Spanish north Africa timeline plausibility?

I've been playing over the idea in my mind for a timeline that I came up with a while ago with in the cultural description thread. The POD is that Queen Joanna of Castile is far more competent, capable, and ruthless and her madness doesn't appear until much later in life. I'd like people's opinion of my idea's plausibility before I do anything more than cursory research:

Joanna, daughter of Isabella, is primarily remembered for having inherited her parent's ability to rule but without their restraint. Her education was among the finest in Europe and despite the unlikely chance of her inheriting the crown was prepared for the throne by her mother who remembered her own unlikely path to power.

With the death of Isabella in 1504 Joanna became Queen regnant of Castile and her husband Phillip king although her father Ferdinand continued to rule. Increasingly dismissive of both Joanna and her husband, in 1505 he attempt to convince the Cortes that Joanna was too unstable to rule, a move that was narrowly avoided when Joanna herself appeared before them to convince them of her sanity. He husband was no better though, and seeing Joanna as a means to a kingship he increasingly isolated her from the court, issuing decisions on her behalf and without her knowledge. After avoiding being declared mad by her father her husband proclaimed her too ill to make any but the most cursory public appearances. Having been marginalized and trapped by Phillip she became a pawn in the struggle between her husband and father for control of Spain.

That struggle ended suddenly in September 1506 with Phillip's death, publicly a case of typhoid but poisoned by agents of Ferdinand. A regency council was proposed but with the Queen's sudden public reappearance as an intelligent and clearly mentally sound ruler, something that flew in the face of both her husband and father's assertions, the regency council idea was abandoned. Joanna stepped into her role as Queen in a difficult situation as plague and famine devastated the kingdom and without funds was unable to manage the growing public disorder. Ferdinand declared the situation a clear indication that Joanna was unfit and unable to rule. He arrived in Castile in July 1507 and again called for the Cortes to declare Joanna unfit to rule. That evening however he died from what was declared to be rather fittingly a sudden case of typhoid. His death coincided with a remission of the plague and famine giving the impression that his death had restored the health of the kingdom.

After the untimely and suspect deaths of both her husband and father she was free to rule in her own right. After spending some years securing her position in 1520 she turned away from the endless European wars she restarted the reconquista that her parents had completed. In addition to appeasing her lifelong religious nature it also allowed her son Charles to improve his standing among the citizens of Castile, show himself to be separate from Hapsburg influence, and reenforce the idea of the Catholic Monarchs. In time she and her descendants succeeded in pushing Catholic Spanish rule into Morocco. Funded by the wealth of Spain's new American territories and supported by her sisters in other European courts (who's husbands were happy to see Spain's gaze looking elsewhere) Spain's armies marched into Africa. With the Spanish crown came Catholicism and the Inquisition and in time whole regions were depopulated. Resettled by many Spanish and Portuguese to this day Morocco and Algiers remain firmly Christian, Spanish speaking lands.

Anyway that's the broad scope of what I'd like to do, and probably carry the timeline up to 1800 or so. Of course I don't want it to just be a Spanish wank though. Pushing Spain's power south instead of into the new world is going to leave a lot of empty land in the Americas available for other nations to colonize, no Spanish California or Argentina here. I'd like more land going to the smaller nations who were pushed out by England, France, and Spain in OTL.

Your opinion please!
 
How many Spanish would want to settle in North Africa where hostile natives hide in the mountains waiting to revenge themselves on one of their oppressors? How willing would a Spanish government be to kill everyone given that such an action would leave no-one to tax? And more importantly, what happens in Europe if Spain is distracted with pouring blood and treasure into the conquest of the Moors?

My instinct is that what you outline would turn into a Francewank in the 17th Century, and while North Africa may be substantially Christianized by the Spanish, the Moors keep their culture, and Moriscos remain an important Spanish ethnic subgroup to the modern day.

Also, the people who decide to leave Spanish Africa rather than convert could have interesting effects on the places they settle. The Moroccan refugees might end up changing the trajectory of the Songhai Empire quite substantially, for example.

fasquardon
 
How many Spanish would want to settle in North Africa where hostile natives hide in the mountains waiting to revenge themselves on one of their oppressors? How willing would a Spanish government be to kill everyone given that such an action would leave no-one to tax? And more importantly, what happens in Europe if Spain is distracted with pouring blood and treasure into the conquest of the Moors?

That sounds like Spain during the 800 years of reconquest ;) There was a very delicate balance between all the factors that you describe, but northern Africa wasn't physically and demographically all that different from the southernmost Spain.

My instinct is that what you outline would turn into a Francewank in the 17th Century, and while North Africa may be substantially Christianized by the Spanish, the Moors keep their culture, and Moriscos remain an important Spanish ethnic subgroup to the modern day.
It depends how Spain plays the cards. IOTL Spain wasted all the wealth coming from from America in 3 futile tasks:
-Isolate France
-Contain England
-Retain the United provinces
Except partially the first, they are all related with a strategy of Atlantic superiority, which comes as a necessity because of the possession of almost all of America.
In a "less America, more North of Africa" strategy, Spain would keep focusing on the Mediterranean (as per Ferdinand's designs). That would lead to confrontation with France, but a much more localized one, that doesn't give birth to the dream of making France irrelevant.

Also, the people who decide to leave Spanish Africa rather than convert could have interesting effects on the places they settle. The Moroccan refugees might end up changing the trajectory of the Songhai Empire quite substantially, for example.
Keep in mind that the "convert or leave", by the PoD, was a thing that had been done only once on a large scale, and only to the jewish, not to the muslims (would have been a suicide, for the reasons you explain in the first paragraph).[/QUOTE]
 

Lusitania

Donor
The major problem with this premise is that prior to 1580 and the unification of the Portuguese and Spanish crowns. North Africa was exclusive under Portuguese sphere of influence. This had been agreed in the 15th century when Spain got the Canary Islands and Portugal had several enclaves.
 
That sounds like Spain during the 800 years of reconquest ;) There was a very delicate balance between all the factors that you describe, but northern Africa wasn't physically and demographically all that different from the southernmost Spain.
No it doesn't. Reconquered lands were either settled *before* the conquest (by what was called neo-mozarabs) or settled by foreign elements (as Aquitains along Valencian coast).
Except for urban resettlement that said, most of the countryside population remained the same up to the XVIth century.

Even if there were a global policy of "replacement of populations", we're talking of an urbanized region, where palatial and bureucratized powers clearly unified regionally the demographics.

It's not comparable to North Africa, that remained essentially a group of tribal states or confederations, united from time to time by a more powerful dynasty.

----

On the resettlement for this TL.
That's not really going to happen this way. At best, you would have settlement in coastal cities past the spanish garrisons and in their immediate vicinity.

More probably, with the discoveries of Americas, people would find more interesting to settle in a place with more opportunities, without too close royal intervention, and a load of slaves just waiting to be ordered.

If you want a Spanish North Africa, you'd need to butterfly away Castillan presence in Americas. Thing is, doing that, you would have a greater incitative for it to control north African trade roads (that said, Portugual is still going to have the lion share of Morocco).
 
No it doesn't. Reconquered lands were either settled *before* the conquest (by what was called neo-mozarabs) or settled by foreign elements (as Aquitains along Valencian coast).
Except for urban resettlement that said, most of the countryside population remained the same up to the XVIth century.
Spanish resettlement was hardly uniform. Over time, different models were used, depending on the population density of the area. The peninsule's central mesa had a very low population density, and there were large movements of colonists from the north to the south.

Even if there were a global policy of "replacement of populations", we're talking of an urbanized region, where palatial and bureucratized powers clearly unified regionally the demographics.
This is true regarding only to the bigger cities and later the kingdom of Granada. Tribal politics played a very important role in muslim Spain before it was reduced to Granada, and even after that.

It's not comparable to North Africa, that remained essentially a group of tribal states or confederations, united from time to time by a more powerful dynasty.
But with a lower population density than in coastal southern Spain, which would make it a good target for resettlement through the military orders (if they were willing to bring them back, which would make sense, i guess).
 
Last edited:
The major problem with this premise is that prior to 1580 and the unification of the Portuguese and Spanish crowns. North Africa was exclusive under Portuguese sphere of influence. This had been agreed in the 15th century when Spain got the Canary Islands and Portugal had several enclaves.
Castile had free hand east of Ceuta and in Southern Morocco, though.
 
How many Spanish would want to settle in North Africa where hostile natives hide in the mountains waiting to revenge themselves on one of their oppressors? ....

Most of the Morrocan mountains were inhabited by Berbers, who had not been very ethusiastic Muslims, and who were not becoming good Arabs either. Perhaps with the right political skills the Berbers could have been detached from the opposition to create a semi autonomous vassal state?
 
Alcaçovas would leave north Africa in Castillian hands.
I don't think so. I can't remember exactly where I've seen that Castile was given free hand east of Ceuta but under Alcáçovas Portugal was granted dibs on conquering the kingdom of Fes.

Anyway, the Portuguese nobility was very interested in Morocco as their playground so Portugal will be extra competition for Spain. The easiest way to have Spain conquering the whole area is having Spain somehow absorbing Portugal or having the Portuguese lose their foothold in Morocco.
 
Spanish resettlement was hardly uniform. Over time, different models were used, depending on the population density of the area. The peninsule's central mesa had a very low population density, and there were large movements of colonists from the north to the south.
Hardly uniform, yes. Totally random, no.

Except for Extremadura, and then again, it wasn't a replacement of population, except in the cities where it's clearly documented (the general schema being expulsion of Muslims -> Settlement by western christians).
Population density played only a minor role, but (see below) was more built on a logic of power : by controlling the formal administrative core, you had an upper hand on countryside (that remained relativly untouched up to XVI).

As you're mention the central mesa, I actually don't really know what you're naming such.

Meseta Central, maybe?
If it's the case then, north of Guadarrama, no important re-settlement was really proven. You have the theory of "Desertification of Douro", admitedly, but it's quite criticized now.
South of Guadarrama up to Penibetico (basically Castilla-La Mancha), it's a bit more true.
But it was still a quite disputed border, that up to the XIVth century, didn't really made a good target for settlement (except of course in fortified places). Military Orders gathered much more lands than elsewhere in this region because...well, there wasn't much competitors.

As far as I know, you didn't had a real demographical impact in La Manche before some centuries after its reconquest.

This is true regarding only to the bigger cities and later the kingdom of Granada. Tribal politics played a very important role in muslim Spain before it was reduced to Granada, and even after that.
Tribal policies aren't contradictory with bureaucratisation. Long story short, Palatial administration was based on tribal features as well, or at least including them.
The result was the creation of what we could call decentralized entities, using the same palatial features to manage their lands (It's particularly obvious with taifas).

It's not because palatial administration is based on towns, that the countryside wasn't oprganized along. I disagre strongly with "only bigger cities were touched by that". It was (again the exemple of taifas is extremly telling) a global feature.

Again, the difference was important with what existed in Maghrib at this point even if Merinids, for instance, used a lot of Arabo-Andalusian features. But past them, and around a good part of Maghrib, tribal confederacy and entities dominated plainly.

But with a lower population density than in coastal southern Spain, which would make it a good target for resettlement through the military orders (if they were willing to bring them back, which would make sense, i guess).
The point is there was military Order presence, because it was a military march, not because they were a sign of quicker settlement.
I agree that their presence on North African coast could easy things, but more as securing territories (and here again, I'm talking about coastal holdings around cities) than pushing colonisation.
 
Tribal policies aren't contradictory with bureaucratisation. Long story short, Palatial administration was based on tribal features as well, or at least including them.
The result was the creation of what we could call decentralized entities, using the same palatial features to manage their lands (It's particularly obvious with taifas).

It's not because palatial administration is based on towns, that the countryside wasn't oprganized along. I disagre strongly with "only bigger cities were touched by that". It was (again the exemple of taifas is extremly telling) a global feature.

Alright, i then misunderstood you, i thought you were contraposing the urban-palatial structure in southern Iberia with the tribal in northern Africa.

In the rest i concede your points, my knowledge of the matter goes only a little beyond what you learn in high school about it.
 
Top