Preventing the Berber Revolt

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

What would be needed to prevent the Berber Revolt? I'm aware the Ummayad Caliphate was a state that could often be summed up as "by Arabs, for Arabs", but is there any way to assuage the Berber complaints and crack down on the Kharijites so revolt doesn't break out? As well, what effects would the lack of a Berber Revolt have on the Maghreb, the rest of the Caliphate, the Sahelian states and Iberia?
 
What would be needed to prevent the Berber Revolt?​

A radical change of heart of Arab nobility ruling in North Africa. Some Caliphes actually tried to go smooth on this, and it was totally ignored.

I'm aware the Ummayad Caliphate was a state that could often be summed up as "by Arabs, for Arabs", but is there any way to assuage the Berber complaints and crack down on the Kharijites so revolt doesn't break out?
No. IOTL Berbers sent several queries, some being more or less answered, as the complain they were paying undue tax. The answer was of course "well, now, everyone would have to do that, and not only you".
Other more "smooth" measures were ordered, and totally ignored.

In order to make something about it, you need to have a change about Islam at best, not making Arabity extremly tied with this whole religious/judicial system (Arab being the language used by God). Probably something about Arabic clanism wouldn't hurt, but that would be pre-Islamic change.

Considering how Berber society functioned since IIIth century with a rough division between three regions ("imperial" Maghreb dominated by foreigners, hinterland Maghreb dominated by Berbers kingdoms, and desert as a peripherical) where Berbers political reactions were roughly the same against Arabs than they were against Byzzies, you'd still have huge tensions.
With the condition of IOTL conquest, a revolt was bound to happen sooner or later (I could see it delayed after 650's, but not outright butterflied).​
 
Have the Umayyad governors be less dickish to the Berbers. The Umayyads in a sense were Arab supremacists, treating pretty much all non-Arabs as inferiors. They continued to levy djemmi taxes on converted Berbers, gave them the leavings of war spoils and kept most Berbers out of positions of any real power. The Kharijites offered the Berbers a more egalitarian vision of Islam as well as focusing their sense of injustice.

Assuming the Umayyads didn't act like Umayyads, without the revolts perhaps there would be more energy and resources for conquests in beyond Al-Andalus.
 
Assuming the Umayyads didn't act like Umayyads, without the revolts perhaps there would be more energy and resources for conquests in beyond Al-Andalus.
Point is, Umayyads weren't in charge there. Walis in Ifriqiya acted more and more autonomously as time went (having even sort of a protectorate on Al-Andalus).

Even if Umayyads have a change of heart (that were the champions of Arab dominance, hence why a, Umayyad was chosen to rule in a province with only an handful of Arabs that weren't too fans of Umayyads to begin with) and decide to act more kindly to Berbers (as in not legalizing taxes for everyone, but removing it, meaning a net loss of income), it would be simply ignored by wali and local Arab nobility; assuming it's not short lived (as Umar II reforms that weren't much followed to begin with).

See, when we say "Berber Revolt" it's only to name the "Great" Berber Revolt. You had plenty of these since the 720's that had only a local impact. At some point, it was going to be huge.
 
Top