How would Feudalism develop in North Africa?

Wait, I tought you said that Latin Africa was made along a deeper Reconquista?
Apart from Ifriqiya proper, I doubt that Latins could really think about taking over North-Western Africa without dealing with al-Andalus, especially one that remains united. Not only Maghreb would be stuck between both al-Andalus and southern Berbers (which alone would imply an only coastal and very brief Latin presence), but it would have few to none interest (geopolitical or not) to have campaigned for it in first place as it played no decisive role on itself.
That's my fault for not really being specific, more of a parallel Reconquista occurring in North Africa as well as in Iberia. The slave trade idea was a concept that gave the Christian Berber tribes leverage to have a vassal state agreement, similar to how Moscow operated with the Mongols. While the idea was that the Spanish states would be fighting along with them at times, it wasn't simply having Europeans push for a North African crusade. TTL seems to have Al-Andalus collapsing early, as the Almohad revolution is definitely not concurring.
 
Itqa, I believe it's called, is a school of Islamic governance that is essentially Feudalism+Islam. I may be horribly wrong, I'm not an expert on such things. Point in being, if I'm right, feudalism is a dashing success in North Africa.
 
It is curious to note that despite the differences in time, modern day Tunisian is still very labour intensive and yet still able to support most of a population of over 10 million so there is potential there (Mind you Tunis is one of the more successful ones). There is potential, but I think one of the problems of feudalism is control which is harder when the population density it low and when people can simply move into the Sahara away from you.
 
That's my fault for not really being specific, more of a parallel Reconquista occurring in North Africa as well as in Iberia. The slave trade idea was a concept that gave the Christian Berber tribes leverage to have a vassal state agreement, similar to how Moscow operated with the Mongols. While the idea was that the Spanish states would be fighting along with them at times, it wasn't simply having Europeans push for a North African crusade. TTL seems to have Al-Andalus collapsing early, as the Almohad revolution is definitely not concurring.
I don't think you could have a real foothold in North Africa in the same time you're still having a relatively strong al-Andalus present in first place (well, except Tunis, but that's a special case, being far enough from Spain, and more tied up with Central Mediterranean sphere).

Arabo-Berber states in Maghrib were relatively dependent, one way or another, from a relation they had with Muslim Spain, serving both as buffer region, source of recruitment (this one is particularily important) and doorway to the rest of the Islamic world : contrary to the close relation between Mongols and Russian (would it be only because they were directly neighbouring each other), you had few if any relation between North African Arabo-Berbers and Christians before the XIIIth century and the utter defeat of Muslim Spain, and even there, you had more of a coastal presence for Christian (admittedly, you had an important distrust of Arabo-Berber for what mattered to seafare then).

I said that Tunis was a special case, because you had strong commercial relations between Italian cities and Tunisie since the classical Middle-Ages, and IOTL, nobody was that interested on a total takeover of the region (would it have been possible) because Tunisia was seen as an important trade partner that had to be controlled, but not utterly crushed.
Not that a control of the region would be unthinkable, far from it : Norman conquest of the African coast point to an interesting possibility there, even if it's not going to be that easy and probably object to pressure to any imperial Berber dynasty wannabee : we're talking of a mostly coastal control there.

It is curious to note that despite the differences in time, modern day Tunisian is still very labour intensive and yet still able to support most of a population of over 10 million so there is potential there (Mind you Tunis is one of the more successful ones). There is potential, but I think one of the problems of feudalism is control which is harder when the population density it low and when people can simply move into the Sahara away from you.
Feudalism is not a social structure, but a political one. As it focuses on political relations, it doesn't really deal with the larger part of the population itself, but rather its elites (in a broad sense, admittedly). Eventually, it comes down to this : feudalism isn't the same thing than manorialism which had quite close counterparts (if a bit more leaning on plantation economy in some regions) on Arabo-Islamic world.

I do agree, tough, that the presence of Sahara and Atlas would be a big issue, not for demographical reasons, but because it served as a shield for any imperial progression (Christian or Islamic as well), a shelter for any contender, and a safe departure zone for any mahdi-wannabee high on caravan trade revenues (or on caravan trade raiding and takeover).
 
I don't think you could have a real foothold in North Africa in the same time you're still having a relatively strong al-Andalus present in first place (well, except Tunis, but that's a special case, being far enough from Spain, and more tied up with Central Mediterranean sphere).

Arabo-Berber states in Maghrib were relatively dependent, one way or another, from a relation they had with Muslim Spain, serving both as buffer region, source of recruitment (this one is particularily important) and doorway to the rest of the Islamic world : contrary to the close relation between Mongols and Russian (would it be only because they were directly neighbouring each other), you had few if any relation between North African Arabo-Berbers and Christians before the XIIIth century and the utter defeat of Muslim Spain, and even there, you had more of a coastal presence for Christian (admittedly, you had an important distrust of Arabo-Berber for what mattered to seafare then).

I said that Tunis was a special case, because you had strong commercial relations between Italian cities and Tunisie since the classical Middle-Ages, and IOTL, nobody was that interested on a total takeover of the region (would it have been possible) because Tunisia was seen as an important trade partner that had to be controlled, but not utterly crushed.
Not that a control of the region would be unthinkable, far from it : Norman conquest of the African coast point to an interesting possibility there, even if it's not going to be that easy and probably object to pressure to any imperial Berber dynasty wannabee : we're talking of a mostly coastal control there.
OK, so it seems like my TL was worked out backwards. Any type of "Reconquista" is likely to start out with OTL Tunisia, and then spread out West as Al-Andalus fragments.
 
Now, you'd need an incitative why North Africa would be more interesting than Romania as a potential Crusade target.
As mentioned above, it was what really made the later campaigns in the region less about taking over the region, than impairing grain supply of Arabo-Islamic states and ensuring Italian influence on the long run. It seriously imples a strong Late Commenos/Post-Commenos Empire and at least the maintain of some Manuel's diplomatic and military diplomacies : Normans are still going to be pretty much antagonists, but other Latin may simply not follow them on this if Romania is still seen as an ally or at least a wortwhile partner.
 
Scottish clans in the Lowlands were eventually "feudalized" more deeply than just in name, and the ones in Highlands basically remained the same without much superficial effort anyway. ITTL, tough, Berber tribes were more unstable politically than Scotland, being (ironically) more integrated as they were rather than "periphericalized".

Nobility in a Latin State in Africa would still probably not care enough to "feudalize" Berbers (as it didn't care to "feudalize" Syrians or Greeks), but would at least antagonize or peripherise the surrounding Zeneti, more or less as an echo of Late Antiquity inner and outer Mauri.

Could the Berbers in the lowlands/better agricultural lands be assimilated into the system while the Berbers in the highlands of the Atlas/Aures/Kabylia and the desert be kept in a status like the Highland clans of Scotland? Or would this entail a greater Roman integration of North Africa than happened OTL to lay the groundworks for such a system?

This is probably easier to do east of Mauretania, since the Berbers were always fewer in number and more isolated thanks to the rule of Carthage and later Rome. Mauretania itself would no doubt be very odd compared to other European realms considering how it was on the fringe of European civilisation even in the Roman era and Berber. But I guess if all Britain was once Celtic, and "Celtic" civilisation (as in the Highlanders) was pushed to the fringe, perhaps Mauretania could do the same. Although that would probably require an earlier POD and a lot more intensive Roman interest in the region.

And what do you mean by "Italian influence"? Could North Africa end up looking a bit like the Italian peninsula in the Middle Ages, with a bunch of autonomous cities, petty lordships, etc.? The geography seems conducive to that.
 
Could the Berbers in the lowlands/better agricultural lands be assimilated into the system while the Berbers in the highlands of the Atlas/Aures/Kabylia and the desert be kept in a status like the Highland clans of Scotland?
Frankly, given the historical exemples of Latin States, I don't think you'd really have any incitative to having Arabo-Islamic "manorialism" being integrated into a feudal system, at the very least not without elite conversion (which wasn't really a thing in Crusader states to begin with). I'd rather expect Crusader largely borrowing on the Arabo-African fiscal administration as it did happened in Palestine, for instance.

Not to say that you wouldn't have some differences : I'd see, African plantation economy to work out with less servile taskforce (while not as importantly than it happened in Palestine, due to the presence of direct servile trade roads) and the (relatively) less predatory nature of Latin rulership* could lead to some prosperous agricultural setting.

Muslims here own their own houses and rule themselves in their own way. This is the way the farms and big villages are organised in Frankish territory. Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule.

Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their co-religionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.

Even if Ibn Jubayr's famous statement must be taken with a grain of salt, as he forces a bit the infavourable comparison, fact that Latin nobility generally remained a castellan or an urban elite, made the motivation to really feudalize or manorialize Arabo-Islamic territories (or Byzantine territories) not that prioritary.
Eventually, you have more chances that, depsite the pretty much "idealized" feudality of Latin States, that Latin nobles would reasonably go a bit more native, than native going Latin, in sort of "rough tolerence" (as MacEvitt coined it) but it's true that in Palestine, the existence of a relatively favorable local Christianity served as "greasing" the whole society.

In Africa you won't, admittedly, have nearly the same religious situation but I think it might be compensated by the closeness of Norman Sicily, and the rough disregard of Italians for the religious issues.


Or would this entail a greater Roman integration of North Africa than happened OTL to lay the groundworks for such a system?
Roman integration of Mauri communauties was made along a system where these communauties were still largely peripherical and autonomous up to a degree on the borders (including on the imperial side of the borders) of Roman Africa.
It's really not before Byzzies came back in Africa, largely ignoring the geopolitical realities, that it changed for decades, before they surrendered to reality.

More details : (Book) - (Translated conclusions)

This is probably easier to do east of Mauretania, since the Berbers were always fewer in number and more isolated thanks to the rule of Carthage and later Rome.
No, no, no, no.
Berbers were largely integrated into Carthagian (which was often labelled Libyo-Punic) and Roman political system, more like the usual foederati, laeti and such than sort of anachronic nation-state.

And what do you mean by "Italian influence"?
One one hand, Maritime republic economical and political influence, that was quite a thing in the classical and Late Middle Ages over the region. It could probably goes as big as it was in Latin States in Romania or Palestine.
It had its downfalls.

On the other hand, whoever rules in Naples would be a major factor in the region as well, in the case of a Latin State Africa, at least something akin Angevine suzerainty over Latin Romania.
It had its downfalls.

Could North Africa end up looking a bit like the Italian peninsula in the Middle Ages, with a bunch of autonomous cities, petty lordships, etc.? The geography seems conducive to that.
Geographical determinism on this board is, I'm afraid, largely overestimated. You had no strong "natural" borders in the Po Valley, and yet it's where you had the most mportant concentration of medieval communi (among a shitload of various exemple).

Now, you're in the truth that it would certainly have consequences on the geographical extent of a Latin Africa, but rather along the lines of virtually all "imperial" powers since Late Antiquity, meaning rather along bands (coastal bands, hinterland bands, etc.). While you had fairly important coastal cities (as, of course, Madhia) it never evolved into urban autonomies. Not that it wouldn't get develloped ITTL, would it be only trough Italian influence, but rather than communi-like entities, I'd rather see franchised urban communauties under italian influence.
 
Top