Las Navas de Tolosa and Albigensian crusade

The Las Navas de Tolosa battle was the turning point in the reconquista. Before that, the Muslim kingdoms of Spain had been holding their own, more or less, even if they were in a slow retreat across the peninsula. However, after that battle, they more or less ceased to be of any significance. But let us say that the battle goes the other way. IOTL, the Christian force sneaked through an unguarded pass and surprised the Moors. But ITTL, the pass was undefended only to bait the Christians into a trap, which they promptly fall into. They are ambushed by the Moors, and the Aragonese, who had crossed first, are utterly wiped out, including their king, Pedro the Catholic and the bulk of his nobles. The other Christians flee north, and al Nasir, the Almohad ruler, decides to exploit his success by pursuing the Aragonese, whose army is in tatters. The Aragonese, with their king and many noblemen dead, are unable to resist effectively, and their kingdom is essentially reduced to a few strongpoints, with Zaragosa in the hands of the al Nasir. The Aragonse appeal to the French for support. Now, what would be the effects on the Aragonese at this point? Further, would such a victory save the Cathars, since the French would be distracted by this new threat on their south western borders? The only effective army in the region was the army of Simon de Montfort. Would it be diverted to face this new threat? Would the French offer the Cathars any concessions to obtain their help and would it lead to more tolerance for them? If so, how long can the Moors and the Cathars last in face of this new reality? All opinions would be appreciated.
 
The Aragonse appeal to the French for support. Now, what would be the effects on the Aragonese at this point? Further, would such a victory save the Cathars, since the French would be distracted by this new threat on their south western borders?

No. Because Simon de Monfort have enough troubles to care of former Trencavel's states. Basically, when he conquered some place, another revolted.

By the way, Cathars didn't even participated really: they were religously bonded to not do so. Only the relative few Cathar lords of Lower Languedoc participated, manily because they were invaded.
As the Cathars maybe represented 10% at maximum of the total population of S-W, we can talk here about occitan lords against french ones, without real religious matter.


The only effective army in the region was the army of Simon de Montfort. Would it be diverted to face this new threat?
As said, his army was relativly of middle importance.
Plus, it was composed by a large group of occitan forces, of rival cities (Narbona by exemple). And in OTL, while Monfort have serious issues, many french knights and nobles left his army and returned at their homes when they reached enough day of service, enough to be saved.

Would the French offer the Cathars any concessions to obtain their help and would it lead to more tolerance for them?
It would be not relevant. Or they abandon, or they win. But such things as agreement, when no real authority was recognized on the french nobles on the conquered territory and that only the king have some authority (more symbolic than anything)...

If so, how long can the Moors and the Cathars last in face of this new reality? All opinions would be appreciated.
Absolutly no chance.
Since the fitna, Al-Andalus was seriously in inferiority position. Not only the Christian managed to increase their economical and territorial power on them, but Almohads showed a very defiant attitude towards locals.
Almoravids managed to keep power because of a relative tolerence and collaboration with andalucians. Almohads didn't do that as well.
De facto, OTL, many Muslims leaders betrayed the Almohads, preferring be under the Christian than hated dynasty.

A failed Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa would maybe lead to a longer Almohad power in Al-Andalus, but the differences between the Islamic spain and Africa are too great : or the ruler became more "spanish" and loose the support of Africans, orhe remains too African and he loose his power on andalucian governors.


For your description of the battle, why not.
For the direct consequences : short answer, it's not good.
Long form : Almohads didn't have the forces to reconquer the territory lost since 1030. Not only a resettlement policy made these lands hard to rule for more rigorist Muslims, but they didn't have enough men to strategically keep them.
The point that bugger me the most, is that Saragossa fall. Directly after the battle, is a great no way : too strong, too secure.

I would see more Almohads using the deaths of christian kings and the possible sucession troubles to take some borders territory and castles, but most of all secure what they have and critically the regions ready to pass on Christian side before the battle.
 
A failed Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa would maybe lead to a longer Almohad power in Al-Andalus, but the differences between the Islamic spain and Africa are too great : or the ruler became more "spanish" and loose the support of Africans, orhe remains too African and he loose his power on andalucian governors.

For your description of the battle, why not.
For the direct consequences : short answer, it's not good.
Long form : Almohads didn't have the forces to reconquer the territory lost since 1030. Not only a resettlement policy made these lands hard to rule for more rigorist Muslims, but they didn't have enough men to strategically keep them.
The point that bugger me the most, is that Saragossa fall. Directly after the battle, is a great no way : too strong, too secure.

I would see more Almohads using the deaths of christian kings and the possible sucession troubles to take some borders territory and castles, but most of all secure what they have and critically the regions ready to pass on Christian side before the battle.

Neither al Nasir, nor his African followers were willing to stay endlessly on the Iberian peninsula. If he won a great victory, and was able to sate his soldiers lust for plunder, he would likely return to Africa with most of his followers, leaving his governors/generals in Spain. One of the reasons why he was harsh on the Andalusians was because he really had less resources and he began to squeeze out too much from them, which in turn maddened them. While it is absolutely true that he was not secular or even pragmatic in religious matters, it might not matter too much if, after having won a great victory, looted the infidel (and ransomed all important Christian knights and noblemen whom he had captured, thus sating his African followers with rich rewards). If he leaves for Africa after his victory, leaving some of the army to chase the Christians (particularly Aragonese, who are badly weakened for the moment), what would his Spanish governor be like?

The important question here is - would Raymond of Toulouse be helped back on throne by al Nasir (or whoever was left in charge by the Almohad ruler, after he had returned to Africa)? In other words, would he/they do a successful Muret for Raymond of Toulouse in exchange for a secure border to the north, while they were busy consolidating his victories in Aragon. The chances of this happening are not great, I agree, particularly because Raymond of Toulouse and Pedro the Catholic were related, while al Nasir has no reason to help. However, a pragmatic ruler might see the reasons for doing that. After all, there is no hope of coming to terms with a papal authority in the north. If the more secular minded Raymond were in power, it would mean less trouble for the Muslims in Aragon.

As for consolidating the power in Aragon, it is not all that impossible. There were still large Muslim communities in Zaragosa and Valencia, both of which, barely a century ago, had been ruled by Muslims.
 
If the outcome of Las Navas de Tolosa were totally reversed I think the Almohads would not be able to take that much advantage of it due to the Marinids attacking them in southern Morocco. But assuming he left a governor behind, I think he would be occupied in keeping the Andalusis from revolting so basically what LSCatalina said.

Valencia is still Almohad in 1212 so if he was very good then I could see an invasion of Catalonia but I don't recall reading of any Almohads that were more than average military at this time. I don't think a great many territories would change hands. There would be lots of raiding and plundering.

I don't think the war against the "Cathars" would be effected much. Even if a lot of territory was taken, Zaragoza was always restive as hell for the Muslims. I think the most successful outcome could result in a different character for Catalonia, maybe more peninsular (if native Christian population is reduced and then eventually replaced with Christians from farther west) compared to their French heritage. Unless we suddenly get a bunch of Ottoman-skill level rulers for the Almohads I doubt they'll keep anything beyond Valencia longer than a generation.
 
Neither al Nasir, nor his African followers were willing to stay endlessly on the Iberian peninsula. If he won a great victory, and was able to sate his soldiers lust for plunder, he would likely return to Africa with most of his followers, leaving his governors/generals in Spain.
Yes, this is my point. All these kingdoms that overlaped Al-Andalus and Africa have to be busy on two fronts : or they focused on Al-Andalus and other African families slowly conquered their African holds, or they focused on Africa and the governors tried to have an autonomous life, more ready to ally themselves with Christians than with the Muslim ruler.


One of the reasons why he was harsh on the Andalusians was because he really had less resources and he began to squeeze out too much from them, which in turn maddened them.
Again, and you say it, the Almohad had little choice, because no ressources enough to well rule the two provinces they have. So, it would be almost impossible for them to use few ressources for conquests.


While it is absolutely true that he was not secular or even pragmatic in religious matters, it might not matter too much if, after having won a great victory, looted the infidel (and ransomed all important Christian knights and noblemen whom he had captured, thus sating his African followers with rich rewards).
The problem is that the ransom would not be that importants. Only the royal ransoms were than important to allow such sating. And as "you" killed the kings (on a good purpose, it gives Almohads more odds)...
And even if it would be enough, gold call gold. You can't give someone a big ammount of gold if you're unable to regularly give him roughly the same regularly.
For Almohads it's possible only by trying to raid and invade the Christian states (and too to fulfill their purpose and legitimity on Andalucians' eyes : stop the Reconquista) and they don't have the ressources, the men or even the strategical possibility to do that at a great scale.

I could see them able to take back Lisbõa and to advence the border futher towards Toledo (without taking back the city) but it's almost all they can do.

If he leaves for Africa after his victory, leaving some of the army to chase the Christians (particularly Aragonese, who are badly weakened for the moment), what would his Spanish governor be like?
1) Many headfigures, fighting (not in battle yet) each others probably. At the minimum, one at Sevilla, the other at Valencia.
2) Not chasing the Christians. They didn't have enough men to focus on all the christian kings, and wouldn't tentate the Devil by chasing just one.
3)Probably using that the death of christian kings made sucession trouble happen in their respective kingdoms, to reinforce their positions.
4) Each depends on how much men stand in Al-Andalus. And the almohads are not like "Hey, if i let men of my own, to help ambitious ones to take more power?". At best, the soldiers stand loyals, against Andalucian milicias.


The important question here is - would Raymond of Toulouse be helped back on throne by al Nasir (or whoever was left in charge by the Almohad ruler, after he had returned to Africa)?
No, for four reasons.

1)Pyrenees. Hard to cross in the bad months, and passes controlled by everyone. The best way to reconcily Occitans and Frenchs nobles are a raiding army.
2)Aragonese. Even weakened, they have strong cities and castles. Every army willing to go trough, would waste months, lost many men, and not even sure to sucessfuly cross anything.
3)Castillans. I know a certain kingdom that would be more than happy to use the fact that someone would be playing with Aragon to take back some land and riches.
4)Muslims. Seriously, who would be dumb enough to go make a hike in hostile and difficult country, and let his wealth and lands to the first ambitious come?


In other words, would he/they do a successful Muret for Raymond of Toulouse in exchange for a secure border to the north, while they were busy consolidating his victories in Aragon.
The battle of Murèth wasn't lost because of the numbers. They were largely superior.
Not because of the terrain. Simon was almost surrounded.

No, the battle was lost because : the Occitan lords didn't care to follow Peìre II strategy, and that the Tolosan didn't even fight : Raimon just leave the battlefield.


The chances of this happening are not great, I agree, particularly because Raymond of Toulouse and Pedro the Catholic were related, while al Nasir has no reason to help.
And critically because : "Hey, you declared a Crusade on me because i tolerated Cathars. But the fact that i'm allying with someone that just killed and crushed the Christian one year ago have nothing to do with that, and i hope that you and the Pope wouldn't be angry at, and that the King that stayed out of this mess wouldn't be enfuriated that an enemy army enter on his lands to kill french nobles!"


However, a pragmatic ruler might see the reasons for doing that. After all, there is no hope of coming to terms with a papal authority in the north. If the more secular minded Raymond were in power, it would mean less trouble for the Muslims in Aragon.
Raimon have NO reason to be more secular. The raimondine family was traditionally extremly catholic and this Raimon was maybe the first to be more tolerant about it, but nothing to do with the Trencavels.

Regarding the pope, there was an agreement with Simon's death and renoucment of his son OTL. He lost territories but remained a powerful and autonomous lord.

Actually, one of the great cultural fear of christian, would be the return of Muslims army.


As for consolidating the power in Aragon, it is not all that impossible. There were still large Muslim communities in Zaragosa and Valencia, both of which, barely a century ago, had been ruled by Muslims.
When they took Saragossa, the Christian expelled the Arabs out of the city to repopulate it with aragonese or occitan population.
In fact, the big arab population of Valencia came in part from this Saragossan exiled.

So, sorry, but a big no on this. Too much protected, too much homogenous, too few men to do that, not the possibility to waste months on a siege.

To resume, the only Muslim state that had a chance to perdure in Spain, was the Caliphate of Cordoba. Why? Because he focused on Al-Andalus, was "indigenous", quite tolerating (except the Aminid dictatorship) and before all that, never made the mistake to be too much involved in African matters, and had only "vassals" on the other side of Gibraltar.
It's the main reason for why it lasted around 300 years, and the sucessors state didn't.

At the best, Muslims can strengthen their borders, taking some land and fortresses. But not taking back what was lost since 150 years or even 50.
 
Yes, this is my point. All these kingdoms that overlaped Al-Andalus and Africa have to be busy on two fronts : or they focused on Al-Andalus and other African families slowly conquered their African holds, or they focused on Africa and the governors tried to have an autonomous life, more ready to ally themselves with Christians than with the Muslim ruler.

Of course. The thing I am trying to point to is not that the Almohads have a long reign in Hispania left in front of them. The Almohads went into a death spiral after Las Navas de Tolosa. In 1212, they lost most of Iberia, and two years later (with al Nasir murdered in Marrakech by his own followers), they began to lose battles to Marinids regularly, being reduced to a city state by 1269. In fact, it would be best for the Muslims in Spain, if the Almohads are engaged in Africa, making it impossible for them to try to restore their power in Spain. In the meantime, the governors of Spain become more `native', while trying to recover as much of the territory as possible.

Again, and you say it, the Almohad had little choice, because no ressources enough to well rule the two provinces they have. So, it would be almost impossible for them to use few ressources for conquests.
Almohads are useful only for the initial conquests. After that, it is best if they are engaged in Africa, without much time or energy to spare for Spain.

The problem is that the ransom would not be that importants. Only the royal ransoms were than important to allow such sating. And as "you" killed the kings (on a good purpose, it gives Almohads more odds)...
I only killed Pedro the Catholic of Aragon. There are still the kings of Portugal, Castile and Navarre to ransom (if they were captured, that is). I am not sure - maybe one or more can be captured.

I could see them able to take back Lisbõa and to advence the border futher towards Toledo (without taking back the city) but it's almost all they can do.


1) Many headfigures, fighting (not in battle yet) each others probably. At the minimum, one at Sevilla, the other at Valencia.
2) Not chasing the Christians. They didn't have enough men to focus on all the christian kings, and wouldn't tentate the Devil by chasing just one.
3)Probably using that the death of christian kings made sucession trouble happen in their respective kingdoms, to reinforce their positions.
4) Each depends on how much men stand in Al-Andalus. And the almohads are not like "Hey, if i let men of my own, to help ambitious ones to take more power?". At best, the soldiers stand loyals, against Andalucian milicias.
Okay, let us take this as a working hypothesis. Pedro the Catholic of Aragon is dead, along with the bulk of his army. The kings of Castile and Portugal are captured, along with several of their noblemen. Sancho of Navarre flees to his kingdom with his forces mostly intact. Now, would al Nasir pursue the Aragonese, since they are the weakest? I definitely think so. After all, with the kings and many noblemen in al Nasir's hands, would the Castilians and/or the Portuguese be in a position to intervene effectively with al Nasir's attack on the Aragonese? I don't think so. Sancho alone would not be able to do much. Remember the Christians have just lost a huge battle. Along with this, there are plenty of those ultramontane crusaders who are also in the hands of the Muslims.

Now, is it fair to assume that under these circumstances, the border with Portugal and Castile would be roughly the Tagus line, while the border with Aragon would be close to (if not actually including the cities of) Zaragosa and Lerida? At the very least, the Almohads would take back Tortosa and Teruel. Further, the Aragonese countryside would be wide open and al Nasir's soldiers can content themselves to the heart with plundering the rich Aragonese and Catalonian countryside, before a large enough army is organised to chase them out. With rich enough rewards for his followers, thanks to the plundering expeditions, and the ransoms, al Nasir departs for Africa two years after the battle, with the bulk of his army, leaving two governors, one in Sevilla and the other in Valencia.

No, for four reasons.

1)Pyrenees. Hard to cross in the bad months, and passes controlled by everyone. The best way to reconcily Occitans and Frenchs nobles are a raiding army.
2)Aragonese. Even weakened, they have strong cities and castles. Every army willing to go trough, would waste months, lost many men, and not even sure to sucessfuly cross anything.
3)Castillans. I know a certain kingdom that would be more than happy to use the fact that someone would be playing with Aragon to take back some land and riches.
4)Muslims. Seriously, who would be dumb enough to go make a hike in hostile and difficult country, and let his wealth and lands to the first ambitious come?
I accept the bulk of your reasoning, although not the point about the Castile. But, I grant the point that there is still Leon, with an intact army, who might intervene if the Moorish conquests seriously threaten their interests.

The battle of Murèth wasn't lost because of the numbers. They were largely superior.
Not because of the terrain. Simon was almost surrounded.

No, the battle was lost because : the Occitan lords didn't care to follow Peìre II strategy, and that the Tolosan didn't even fight : Raimon just leave the battlefield.

And critically because : "Hey, you declared a Crusade on me because i tolerated Cathars. But the fact that i'm allying with someone that just killed and crushed the Christian one year ago have nothing to do with that, and i hope that you and the Pope wouldn't be angry at, and that the King that stayed out of this mess wouldn't be enfuriated that an enemy army enter on his lands to kill french nobles!"

Raimon have NO reason to be more secular. The raimondine family was traditionally extremly catholic and this Raimon was maybe the first to be more tolerant about it, but nothing to do with the Trencavels.

Regarding the pope, there was an agreement with Simon's death and renoucment of his son OTL. He lost territories but remained a powerful and autonomous lord.

Actually, one of the great cultural fear of christian, would be the return of Muslims army.

Agree with this logic. In fact, a weakened, but still viable Aragon might be in the best interest of the Moors, if only to keep a crusading army off their backs. However, if the Cathars got expelled from the north (or simply emigrated south because the Moors are more tolerant), would it allow for a strong Cathar presence in the former Aragonese territories that would be populated with a bunch of these heretic Christians (as the Moors would see them) who are more loyal than the pope aligned Christians?

When they took Saragossa, the Christian expelled the Arabs out of the city to repopulate it with aragonese or occitan population.
In fact, the big arab population of Valencia came in part from this Saragossan exiled.

So, sorry, but a big no on this. Too much protected, too much homogenous, too few men to do that, not the possibility to waste months on a siege.

To resume, the only Muslim state that had a chance to perdure in Spain, was the Caliphate of Cordoba. Why? Because he focused on Al-Andalus, was "indigenous", quite tolerating (except the Aminid dictatorship) and before all that, never made the mistake to be too much involved in African matters, and had only "vassals" on the other side of Gibraltar.
It's the main reason for why it lasted around 300 years, and the sucessors state didn't.

At the best, Muslims can strengthen their borders, taking some land and fortresses. But not taking back what was lost since 150 years or even 50.
Actually, this might be just possible, if, of the two governors left behind in al Andalus, one dies (or is conveniently removed) for the other to step in, and create an all but independent Moorish state that is only nominally subservient to the Almohads. Sure, the Almohad rulers would be furious with this usurping governor, but they would have their hands full dealing with the hit and run attacks of the Marinids, and keeping their own nobles in line in Africa. Also, after al Nasir, there were no more strong rulers for the Almohads, so their extinction, would actually be a good thing for Andalusian Muslims, who, for all practical purposes, would be independent with a Muslim state focussed on Andalusia.
 
If the outcome of Las Navas de Tolosa were totally reversed I think the Almohads would not be able to take that much advantage of it due to the Marinids attacking them in southern Morocco. But assuming he left a governor behind, I think he would be occupied in keeping the Andalusis from revolting so basically what LSCatalina said.

It is true, if the governor were actually trying to keep the Andalusis in check. But if the governor usurps near full authority, without actually declaring independence, it might work for the Andalusian Muslims. Sure, if the governor actually declared his independence, the Almohads might try to subdue him. But if he remained a governor, in all but name, the Almohads might not try to remove him. In fact, the Almohads become all but irrelevant IOTL after Las Navas de Tolosa. By 1269, they were reduced to the city state of Marrakech. The Almohads are useful in only so far as to deal a body blow to Christian reconquest efforts.

Valencia is still Almohad in 1212 so if he was very good then I could see an invasion of Catalonia but I don't recall reading of any Almohads that were more than average military at this time. I don't think a great many territories would change hands. There would be lots of raiding and plundering.

My estimate is that the border would likely go back (roughly) to the Tagus line with Portugal and Castile, and closer to Zaragosa and Lerida with Aragon.

I don't think the war against the "Cathars" would be effected much. Even if a lot of territory was taken, Zaragoza was always restive as hell for the Muslims. I think the most successful outcome could result in a different character for Catalonia, maybe more peninsular (if native Christian population is reduced and then eventually replaced with Christians from farther west) compared to their French heritage. Unless we suddenly get a bunch of Ottoman-skill level rulers for the Almohads I doubt they'll keep anything beyond Valencia longer than a generation.

It might matter for the Cathars if more of them migrate south to the more tolerant Moorish rule, leaving behind the oppressive papal regime against them. Also, if the Moors take Aragonese territory, they will need a more faithful population to keep it under their rule. If the Cathars migrate south, they might be settled down in the former Aragonese lands.
 
Of course. The thing I am trying to point to is not that the Almohads have a long reign in Hispania left in front of them. The Almohads went into a death spiral after Las Navas de Tolosa. In 1212, they lost most of Iberia, and two years later (with al Nasir murdered in Marrakech by his own followers), they began to lose battles to Marinids regularly, being reduced to a city state by 1269. In fact, it would be best for the Muslims in Spain, if the Almohads are engaged in Africa, making it impossible for them to try to restore their power in Spain. In the meantime, the governors of Spain become more `native', while trying to recover as much of the territory as possible.
All right. If i get your point, you're saying that Andalucian are quickly let to themselves?
Sadly, it just strenghthen the immediate issues and hard points of your proposition.

1)The Almoravid army : at best they eventually return in Africa. At worst, they stay in Al-Andalus and form a state of their own. At worster : they became a raiding and mercenary band that act as a plague, until someone strong enough put an end at that.

2)Al-Andalus became again scattered into taifas. At best you have only three : Sevilla, Valencia, Badajoz. More plausibily, you have a galaxy. At worst : the half of taifas call the Christian to come in Al-Andalus to help them against the others. And it's not even uncompatible with the "better" solution.


I only killed Pedro the Catholic of Aragon. There are still the kings of Portugal, Castile and Navarre to ransom (if they were captured, that is). I am not sure - maybe one or more can be captured.
As i said, even captured, their ransoms weren't be enough. And right when they would be released (the Muslims can't hope have them as hostages for a long time) they would be a threat again. Not to forget the ambiitious nobles in Chrisitian Lands too.

Okay, let us take this as a working hypothesis. Pedro the Catholic of Aragon is dead, along with the bulk of his army. The kings of Castile and Portugal are captured, along with several of their noblemen. Sancho of Navarre flees to his kingdom with his forces mostly intact. Now, would al Nasir pursue the Aragonese, since they are the weakest? I definitely think so. After all, with the kings and many noblemen in al Nasir's hands, would the Castilians and/or the Portuguese be in a position to intervene effectively with al Nasir's attack on the Aragonese? I don't think so. Sancho alone would not be able to do much. Remember the Christians have just lost a huge battle. Along with this, there are plenty of those ultramontane crusaders who are also in the hands of the Muslims.

Pursuing directly the Aragonese? Well, if Al-Nasir as a personality that lead him to do so, he *could* do that. But without real result. Because of Aragon's strength regarding cities. He could raid the countryside of Lower Ebre's valley, but it wouldn't be that an harsh damage.
Furthermore, even reaching more northern territories, don't forget the usual Andalucian attitude of "Yeah, but while you goes make a campaign, you wouldn't mind if i take this, and this and project to ally with your foe?"

So, he could if he's more a warrior than a general or a "politician", but reality would force him to not going to far.

Now, is it fair to assume that under these circumstances, the border with Portugal and Castile would be roughly the Tagus line, while the border with Aragon would be close to (if not actually including the cities of) Zaragosa and Lerida? At the very least, the Almohads would take back Tortosa and Teruel. Further, the Aragonese countryside would be wide open and al Nasir's soldiers can content themselves to the heart with plundering the rich Aragonese and Catalonian countryside, before a large enough army is organised to chase them out. With rich enough rewards for his followers, thanks to the plundering expeditions, and the ransoms, al Nasir departs for Africa two years after the battle, with the bulk of his army, leaving two governors, one in Sevilla and the other in Valencia.
Teruel wasn't already in Muslims hands? Regarding Tortosa, well it can certainly be taken but after a siege, and critically used as an post to guard Ebre, rather than a departure for raiding.

Eventually, being on the wrong side of Ebre, it would be retaken quite easily when Muslims would leave the aera.

The plunder taken by the army would critically serve to award the African army, and maybe nobles closes to Al-Nasir. Catalonian countryside wasn't THAT rich to bribe/award any Muslim noble.

If he does that with the two governors, it's going to just quick the apparition of two taifas. If he put just one governor, he could maybe save 6 months to 18 before it appears in the facts.

At the extreme reaching, i think Al-Nasir can have that
XHyFW.jpg

Black - Borders before the battle | Red : lands temporary conquered | Orange : regions raided | Gray : disputed border | Green : Best scenario for andalucian taifas Badajoz, Sevilla, Valencia.

However, if the Cathars got expelled from the north (or simply emigrated south because the Moors are more tolerant), would it allow for a strong Cathar presence in the former Aragonese territories that would be populated with a bunch of these heretic Christians (as the Moors would see them) who are more loyal than the pope aligned Christians?

Quite implausible. The main reason is Catharism wasn't a popular heresy. It was mainly the faith of declassified elites. Urban knights, petty bourgeoisie, isolated nobles don't participating to the economic boom, merchants and little bankers...
These guys have too much interests on their cities or regions to just emigrate. The only ones they did OTL, the few faidits in the Aragonese court, just lost anything and lived from subsides.

Moors more tolerant? Not after 100 years of continual Christian push. Many Christian and Jews were forced to leave Al-Andalus after the Almoravid collapse.
And really, the Pope had little to do with popular Christianism. More Rome gained political power, less it have a spiritual one.

[QUPTE}Actually, this might be just possible, if, of the two governors left behind in al Andalus, one dies (or is conveniently removed) for the other to step in, and create an all but independent Moorish state that is only nominally subservient to the Almohads.[/QUOTE]
And the dead governor is quickly replaced by another guy who fight the other governor in order to be the only one. Then another rise and...
Seriously, Al-Andalus political traditions would make a Republican caucus a pink place where Love is all that count.

Also, after al Nasir, there were no more strong rulers for the Almohads, so their extinction, would actually be a good thing for Andalusian Muslims, who, for all practical purposes, would be independent with a Muslim state focussed on Andalusia.
One, and all his little friends. Each one focused with the idea to became the sole. That happened EVERY TIME that an empire that managed to hold all Al-Andalus collapsed.
 
Top