Effects of a Christian Mauro-Roman North Africa?

So in a previous thread I asked what would be the best way for the Maghreb to remain Christian and it seems the latest possibility for this is Dihya expels the Arabs instead of losing like in OTL because she lost the support of settled populations due to her scorched earth tactics.

Following this, we can assume that Dihya would have amassed a great amount of prestige and she could use this prestige to possible exploit Byzantine weakness in Africa (the Arabs have just razed down Carthage) to seize the whole region thus further increasing her prestige amongst the Berbers allowing for one of her sons (let's go with Bagay) can inherit the confederacy/kingdom that she has built without it all collapsing.

What woudl be the effects of such a situation. From the top of my head, the Visigoths would survive but likely collapse anywhere and maybe end up like Italy. The Byzantines might be worse off since the Arabs would be investing more effort in taking over Anatolia instead of attacking the Maghreb, Andalus and other European locales.

A Berber kingdom in Africa could allow for centralization in Mauretnia maybe.
 
North Africa would probably be brought more into the Latin Christian cultural sphere, and would probably be considered culturally part of Europe. It would most likely speak a Romance language with a heavy Berber substrate. Having extra lands in Latin Christendom might strengthen the position of the Pope vs. the Patriarch of Constantinople, which in turn might delay or get rid of the Schism (or might bring it forward, if the Pope is emboldened to throw his weight around more in Eastern affairs).

Without Arab raiders and pirates, the lands around the western Med would probably be wealthier and more interconnected. (Just how much wealthier depends on how far you support the Pirenne Thesis.)

The Visigoths seem to have been pretty unstable so they'd probably have collapsed anyway. I'd expect Spain to reunite again after a period of fragmentation, although how and by whom this might happen is impossible to say.

I'm not sure the Byzantines would be worse off, since their holdings in Sicily and Italy would be more secure, and without the Maghreb or Al-Andalus the Caliphate would have fewer resources to throw at Constantinople.
 
The Visigoths seem to have been pretty unstable so they'd probably have collapsed anyway. I'd expect Spain to reunite again after a period of fragmentation, although how and by whom this might happen is impossible to say.
Interesting points. Might the fates of the Visigoths and Lombards be reversed with the former collapsing whilst the latter survives. Maybe increased Byzantine strength in the Balkans pushes Slavs into Lombardy where they seize power from the Lombards?
 
The Visigoths seem to have been pretty unstable so they'd probably have collapsed anyway. I'd expect Spain to reunite again after a period of fragmentation, although how and by whom this might happen is impossible to say.

Interesting points. Might the fates of the Visigoths and Lombards be reversed with the former collapsing whilst the latter survives. Maybe increased Byzantine strength in the Balkans pushes Slavs into Lombardy where they seize power from the Lombards?

Visigothic Hispania without the Moors would look like France with massive influence from Italy. No Portugal and Aragon at all given they was born from the Reconquista.
 
What are the borders and rough population of this polity? Some rather large cities existed there with trade potentially reaching Cape Verde and the Azores. The restoration of trade in the Western Med or conservation of mid-size/larger Roman cago ships alone could have profound impacts.
 
What are the borders and rough population of this polity? Some rather large cities existed there with trade potentially reaching Cape Verde and the Azores. The restoration of trade in the Western Med or conservation of mid-size/larger Roman cago ships alone could have profound impacts.

Cities could reach up to 50,000 at the most. Population wise I think there is maybe 2 million people in the Maghreb at the time IIRC.
 
Cities could reach up to 50,000 at the most. Population wise I think there is maybe 2 million people in the Maghreb at the time IIRC.

I've always wondered how exactly did North Aftica go from Roman bread basket to what it is today. I know that climate changes where happening but did over grazing really contribute to turning North Africa more arid.
 
I've always wondered how exactly did North Aftica go from Roman bread basket to what it is today. I know that climate changes where happening but did over grazing really contribute to turning North Africa more arid.

While "South North Africa" (the Sahara belt) is the desert it was for millennia, "North North Africa" (Atlas Mountains + coastal land) is still quite capable of agriculture. Hundreds of thousands French farmers moved to areas like the Mitidja plain around Algiers in the colonial era, and while independent Algeria has been a net food importer I think this is more due to recent changes (rural exoduses to the cities, increasing urban population requiring more food, civil war damage, etc.) rather than lacking the basic potential for productive agriculture. I can't speak for Morocco but I assume the situation is similar. I think Tunisia is still a heavyweight in olive oil exports, Italian olive oil is sometimes just Tunisian oil bottled in Italy.

Algeria's productive lands/climates are mostly concentrated on a narrow strip of land close to the coast or in the cool mountain highlands, but is that really such a divergence from the pre-Muslim era? The old centers of the Numidian kingdom were all quite close to the coast, and I assume Numidia's the breadbasket people talk about when discussing Roman North Africa. St. Augustine's homeland of Tagaste and workplace of Hippo Regius were both in coastal Annaba province. The area that was fertile then is, for the most part, the same area that is fertile (if punching under its weight) now.

That area has frayed at the edges since 600 AD, and the introduction of new pastoralists + decay of Punic/Roman irrigation systems likely worked alongside climactic shifts to cause that. However, outside of aberrations like the Banu Hilal invasion I don't think the Arab rulers of the area were really that hostile to or ignorant of sedentary lifestyles. They probably just know enough about the types of systems used there. A similar thing happened in Persia for a bit during the Turkish and especially the Mongol invasions, but as updated lists of canals and manuals on water maintenance became more common so did recovery/reconstruction efforts.

Sorry for the lack of sources throughout, but the point I'm trying to make is that when we talk about "what North Africa is today" we're talking about a bunch of disparate regions that barely seem like they belong in the same continent, much less a neighboring triplet of countries. It's important that we don't end up comparing Roman North North Africa to modern South North Africa.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t be so sure on the lack thereof for Pirates in the Med. As the Berbers were very happy it seems to go along with the invasion of Hispania and Med. Piracy was not something invented by the Arabs.

Imagine a Berber conquest of Hispania sans the religious overtones?
 
I wouldn’t be so sure on the lack thereof for Pirates in the Med. As the Berbers were very happy it seems to go along with the invasion of Hispania and Med. Piracy was not something invented by the Arabs.

Imagine a Berber conquest of Hispania sans the religious overtones?


Could Spain and Morocco now form a single political entity?
 
They kind of did in the later Roman Empire, since Mauretania Tingitania was joined to Hispania. It seems pretty natural for any Mauretanian or Spanish state to want to cross the strait for more land.


That's what I thought. Iirc you also got states straddling the Straits of Gibraltar during the Moorish period.
 
What's interesting is that a Christian North Africa ties Christendom to West Africa. If the thesis holds, North Africa could become a major economic force (And as such cultural too, so a more Berber Europe). Because it creates an opening to the gold mines of West Africa, who can import the various European goods and materials that can be transported across the desert.

(The idea of an alt-Musa flooding Europe with gold is epic imo)

So I expect Mauritania would be a significant balance of trade and urban economy. Cities are east to defend, great entrepots and have the labour for processing goods. The countryside would be agricultural sure, but I'm not convinced it'd be more productive, even if the country was an economic power, it's unclear if that wealth would be reinvested in land management.

What I do find interesting as being a trade economy, desert and naval warfare would be their game, which is radically different to Europe. If we assume some sort of alt-Crusades, Mauritania could be transformative. Apart from being more culturally sympathetic, and potentially a trade partner of Egypt, making it less likely to support a crusade, if they join it, they can provide a western flank to a crusade that OTL never had, and one MUCH better placed for fighting in that region.
 
What's interesting is that a Christian North Africa ties Christendom to West Africa. If the thesis holds, North Africa could become a major economic force (And as such cultural too, so a more Berber Europe). Because it creates an opening to the gold mines of West Africa, who can import the various European goods and materials that can be transported across the desert.

(The idea of an alt-Musa flooding Europe with gold is epic imo)

So I expect Mauritania would be a significant balance of trade and urban economy. Cities are east to defend, great entrepots and have the labour for processing goods. The countryside would be agricultural sure, but I'm not convinced it'd be more productive, even if the country was an economic power, it's unclear if that wealth would be reinvested in land management.

What I do find interesting as being a trade economy, desert and naval warfare would be their game, which is radically different to Europe. If we assume some sort of alt-Crusades, Mauritania could be transformative. Apart from being more culturally sympathetic, and potentially a trade partner of Egypt, making it less likely to support a crusade, if they join it, they can provide a western flank to a crusade that OTL never had, and one MUCH better placed for fighting in that region.
Interesting thesis, but I'd add they'd basically have to reinvest in the land since they'd need to please the rural Berber leaders who would hold significant military power and access to the trans-Saharan trade routes.
 
The Visigoths seem to have been pretty unstable so they'd probably have collapsed anyway. I'd expect Spain to reunite again after a period of fragmentation, although how and by whom this might happen is impossible to say.
I've seen some arguments that argue to the contrary. Hitherto the invasion of 711, the Visigothic elective monarchy had proceeded with minimal interference for decades, with power centralised in a single, royal army.

Granted, per the Chronicle of 754, the election of Roderic in 710-11 had been a play on the part of the 'Senate', as the Chronicle puts it, likely to prevent the late Witiza's dynasty from monopolising power, but I don't think we can assume from what little knowledge we have about the political structure of pre-Islamic Visigothic Spain that the Visigothic monarchy was especially unstable.

Of course, if the Visigoths did collapse, it's possible that the Franks might seize the opportunity, being far more militarised than their southern neighbour and in the habit of frequent military expeditions.
 
Interesting thesis, but I'd add they'd basically have to reinvest in the land since they'd need to please the rural Berber leaders who would hold significant military power and access to the trans-Saharan trade routes.

Thank you!

Depends on what you mean by reinvestment. The Rural Berbers do control the trade routes - does that mean they invest in fortified oasis cities, or does it mean they engage in water infrastructure and windbreaks? I expect the former, but I'm not convinced of the latter.
 
The Rural Berbers do control the trade routes - does that mean they invest in fortified oasis cities, or does it mean they engage in water infrastructure and windbreaks? I expect the former, but I'm not convinced of the latter.

I think the answer to this relies on politics. Morocco's Berber confederacies had motive and opportunity to compete with each other before, during, and for many centuries after conversion. During times of heightened discord between regional powers, exploiting existing oases/trade hubs to shift the short-term power balance may outpace more long-term and cooperation-reliant projects. I expect both, however, will be present in some capacity at all times.
 
One thing I've not seen (I apologise if it was mentioned) but we can't actually guarantee that the Berbers will align with Rome, and by that I don't mean they will align with Constantinople or Alexandria - but their relative geographic position, and different history of Christian sects may well lead to them being seen as heretics in some way. It could be that (for a lack of knowing what the capital would be) Carthage could be a rival religious centre to Rome, with Iberia and potentially more following suit. It could further divide Christendom.
 
One thing I've not seen (I apologise if it was mentioned) but we can't actually guarantee that the Berbers will align with Rome, and by that I don't mean they will align with Constantinople or Alexandria - but their relative geographic position, and different history of Christian sects may well lead to them being seen as heretics in some way. It could be that (for a lack of knowing what the capital would be) Carthage could be a rival religious centre to Rome, with Iberia and potentially more following suit. It could further divide Christendom.

Might be a bit like the Celtic Church, esp if Irish Missionaries have played a major part in the conversion.
 
Top