Relations between Christian Europe and Al-Andalus (Question)

[False Dmitri]

Just how much interaction was there between Christian Europe (Spain, France, Britain, Italy) and the Muslim civilization of Al-Andalus (Spain)? Was there a lot of trade and inter-migration, or did the two spheres isolate themselves from one another?

I am asking this for my Ethelred the Pious TL. England is overrun with Vikings beginning in the 870s, and one butterfly is that the Christian states of Spain remain very small and weak, and Spain remains Muslim in the south, mixed in the north.

If the Christian states are not trading with the rich cities of Al-Andalus, then the pagans in England are situated very well to monopolize the trade between Spain and the rest of Europe. By the 1000s many English Scandinavians are going to be converting from paganism... if by then England has strong commercial relations to Spain, they might be converting to Islam!

If, however, there was lively trade between Al-Andalus and, for example, Italy and France, then the Anglo-Norse have no comparative advantage.

 

[rcduggan]

There was very extensive contact. The various states regularly exchanged ambassadors and diplomatic missions with the Caliph of Cordoba.
Trade was conducted, I know that for a fact. Maybe if I have some time I will pull up some research I did for my Khazar TL, but I cannot access that now.

A Muslim northern Spain will not hinder trade. Merchants can still come by sea, or across the Pyrenees if all else fails. I think this TL could potentially see greater trade with Al-Andalus (but that is debatable).

Pagan Vikings can not in any way monopolize any trade involving Christian Europe. Sorry for the emphasis, but pagans were below even heretics on the "Do not trade with these people" list. To trade they need to convert to Christianity... which kinda defeats the purpose of your WI (weakest Christianity possible). And I can't see the Vikings in England converting to anything but Christianity as time progresses. No Islam, sorry.

 

[Jord839]

Pagan Vikings can not in any way monopolize any trade involving Christian Europe. Sorry for the emphasis, but pagans were below even heretics on the "Do not trade with these people" list. To trade they need to convert to Christianity... which kinda defeats the purpose of your WI (weakest Christianity possible). And I can't see the Vikings in England converting to anything but Christianity as time progresses. No Islam, sorry.

As far as I've been able to figure out, the purpose of his WI is not the weakening of christianity, but instead the effects of a Viking England on the rest of the world. I have yet to see any indication that it is creating a weak christianity.

That said, the rest of your post is right on the money, as far as I know.

 

[False Dmitri]

As far as I've been able to figure out, the purpose of his WI is not the weakening of christianity, but instead the effects of a Viking England on the rest of the world. I have yet to see any indication that it is creating a weak christianity.

That said, the rest of your post is right on the money, as far as I know.

OK, thanks.

A weakend Christianity, at least in the period of the 900s, is emerging as one of the major consequences of my PoD. In Spain, Islam's stronger position will probably be quite lasting.

Muslims in England was something of a lark. That's why I asked the question here - it seemed intriguing, but somewhat suspect as well.

So the Christians of Europe would not, could not trade with the Vikings, but were willing to trade with the Moors? Why was that? Or were you talking about Christian Spain? I know that the Spanish had extensive dealings with the Moors - not much of a choice, after all. I was wondering more about France and Italy.

 

[Jord839]

OK, thanks.

A weakend Christianity, at least in the period of the 900s, is emerging as one of the major consequences of my PoD. In Spain, Islam's stronger position will probably be quite lasting.

Muslims in England was something of a lark. That's why I asked the question here - it seemed intriguing, but somewhat suspect as well.

So the Christians of Europe would not, could not trade with the Vikings, but were willing to trade with the Moors? Why was that? Or were you talking about Christian Spain? I know that the Spanish had extensive dealings with the Moors - not much of a choice, after all. I was wondering more about France and Italy.

I meant that the purpose of your TL isn't a weaker christianity, though it does seem to be a consequence of it. And IOTL pagans were largely seen as worse than the muslims because they were 1) the age-old enemy to convert or kill and 2) the Muslims were more advanced than the pagans so they were given a grudging respect and their goods were desired. Or at least that's the view I've seen. I could be wrong or generalizing.

 

[Minchandre]

I think you can get Muslims in England...if the Muslims with the Battle of Tours, and hold Normandy. Then some enterprising Emir pulls a William-the-Conqueror. Short of that, though?

 

[Admiral Matt]

I think you can get Muslims in England...if the Muslims with the Battle of Tours, and hold Normandy. Then some enterprising Emir pulls a William-the-Conqueror. Short of that, though?

Ah! Ahhhh!!!

That's not how it works. Tours was not an invasion of proto-France. Tours was a raid. Muslim victory would just mean the raid was more successful. By that point the momentum of Arab expansion was spent. Leapfrogging across North Africa was simple (after taking Egypt) because the people their had a very similar lifestyle and outlook, and the environment was familiar, inducing creeping Arab settlement in the wake of the conquests. Iberia was a limit to expansion partially because the walk from Damascus was extremely far, but also because the environment in the north of modern Spain was very different from the areas Arabs or Berbers were familiar with. The land was viewed as being less valuable (and in some ways it was), so less effort was made to firmly subjugate, settle or even vassalize the north. Hence the survival of Christian states.

They recognized that there was money to be had raiding the south of France, so they did. An actual invasion takes much more, and is a lot harder to do if you haven't subdued the intervening statelets.

That's not to say Muslim conquest of France was impossible, or even that it was completely impossible from Spain. It just wasn't likely to follow as a consequence of the battle of Tours. Tours mattered a lot to the Franks, but made very little impression on the Islamic world.

Now if the Muslims succeed at one of the early sieges of Constantinople then yes, France will probably end up Muslim. For that matter, it's quite likely that most of Europe will. And if you have the right men on the ground in the 700s, the Dar could well push north from Spain.

Let's sum up.

Muslim victory at Tours =/= Muslim Normandy

Ahem.

 

[Faeelin]

That's not how it works. Tours was not an invasion of proto-France. Tours was a raid. Muslim victory would just have the raid was more successful. By that point the momentum of Arab expansion was spent. Leapfrogging across North Africa was simple (after taking Egypt) because the people their had a very similar lifestyle and outlook, and the environment was familiar, inducing creeping Arab settlement in the wake of the conquests.

IIRC, Carthage didn't fall until what, the 690s?

The land was viewed as being less valuable (and in some ways it was), so less effort was made to firmly subjugate, settle or even vassalize the north. Hence the survival of Christian states.

I dunno, Northern Spain doesn't seem like a fair comparison to Languedoc, et al; which actually seem fairly similar in climate to the rest of the Mediterranean.

I'm also not sure I would call Tours Southern France.

I think Tours could do it if you have a reverse outcome; Charles Martel dies in the battle instead, say. You won't see the Franks falling the next year, but raids have led to conquests plenty of times in history...

 

[rcduggan]

Ah! Ahhhh!!!

That's not how it works. Tours was not an invasion of proto-France. Tours was a raid. Muslim victory would just mean the raid was more successful.

Not to get off topic, but this always bothered me about people coming into the thread and yelling about how Tours was only a raid that meant nothing. But the invasion of Spain commenced with a similar raid undertaken under similar circumstances. By your logic it should have stopped there, but instead Al-Andalus survived for 200 years, and successor states for another 500. IIRC the Duke of Aquitaine was an Arab vassal. Why would he be if they only came to raid and then leave?

I've said this before: if the Arabs win at Tours, future generations will see it as the beginning of the Arab conquest of Francia. Just like how Manzikert was not that bad a defeat for the Byzantines, but it is now viewed by modern historians as the beginning of the end. If Charles Martel dies, the Franks are going to be much weaker, probably enough to allow the Arabs to embark on a full-scale invasion and settlement of Francia.

Now if the Muslims succeed at one of the early sieges of Constantinople then yes, France will probably end up Muslim.

Okay, honestly this would make it less likely for Francia to become Muslim. Or Hispania, for that matter. Arab focus will shift to conquering whatever of Byzantium is left beyond Constantinople. Support for Uqba ibn Nafi (the conquerer of Africa) is going to be slashed in favor of invasions into Anatolia and Greece. The Byzantines will be able to reconquer up to Carthage AIOTL, and maybe ITTL they will hold their gains long enough to prevent further Arab attack. So yes, Constantinople is Muslim, but nothing west of Cyrnaica is. Now there is little to no way of Francia becoming Muslim.

 

[MNP]

Ah! Ahhhh!!!

That's not how it works. Tours was not an invasion of proto-France. Tours was a raid. Muslim victory would just mean the raid was more successful.

I have to disagree and agree with rcduggan's reasoning. Who was left to stop the muslims if Martel and his army--that was about as well equipped and trained as could reasonably be expected by anyone in Europe at that point-- was demolished? There were followup attacks along the southern french coast and some of these really WERE invasion attempts. Maybe they wouldn't have been successful or it might have ended up like Sicily, but Martel losing Tours would almost assuredly have led to larger parts of France being controled by Muslims.

As to the original poster: There was a huge amount of trade between Al-Andalus and the Christian world. Al-Rahman III supposedly made about 5,000,000 dinars a year. That said I'm not sure how much stronger Spain would be, reading one of Chejne's books now on Spain and the social divisions seemed to be the primary cause of the near constant upheavals tamped down only by a very strong central government. If there is more land in France, then maybe those groups settle further north leaving Spain more united but then the fractiousness is transferred to France and then it's La Reconquête instead.

 

[carlton_bach]

So the Christians of Europe would not, could not trade with the Vikings, but were willing to trade with the Moors? Why was that? Or were you talking about Christian Spain? I know that the Spanish had extensive dealings with the Moors - not much of a choice, after all. I was wondering more about France and Italy.

The CHristians of Europe by and large traded with everyone - Vikings, Slavs, Balts, Finns, Muslims, heretics and Jews. They'd have traded with four-armed cynoscephaloi, too, if they'd been able to find any. POne of the main reasons Scandinavians came south and east was to trade with Christians, and one of the main reasons that Venice and Genoa, Pisa and Amalfi got so rich was that they traded with Muslims. The papacy occasionally forbade it, but the effect was minimal. States passed laws regulating the trade in sensitive materials (e.g. no Frankish armour or swords to be sold to Norse merchants, no shipbuilding timber to be sold to Muslim buyers) that may have been more effective, but probably not much. A lot, possibly the majority of the Frankish, Byzantine and Anglo-Saxon objects in Norse graves were acquired by trade, not raiding. All along the Baltic coasts there were rich trading settlements *prior* to the crusades starting.

THere is no reason to think a pagan Viking England would be cut off from either the continent or Al-Andalus. The question is what it would hae to offer in trade goods - one suspects fairly little.

 

[Metro]

Long Post -

Some believe the Battle of Toulouse was more important than the Battle of Tours since it stopped the muslim conquest of France and gave the French time to prepare. Battle of Toulouse was waged by the governor of Al-Andalus, Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani. I do not think he would go himself so long of a distance if it was just a raid. And it was a major defeat. The next governor of Al-Andalus had to raise taxes

from North Africa, Yemen, and Syria

to rebuild there forces.

The Battle of Toulouse (721) was a victory of a Frankish army led by Duke Odo of Aquitaine over an Umayyad army besieging the city of Toulouse, and led by the governor of Al-Andalus, Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani. The victory hindered the spread of Umayyad control westward from Narbonne into Aquitaine.

Duke Eudes (Odo) of Aquitaine and Vasconia, known as "the Great" and a descendant of Lupus I, suffered the impact of Muslim invasion and while he defeated them at the Battle of Tolouse, he was then attacked by Charles Martel as well. Muslims renewed their efforts and Eudes was defeated near Bourdeaux. At this point Eudes couldn't but call for the help of his dreaded enemy, Charles, who gained fame and power defeating the Muslim invaders at Poitiers (732).

Loup I (Lupus) reigned in both Aquitaine and Vasconia in aprox. 675-700.

I do know Christian Mercenaries fought many times for whichever side paid. They did not look to see if the person paying was Christian or not. Some muslim rulers used this to there advantage. Especially, when it came to supporting Christian noblemen who were forcibly removed by others. Sometimes these Christians former rulers would go seek help from there muslim enemies. This is one aspect of that eras world politics which has survived into modern times.

This was beneficial to the muslim rulers in Spain since if the Spaniards were busy fighting among themselves the pressure would be off them. But some muslim s did the same thing:

local Berber commander called Manuza whose stronghold was the town of Cerritania (Cerdanya) in the Pyrenees

made a deal with Duke Eudes (Odo) since he hated the new governor of Al-Andalus who supposedly treated the Berbers of North Africa badly.

I do know the Southern part of Basque territory was controled by muslim.

Although the area has been populated since at least Roman times, Tudela was founded under the Muslim emirate of Al-Hakam I, specifically in 802, by Amrus ibn Yusuf al-Muwalad. At the beginning of the 9th century, the strategic importance of Tudela as a site on the river Ebro was enhanced by historical and political circumstances. It was the base of the Banu Qasi family of Muladis, local magnates converted to Islam that managed to be independent of the emirs. The town was used by Muslims as a bridge-head to fight against the Christians of Pamplona.

Here are the maps: This was in the year 600.

This in the year 700:

And this Spain all divided in 1031:

Concerning Christianity and the English. It seems the English did want to see Christianity restored in the Iberian Peninsula.

Eventually Sancho of Navarre and Alfonso VIII decide to ask King Henry II of England for his arbitration. Alfonso just present as grounds for his large claims to be the conqueror of Toledo and heir of Sancho III. Meanwhile the Navarrese delegation on the original belonging of those lands to Navarre and the "proven loyalty of their naturals", thanks to which they could be recovered.

The arbitral sentence of the English monarch was based in the convenience of peace, in order to keep the expansion of Christianity, and basically allowed each one to keep what they had taken by the force of arms. Rioja is hence lost for Navarre but it could keep the western Basque provinces, still unorganized as such. Though the sentence is not respected initially, two years later, in 1179,the two kings sign a peace in the same terms. This peace lasts only two decades.

Map of what they were claiming:

 

[Faeelin]

There is no reason to think a pagan Viking England would be cut off from either the continent or Al-Andalus. The question is what it would hae to offer in trade goods - one suspects fairly little.

Was the wool really that big of a monastic thing?

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Concerning about an Islamic England, it's still fresh in my mind that Leo made attempt on this not to long ago, with very late PoD (in 1000s/1100s IIRC) ! The TL's title was "Yahya the Renegade, Emir of Anglieterre". Wonder why it wasn't continued. It was a fascinating concept.....

 

[Grand_Panjandrum]

I shall echo the majority of respondents and note that there was extensive trade. More so than that, in Iberia itself, there were often cordial relations between Muslim and Christian states, even alliance in wars against their co-religionists. On occasion, there were even vassalage relationships.

 

[carlton_bach]

Was the wool really that big of a monastic thing?

More of a later development AFAIR. I don't recall Aglo-Saxon England or the Danelaw exporting wool in massive quantities. It's not like there was nothing - they had things to trade, including tin and fish. But I can't think of any killer app that would make England indispensible to the world market.

 

[NorcalSocal]

I think you can get Muslims in England...if the Muslims with the Battle of Tours, and hold Normandy. Then some enterprising Emir pulls a William-the-Conqueror. Short of that, though?

Would there be a more Arabic influenced English this way?

 

[False Dmitri]

More of a later development AFAIR. I don't recall Aglo-Saxon England or the Danelaw exporting wool in massive quantities. It's not like there was nothing - they had things to trade, including tin and fish. But I can't think of any killer app that would make England indispensible to the world market.

OK, thanks. Mty sort-of idea was for Andalusian traders to be present in English (Anglo-Nordic) ports in perhaps greater numbers than in France, Italy, etc. But it seems that they were probably quite active in France and Italy, correct?

I'll get back to the TL soon, then. One event already written in is Anglo-Viking raiders establishing statelets along Spain's northern coast. That is actually what pre-empts the Reconquista: during the Umayyads' northern push in the 900s, the Christian states are too weak to effectively resist, and by the time of the Caliphate's breakup in the 1000s (not butterflied away), they are not strong enough to take advantage of hte power vacuum, as they did IOTL.

In addition to this, many of the pagan invaders settled in and converted to Islam rather than Christianity as a way to appease the top power. Pamplona, for example, ends up being ruled by a Muslim dynasty descended from English Vikings. A major exception is the Kingdom of Santiago (de Compostela), ruled by an English dynasty that converts to Christianity in the holy city.