Can the Caliphate establish a lasting presence in Gaul?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No kebabs in France because then my favorite rulers and petty despots are gone!!!11
It may not be the "N" word, but it is the same sort of crap.

You would think that someone who has expressed such concern over "native" languages would have a clue.

Guess not.

See you in a week
 
It comes from Serbia Strong, the progenitor of the whole Remove Kebab meme, or more particularly the rant attached to the original.

According to one of our Balkan members, it was actually made by a Macedonian (possibly Muslim?) as a way of parodying Serbian butthurt. But I am uncertain.
 
It doesn't have to.
Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan - all Muslim, all not Arab.

Are we comparing Hispano-Romance influence (a romance culture with few background of its own) and prestige to Persian (a pluri-centenial culture that maintained his hegemony all along)?

Not only, apart Persia, you're talking of countries that weren't directly conquered by Arabs (at best under their suzerainty), forgetting that Al-Andalus was directly conquered and that an Arab elite wouldn't use the native culture.
But peninsular Arabic culture was already to a quite great extent already influenced by Persian features even before the death of Muhammad, making the surviving of a continued Persian culture a much more probably thing.

Furthermore, yes, these countries are arabized to a great extent. :
Quran is the direct word of God. Contrary to Christianism were Bible is considered as a translation, there's a huge difference in Islam where God litterally used Arab.

Islam wasn't only a religion, it also provides a full fiscal, legal and more generally political structure. Every analysis on this regard was based on Arab (even if influenced on its own) features.
Basically : Islamic country/dynasty necessarily means Arabized.

Even Persia, that retained much of its cultural features (at the point that using the exemple of Central Asian Islamized region is a bit moot there, as they were islamized by Persian dynasties), was arabised to an extent that is not unlike Ottoman influence on Balkans : not overhelming but still really noticable (And of course, being aware of the nationalist BS about Persian having kept its virginity depsite invasions).

Hell, half of hadits and arabo-islamic jurisprudence was made by Persians, administration of the Umayyad and Abassid dynasty was made by Arabo-Persian, not talking about litterature whom I'll just give an exemple.
During Abassid era, the concept of adab appeared : basically recovering what was moral, fair and mannered. Of course, it was heavily based on Arab positive stereotypes and knowledge of Arab.
It didn't prevented Ibn Qutaybah (an arabized persian) to be part of the whole movement at the point to be one of its most important figures.

That's even more important in Al-Andalus. We're not talking of a relativly close land, with is already quite arabised on its periphery (as Mesopotamia).
We're talking of a land on the other part of the world, with barely enough Arabs to form a ruling class : the maintain of Arabic feature was decisive to their maintain.

There, it litteraly have to, if you want to have a working Al-Andalus.
 
Last edited:
I'd say Al-Andalus was always doomed without France. France was (and is, I suppose) vastly more powerful and rich in people than Iberia ever was. It could obviously be a mess of squabbling states, like Italy - in fact, it often was. However, whenever there's peace in France adventure-seekers can hop over to Iberia to win their fortune helping whoever seems most 'similar' (in the historical case, the Spanish March and Asturias).

To see this in some perspective: mostly-French support won Iberia, while at the same time taking over Apulia/Sicily and messing about in the Levant on a hopeless endeavour for a few centuries. If Al-Andalus is more succesful, the French could avoid the whole crusader mess and lose almost nothing, while gaining a vast supply of bored landless soldiers. It's going to take incompetence of epic proportions for French/Italian-supported sides to not win against a North Africa-supported side.

That said, I am not sure all this is completely sure: when Tours happened, Francia was more or less a single catholic state in a sea of Pagans, heretics, and schismatics. If the Franks lose at Tours, they might never establish firm control over Germany and Northern Italy, and those regions can provide a sufficient drain on French power too.
 
I'd say Al-Andalus was always doomed without France. France was (and is, I suppose) vastly more powerful and rich in people than Iberia ever was.
Not at all. While Francia, then France beneficied from more strong and cohesive structures and institutions, Al-Andalus was rich. Awfully rich.
Heck, Al-Andalus was one of the richest and more powerful European country of its time (critically between IX and XI centuries), rivaling only with the ERE : mines, agricultural production, upper hand on trade, you name it.

However, whenever there's peace in France adventure-seekers can hop over to Iberia to win their fortune helping whoever seems most 'similar' (in the historical case, the Spanish March and Asturias).
It didn't worked this way : Aquitain lords had enough to deal with their own business to go adventurer on Spain.
Don't get me wrong, they often participated to small campaigns, and re-settlement of Levante (by example) was made by Aquitains; but it was more on a concerted and agreed participation on a limited scale than a CK game campaign.

Galicia/Asturias' existence owes little to nothing to Frankish support, and Spanish March was more the result of Carolingian aim (being tied up with Gothia and March of Toulouse) than the result of adventurer's success.

That said, I am not sure all this is completely sure: when Tours happened, Francia was more or less a single catholic state in a sea of Pagans, heretics, and schismatics. If the Franks lose at Tours, they might never establish firm control over Germany and Northern Italy, and those regions can provide a sufficient drain on French power too.
Regarding catholic/orthodox presence (the difference at this time being quite moot) : well, British kingdoms, Longobardia, Bavaria, probably some western Slavs, ERE. That's a bit more than an island.

If Charles loose at Tours, then Arabs raid the city. The end.
The raiding expedition was just that : a raiding expedition (and mostly directed against Aquitaine).
There was nothing really threatening to Frankish kingdom (it barely concerned its peruphery) : at this point western Germany and Bavaria are already under Frankish domination since centuries, Charles managed to unify all of the northern part (safe Burgundy and Aquitaine) and all the ressources avaibles IOTL (essentially in Austrasia) are untouched.

Frankish expansion may be slower (not benefitting from prestige, but seeing as this prestige was partially forged posteriorly in first place...) but they'd happen.
 
Los Navas de Tolosa had a serious French contingent, from what I know, as did many other battles in Iberia. I am sadly no expert, but I found the book: El Cid and the Reconquista 1050-1492 By David Nicolle. It says outright there was strong French influence on the reconquista.

Al-Andalus was certainly rich, so perhaps France alone wouldn't have been enough; I can't find very accurate numbers on numbers. Although I've always heard Aquitaine/Occitaine were very rich too until the Cathars got wiped out...

Still, the story from Tours until 1212 or so seems to be one of western christianity ascendant, defeating or assimilating (with trouble) the Byzantines, Muslims, and various pagans (especially the vikings, Magyars and Slavs). This may be a skewed image, but in that time effectively Spain, Sicily, Hungary, Poland, eastern Germany, Scandinavia, some of the Levant and the larger part of Greece were taken over (even if the Levant and Greece didn't last). So there does seem to be a trend.
 

Delvestius

Banned
The fact the Caliphate's hold on Iberia was never very solid to begin with and lasted only a few decades before the area "seceded" under Umayyad rule makes this proposition fairly problematic.

They didn't really "succeed", the Umayyads were all murdered by the Abbasids and the last surviving member fled to Spain to set up a "legitimate" rule there.
 
They didn't really "succeed", the Umayyads were all murdered by the Abbasids and the last surviving member fled to Spain to set up a "legitimate" rule there.

Yeah, I was making long story short.

However, my point was that al-Andalus was under Caliphal control for a fairly short (and quite troubled) span of time (until a Caliphate was created there, but that is another story).
I seems hardly a good springboard for further conquests while being under the rule of either Damascus or, alt-historically, Baghdad. Indeed, IOTL the area proved to be basically ungovernable from the Middle East, for good reason. It is hard to see how to change that.
 
Los Navas de Tolosa had a serious French contingent, from what I know, as did many other battles in Iberia. I am sadly no expert, but I found the book: El Cid and the Reconquista 1050-1492 By David Nicolle. It says outright there was strong French influence on the reconquista.

David Nicolle, or René de Beaumond (Les Croisades Franques d'Espagne) indeed make a point. But, the french influence is not as you describe, made by adventurers, nobles on the loose after they didn't warred in their own land.

Using the exemple of Las Navas de Tolosa, the "french" participation was real, but limited. Arnaud Amalric, bishop of Narbonne, was present with many troops as vassals of Pere II, not as adventurer.
Admittedly, you had as well "crusaders" from Europe (as the pope made campaigning against Almohads beneficing from the same features than a crusade), but that was quite exceptionnal and obviously didn't played before the XIIIth century.

It is hard to estimate how important was the part of the army that was raised in France, critically when they didn't all participated to the battle (both by lack of logistic, and being a nuisance in Spain)

The sources exaggeration don't help at all (mentioning 100 000 warriors, something really not possible). Considering that southern France was currently in full war (meaning more important vassals couldn't join), I would say 3 000 to 5 000 (including ones not joining the battle) would be an appropriate guesstimate.
On an army counting 12 000 to 15 000, it's fair but not that decisive.

Al-Andalus was certainly rich, so perhaps France alone wouldn't have been enough; I can't find very accurate numbers on numbers. Although I've always heard Aquitaine/Occitaine were very rich too until the Cathars got wiped out...
That's not really comparable.
First, Al-Andalus height was passed at 1209, with the taifa crisis and the Berber dynasties decline.
Then, Aquitaine/Occitania even at his political height didn't had nearly the economical influence of Al-Andalus. One exemple among many others : "imposing" a monetary standard (Carolingian silver coins being quite similar to Al-Andalusia's).

Summarizing it, southern France was wealthy. Al-Andalus was rich : cereals, sugar, wine, silver, oil, tissues, fruits, gold, wool etc. (and I'm not even talking about trade reaching both Germany and Persia). The only things they lacked were iron, and less importantly wood.

Still, the story from Tours until 1212 or so seems to be one of western christianity ascendant
It's mainly an historiographical conception : while Arab conquests were the fact of a relativly unified command; western Christian advances were mostly local from Xth to the XIIth centuries, and the fact of separated polities.
While it show an efficient politico-military system, it wasn't unbattle or prevented counter-attacks. For instance, you had ongoing raids in Gaul up to the XIth century, mainly trough Provence up to effective control of provencal coast (and with effective control of Alpine passes as well)

Rise of western Europe isn't exactly the tale of an unrivaled growth.
 
Muslim Aquitaine and (let's say) Provence would secure Iberia, but without a much earlier POD to eliminate the Franks, it's hard to imagine them holding on for more than a century, much less being a springboard for anything. The most likely result is that the Franks retake all or most of them before Charlemagne's OTL death, and passing out so many titles helps strengthen the Frankish state in that era.

What I could see it doing is disrupting Western Christianity as a cohesive unit, and to a lesser extent the Franks themselves. Perhaps it could delay or even prevent the Christianization of parts of central Europe or the elimination of the Celtic church.
 
Muslim Aquitaine and (let's say) Provence would secure Iberia
How exactly? Arabo-Berbers never were really able to hold more than one regular garrison north of Pyrenees, the whole countryside being on Christian control under their nominal rule.

What does prevent a control of Toulouse (721) or Arles (736) to not only fail as IOTL but to last one century before someone just decides to lead an army there and take their place?

At the very best, what does prevent Aquitaine/Provence to turn in a gigantic Asturias/Galicia equivalent?

But without a much earlier POD to eliminate the Franks,
To be really efficient, you'd need to butterfly Peppinid takeover, so a PoD in the first half of VIth century would be most useful; latter half of VIth century at latest.
With such PoD, you'd most possibly butterfly away conquest of Spain, at the very last as it happened.

What I could see it doing is disrupting Western Christianity as a cohesive unit, and to a lesser extent the Franks themselves. Perhaps it could delay or even prevent the Christianization of parts of central Europe or the elimination of the Celtic church.
You didn't have a celtic church in first place.
Each pre-carolingian church was effectivly a national one, whatever Irish, Spanish or Frankish; obeying first to local rulers.

Theologically, the difference between Irish church and Rome were even tiner than between Constantinople and Rome (and these were tiny at this time). And these differences were more institutional than regional (roman rules being present in the small Irish bishoprics; while Irish conceptions being present in continental monastic communauties).

Long story short, the myth of a Celtic church comes from English Reformation, claming that Rome killed a really christian church that Tudors restored.

Back to the subject : Roman church quite well survived even the sack of Rome by Arabs and the loss of Spain. I don't really see why the temporary loss of Provence (that happened IOTL anyway) or Aquitaine would have an impact : christianization of Germany and Central Europe was already began (even if limited), as well the distinction of pontifical figure.

At most, you could maybe butterfly Carolingian takeover, and have a maintain of "national churches" more or less unified under common conceptions.
 
Top