maghreb, and the area that became the Kingdom of Morocco being part of a Maghreb-based empire that may or may not have its capital at Marrakesh.

This isn't semantics or rocket science, this is me pointing out that the identity of the kingdom as distinct from the greater region doesn't exist back in the middle ages, so, as B_Munro put it
I'm not sure how meaningfully different from "create a big Mahgrebi state": "create a bigger Morocco" probably only makes sense for PODs starting in relatively modern times. (Even today some Moroccans - Berbers in particular - aren't particularly invested in the national identity thing).
.

So you could easily have a big Maghrebi state which would be translated or transliterated into Morocco, but "A bigger kingdom of Morocco" requires that state to exist = which isn't the case in the 1100s-1300s even with Marrakesh centered polities.
 
So you could easily have a big Maghrebi state which would be translated or transliterated into Morocco, but "A bigger kingdom of Morocco" requires that state to exist = which isn't the case in the 1100s-1300s even with Marrakesh centered polities.

Fine, the geopolitical entity that finally (re)unified in the 17th century and that was eventually baptized as the Western Kingdom and externally known as the Kingdom of Morocco is butterflied away.

We're stipulating here an ATL Moorish realm centered around the same geopolitical area. Arguing whether or not this ATL Morocco is the equivalent of OTL Morocco is indeed pointless. Let's agree to disagree on this one but please allow people to interpret this challenge as "create a unified Maghreb or at least a larger state centered in OTL Morocco".
 
Fine, the geopolitical entity that finally (re)unified in the 17th century and that was eventually baptized as the Western Kingdom and externally known as the Kingdom of Morocco is butterflied away.

We're stipulating here an ATL Moorish realm centered around the same geopolitical area. Arguing whether or not this ATL Morocco is the equivalent of OTL Morocco is indeed pointless. Let's agree to disagree on this one but please allow people to interpret this challenge as "create a unified Maghreb or at least a larger state centered in OTL Morocco".

I'm not trying to interfere with anyone's interpretation of the challenge. I'm just pointing out that "a unified Maghreb" is not the same thing as Morocco, the specific kingdom of that name for English speakers within the Maghreb region - you'd have it be just as much "Algerian" as "Moroccan" if you had an alt-united Maghreb in the 1200s.

An ATL Moorish realm centered around the same geopolitical area is - at least on paper (practice needs to be worked out the same as all states) - perfectly feasible and reasonable and interesting - but since people are all upset at the idea that one would dare draw a distinction between one specific kingdom within the Maghreb and the Maghreb united, I don't see much effort made to actually figure out how to make a united Maghreb last other than the occasional dynasties that ruled the area, sometimes (but not always) from Marrakesh.
 
I'm not trying to interfere with anyone's interpretation of the challenge. I'm just pointing out that "a unified Maghreb" is not the same thing as Morocco, the specific kingdom of that name for English speakers within the Maghreb region - you'd have it be just as much "Algerian" as "Moroccan" if you had an alt-united Maghreb in the 1200s.

An ATL Moorish realm centered around the same geopolitical area is - at least on paper (practice needs to be worked out the same as all states) - perfectly feasible and reasonable and interesting - but since people are all upset at the idea that one would dare draw a distinction between one specific kingdom within the Maghreb and the Maghreb united, I don't see much effort made to actually figure out how to make a united Maghreb last other than the occasional dynasties that ruled the area, sometimes (but not always) from Marrakesh.
Nobody's upset, I personally disagree with your view but it's valid and duly noted. :)
 
One difference between a Mahgrebi state centered in Morocco and one centered in Algeria is the greater influence of the Berber element: IIRC, the percentage of Berber-speakers (Tamazight) is rather higher in Morocco than in Algeria, so one might get a Berber dynasty and an identification of Morocco as an ethnically distinct state from those further east at a relatively early date. Of course, that has to deal with the massive prestige of Arabic: perhaps the development of a Tamazight literature would do the trick? My impression is that Berber culture is more oral and doesn't have much of a literature, but my brain may be pulling one over on me.

Bruce
 
Al-Andalus, except with moar power focus from Morocco.


I googled Al Andalus to make sure I knew my ass from my elbow, and found this neat image to underline my rogue thought,

280px-Almohad1200.png



I'm not centering my thought on an Almohad empire specifically, fwiw. I just thought that a permutation of the Spain-Morocco "Axis" before Reconquista could have something to do with a Greater Morocco. (I verified the spelling by way of google, of course, and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista etc.)
Natch, the pic is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus
 
Top