Muslim World: The True Faith Timeline

Ok here comes my first text wall of the year.
So i think that here comes my first response wall of the year...

Forest Stuff
Yeah, eventual deforestation + heavy plough will certainly play in favor of Islam in the region, i even suspect that is fairly possible that Islam ends up speeding the process. Especially for the slavs, since them already use the heavy plough for at least 200 years (and the germans just are recorded using it by 720).

The Prohibitions
I already said that alcohol is a non-issue (especially considering the schools that accept urf as a source of jurisprudence) as far as use in agriculture is concerned (and depending on which school is patronized, as far as use in general is concerned). But pork, i really didn't thought about that, so it seems that will not be a big of a problem, though any german-slav muslim could just use the "we need that to survive" argument against any calls of heresy.

Heh, you're right, but here i will not say too much because i don't want to spoil important things, but iust to say, the steppe will be interesting soon...
 
Here is aa good thread that discussed the possibility of producing rubber in late medieval europe: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/medieval-rubber.480285/

Rubber trees wouldn't exactly grow well in medieval Europe. The Brazilian rubber tree is a tropical species, as are some of the analogous species which lived in Mesoamerica, and wouldn't grow well if at all in Europe.

However, there is another possibility. The Russian dandelion (Taraxacum kok-saghyz), native to parts of Central Asia (Kazakhstan and a couple of its neighbours) is a perennial species which can be tapped to produce a latex that functions like rubber. All that needs to happen is for this plant to be discovered and spread to Europe.
This is only an example, it has ´plenty of good posts with info.
Hope that you find it useful for your technology ideas.
 
The Age of Collapse: Chapter 4
Muslim World - The Age of Collapse
Al-Andalus in the Early Age of Collapse I: The Rise of the Zarids and the Ibrahimite Rebellion

Background of Fennas ibn Zari al-Muahad and the Ibrahimite Revolt in Al-Andalus
To understand the evolution of Al-Andalus in the Age of Collapse, one must understand the rise to power of Fennas ibn Zari, the founder of the dynasty that would rule the westernmost area of Islam for centuries to come, and having as its main factor its take on the power, the infamous First Ibrahimite Rebellion, which also had great effects on Al-Andalus.

Fennas ibn Zari was a high-class zenata berber from the Maghrawa tribe, Fennas was one of many berbers who fought in Uqba's campaigns against the Frankish Kingdom, and he owned land in northern Al-Andalus around the small village of Filabuhira [1], being himself a descendant of those who fought in the Umayyad conquest of the Visigoths half a century ago.

Following the Abbasid Revolution, Fennas supported the provisional government of Uqba on the peninsula while it went on its campaigns for North Africa. Nevertheless, the tension in the region's air was clear, with Syrian junds who would be loyal to the Umayyads not rebelling against Uqba for the sheer force of his existence.

The truth is that, after his campaign against the Franks and exceptional victories at Navas de Firajana, Karkasun and Dayjun (which led to Faransa's subsequent conquest), Uqba achieved what no other ruler had achieved before in Al-Andalus: Enough prestige to put all petty lords in line and effectively rule all of Al-Andalus. And until his participation in the Abbasid Revolution, he made good use of these powers, starting a series of projects in Qurṭuba, including the start of construction of Masjid Qartabat al-Kabir [3] and a renovation of part of the city. Other projects started were the construction of a road connecting Qurṭuba to Karkasun (passing through Al-Madin, Bulākah, Tulaytulah, Mulinah, Qalāt Al-Hawyrfah, Saraqusta, Lāridah, Bakhus, Barshiluna, Jayruna and Arbūnah until the last one [4]), the re-establishment of several roman aqueducts throughout the region and the construction of the Barshiluna and al-Laqant shipyards, where Uqba would soon build his fleet in the west, which would participate in the future Battle of Al-Sahil Jafu [5]. Thus, the two years between the conquest of Faransa and the Abbasid Revolution were of relative prosperity in Al-Andalus.

Following the departure of Uqba ibn al-Hajjaj al-Manṣūr [6] to Ifriqiya, the government of Al-Andalus was left under the hands of his son, Hidayatullah ibn Uqba al-Wadi [7], who convened a coalition with local Berbers (including Fennas) to maintain stability in the region. Shortly after the fall of the Umayyads, Uqba would return even more glorified to Andalus, and spend his last 2 years of life and government making small trips across the peninsula while helping the people and commanding his last raids against the Kingdom of Asturias, in such, where his last battle took place in 744, the Battle of Lanjeru [8] (or Llangréu in Christian sources), where Uqba allegedly faced an asturian army under the command of Arius, a nobleman of visigothic descent, and defeated him, subsequently sacking the nearby area.

The death of Uqba on February 4, 746 established an informal week of mourning among the andalusians, and his burial would gather over 50.000 people in Qurṭuba. His deeds would be extremely romanticized and passed on, with Uqba quickly becoming a symbol of what all andalusians wanted to be and expected their rulers to be.

Thus, with the background explained, let's to what really matters.

The Junds' Rebellion and Early Campaigns of Fennas
After the death of Uqba (who thanks to his favors to the Abbasid Caliph effectively ruled Ifriqiya as well), the government of the two western provinces was provisionally under Hidayatullah al-Wadi in Andalus and under Khalid ibn Hamid al-Zanati [9] in Ifriqiya after his confirmation as governor by Caliph al-Saffāḥ.

But before al-Wadi could do much, Ibrahim started his rebellion at Al-Hafar, and, after that, Al-Andalus would sink in war too.

The first rebellion of the Syrian junds took place in Ġarnāṭah [10], but quickly spread like wildfire across the peninsula, leaving the unprepared "regent" surrounded in Qurṭuba, and, after 3 months of siege, the junds would capture the city. However, the berber lords in the north responded by electing Husayn ibn Sawaya, Lord of Sūriah [11] as commander of an 18.000 Berber army to march south against the rebels, but they would be defeated by 12.000 Arabs under Tujib ibn Hisham at the Battle of the Muje Mounts [12], after that, was not long before the Berbers began to fight each other, and the coalition quickly collapsed.

Fennas ibn Zari was a great politician despite not having mastered vast lands, and initially used his skill to his liking, allying with the Lord of Balansiyyah Al-Markaza [13] in a successful attack against Sūriah. Following this, along with muladie supporters, Fennas murdered the lord and seized his lands, and subsequently secured the loyalty of several christiannobles and berbers in the Central March.

After this, in 748, Fennas campaigned against the asturians in Galicia, defeating them at the Battle of al-Bawabat [14] and subsequently restoring Muslim control over Galicia. In the midst of all, the berber lords continued to war with each other and the junds at the same time, enabling the Ibrahimites to slowly advance through the Spanish Levant, but in 750 reinforcements from the Caliph would stop the ibrahimite advances, at least for a while.

Following his campaign against the asturians, Fennas established a strong dominion over his lands, consolidating what he had so far gained. His initial rule (and, well, all his rule after that) was based on a compromise between the berbers, the local christians and the muwalladūn, which allowed Fennas significant manpower and legitimacy for what would be considered a warlord. By 750, Al-Andalus would be divided between the possessions of Fennas ibn Zari in the center-northwest - centered on Balansiyyah Al-Markaza - the ibrahimites in the south, Lord Abdelhamid ibn Hayyan's possessions in the northeast - centered in Saraqusta - Fortun ibn Qasi's possessions in the Upper March - centered on Tawdila [15] - and a series of small warlords along the Spanish Levant.

165 Sem Título_20191231094024.png

Situation in Al-Andalus and surroundings at 750.

With the arrival of 22.000 Abbasid troops at Taraghuna [16] in April 750, Fennas decided it was time for action, and quickly gathered 23.000 troops to invade the Banu Hayyan, resulting in the Battle of Qal'at 'Ayyūb [17], where Fennas ibn Zari defeated the enemy with decisive use of Iberian infantry, after which the lords who submitted to Abdelhamid defected en masse, resulting in the Siege of Saraqusta, which would take 6 months until the fall of the city.

At the same time, the Abbasids subjected the warlords to the Levant, which turned out not to be too difficult since several lords simply surrendered to the Abbasids. By 751, the entire Spanish Levant was a abbasid stronghold, and obviously the Ibrahimites wasted no time in creating opposition. Thus, an ibrahimite offensive under the command of Yusuf ibn 'Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri [18] in 751 defeated the Abbasid army (which had 8.000 more Berbers) decisively in the Battle of al-Ghar [19], forcing the remaining troops to stand in Taraghuna, being surrounded. As Khalid ibn Hamid was preparing to cross the Strait of Jabal Ṭāriq with an army of 32.000 soldiers.

Fennas, after defeating the Banu Hayyan, raised more soldiers from the new lords submitted and with an army of about 50.000 troops, intervened against the ibrahimitas, subjugating the lords of Northern Catalunya and facing Yusuf in Taraghuna, the meeting would take place on the 23rd day of the 3rd month in 135 AH [20], and would be the first great battle fought by Fennas.

The Battle of Rādis

The battle would be fought in the vicinity of the small village of Rādis [21], just a little north of Taraghuna. Fennas' army contained about 30.000 infantry (split between berbers and iberian natives) and 20.000 cavalry (almost all berbers) while Yusuf had about 25.000 infantry and 10.000 cavalry (almost all Arabs).

Fennas organized its center by placing the iberian infantry en masse with the berbers beside, while on both flanks were located the berber cavalry. Already Yusuf used a formation similar with his arabs, but more manipulated with the use of independent subdivisions of the army (something inherited from the junds), in addition, his more experienced corp was placed (next to him) in the rear to be able to reinforce any needs.

The first moves of the battle were taken by Fennas, who ordered an advance from his center against the enemy line, which soon developed into a draw of attrition, although the berber infantry was somewhat fragile, the iberians in the center managed to deliver the goods.

Soon, Yusuf sent his cavalry on the left flank to cross the nearby brook and flank the enemy through the mountains, but Fennas knew of the danger the mountains posed to him and the enemy, and sent his own cavalry to defend the passages, and as soon as the enemy passed, the berber cavalry quickly ambushed the enemy, and after a brief conflict of cavalry, quickly defeated the arabs, and after that the berber cavalry headed towards the ibrahimite rear.

As soon as Fennas received message of success the ambush, he sent his left flank cavalry to provoke his counterpart in battle, and after holding a conflict where he was at a certain disadvantage, the berber cavalry managed to defeat the arab with support from the other wing arriving at the rear, and after that victory, both were free to crush the ibrahimite infantry from the rear, and the subsequent result was nothing less than a rout.

166 Sem Título_20191231210815.png

Battle of Rādis
Green: Fennas' Army
Pink: Ibrahimite Army
Dark Red: Fennas' Maneuvers
Dark Green: Ibrahimite Maneuvers

Most of the arab force would be killed or surrendered, and the main ibrahimite force in Al-Andalus would be lost in one day, but Fennas would not be easy, shortly after the victory, he surrounded Taraghuna and sent the abbasid commander a proposal: Fennas would submit to the Caliph in Kufa and in return, the Abbasids would make Fennas Emir of Al-Andalus. After the message traveled through the Mediterranean and the response returned, Fennas would have his proposal accepted and soon the remaining 3.000 Abbasids in Taraghuna joined his army.

The Collapse of the Rebellion and the "Establishment of Al-Andalus"
Well, in 752, Fennas would not have much opposition, since the ibrahimitas in Andalusia were without their head (Yusuf was the governor of the ibrahimites in Al-Andalus) and without an army (since the ibrahimite manpower was quite "limited"), Fennas would campaign for the Spanish Levant before making an attack on Qurṭuba.

The regions of Al-Gharb [22] and around Qādis [23] were invaded by Khalid ibn Hamid's troops, so the situation of the ibrahimites was quite hopeless, but even so, between 300-1200 soldiers made a last stand in Jabāl al-Shuhada [24], where after inflicting severe casualties on enemy troops, ended up being completely defeated. Following this, Fennas marched freely to Qurṭuba, establishing himself as the Emir of Al-Andalus, passing 753 establishing his control over the remaining areas.

With that, the Banu Zari settled in the power of Al-Andalus, Fennas definitely had a lot of work to do, but the seeds for what would become Al-Andalus were planted with the rise of Fennas, nicknamed Al-Muahad [25] for the leadership of Andalus.

[1]: Near Aguilar de Campoo, Spain
[2]: Well, if you have been gifted with the ability to turn an invasion into a conquest of the enemy, especially in the dimensions of Faransa's conquest, you are probably favored by Allah and people see it as such. Also because he is generally a good and pious governor, the people like him, the berbers support him, and many arabs admire him.
[3]: "Great Mosque of Qurṭuba", like most of his projects, Uqba didn't live to see it finished, but it's usually tied to him.
[4]: From Cordoba to Carcassone, following Almadén, Pueblonuevo del Bullaque, Toledo, Molina de Aragón, Villarreal de Huerva, Zaragoza, Lleida, Manresa, Barcelona, Girona and Narbonne.
[5]: Battle of the "Dry Coast", in case, the Desertic Three Days' Battle.
[6]: After the multiple victories, Uqba was nicknamed "al-Manṣūr", what means, "The Victorious"
[7]: "The Friendly"
[8]: Langreo, Spain
[9]: IOTL he was the leader of the berber revolt, ITTL he followed Uqba in his campaign in North Africa and basically became a subordinate, yielding to him nothing less than a recommendation for governor of Ifriqyia.
[10]: Granada, Spain
[11]: Soria, Spain
[12]: "Muje" comes from the Arabic "Mueuej" which means "crooked", i.e Crooked Mountains, the location is San Pablo de los Montes, Spain.
[13]: Palencia, Spain. The name is basically, "Valencia-the-Central" or "Valencia-on-the-Center".
[14]: "The Gates"
[15]: Tudela, Spain
[16]: Tarragona, Spain
[17]: Calatayud, Spain
[18]: IOTL he was governor of Al-Andalus between 747 and 756, after succeeding as governor of Septimania. Here he was elected by the junds as their leader simply because he is not one of them.
[19]: Algar de Palancia, Spain
[20]: October 7, 751
[21]: Reus, Spain
[22]: Algarve
[23]: Cádiz, Spain
[24]: "Mount of the Martyrs", the location it's on Sierra Andújar.
[25]: "The Unifier", also is from where came the name "Almohad", so we can say that ITTL the Almohads aren't too bad.
 
Last edited:
With that, the Banu Zari settled in the power of Al-Andalus, Fennas definitely had a lot of work to do, but the seeds for what would become Al-Andalus were planted with the rise of Fennas, nicknamed Al-Muahad [25] for the leadership of Andalus.
So a little revolt ended up creating the future Almohad/Andalus, that will be massive, what is up with asturia? still a mountain kingdom or would be Al-Muahad first target?
 
So a little revolt ended up creating the future Almohad/Andalus, that will be massive, what is up with asturia? still a mountain kingdom or would be Al-Muahad first target?
Still a mountain kingdom, tough isn't like Al-Muahad will just forget Asturias' existence and let it live. He has other (more important) targets and tasks, but once he have the time, will be the start of the end for the northern kingdom.
 
Interesting. Where will Al Muahad set the capital of his emirate? Will he take over Qurtuba or will he stick his flag further north maybe in the area of the norther plauteu and the Duero River? That area was his original domain and where most of his original berbers and iberian followers are, right? Qurtuba problably still has a lot of pro ibrahimite arabs so it may be a little dangerous for him to rule from there. Also being in the north will make dealing with Asturias easier by being closer, but being away from the south and the mediterranean coast could make looking up what the arabs there are doing harder.
If he puts his capital in the northwest i guess his capital would be around otl Valladolid:
 
Interesting. Where will Al Muahad set the capital of his emirate? Will he take over Qurtuba or will he stick his flag further north maybe in the area of the norther plauteu and the Duero River? That area was his original domain and where most of his original berbers and iberian followers are, right? Qurtuba problably still has a lot of pro ibrahimite arabs so it may be a little dangerous for him to rule from there. Also being in the north will make dealing with Asturias easier by being closer, but being away from the south and the mediterranean coast could make looking up what the arabs there are doing harder.
If he puts his capital in the northwest i guess his capital would be around otl Valladolid:
For a while will be Qurtuba because, yeah, he will need the administrative base to rule and to unroot the eventual ibrahimites, but once he feels safe and done he will probably move the capital north, but to exactly where it would be is a surprise :p
 
For a while will be Qurtuba because, yeah, he will need the administrative base to rule and to unroot the eventual ibrahimites, but once he feels safe and done he will probably move the capital north, but to exactly where it would be is a surprise :p
Umm i've a clue...will put it later, still those are good news for me, very nice tl, what would be the next update about?
 
Umm i've a clue...will put it later, still those are good news for me, very nice tl, what would be the next update about?
I was thinking in continue in Andalusia to complement the last update, tough i really don't know what make after that (mostly because i want to update everything for then begin the Wars of the Leagues).

So...i think it's time to democracy! After the next update what y'all want to know about?
 
So I remember that you mentioned that the faransian capital was in Lyon and that occitan was going to fare better in this world. Knowing this helps me to understand better how they can keep influence in Romandie but fail to secure Gascony.
Occitan wiil likely keep its medieval prestige and maybe ocupy the the place of otl paricin french, but there is the matter that occitan isnt the language of Lyon. There they speack lyonesse, a dialect of franco provenzal or arpitan.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Provençal_language


With lyonesse being the language of the capital I specht it to have some influence in the final form of the lenguage (which may help to brig the breach between the languagees of oil and oc, arpitan being a transition language between the two families), but also arpitan in a bag of dialects quite different from each other, and most varieties have the bad fame of being the patois of mountain peasants. Lyonesse may scape this stigma by being the language of such an important city and in a river valley. But I suspect in terms of prestige old occitan (or provenzal, as it was called in the middle ages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Occitan) will prevail but with some lyonese influence. This means that ttl French will be quite close to catalan and somewhat closer then otl to italian.
I cant predict political ramifications of the occitan victory but for no I can say it sound relly cool:
An scene of an occitan (provenzal) film:
1 hour of medieval occitan trouvador music:
But I have some questions.
Ok so by the time of the battle of tours Charles Martel had quite an empire in europe but the many kingdoms and duchies in there were quite recently subjugated but two of them enjoyed more autonomy (and recented frank domination more) then the other: Aquitaine and Bavaria.
After 718 Charles Martel embarked on a series of wars intended to strengthen the Franks' hegemony in western Europe. In 718 he defeated the rebellious Saxons, in 719 he overran Western Frisia, in 723 he suppressed the Saxons again, and in 724 he defeated Ragenfrid and the rebellious Neustrians, ending the civil war phase of his rule. In 720, when Chilperic II died, he had appointed Theuderic IV king, but this last was a mere puppet of his. In 724 he forced his choice of Hugbert for the ducal succession upon the Bavarians and forced the Alemanni to assist him in his campaigns in Bavaria (725 and 726), where laws were promulgated in Theuderic's name. In 730 Alemannia had to be subjugated by the sword and its duke, Lantfrid, was killed. In 734 Charles fought against Eastern Frisia and finally subdued it.
Shortly before his death in October 741, Charles divided the realm as if he were king between his two sons by his first wife, marginalising his younger son Grifo, who did receive a small portion (it is unknown exactly what). Though there had been no king since Theuderic's death in 737, Charles's sons Pepin the Younger and Carloman were still only mayors of the palaces. The Carolingians had assumed the regal status and practice, though not the regal title, of the Merovingians. The division of the kingdom gave Austrasia, Alemannia, and Thuringia to Carloman and Neustria, Provence, and Burgundy to Pepin. It is indicative of the de facto autonomy of the duchies of Aquitaine (under Hunoald) and Bavaria (under Odilo) that they were not included in the division of the regnum.
Hunoald is quite an interesting character and I suspect that he played a signicant role in the events of this timeline.
Hunald I, also spelled Hunold, Hunoald, Hunuald or Chunoald[a] (died 756), was the Duke of Aquitaine from 735 until 745. Although nominally he was an officer of the Merovingian kings of Francia, in practice Aquitaine was completely autonomous when he inherited it. His dukeship corresponds with the lowest point of the Merovingian monarchy, when the kingdom was in fact ruled by the mayors of the palace. Hunald was forced at the outset of his reign to accept the authority of the mayor of the palace Charles Martel, but he tried three times to throw it off in open revolt (736, 742 and 745). He was unsuccessful, although he did manage to retain Aquitaine undiminished. In 745, he retired to a monastery, giving power to his son Waiofar. He later went to Rome, where he died during an attack on the city.
Relations with Charles Martel
In 735, Charles Martel led an expedition into Aquitaine. He marched the breadth of the country and occupied the well-fortified city of Bordeaux.[3] He is not recorded as having met any resistance. The purpose of this expedition seems to have been to take advantage of the death of Odo to alter the constitutional status of Aquitaine in the Frankish kingdom by forcing Hunald to recognise his lordship and to remit taxes (munera) to the royal government. The show of force worked. The Annales Mettenses priores record that Charles gave the duchy (ducatus) of Aquitaine to Hunald and made him and his brother Hatto give a "promise of faith" (promissio fidei) to him and his sons, Carloman I and Pippin III, and promise to remit taxes.[4][7] Following this success, Charles did not retain Bordeaux or any other part of Aquitaine, including those that had been added to it by Odo.[3][6]

The Vita Pardulfi, the late 8th-century life of Pardulf (died 737), records that Hunald succeeded his father as princeps, a term with royal connotations, and later served Charles as legatus.[8] Despite their promise of faith, Hunald and Hatto rebelled against Charles in 736. After considerable fighting, Hatto was captured by Charles's forces and handed over to Ainmar, bishop of Auxerre. Hatto subsequently escaped from prison, and Charles deposed Ainmar and had him imprisoned. He was later killed attempting to escape from prison. Hatto was betrayed by his own brother. Hunald invited him to a meeting at Poitiers, where he blinded him and imprisoned him in a monastery. The betrayal of Hatto was probably the price exacted by Charles in exchange for allowing Hunald to keep his duchy.[4][8][9]

The peace between Hunald and Charles seems to have persisted until Charles's death in 741,[4] although there is some evidence of low-level conflict. In 736–39, Charles Martel and his brother, Childebrand I, led several expeditions against the Umayyad forces occupying parts of Septimania and Provence. The Annals of Aniane, writing about a later date, record that Hunald's son Waiofar harassed the forces of Charles's son Pippin the Short during the latter's siege of Narbonne in 752–59 "as his father had done Charles Martel", implying that Hunald had harassed Charles's forces during the southern campaigns of 736–39. Despite achieving a crushing victory over the Umayyads at the battle of the River Berre in 737, Charles never besieged Narbonne, possibly because Hunald was threatening his lines of communication.[3]
I suspect that he was an ally to the Umayyads when they invaded in ttl in a more open manner, upgrading his ambitions from keeping his autonomy in Aquitaine to replaicing Charles as king of the Franks, using the arab conquerors as an stepping stone (the strategy that the tlaxcalans tried with the spaniard against the aztecs). I can see his alliance with the diferent muslim rulers from the time of the conquest surviving so my guess is that he got deal with at some point. The question is when, how and by who. After all, in otl he tried to rebolt against charles one last time after the battle of tours:
The most serious of Hunald's revolts was that of 742. This was undertaken in alliance with the dukes of Bavaria and Alemannia. All three dukes sought to regain their old autonomy following the death of Charles Martel. This also coincided with an interregnum, since no king had been appointed to succeed Theuderic IV after his death in 737.[7]
Having raised an army, the brothers crossed the Loire at Orléans and proceeded to sack the city of Bourges and the fortress of Loches.

The reference to Gascons (that is, Basques) probably indicates that Hunald had Gascon allies, since Gascony was a distinct land from Aquitaine at that time.[12] Before leaving Aquitaine, Carloman and Pippin met at Vieux-Poitiers to agree on a division of Francia between them, having imprisoned their illegitimate half-brother Grifo.[7] This division did not include Aquitaine in recognition of its continuing autonomy.[13]

In the autumn of 742, after Carloman and Pippin had left, Hunald crossed the Loire in support of Duke Odilo of Bavaria's ongoing revolt. He sacked the city of Chartres, where he is said to have burnt the church of Saint Mary to the ground.[7] This is the earliest mention of the church of Chartres which was to become the cathedral.[14] There is no record of Hunald meeting any opposition. In early 743, Carloman and Pippin placed a king on the throne, Childeric III, ending a six-year interregnum. This was probably in response to the poor defence put up by the counts against the invasion of Hunald. The ability to do so in the name of the king would increase the brothers' authority.[7]
In 745, Carloman and Pippin invaded Aquitaine again to punish Hunald for the raid of 742. According to the Annales Mettenses priores, Hunald knew that he could not resist and so swore an oath to obey their "every will" (omnem voluntatem), gave hostages and remitted the taxes owed. This was a humiliation for him and he soon retired to a monastery on the Île de Ré.[7] In the words of the Annales Mettense, he, "taking off the crown on his head and swearing a monk's vow, entered the monastery that is on the isle of Ré". He was succeeded by his son Waiofar.[3]

About 752, Hunald went to Rome, where he joined one of the suburban monasteries attached to Saint Peter's Basilica. In 756, Rome was attacked by the Lombard king Aistulf. The suburbs were undefended and Hunald died in the fighting. Probably, as an experienced war leader, he had taken charge of the defence of Saint Peter's,[15] although he may have been stoned to death.[1][16]
Reading this fragment it seems that early carolingian grasp over their empire was kinda weak, constantly challenged and required constant shows of violent power to keep the empire together.
In the 730s the Umayyad conquerors of Spain, who had also subjugated Septimania, began advancing northwards into central Francia and the Loire valley. It was at this time (circa 736) that Maurontus, the dux of Provence, called in the Umayyads to aid him in resisting the expanding influence of the Carolingians. However, Charles invaded the Rhône Valley with his brother Childebrand and a Lombard army and devastated the region. It was because of the alliance against the Arabs that Charles was unable to support Pope Gregory III against the Lombards.

In 732 or 737—modern scholars have debated over the date—Charles marched against an Arab-berber army between Poitiers and Tours and defeated it in a watershed battle that turned back the tide of the Arab-berber advance north of the Pyrenees. But Charles's real interests lay in the northeast, primarily with the Saxons, from whom he had to extort the tribute which for centuries they had paid to the Merovingians.

Shortly before his death in October 741, Charles divided the realm as if he were king between his two sons by his first wife, marginalising his younger son Grifo, who did receive a small portion (it is unknown exactly what). Though there had been no king since Theuderic's death in 737, Charles's sons Pepin the Younger and Carloman were still only mayors of the palaces. The Carolingians had assumed the regal status and practice, though not the regal title, of the Merovingians. The division of the kingdom gave Austrasia, Alemannia, and Thuringia to Carloman and Neustria, Provence, and Burgundy to Pepin. It is indicative of the de facto autonomy of the duchies of Aquitaine (under Hunoald) and Bavaria (under Odilo) that they were not included in the division of the regnum.

After Charles Martel was buried, in the Abbey of Saint-Denis alongside the Merovingian kings, conflict immediately erupted between Pepin and Carloman on one side and Grifo their younger brother on the other. Though Carloman captured and imprisoned Grifo, it may have been enmity between the elder brothers that caused Pepin to release Grifo while Carloman was on a pilgrimage to Rome. Perhaps in an effort to neutralise his brother's ambitions, Carloman initiated the appointment of a new king, Childeric III, drawn from a monastery, in 743. Others have suggested that perhaps the position of the two brothers was weak or challenged, or perhaps there Carloman was merely acting for a loyalist or legitimist party in the kingdom.

In 743 Pepin campaigned against Odilo and forced him to submit to Frankish suzerainty. Carloman also campaigned against the Saxons and the two together defeated a rebellion led by Hunoald at the head of the Basques and another led by Alemanni, in which Liutfrid of Alsatia probably died, either fighting for or against the brothers. In 746, however, the Frankish armies were still, as Carloman was preparing to retire from politics and enter the monastery of Mount Soratte. Pepin's position was further stabilised and the path was laid for his assumption of the crown in 751.
Saxons, alemanni, frisians, basques, bavarians, etc. all resented the power of the franks. From the merovingians to the carolingians the frankish kings had incresingly more power over them, downgrading kings to dukes and princes, and advancing the christian frontier against the pagans. So my guess is, by changing the result of some battles and military campaings in this timeline, a lot of loyalties shifted. In a future update of yours I would like to see more details about internal politics, factions and struggles in Faransa.
 
Also I wanted to ask some question about things an old map of yours suggest in it's margins or leaves to the imagination: I am talking about the germans.

The place appears in the map as the Kingdom of Bavaria (figures that the first thing the duke of Bavaria would do after hearing of Charles defeat was proclaming himself King) belonged in our timeline to the duchie of Alemannia (later called Swabia, I used that name previously) and also Elsass which I thing appears occupied by Faransa but in otl was controlled and settled by alemanni.

Short history of Alemannia up to this point:
Originally a loose confederation of unrelated tribes, the Alemanni underwent coalescence or ethnogenesis during the 3rd century, and were ruled by kings throughout the 4th and 5th centuries until 496, when they were defeated by Clovis I of the Franks at the Battle of Tolbiac.

The Alemanni during the Roman Empire period were divided into a number of cantons or goviae, each presided by a tribal king. But there appears to have been the custom of the individual kings uniting under the leadership of a single king in military expeditions.
Macrian appears to have been involved in building a large alliance of Alemannic tribes against Rome, which earned him the title of turbarum rex artifex ("king and crafter of unrest").
The Romans installed Fraomar as a successor of Marcian, but the Bucinobantes would not accept him and he was expelled and Macrian restored and Valentinian made the Bucinobantes his foederati in the war against the Franks. Macrian was killed on campaign against the Franks, in an ambush laid by the Frankish king Mallobaudes.
Gibuld (fl. 470) is the last known king of the Alemanni. His raid on Passau is mentioned in the vita of Saint Lupus. The name of Gibuld's successor who was defeated at Tolbiac is not known.
After their defeat in 496, the Alemanni bucked the Frankish yoke and put themselves under the protection of Theodoric the Great of the Ostrogoths,[citation needed] but after his death they were again subjugated by the Franks (539),[citation needed] under Theuderic I and Theudebert I. Thereafter, Alamannia was a nominal dukedom within Francia.

Though ruled by their own dukes, it is not likely that they were very often united under one duke in the 6th and 7th centuries. The Alemanni most frequently appear as auxiliaries in expeditions to Italy. The Duchy of Alsace was Alemannic, but it was ruled by a line of Frankish dukes and the region around the upper Danube and Neckar rivers was ruled by the Ahalolfing family and not by the ducal house which ruled central Alamannia around Lake Constance. Rhaetia too, though Alamannic, was ruled by the Victorids coterminously with the Diocese of Chur.

Alamannia was Christianised during the 7th century, although not as thoroughly[dubiousdiscuss] as either Francia to its west or Bavaria to its east. The first Alamannic law code, Pactus Alamannorum, dates to this period. The Roman dioceses of Strasbourg and Basel covered Alsace and that of Chur, as mentioned, Rhaetia. Alamannia itself only had a diocese in the east, at Augsburg (early 7th century). There were two Roman bishoprics, Windisch and Octodurum, which were moved early to other sites (Avenches and Sitten respectively).

Western Alamannia did eventually (7th century) receive a diocese (Constance) through the cooperation of the bishops of Chur and the Merovingian monarchs. The foundation of Constance is obscure, though it was the largest diocese in Germany throughout the Merovingian and early Carolingian era. The dioceses of Alamannia, including Chur, which had been a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Milan, were placed under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Mainz by the Carolingians.

After the death of Dagobert I in 638, Alamannia, like Bavaria, Aquitaine, and Brittany, broke its ties with its Frankish sovereigns and struggled for independence. This was largely successful until the early 8th century, when a series of campaigns waged by the Arnulfing mayors of the palace reduced Alamannia to a province of Francia once again. It was, however, during this period of de facto independence that the Alamanni began to be ruled by one duke, though Alsace and Rhaetia remained outside of the scope of Alamannia.

Between 709 and 712, Pepin of Heristal fought against Lantfrid, who appears as dux of the Alamanni, and who committed to writing the second Alamannic law code, the Lex Alamannorum. In 743, Pepin the Short and Carloman waged a campaign to reduce Alamannia and in 746 Carloman began a final thrust to subdue the Alamannic nobility. Several thousand Alamanni noblemen were summarily arrested, tried, and executed for treason at a Council at Cannstatt.
As we can see, the last thing didnt happen in ttl. So what happened to them? They suffered a greater lost of autonomy under the franks then the Bavarians so I guess after the fall of Charles there was a vacuum of power with the alemanni nobles and clans trying to give themselves a new king now that the detested franks were gone but then the King of Bavaria took the oportunity and invaded? And Faranse also a portion of the alemannian pie for themselves securing the Rhine by annexing Elsass? Or are they supporting a vassal Kingdom of Alemannia in exile? Also their incomplete christianization presents an oppurtunity but I will argue they have a terrain that is way more complicated then poland or france or russia: they both dense forests and prominent mountain rainges: the famous german black forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest . Disregarding the now solved discussion about pork, this stills represents a big challenge to effective rule of the area. Such complicateed terrain can be a breeding ground for all kind of anti sunni religious movements whatever shia, christian, some surviving pagans (even in places like afghanistan pagans sometimes managed to keep their societies all the way to the 19th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafiristan , also yazidism) or even more fringe creations like the druze.
Now about Akba-Faransa, in otl those lands belonged to two territories: Franconia and good Old Saxony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Saxony).
Again background for Franconia:
Until the beginning of the 6th century, the East Francian region was caught in the area of tension between the Thuringians and the Alemanni. For example, the Cosmographer of Ravenna in the 7th century, wrote that the rivers Naab and Regen in today's Upper Palatinate joined the Danube in the land of the Thuringians.[2] He apparently obtained this information from older sources, which makes the periodic expansion of Thuringian influence in the 5th and early 6th centuries, at least into Upper Franconia, probable.

According to recent investigations, however, the expansion of Thuringian power into the area of the River Main is not established with certainty. Upper Franconia appears to have had a relationship with Bohemian culture groups until their conquest by the Franks. It is clear that an autochthonous Elbe Germanic people group dominated this area as a bearer of tradition.[3] The heartlands of the present region of Franconia fell to the Franks following victories over the Alamanni in 507 AD and the Thuringians (529-534 AD). At first they were only loosely attached to the Francian Empire. However, it is established that by the 6th century the region was colonized by the Franks, primarily from the Lower Main. In the 7th century, Frankish settlers advanced to the area of the great arc of the Upper Main and the River Regnitz. Shortly thereafter, at least by the mid-7th century, Slavs from the east began to settle the northeastern parts of the region. The Frankish king Dagobert I appointed a man named Hruodi in the central communications hub of Wurzburg to be the duke over the Main lands. It is occasionally speculated that this was the Thuringian duke, Radulf. More likely, however, is that even at that time the Franks had established their own duchy, to create a counterweight to the powerful Thuringian duke. Typical linear burial grounds from this period have been discovered in Westheim, Dittenheim, Gnotzheim, Hellmitzheim, Hettstadt, Kleinlangheim, Klepsau, Neubrunn, Niedernberg, Sulzheim, Weißenburg and Zeuzleben. Individual graves or grave goods from this era have also been discovered in Bad Staffelstein, Hirschaid and Eggolsheim.

The majority of the population in the area probably continued to follow pagan practices well into the Early Middle Ages. Only the king and his subordinate leadership were likely to have been fully Christian. The first to try to spread the Christian faith strongly, were itinerant Irish Anglo-Saxon monks. One of the first was Kilian, who became the apostle to the Franks. Around 685 the Irish preacher and his companions, Colman and Totnan, went to Würzburg where he became a type of bishop. On being murdered, he and his companions became martyrs. Around 741/742, the first Franconian bishopric was founded under Saint Boniface: the Bishopric of Würzburg. In 742 or possibly even a little later, Saint Willibald founded the Bishopric of Eichstatt, which included the southeastern parts of Franconia, but also parts of Bavaria and Alemannic areas.
Until about the 8th century, the region, which was becoming increasingly important to the Empire, still had no independent name. From the 9th century on, the Main area was referred to as East Francia (Francia Orientalis). However, the same name was given to the whole of the East Francian empire by Charlemagne's successor. Under Charlemagne, attempts were made to build a navigable channel between the River Altmühl and the Swabian Rezat and thus between the Rhine and the Danube near the present site of Graben at Treuchtlingen. Whether this Fossa Carolina or Karlsgraben was ever completed, is still disputed.
Ans something from a little after "From the mid-9th century, the Stem Duchy of Franconia emerged as one of the five stem duchies of the Empire of East Francia. On 2 July 1500, during the reign of Emperor Maximilian I, as part of the Imperial Reform, the empire was divided into Imperial Circles. The Franconian Circle, which was formed as a result of this restructuring, became decisive in the creation of a Franconian national identity. A feature of Franconia in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period was its Kleinstaaterei, an extreme fragmentation into little states and territories."
So Franconia has the weakest identities around the different germanies, one of the lowest degrees of christianization among the states ruled by christians and an extreme tendency to balcanization and only have been united by foreing entities. They must be getting partitioned by Thuringia, Saxony and Bavaria at this piont in ttl.
The history of Thuringia I could find seems shortern but they seem to have a strong identity:
The Thuringii established an empire in the late 5th century. It reached its territorial peak in the first half of the 6th before it was conquered by the Franks in 531–532. Examination of Thuringian grave sites reveal cranial features which suggest the strong presence of Hunnic women or slaves, perhaps indicating that many Thuringians took Hunnic wives or Hunnic slaves following the collapse of the Hunnic Empire.[5] There is also evidence from jewellery found in graves that the Thuringians sought marriages with Ostrogothic and Lombard women.[citation needed] Under the leadership of Alboin, a large group of Thuringii joined the Lombards on their migration into Italy.[6] The Lombard king Agilulf (590–616) was of Thuringian descent.

After their conquest, the Thuringii were placed under Frankish duces (dukes), but they rebelled and had regain their independence by the late 7th century under Radulf. Towards the end of this century, parts of Thuringia came under Saxon rule.

By the time of Charles Martel and Saint Boniface, they were again subject to the Franks and ruled by Frankish dukes with their seat at Würzburg in the south. Under Martel, the Thuringian dukes' authority was extended over a part of Austrasia and the Bavarian plateau. The valleys of the Lahn, Main, and Neckar rivers were included. The Naab formed the south-eastern border of Thuringia at the time. The Werra and Fulda valleys were within it also and it reached as far as the Saxon plain in the north. Its central location in Germania beyond the Rhine was the reason it became the point d'appui of Boniface's mission work.

The Thuringii had a separate identity as late as 785–786, when one of their leading men, Hardrad, led an abortive insurrection against Charlemagne. The Carolingians codified the Thuringian legal customs (but perhaps did not use them extensively) as the Lex Thuringorum and continued to exact a tribute of pigs, presumably a Merovingian imposition, from the province. In the 10th century, under the Ottonians, the centre of Thuringian power lay in the north-east, near Erfurt. As late as the end of the 10th century, the porcine tribute was still being accepted by the King of Germany.

The Thuringian nobility, which had an admixture of Frankish, Thuringian, and Saxon blood, was not as landed as that of Francia. There was also a larger population of free peasant farmers than in Francia, though there was still a large number of serfs. The obligations of serfs there were also generally less oppressive. There were also fewer clergymen before Boniface came. There was a small number of artisans and merchants, mostly trading with the Slavs to the east. The town of Erfurt was the easternmost trading post in Frankish territory at the time.
How are they doing now with the franks gone?
And finally the only state in germany still ruled by pagans old saxony. How are they doing? How are they reacting to everything that going on around?
What are the western slavs doing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moravia ?

What are the sorbs, the veleti and pomeranians doing? I can see the Poles not inmediatly change anything but the western slaves that bordered the germans surely were affected by the things going on in the old Frankish kingdom.
My last questions are: Are the Basque united? Did they conquer the french side of the basque and the aragonese pyrenees mountains? Who rules them? It's the southern border of the Bakhya Imamate the Somme river?
 
As we can see, the last thing didnt happen in ttl. So what happened to them? They suffered a greater lost of autonomy under the franks then the Bavarians so I guess after the fall of Charles there was a vacuum of power with the alemanni nobles and clans trying to give themselves a new king now that the detested franks were gone but then the King of Bavaria took the oportunity and invaded? And Faranse also a portion of the alemannian pie for themselves securing the Rhine by annexing Elsass? Or are they supporting a vassal Kingdom of Alemannia in exile? Also their incomplete christianization presents an oppurtunity but I will argue they have a terrain that is way more complicated then poland or france or russia: they both dense forests and prominent mountain rainges: the famous german black forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest . Disregarding the now solved discussion about pork, this stills represents a big challenge to effective rule of the area. Such complicateed terrain can be a breeding ground for all kind of anti sunni religious movements whatever shia, christian, some surviving pagans (even in places like afghanistan pagans sometimes managed to keep their societies all the way to the 19th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafiristan , also yazidism) or even more fringe creations like the druze.
Alsace is with Faransa because it wasn't ruled by the ducal house of Alemanni, but Bavaria essentially made what you said (more details in eventual Germany update that as the time passes i see that i'll need to do it more and more). Faransa provided exile for the Alemanni because is often good to have a tool for use against a hostile neighbour (i.e Bavaria), but as you would expect, Faransa isn't really wanting to use that tool ASAP.

About the geography, it's the main reasons as why Faransa really isn't eager to expand west of the Rhine, the opportunity is really worth lower than the costs, so they will not mess up with the status quo for now. But yeah, some muslim preachers always could get there...

So Franconia has the weakest identities around the different germanies, one of the lowest degrees of christianization among the states ruled by christians and an extreme tendency to balcanization and only have been united by foreing entities. They must be getting partitioned by Thuringia, Saxony and Bavaria at this piont in ttl.
Yep, but i have to plan out the exact frontiers just yet, remember that slavs going west can often be a thing so it's better don't have all that certainty.

How are the Thuringians doing now with the franks gone?
They're fine, since they have easy access for expansion through Akba-Faransa (and indeed some of the mentioned chiefdoms are Thuringii in nature) tough they're better as a people than as a political force, since they're for now a bit too uncentralized. They had expanded nearly unopposed because Bavaria and Saxony had other problems to solve (Bavaria with the Alemanni and Saxony with Bakhyia) so everyone just see it as a fait accompli and go live their lifes, but something that will be a problem for them (and for the saxons too) are the slavs (specifically the Sorbs), since they are coming to their lands, so we have the possibility that the Thuringii will have their homeland go westwards because of the Sorbs raiding and migrating in their lands.

And finally the only state in germany still ruled by pagans old saxony. How are they doing? How are they reacting to everything that going on around?
They are focused in keep Bakhyia in check, the initial plan was to conquer them but things went wrong so...what about be not conquered? The reaction is mostly fear, especially with Bakhyia, since the saxons rule over some Frisii areas that may (or may not) be sympathetic to their brethren in Bakhyia. The slavs are a threat but i see that the saxons were good at assimilate other tribes so i think that if the migration isn't massive they can deal well with it.

What are the western slavs doing?
What are the sorbs, the veleti and pomeranians doing?
I'll answer the two questions together because really it's the same question.

The Sorbs are expanding west into Thuringia, what slowly but steady is moving the thuringians out of their core lands in Central Germany and towards the Rhine, where is a melting pot of Alemanni that are fleeing the bavarians, gallo-roman christians fleeing the muslims and the native franks, so you can expect big things coming out ot this :p

The Veleti and the pomeranians aren't really affected too much by what is happening in the west, for now, but something interesting it's coming, since butterflies will affect any eventual Obotrite Confederacy we'll see some big things happening.

Actually was researching about the western slavs earlier and oh my god i have some pretty good material for butterflies hehe. Other thing that i want to explore is the eventual contact of the baltic peoples with the Ukhawias (well, they're literally sieged by Faransa towards the sea, so...to the sea they will go) and how it will change the nature of the Viking Era.

So yeh, biggy things r comin' pls stay tuned ;)
 
My last questions are: Are the Basque united? Did they conquer the french side of the basque and the aragonese pyrenees mountains? Who rules them? It's the southern border of the Bakhya Imamate the Somme river?
Oops, totally forgot those.

The Basque aren't united, just a series of tribal chiefdoms that have a sense of community in case of foreign invasion, they didn't conquer the French Basque Country but yep they (re)conquered the aragonese areas with a little help from the ibrahimite revolt.

The southern border of Bakhyia isn't the Somme River, the river is actually south of it. The southern border actually have 0 natural defenses so...a little reason to worry about isn't?
 
The southern border of Bakhyia isn't the Somme River, the river is actually south of it. The southern border actually have 0 natural defenses so...a little reason to worry about isn't?
An army is always the best natural defense...they can get a natural one later on too
 
Northern France must be quite chaotic with all the raiding and counter raiding going on.
It is, don't forget about the bretons too. This chaos will have some interesting demographic changes as the populations will flee to where they can be secure (walled cities!).

Edit: Al-Andalus Update II will probably be coming by Wednesday/Thursday, maybe Tuesday if later i be inspired on the writing.
 
Last edited:
Hey @Talus I of Dixie are you familiar with the tabletop rpg GURPS? They have a cool line of alternate history worlds called Alternate Earths, and in Alternate Earths two there is a particular world called Caliph which explores an alternate world where Islamic powers dominate. Here is the intro and POD "The rise of Islam is one of the most astonishing facts of history. Within a century, this new religion had transformed the Arabs from a minor people on the margins of the civilized world to the masters of the most widespread empire yet known. The Caliphate was the central feature of the world – literally, as the Islamic empire was the first in regular contact with all of the main centers of the Old World. In Homeline history, the meteoric rise of Islamic civilization fal- tered, and while it remained perhaps the most advanced and certainly the most widespread society on Earth until the 15th or 16th century, it stayed on a cultural plateau while Europe burst forth in the Renaissance.
In Caliph, however, the invention of the printing press in 9th-century Baghdad sparked an Islamic Renaissance when the first flush of expansion had hardly faded. The Abbasid caliphs supported the resulting burst of innovation, and were richly rewarded by the gunpowder weapons they used to overwhelm Byzantium and Rome."
It has some interesting ideas but is plagued with handwaving important stuff, some tropy stuff (they have tv tropes page and it can get quite bad in terms of lazy writing) and some problems of research.
What called my attention is that it has a number of undeveloped alternate PODs for other caliph worlds and one that happens to be like ttl (remember that in caliph muslims never conquer Europe north of the alps but do conquer Russia, which should be harder, by the power of handwave):
"Other Muslim Worlds
Infinity knows of 17 parallel worlds with divergences centered on the Muslim powers. Caliph is the only one more advanced than Homeline, although Jihad-2, in which Constantinople fell in 676 and Europe followed, is well into an industrial revolution in their year 1429. In Jihad-1, where the Arabs defeated the Franks at Tours in 732, Muslim Europe is still stagnating with the rest of the world at TL4 in the year 1881.
In Ottoman-1, the Turks took Vienna in 1529 and marched into Germany: the future of the Anglo-Spanish alliance, leading all that’s left of Christian Europe, looks increasingly bleak. Ottoman-2’sEmpire extends over a huge part of Asia, following their 1407 conquest of southern Russia in cooperation with Tamerlane, but the European kingdoms they have long ignored are pulling ahead of them. Curiously, both timelines are in local year 1766.
Other Muslim timelines includeAndalus, in which the Muslims of Spain defeated attempts at reconquest and went on to discover America in 1484, Isma’il,in which the Safavids defeated the Ottomans in 1512 and built a millenarian Shi’ite empire stretching from India to North Africa, and Khedive, in which Mehmet Ali and his successors built Egypt into a modern state during the 19th century."
The name you choose is way better then Jihad-1.
Anyway, as flawed as as the Caliph setting is, it still has an interesting concept and I found a pdf of it online so would you like me to send it you? I know I can't post pirated content in the forum but maybe I can PM it? Can I @CalBear ? Or maybe should I send it through email?
 
Hey @Talus I of Dixie are you familiar with the tabletop rpg GURPS?
Actually not but, let's see
In Jihad-1, where the Arabs defeated the Franks at Tours in 732, Muslim Europe is still stagnating with the rest of the world at TL4 in the year 1881.
In Ottoman-1, the Turks took Vienna in 1529 and marched into Germany: the future of the Anglo-Spanish alliance, leading all that’s left of Christian Europe, looks increasingly bleak. Ottoman-2’sEmpire extends over a huge part of Asia, following their 1407 conquest of southern Russia in cooperation with Tamerlane, but the European kingdoms they have long ignored are pulling ahead of them. Curiously, both timelines are in local year 1766.
Other Muslim timelines includeAndalus, in which the Muslims of Spain defeated attempts at reconquest and went on to discover America in 1484, Isma’il,in which the Safavids defeated the Ottomans in 1512 and built a millenarian Shi’ite empire stretching from India to North Africa, and Khedive, in which Mehmet Ali and his successors built Egypt into a modern state during the 19th century."
The name you choose is way better then Jihad-1.
Anyway, as flawed as as the Caliph setting is, it still has an interesting concept and I found a pdf of it online so would you like me to send it you? I know I can't post pirated content in the forum but maybe I can PM it?
I want to see what it's like, i would indeed like very much. Heh, handwaving it's something that would certainly became a problem if i went along the original idea of muslim world (maybe when i finish TTL i post what it firstly would look like).
 
Top