Possibility of a longer lasting Fatimid Caliphate?

What are some scenarios in which the Fatimid dynasty survives longer in the Levant and Egypt than it did in OTL? I was thinking of one in which a Byzantine victory at Manzikert also gave the Fatimids a chance at longer life due to a lack of the first crusade. Is there any chance for the Ismaili dynasty?
 
I have always been interested in the Fatimids. There are multiple ways for such a survival to take place.

1. The Qarmati do not continuously bother them throughout the 10th century. The Qarmati were a Shi'a offshoot based in Bahrain that had considerable influence in areas such as Syria and Iraq. They were aggressive raiders and managed a large number of different raids on both the Buyids and the Fatimids. In the time of al-Muizz they even managed to reach al-Fustat, disrupting the building of al-Qahira. They allied often against the Fatimids with the Buyids and attacked them stopping them from fulfilling their ambitions in the Levant and Mesopotamia.

2. Avoid The Buyids from capturing Baghdad. This squared them up directly against the ambitions of the Fatimids, since they took up the title of Great Amir, and protectors of the Abbasids. Often Fatimid attempts to take the city from them failed handily and were honestly, quite pitiful. The Buyid Amirate of Khuzestan(at most times there were three different Buyid Amirates) was the main blocker of this expansion. If you remove the Buyids from Mesopotamia, they can both become more stable(controlling Baghdad forced them to fight often with the Qarmati, the Fatimids, and the Hamdanid dynasty, which weakened them greatly and tied up good rulers. They can enjoy good relations with the Fatimids(though as Ithna Ashara they won't always be best buds with the Isma'ilis) and cooperate against mutual threats such as the Qarmati if they don't take Baghdad. This would then allow the Fatimids to take Baghdad, which they had a capacity to do in the reign of al-Aziz.

3. Have Arslan Basasiri, the Seljuq convert to Isma'ilism not lose in a skirmish in Khuzestan where he was killed and the chance to make Baghdad Fatimid lost forever. He had captured the city but had relented in sending the Caliph to al-Mustansir, the Fatimid Imam-Caliph. If he done this and won in Khuzestan, and if al-Mustansir had sent more aid and men, he may have been able to make it back to Egypt, where he would be able to fight against the Seljuks once again and retake Baghdad, as the Seljuqs would be lost in the Levant.

There's a few others such as avoiding the civil war of the 1060s, but those are less helpful. The civil war is pretty much the point of no return; after that there is little chance of the Fatimids rising again.
 
It would have been interesting if Nizar had succeeded Al-Mustansir in 1094 instead of Al-Mustali. Perhaps this would have led to Hassan I Sabbah and his Hashashim working with the Fatimids against the crusaders. But as you said, that POD is likely too late to save the Fatimids, it would have been been interesting if they had established a military system that would have enabled them to rule over Egypt, the Levant and the Islamic holy places for a longer time.

 
If the Fatimids would survive, I can safely guess that most of the Islamic world would be Shia Muslim, not Sunni. Maybe Ismaili, not Sufi in terms of other variants.
 
If the Fatimids would survive, I can safely guess that most of the Islamic world would be Shia Muslim, not Sunni. Maybe Ismaili, not Sufi in terms of other variants.

The Fatimids never really actively attempted to do a Da'wa, or missionary work, within their territories. Certainly they had a number of adherents elsewhere and there was prolific missionary work in Khurasan and Khuzestan. However, The Buyid Ithna Ashara didn't really help them spread Isma'ilism much.
 
If the Shia doesn't do the Da'wa work, then how could there be numerous Shia Muslims?

The Da'wa was done proficiently, but outside the borders of the Fatimids. Until the reign of the Military Wazirs, the Calipih-Imams had a very strict tolerance of all sects(besides the silliness that al-Hakim promulgated) in order to keep their power and the majority of their population was Coptic or Sunni. They were very successful in spreading Isma'ilism in Khurasan, Sindh, North Africa, and Khuzestan. The issue is that no local Isma'ili power structures developed, and the end of the Shi'a renaissance, as it is called, was brought upon by the hammer of the Seljuk Turks. Sindh managed to become a satellite state of the Fatimids, but isolation bred destruction by the reactionary Sunni Ghaznavids. Besides, modern Shi'ism was mainly constructed by the Safavids in Iran(where centuries of Sunni presence had annihilated the populous Shi'a or driven them underground) who forced it on the population mainly during the reign of Abbas I the Great.
 
The Da'wa was done proficiently, but outside the borders of the Fatimids. Until the reign of the Military Wazirs, the Calipih-Imams had a very strict tolerance of all sects(besides the silliness that al-Hakim promulgated) in order to keep their power and the majority of their population was Coptic or Sunni. They were very successful in spreading Isma'ilism in Khurasan, Sindh, North Africa, and Khuzestan. The issue is that no local Isma'ili power structures developed, and the end of the Shi'a renaissance, as it is called, was brought upon by the hammer of the Seljuk Turks. Sindh managed to become a satellite state of the Fatimids, but isolation bred destruction by the reactionary Sunni Ghaznavids. Besides, modern Shi'ism was mainly constructed by the Safavids in Iran(where centuries of Sunni presence had annihilated the populous Shi'a or driven them underground) who forced it on the population mainly during the reign of Abbas I the Great.

So maybe the Seljuk Turks migrate elsewhere in order for the Fatimids to survive until realistically, the Mongol period of the Il-Khanate.
 
So maybe the Seljuk Turks migrate elsewhere in order for the Fatimids to survive until realistically, the Mongol period of the Il-Khanate.

The issue is that the Seljuks don't really have elsewhere to go. They were first attracted to the area by the Samanids, who converted a number of them and paved the way for their Islamicization. By Fatimid times it was too late too reverse the inevitable Seljuk Turk invasions. What one could do is to have them be defeated by the Ghaznavids in 1040 and then get forcibly settled down by them, but this seems a bit unlikely.
 
The issue is that the Seljuks don't really have elsewhere to go. They were first attracted to the area by the Samanids, who converted a number of them and paved the way for their Islamicization. By Fatimid times it was too late too reverse the inevitable Seljuk Turk invasions. What one could do is to have them be defeated by the Ghaznavids in 1040 and then get forcibly settled down by them, but this seems a bit unlikely.

So the PoD would be way earlier, sometime in either the late 10th century. Or the Buyids don't capture Baghdad.
 
What if instead of looking eastwards, the Fatimids look westwards in terms of their da'wa?. Perhaps a good POD could be a more successful Ismaili conversion campaign amongst the Berbers of the Maghreb and N. Africa that brings N. Africa entirely into the Shia fold (or at least more strongly into the Fatimid fold than it was in ATL, where the Zirids led a Sunni revolt amongst the Fatimids western possessions). . Could the Caliph's have Cairo maintained their rule over the Maghreb with more effort and some luck? I've been thinking about a Fatimid survival TL in which N.Africa and Egypt, rather than Persia, becomes the main Shia (albeit Ismaili) bloc in the Muslim world.
 
What if instead of looking eastwards, the Fatimids look westwards in terms of their da'wa?. Perhaps a good POD could be a more successful Ismaili conversion campaign amongst the Berbers of the Maghreb and N. Africa that brings N. Africa entirely into the Shia fold (or at least more strongly into the Fatimid fold than it was in ATL, where the Zirids led a Sunni revolt amongst the Fatimids western possessions). . Could the Caliph's have Cairo maintained their rule over the Maghreb with more effort and some luck? I've been thinking about a Fatimid survival TL in which N.Africa and Egypt, rather than Persia, becomes the main Shia (albeit Ismaili) bloc in the Muslim world.

Not bad, but would it also bring in a Shia Mamluk army as well? Also, if North Africa becomes Shia, would they also try to conquer and convert Ethiopia to Islam as well? Also, I heard that preventing the Buyids from conquering Baghdad might be a good option for the Fatimids. Other than that, I can see a Persia that can successfully resist the Arab invasion a good start, as well as possibly either a Shia Seljuk Empire or a Christian Seljuk Empire.
 
The Fatimids had a distinct tradition not to convert areas which they ruled, so North Africa is off the table.
 
What about the Kutama Berber people of the Maghreb? The entire tribe either converted to Ismaili Islam or joined the military of the Fatimids in N. Africa. Fatimid Da'ii had spent quite a bit of time preaching to the Berber peoples of the region, especially in the wake of their revolts against the Arab ruling class.
If the Fatimids maintain their ties with an Ismaili Berber people, they might have a better chance of maintaining their rule in N. Africa.

In terms of Shia Mamaluks, yes I see a surviving Fatimid Empire using slave warriors from a wide range of sources, as they did in OTL. Turkic cavalry troops were utilized heavily by the Fatimids until the Seljuk conquests cut off their supply of the necessary military slaves. The Abid Al Shira, or Sudanese, slave infantry were another section of the Fatimid Army (albeit not mounted). Perhaps a strong Fatimid alliance with Byzantium coupled with Manzikert going against the Seljuks would open up the slave trade routes needed for the Fatimids to keep a powerful mamaluk cavalry force.
 
Al Hakim's persecution of Christians and Jews (not to mention his wasteful wars with Basil II) is something that would have to be avoided in such a TL. Hakim's policies towards the Fatimid world beyond Egypt set the stage for the collapse later on in that century.
 
Does avoiding his ascension into power help the Fatimids? If the Fatimids would still stick around, how does that affect the Ottomans?
 
Does avoiding his ascension into power help the Fatimids? If the Fatimids would still stick around, how does that affect the Ottomans?

A TL that sees the Fatimids sticking around would have plenty of butterflies enough that the Osmanli Emirate may never come into existence, much less overrun the entire Middle East.
 
Ironically enough, the Fatimids might end up giving the Byzantines extra time to survive. Not a typical "Make the Byzantines survive" scenario, but it certainly works. Not sure if it will butterfly the Mongol invasions as well.
 
Ironically enough, the Fatimids might end up giving the Byzantines extra time to survive. Not a typical "Make the Byzantines survive" scenario, but it certainly works. Not sure if it will butterfly the Mongol invasions as well.


Actually, my idea for a TL was one in which the Byzantines and Fatimids join forces against the Seljuks and each survive in the E. Med. world. In terms of plausibility, would a Fatimid Empire based in Egypt have much of a chance of conquering the rest of N. Africa if it survives the 11th century in better shape than it did in OTL? I feel as though seizing Baghdad was always the "White Elephant" of the Fatimids, politically it was the goal of the dynasty even though Egypt and Syria plus the Maghreb could have easily provided them with the resources to create an "Ismaili" bloc in the Muslim world. Another aspect of a Fatimid survival TL would be Hassan-i-Sabbath and the Assassins working directly for the Fatimids as a sort of Ismaili "Vanguard" movement.
 
Top