How would Feudalism develop in North Africa?

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

So let's say that a North African christian kingdom or two emerges in North Africa in a somewhat similar manner that occurs in Iberia with the Reconquista. How exactly would a North African kingdom be politically structured? Is it safe to say that the Berbers would organize themselves as in Spain and adopt a Feudal system, or would more unique structures emerge or be in place with a weaker legacy from Rome? I've encountered some stumbling blocks in relation to this, as I struggle to figure out how a Christian western North Africa would integrate in relation to the rest of Europe and not be nothing more than a footnote TL. Any help or guidance would be appreciated.

 

[Umbral]

Surviving Vandal Kingdom? Bit less religious tensions, avoid the sack of Rome, and some more competent kings following Genseric. Say, his son Huneric predeceases his father, and upon Genserics death, the crown passes to someone younger. A son of Huneric and Emperor Valentin IIIs daughter. Another strong and competent reign for 50 years or so could establish them as a strong power, possibly strong enough to resist the Arabs.

 

[Planet of Hats]

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

Imposing feudalism in North Africa would be almost hysterically difficult, if not impossible. You're not talking about areas where there is a pre-existing kingship structure. You're talking about areas like Morocco and Ifriqiya where the predominant power structure is Berber tribes like the Zenata, Sanhaja and Masmuda, along with their dozens and dozens of sub-tribes. Even if you successfully convert them to Christianity, you'll have to somehow hammer the tribal ties out of them, and that's going to take generations.

Expect any Christian kingdom in North Africa to be either limited to some of the coastal areas, or else unstable and prone to tribal infighting for the first few generations, with a high risk of a bunch of angry Kharijites swooping out of the mountains and overturning it.

 

[Sulemain]

Feudalism depends on land ownership, and the agricultural productivity of North Africa was very much dependent on the massive Roman irrigation systems. Have those maintained and you might see feudalism arise.

 

[LSCatilina]

So let's say that a North African christian kingdom or two emerges in North Africa in a somewhat similar manner that occurs in Iberia with the Reconquista. How exactly would a North African kingdom be politically structured?

Most probably along something similar (if not downright mirroring) the Latin States (Syrian or Greek) feudality : meaning an idealized feudality as political structure covering the multitude of local uses without even an attempt to feudalize it out of uninterest.

As in Palestine, the current organisation (political and social) of local populations was working. Why would Latin lords would just crush it?

You'd probably see an italian influence being at least as much important than it was in Latin States (in Romania or Palestine), maybe more in North Africa.

 

[LSCatilina]

Imposing feudalism in North Africa would be almost hysterically difficult, if not impossible.

It did worked* for all other Latin States, tough.

I think people there think that feudalism is some sort of social organisation of society (I blame vulgar Marxism and even more Weberism on this). In reality, feudal relationship mostly concerned a small part of the population, mostly nobles and towns.
Feudality is, eventually, not the same thing as manioralism.

*Well, not as much worked, than having an idealized vision of feudality being implemented and leading to endless inner conflicts. But it didn't railed up the local population, as it seems.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

Imposing feudalism in North Africa would be almost hysterically difficult, if not impossible. You're not talking about areas where there is a pre-existing kingship structure. You're talking about areas like Morocco and Ifriqiya where the predominant power structure is Berber tribes like the Zenata, Sanhaja and Masmuda, along with their dozens and dozens of sub-tribes. Even if you successfully convert them to Christianity, you'll have to somehow hammer the tribal ties out of them, and that's going to take generations.

Expect any Christian kingdom in North Africa to be either limited to some of the coastal areas, or else unstable and prone to tribal infighting for the first few generations, with a high risk of a bunch of angry Kharijites swooping out of the mountains and overturning it.

Well the POD was around the time of the Donatist Schism, so there was several centuries of alternate development that lead to butterflies by the time of the Arab conquest. Part of the butterflies was that tribal confederacies were in schism as a result of Islamization and recalcitrant populations being alienated by the converts.

Most probably along something similar (if not downright mirroring) the Latin States (Syrian or Greek) feudality : meaning an idealized feudality as political structure covering the multitude of local uses without even an attempt to feudalize it out of uninterest.

As in Palestine, the current organisation (political and social) of local populations was working. Why would Latin lords would just crush it?

You'd probably see an italian influence being at least as much important than it was in Latin States (in Romania or Palestine), maybe more in North Africa.

Makes sense, I figured ATL Mauretania and Numidia would have relations with the Iberian states as well as Italy. Perhaps this influence leads to a later adoption of Feudalism similar to Central Europe? I agree that Manorialism doesn't seem likely to develop in Africa.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well the POD was around the time of the Donatist Schism

Then you probably butterflied away feudality as it appeared IOTL, and significantly so.
Romano-Barbarians largely maintained the structures (or rather, the surviving structures) left by the collapse of Roman State, and especially so in post-imperial Italy and Africa compared to Gaul or Hispany : feudality as a concrete political structure is largely the result of the successive revival and declines of the Late Roman administration, up to ending with a politically-motivated and supported mix of military, civil and territorial elite, with the Carolingians in the VIIIth century.

I'd suggest "Servir l'état barbare" by Bruno Dumézil on this matter, even if it focuses on Francia. But Richard Collins on Goths and Vandals is quite reccomandable as well.

Makes sense, I figured ATL Mauretania and Numidia would have relations with the Iberian states as well as Italy.

Depending on the period, maybe more Italian influence (especially mercantile-politic) than Spanish at least up to the XIIIth century. Afterwards, Aragonese influence is admittedly going to be huge.

Perhaps this influence leads to a later adoption of Feudalism similar to Central Europe?

Central Europe, as political entities, really emerged as peripherical region to Latin Europe on this regard. It was less "adoption" than entities such as Poland and Bohemia being by-product of Frankish expansion.
North Africa, at least for the "worthwhile" part, would already be established politically and socially.

I agree that Manorialism doesn't seem likely to develop in Africa.

What existed in Palestine was close enough to manioralism (roughly a parallel development on domanial bases) that it was maintained and adapted to Latin states everyday management.
For what I know, agricultural production in Ifriqiya, al-Andalus and Maghrib followed similar lines.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Then you probably butterflied away feudality as it appeared IOTL, and significantly so.
Romano-Barbarians largely maintained the structures (or rather, the surviving structures) left by the collapse of Roman State, and especially so in post-imperial Italy and Africa compared to Gaul or Hispany : feudality as a concrete political structure is largely the result of the successive revival and declines of the Late Roman administration, up to ending with a politically-motivated and supported mix of military, civil and territorial elite, with the Carolingians in the VIIIth century.

I'd suggest "Servir l'état barbare" by Bruno Dumézil on this matter, even if it focuses on Francia. But Richard Collins on Goths and Vandals is quite reccomandable as well.

OK, I'll admit the premise relies on homing butterflies with the Donatist schism being mended, and then the real POD with the initial invasions of North Africa. Not the best writing, I admit.

Then you probably butterflied away feudality as it appeared IOTL, and significantly so.

Depending on the period, maybe more Italian influence (especially mercantile-politic) than Spanish at least up to the XIIIth century. Afterwards, Aragonese influence is admittedly going to be huge.

Well the scenario was mostly projecting similar circumstances in North Africa as in Iberia, so I figured that Mauretania would likely seek an ally in Aragon or Castille to coordinate Reconquista, and Numidia would ally with the other as a rival. I figure that France and the Italian states are likely other major realms that would have a lot of relations, especially as the African kingdoms develop beyond being backwaters that are focused on reconquering territory. I also imagine that their relations with Iberia might also eventually drag them into other conflicts as well such as the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

What existed in Palestine was close enough to manioralism (roughly a parallel development on domanial bases) that it was maintained and adapted to Latin states everyday management.
For what I know, agricultural production in Ifriqiya, al-Andalus and Maghrib followed similar lines.

OK that's good, because I was looking at the Crusader states for comparison. I wasn't sure how well my intuition was on looking at them as a model was.

 

[Blackfox5]

Feudalism develops when there is not enough cash to go around. Instead of paying bureaucrats to administer laws and collect taxes, you give someone the right to use the land in exchange for them providing military service. So if Christians maintain political control of North Africa, does the cash economy still go away? Or does North Africa (and perhaps even the rest of Western Europe since the Western Mediterranean trade network survives) retain a cash economy and thus avoid feudalism? Since North Africa is well placed for the trans-saharan gold trade, I'm inclined to think that cash does not away and as a result western Europe avoids feudalism completely. This also means that Africa along the Niger River slowly Christianizes since its main trading partner are Christians.

I assume any surviving Christian North African state maintains the old Roman laws and administration, regardless if it is a result of the old Vandal Kingdom or the Justinian Conquest of the area.

 

[LSCatilina]

Feudalism develops when there is not enough cash to go around.

IOTL, feudality develloped from the decline of post-imperial Roman administration, and the growing social mix of civil and military elites : it's not that bureaucrats disappeared, but that they get fused with nobles and landowners.
Mmoney was replaced and land as terms of exchange of services as soon as the VIth century, much earlier than the development of carolingian feudality, but what it did was bolster the rise of landed potentes first in periphery, then in centers, pointing it's not a political decision, but rather a social development that Romano-Barbarian polities had to accomodate with : heck by the early VIIIth most of militia took its power from their actual power rather than royal delegation, even if Carolingians tried to jury-rig the situation by replacing the royal power as provider of potentia as well as honors, judicies and beneficii (which admittedly was kept by Merovingians and the people they delegated these).

Which had for result to mix up potentia with not only administrative, but nobiliar duties : there is the origin of feudality, as it made the whole Frankish aristocracy entering a system on which they were still largely apart.

So, it's partially related to the fall of Roman state, and unusability of money as a way of exchange, but it's only one of the factors. It never prevented Frankish administration militia and palatial honestiores to gather much more imperial agents than Constantine had.
Not before benefices and honores becames so mixed than they're unseparatable can we speak of feudality.

Heck, when XIIth century made monetarization a thing again, it hardly weakened feudal entities : it just made the most powerful of them dominating.

Since North Africa is well placed for the trans-saharan gold trade

Tunisia isn't much that well placed tough : most of the roads that ended there either came from western or eastern Africa. Maybe more than for other North African regions, Africa was in a middle-man position (even if a very good strategical position to do so), while most of Africa's production was made on a domanial (or plantation) model. You had to wait Arab conquest and apparition of camels as a widespread transportation device (even if it was certainly known earlier).
Before the VIIth century, Africa was certainly more Mediterranean-minded than continental : not only due to geographical matters, but technical as well as economical (trade between western Africa and Mediterranean basin was mostly superficial).[/QUOTE]

 

[ben0628]

IOTL, feudality develloped from the decline of post-imperial Roman administration, and the growing social mix of civil and military elites : it's not that bureaucrats disappeared, but that they get fused with nobles and landowners.
Mmoney was replaced and land as terms of exchange of services as soon as the VIth century, much earlier than the development of carolingian feudality, but what it did was bolster the rise of landed potentes first in periphery, then in centers, pointing it's not a political decision, but rather a social development that Romano-Barbarian polities had to accomodate with : heck by the early VIIIth most of militia took its power from their actual power rather than royal delegation, even if Carolingians tried to jury-rig the situation by replacing the royal power as provider of potentia as well as honors, judicies and beneficii (which admittedly was kept by Merovingians and the people they delegated these).

Which had for result to mix up potentia with not only administrative, but nobiliar duties : there is the origin of feudality, as it made the whole Frankish aristocracy entering a system on which they were still largely apart.

So, it's partially related to the fall of Roman state, and unusability of money as a way of exchange, but it's only one of the factors. It never prevented Frankish administration militia and palatial honestiores to gather much more imperial agents than Constantine had.
Not before benefices and honores becames so mixed than they're unseparatable can we speak of feudality.

Heck, when XIIth century made monetarization a thing again, it hardly weakened feudal entities : it just made the most powerful of them dominating.


Tunisia isn't much that well placed tough : most of the roads that ended there either came from western or eastern Africa. Maybe more than for other North African regions, Africa was in a middle-man position (even if a very good strategical position to do so), while most of Africa's production was made on a domanial (or plantation) model. You had to wait Arab conquest and apparition of camels as a widespread transportation device (even if it was certainly known earlier).
Before the VIIth century, Africa was certainly more Mediterranean-minded than continental : not only due to geographical matters, but technical as well as economical (trade between western Africa and Mediterranean basin was mostly superficial).

[/QUOTE]

Camels came to North Africa well before Islam (introduced to region in 3rd century AD) and there already was a decent trade of gold going on between North Africa and the Ghana Empire at this point if I'm not mistaken (although I'll admit is wasn't as prosperous at it would be with Mali a many centuries later).

 

[LSCatilina]

Camels came to North Africa well before Islam

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I wrote

"You had to wait Arab conquest and apparition of camels as a widespread transportation device (even if it was certainly known earlier).

Before the the VIIth, camel transportation wasn't nearly as dominant it eventually became. Berber peoples usually relied on foot, horse or chariot for transportation, and it was done rather in Libya or western Africa than Tunisia.

Quoting "Sahara in the classical period"

It is known that the Great Desert was conquered by horses before camel. This "horsine" period was translated, as everywhere else, by use of chariot. We don't know when these disappeared but as for Herodotus, Garamantes still used them which is confirmed by archeology.

(Camels) appears in Egypt only in the hellenistic period (IVth century BCE) and it's plausibly supposed that it was present in Sahara only from the Lower Nile valley. When is hard to say

They were probably still rare animals. But if, 150 years laters [The IInd century] camels imported in Rome are indeed africans, it's to be understood that the animal, not yet present in Maghreb, had to live already in Sahara, where it was used for games

and there already was a decent trade of gold going on between North Africa and the Ghana Empire at this point

Walata, the main trade center of Ghana wasn't founded before 600's, in a period of retractation of most Berber entities. So I quite doubt the presence of a "decent trade". A trade existed, but it was mostly superficial during Late Antiquity.

Quoting "Les relations transsahariennes,de l'Antiquité à l'époque moderne"

We have to wait Arab arrival and Islamisation to constate an opening of Sahara, preceded by the generalisation of camels among nomadic Berber tribes that lived in the North and center of the desert. They're the ones that led conquerors southwards, to the Bilad al-Sudan or "Land of Blacks". From this moment, transsaharian trade appears, organised along caravan roads and initiated from towns appearing on the south of Sahara

Or "Sahara in the classical period"

Capture of wild beast may have been, in my opinion, the main source of profit in this territory.

I don't believe in a saharian black slave trade to Europe. Western Romania wasn't a buyer market.

An argument was made on convoys of gold dust, from modern Mali and Guinea, that would have feed the market.
This opinion is hypothetic only. We have the invetory of gold-producing regions in Roman and Byzantine eras, and Africa is never mentioned. The existence can be proposed of a more or less secret trade between Senegal and south of Morroco, region itself producing gold and really isolated from Roman borders, , as Arabs took contact with this market as soon as 734.

It seems that, generally, long-range saharian communications were essentially orientated to North and North-East. Garamantes and their sattellites drained trade to the Fezzan region.

As you can see, most of Africano-Roman trade is rather directed at Tchad and Eastern African points than western Africa and Niger basin. (Round points being medieval or modern centers). Garamantes were the immediate middle-men of Romans and these disappeared with the IVth century.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

OK, further complicating things is the role that the slave trade would have. I imagined that the Mauretanian state emerged by the Christian tribes having a vassal status similar to Granada did near the end of the Reconquista. The Christian leaders used their connections in the trade routes (pioneered in part by monks) to provide tribute to the Andalusian emirs with slaves being a major resource. How plausible is it for such an agreement to occur? Furthermore, once Mauretania got to the point where it was able to shake off it vassal status as Reconquista and taifa fractures Islamic rule, how would slavery be impacted? Could Mauretania still sell slaves to Islamic states, or would such a move be squelched by the Church? I'm not sure it's likely, but would there be any interest in slaves in Europe prior to the need in trans-Atlantic colonies?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Imposing feudalism in North Africa would be almost hysterically difficult, if not impossible. You're not talking about areas where there is a pre-existing kingship structure. You're talking about areas like Morocco and Ifriqiya where the predominant power structure is Berber tribes like the Zenata, Sanhaja and Masmuda, along with their dozens and dozens of sub-tribes. Even if you successfully convert them to Christianity, you'll have to somehow hammer the tribal ties out of them, and that's going to take generations.

Um, why? Was Scotland not "feudal"? How about recognizing Berber tribal chiefs as barons?

 

[Arkenfolm]

Um, why? Was Scotland not "feudal"? How about recognizing Berber tribal chiefs as barons?

I think it's undeniable that the Berber clans will have a very interesting role to play in Christian North Africa.

 

[LSCatilina]

The Christian leaders used their connections in the trade routes (pioneered in part by monks) to provide tribute to the Andalusian emirs with slaves being a major resource.

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.

Um, why? Was Scotland not "feudal"? How about recognizing Berber tribal chiefs as barons?

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.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

By 1090, the Normans had conquered the whole of Sicily, while the Christians of Leon and Castile had only just taken Toledo, and still did not hold Lisbon nor Zaragoza.
Suppose 12th century Normans continue to cross Strait of Tunis, with the result that Queen Constance of Hauteville rules from Rome to Canaries, perhaps from Tunis or Carthage Castle...
How would the Catholic nobles of Africa call themselves? "Normans"? "Lombards"? "Franks"?

 

[Gloss]

Feudalism depends on land ownership, and the agricultural productivity of North Africa was very much dependent on the massive Roman irrigation systems. Have those maintained and you might see feudalism arise.

Wouldn´t the presence of such system need a more central system?

 

[Sevarics]

A year ago I posted a thread asking about the plausibility of a North African state attempting a reconquista. Idk how helpful it'll be to your question but it might offer some insight.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-north-african-reconquista.375973/