No Fatimid Caliphate
- Thread starter Silver01
- Start date
An interesting question since their influence was massive on the Maghreb and Egypt, though I'm afraid I am not informed enough on the latter to judge it sufficiently (not that I'm a massive Maghrebi history buff either, but oh well).
At least for the Maghreb though, assuming Abdallah al-Mahdi dies as an infant and the Ismaili da'wa fails to take hold of the Kutama Berbers, the consequences would extend far beyond the initial survival of the Kharijite statelets, in particular the Rustamids. The relegation of Ibadi Islam to the fringes of North African politics after the destruction of the Rustamid Imamate, the failed revolt of figures like Abu Yazid al-Nukkari, and the emerging multipolar Islamic world with three different caliphs (and subsequently allowing different ways to express one's political or religious opposition to a ruler) all led to a gradual but steady numerical decline of the Ibadi community in the Maghreb over the following centuries. Whether the Rustamids by the 10th century would survive for long is another matter, though I personally believe that this is a boon in disguise for the Khawarij (It must be duly noted, however, that these distinctions between different sects of Islam, Sunni, Shia, or Khawarij, and all their different subcategories, had yet to be fully established in the 8th and 9th centuries, as meaningfully different theologies had yet to be developed, though the rise of the Fatimids traditionally served as a good point of no return).
As for the Aghlabids of Ifriquiya, I quite frankly can't predict how they would develop without the invasion of the Kutama Berbers, the decline of the dynasty began under Abu Ishaq Ibrahim II before the end of the 9th century when he lost control of Calabria to the Byzantines, there were Berber uprisings and the Tulunids of Egypt were invading. They might rebound without an invasion from the West, but the central authority might also just as well further wane until they are replaced with another dynasty or perhaps an imamate in the style of what Abu Yazid intended, at least nominally swearing their allegiance to the Abbasids when it fits their political agenda.
For the Umayyads in Andalus, they might settle for the title of amir instead of proclaiming to be the rightful caliphate as this choice was massively influenced by political considerations with the rise of the Fatimids and their interactions with the Maghrebi polities, though they might perhaps still come into conflict with the caliphate of Baghdad, depending on the butterflies and how the author of such a TL shapes the Islamic world politically.
In any case, the Fatimids certainly are surprisingly underexplored in alternate history, despite their relative uniqueness and long and influential history.
At least for the Maghreb though, assuming Abdallah al-Mahdi dies as an infant and the Ismaili da'wa fails to take hold of the Kutama Berbers, the consequences would extend far beyond the initial survival of the Kharijite statelets, in particular the Rustamids. The relegation of Ibadi Islam to the fringes of North African politics after the destruction of the Rustamid Imamate, the failed revolt of figures like Abu Yazid al-Nukkari, and the emerging multipolar Islamic world with three different caliphs (and subsequently allowing different ways to express one's political or religious opposition to a ruler) all led to a gradual but steady numerical decline of the Ibadi community in the Maghreb over the following centuries. Whether the Rustamids by the 10th century would survive for long is another matter, though I personally believe that this is a boon in disguise for the Khawarij (It must be duly noted, however, that these distinctions between different sects of Islam, Sunni, Shia, or Khawarij, and all their different subcategories, had yet to be fully established in the 8th and 9th centuries, as meaningfully different theologies had yet to be developed, though the rise of the Fatimids traditionally served as a good point of no return).
As for the Aghlabids of Ifriquiya, I quite frankly can't predict how they would develop without the invasion of the Kutama Berbers, the decline of the dynasty began under Abu Ishaq Ibrahim II before the end of the 9th century when he lost control of Calabria to the Byzantines, there were Berber uprisings and the Tulunids of Egypt were invading. They might rebound without an invasion from the West, but the central authority might also just as well further wane until they are replaced with another dynasty or perhaps an imamate in the style of what Abu Yazid intended, at least nominally swearing their allegiance to the Abbasids when it fits their political agenda.
For the Umayyads in Andalus, they might settle for the title of amir instead of proclaiming to be the rightful caliphate as this choice was massively influenced by political considerations with the rise of the Fatimids and their interactions with the Maghrebi polities, though they might perhaps still come into conflict with the caliphate of Baghdad, depending on the butterflies and how the author of such a TL shapes the Islamic world politically.
In any case, the Fatimids certainly are surprisingly underexplored in alternate history, despite their relative uniqueness and long and influential history.
I didn't consider the big impact in the Maghreb and even beyond I wonder what the effects on Egypt would be
Would the lack of the Fatmids, allow for the Ummayyads to gain more influence over the Maghreb, potentially incorporating ot bit by bit into their own realm?
probably, the primary focus of the ummayyads would be on the consolidation of al andalus. If the Ummayyada manage to consolidate and remain stable, then little by little eat the Spanish Catholic kingdoms, unifying all of Iberia. they would be in an excellent position not only to consolidate power in the Maghreb region but also to better control the African coast. what the Umayyads do depends on who controls the spice route. If for some reason the route is compromised either by a rivalry with other Muslim kingdoms or by another factor. The most likely route will be something similar to the Portuguese ones. going on the African coast looking for another route to have better access to spices, but also for slaves, ivory, gold and other precious materials.
If the ummayyad control iberia and a good part of the maghreb region. they are a major force in Europe and the Middle East. Especially due to the country's characteristics being isolated from the great Islamic events like the Mongols and with a continuous contact with Europeans, together with the vast knowledge discovered by the country. would probably be one of the strongest in europe/middle east
The Umayyads at that time were still in a relatively volatile state and their interest in the Maghreb was limited to the need for stable access to the raw materials of the Maghreb and especially the gold of the Sahara, initially provided to them by various statelets and tribal confederations such as the Idrisids, Sijilmassa, the Maghrawa, and the Banu Ifran. The issue such a constellation poses should become evident once local rivalries and opportunism take hold as they always did. I wouldn't say it would change a lot without the Fatimids, though admittedly they were the ones to push the Maghrawa against the declining Idrisids. Nonetheless, the incentive was always there. The Umayyads at least for the initial decades after the PoD wouldn't encroach further into the Maghreb than they did IOTL as long as their needs are satisfied, in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
One thing I've always wondered is what would be the consequences of an Iberia united by the Ummayyad dynasty. what would be the consequences?
there are few timelines about it on the site
I mean, it's hard for me to imagine that there is a singular PoD that would bring down the Christian Kingdoms both indefinitely and immediately after the changed event, most Andalusi TLs on this website make it a multi-decade or -century process of integration (IMO rightfully so). It is also honestly hard to answer what the consequences are since it is ultimately up to the author of such a TL. There are many vastly different PoDs that could lead to an Iberia united by the Umayyads, a PoD in the 8th century will bring different results than one PoD in the late 10th century as the Umayyad state wasn't some monolith and underwent a lot of major changes over the centuries, a process which would definitely continue if they are able to subjugate the Christians in one fell swoop.
yes the conversion, and unification of iberia would take a long time
Yes I completely agree, nations change over time, france is a great example of an absolist monarchy that changed to a republic. If Andalusia survives it would change a lot, the culture of that nation would be a lot differente from other Islamic countries. It would not have the trauma of the Mongols, it would have a geographical position that forces a more focused view of the Atlantic and the coast of Africa. among other factors