Surviving Al-Andalus: Some questions

So... I'm trying to make a surviving Al-Andalus timeline. Their culture seems fascinating to me but I'm still in the research stage. I hope people with a bit more knowledge could help me out on some questions...

1: My current POD (based on a very cursory research) is that Caliph Al-Hakam II has a son earlier in his life, and he takes the reins of goverment instead of his Grand Vizier Al-Mansur (Al-Hakam aparently was homosexual, so he had a son late in life. Since his son was 11 at the time of his death in 976, his vizier took power, bringing a civil war and the slow decline of the Umayyad Caliphate). Either that or his vizier never reaches power. Is this plausible? Where other personages or forces wanting power on Al-Andalus or would most people accept this caliph as legitimate?

2: How to deal with the North Africans? Over the history of muslim Spain, they were often called by caliphs and taifas as military help, and they took power themselves, thus weakining them against christian kingdoms. I'm thinking of a peaceful integration with the rest of the caliphate, but is a military conquest plausible?

3: Would European powers launch a crusade against Al-Andalus if they became too sucessful? How would both sides fare?

4: I think that, given a surviving Al-Andalus, the muslims, christians and jews on Iberia would become used to live togheter, and a more tolerant culture than that of most of Europe would develop. Any interesting cultural changes you can think of?

5: Finally, the big question: Could an Islamic Spain discover/colonize the Americas, Africa or Asia? How would they treat the natives?
 
Not a specialist (even if i would love too, i think a world with Al-Andalus instead of Spain would be a better place to live), but i think i could provide an answer for one question.

5: Finally, the big question: Could an Islamic Spain discover/colonize the Americas, Africa or Asia? How would they treat the natives?

They probably wouldn't "discover" America, as they wouldn't have the same incentive as the Europeans (trade with Asia cut off by muslim powers). This would probably be made by a more northern european naval power (probably England), but i expect the Andalusian to quickly send expeditions once the information of a "new" world come back to them (they would probably have heard of rumor from basque sailors too (IIRC Basque and Irish fishermen already knew of Newfoundland)). For their treatment of American native on the first contact it probably depends on the personality of the expedition leader. Colonization will be made if they find an economic incentive to do so (sugar cane plantation, gold, silver, etc). After colonization, converts would be treated as equals, while non-converts would probably be either killed or more probably reduced into slavery.

For Africa, i think that once the commercial sea routes to Asia become quicker and safer than the land route, i'd expect good relations with muslim kingdoms of the coast of Africa (with probably some help for them to get to the coast if they aren't already) and the establishment of trade posts along the coast to trade with the native and try to convert them. Later colonization of Africa (1800-like) is too late after the PoD to talk about, it probably wouldn't happen if the African Kingdoms are more developped (through trade with Al-Andalus maybe). They probably wouldn't colonize much land in Asia but would help the local muslim rulers (in India or Indonesia) to expand their sphere of influence. They would probably use a more soft colonization technique (colonization through trade) to become a great power, especially if they manage to become the only trading partner of the indian states with Europe, they will gain a lot of monay trading this to other Europeans.
 
Muslims certainly made the european trade with Asia, follow a much more northerly (and dangerous) route, instead of what would have been relatively simple, via Euphrates, and following the coast.

it would be much easier for Al-Andalus to get the needed stuff through the trade routes, so much easier that the need for a easier trade route wouldn't be as pronounced, hence pushing back their independent explorations further back than what Europe would gain naval access.
 
1: My current POD (based on a very cursory research) is that Caliph Al-Hakam II has a son earlier in his life, and he takes the reins of goverment instead of his Grand Vizier Al-Mansur (Al-Hakam aparently was homosexual, so he had a son late in life. Since his son was 11 at the time of his death in 976, his vizier took power, bringing a civil war and the slow decline of the Umayyad Caliphate). Either that or his vizier never reaches power. Is this plausible? Where other personages or forces wanting power on Al-Andalus or would most people accept this caliph as legitimate?

The problem is that Al-Mansur is representative of the rize of a "foreign" military class in Al-Andalus. Not only he was very close to Al-Hakam (being his tutor for some years). If the expedition in Maghreb isn't butterflied (I don't see how it could be), Al-Mansur would still increase the number of berbers in the army and therefore its own power.

Al-Mushafi couldn't really stand with the constant need of the caliphate to rely on mercenaries from Christian Spain or Berber Maghreb. Not talking about multiple factions : berbers, muladi, arabs, etc.

Al-Andalus suffered hevily from its "ethnic" fractionment.

Furthermore, during the dictatorship of Al-Mansur, for everyone the Caliphe WAS the authority and Al-Mansur tried to preserve the apperance (while his son and sucessor tried to have the appearance of power as well and failed totally).


2: How to deal with the North Africans? Over the history of muslim Spain, they were often called by caliphs and taifas as military help, and they took power themselves, thus weakining them against christian kingdoms. I'm thinking of a peaceful integration with the rest of the caliphate, but is a military conquest plausible?

No. Al-Andalus was in constant need of soldiers and mercenaries. If they didn't came from Berber Maghreb, they used Christian from northern states.

North Africa was therefore seen as both a buffer region against Fatimids/Zirids AND a reservoir of men.

The Cordobans had interest to keep this region weak and divided enough to keep control of it and avoid the use of the Berber by one of the statelets. Integrating it would have meant : more importance of Berber princes and weakening of caliphal power + existance of two "hot" fronts : north and Africa.

For a military conquest...The operations were already hard to do WITH the support of Berber rulers so with a direct opposition of every of them...

3: Would European powers launch a crusade against Al-Andalus if they became too sucessful? How would both sides fare?
You had regular campaigns of christian princes with the help of occitan or frankish nobles, some of these being pre-crusades, preached by the popes and with a clear religious goal (if totally mixed, and assumed, with territorial concerns).

So, the European powers would do just what they always did : little wars, little campaigns eating little by little the margins of the caliphate. They have time, more stable institutions, more ressources and more support from their neighbours than the caliphe would never had from its own.

Now, if we're talking of a large scale crusade after a sucessful taking of Jerusalem...Here's the role of kings and princes would be more important : don't forget that the one of the most important leader of the 1st Crusade is Raimon of Saint-Gilles at the image of the power of great princes in southern France and Iberic peninsul.

So, you'll have both more ressources and maybe more men (we're not talking of taking a city at the other edge of the sea, but a land next door, with known terrains thanks to earlier campaigns and raids) but aslo more conflicts between crusade leaders.

The "I won't give a shit about what happen to my neighbour"-effect, famous during 1st Crusade would probably apply there, just less importantly. The clientele or great lords of Andalusia would probably help the Caliphe, but serching a way to negociate more power for them and peraphs a peace with crusaders if things turn wrong.

Preventing Al-Mansur rise and especially the sacking of Compostella, one of the most important pilgrims and religious place of medieval Europe, would certainly help.

4: I think that, given a surviving Al-Andalus, the muslims, christians and jews on Iberia would become used to live togheter, and a more tolerant culture than that of most of Europe would develop. Any interesting cultural changes you can think of?
You think wrong, sorry.

First, what do we call tolerence there?
If it's the modern idea of "I don't give a shit about your religion, convictions, origin, let's be pal"...Forget it, it didn't existed, nowhere in the Old World before the XVIII century.

If it's the idea of "Ok you're different from me, but instead of persecuting you, your family and force you to flee or convert, I'll just consider you as a second class citizen with less rights and more taxes to pay", that was relativly well present not only in Arabo-Islamic world but Christian world as well.

You had important jewish communauties in southern France by exemple, not getthoïzed and having their own representatives (Kalonymos, "king" of the Jews of Narbonne by exemple).

Of course the situation is changing : periods of cohabitation (with even Jews with charges of power over Christian or Muslims), suspicion (the usual) and pogroms and slaughters (Worms, Grenada).

The Almorvids would be so tolerents that many Jews would prefer join the king of Castille force.

So again, tolerance in a modern way? No.
At best cohabitation in favourable times, suspicion and second-class feature as the norm and attacks and pogroms as reaction during crisis time (Fitna, epidemics) or from opportunist (low german nobility, berber invaders).

For Europe the situation began to be really hard for Jews between the XIII and XIV centuries. In one century you pass from suspicion or even cohabitation to exile.

For Al-Andalus, the fitna provoked many anti-juadic actions(anti-jewish religion, not anti-semitism that don't care about religion but about race, ultra-minoritary during MA). The most popular states and rulers were the most djihadist ones, the most "rigorist" when it came to application of charia.
Of course, the Jews in Al-Andalus were only one of the dhimmis "minorities" (Christian being the other "minority" representating only 1/3 to 3/4 of the population depending of regions) so protected by that when in Europe, Jews were THE minority and more or less assimilated to heresy features with the XII century putting their situation more precarious.

You coul prevent that with a living caliphate, but not only it would be REALLY hard to make it but before the rise of christian principalities and the "I'm more pure than you-game" between Muslims princes...

5: Finally, the big question: Could an Islamic Spain discover/colonize the Americas, Africa or Asia? How would they treat the natives?

Al-Andalus benefitied from the trade with Sudan (Mali, Ghana) and could try to place trade centers along the west african coast (while it would certainly provoke a rivality up to war with berber states such as Almoravids or sucessor) without too much direct benefit at short term.

Americas? Asia? Why not about discovery but what would have been the point of going THERE? It's not like you'll have a great motive : spice road not blockaded, trade with Africa most obviously beneficial.

Treatment of the natives? Slaves took from their lands, sent to Al-Andalus then islamized and arabized if not already. While trade centers are possible, I don't see many motives to go deeper in the lands : probably they would provoke the apperance of buffer states to protect these centers.

After colonization, converts would be treated as equals, while non-converts would probably be either killed or more probably reduced into slavery.
Berbers and Muladi treatment by the Arabs in Al-Andalus would rather indicate the existance of another second-class people, more or less metissed.
 
Why don't you die, awful theory?

The Muslims didn't cut off trade!

Well, I don't know what he meant but Muslim traders HAD the monopoly of spice trade with Asia and european merchants were more or less forced to trade with them : commercial power-wannabe as Portugal and Spain tried to bypass this monopole.

Maybe it's what he tried to say?
 
3: Would European powers launch a crusade against Al-Andalus if they became too sucessful? How would both sides fare?

I think that the European powers played an important role in the reconquest, often paying a huge immigration and military support but the fact is that they had a huge entrance bridge to the mainland. This bridge was the northern kingdoms and Catalonia. I'm not sure how it would affect to the future of Europe (even if it could imply the very existence of Crusades) but the permanence of these bridges is impractical if you want Al-Andalus to survive.
4: I think that, given a surviving Al-Andalus, the muslims, christians and jews on Iberia would become used to live togheter, and a more tolerant culture than that of most of Europe would develop. Any interesting cultural changes you can think of?

It is a myth, an absolute myth, is the story of Atlantis moved to Spain. A kind of ideal society that existed for a few years. All have used those few years to make what a known Greek character made with Atlantis. Want another way to prevent the annihilation of Al Andalus? Forget fairytales, eliminate any elements that might help an eventual invasion of french or german Christians, conquer northern Iberia! and even if it comes to the case, do the same thing the Castilians did, CONVERSION OR EXPULSION!!!!
5: Finally, the big question: Could an Islamic Spain discover/colonize the Americas, Africa or Asia? How would they treat the natives?
Of course, why not? but frankly... you got so many problems and threats to solve in Al Andalus before that
 
How arabo-berbers would be able to do that while being surrounded by between 75% or at best 33% of Christian should be as interesting than the consequences.

Make Al-Andalus (I mean Al-Andalus, prefereably an all iberia muslim state, not Granada or something like that) last longer and you could see how that figures change. Then find yourself a potential Christian invader (The Ottoman empire play that role with Granada), presumably France, that could use this elements as a support to an invasion. I surely doubt about the plausibility of that policy in a muslim state but could help if you want a survival Al-Andalus
 
Make Al-Andalus (I mean Al-Andalus, prefereably an all iberia muslim state, not Granada or something like that) last longer and you could see how that figures change. Then find yourself a potential Christian invader (The Ottoman empire play that role with Granada), presumably France, that could use this elements as a support to an invasion. I surely doubt about the plausibility of that policy in a muslim state but could help if you want a survival Al-Andalus

1) Al-Andalus lasting longer couldn't change many things. Arabo-Berbers were in too few numbers since the beggining and couldn't hope for regular "reinforcments" due to the cut of Berber Revolt and Abassid coup.

Arabs had to use converts or christians BUT not totally assimilate them fearing to be overthrown (it's why the muladi didn't had many power but local before the revolts of late emirate).

In Al-Andalus, more than the religion, the tribal origin and the ethnicity played the greater role up to the end of the Caliphate.

The Almoravids and the Almohads tried the "convert or die" tactic. It backfired : not only they gave to christian princes prextext AND men, but they made even more unstable the region (that didn't exactly needed it).

Finally they had to return to a more "classical" rule on minorities, but then, they loose their base : indeed the more popular rulers among the arab AND arabized population were the more caricaturally djihadist.

Indeed, the pressure made by christian rulers was heavy and the urban populations knew they would be the first to have their influence lowered (if not simply expelled). As the religious policy, to be coherent, had to be external (war, raids) AND internal, abandoning the rigorist inner policy towards Christians and Jews meant credibility and support loss.

2) A surviving Al-Andalus is an hard thing to reach : it's even admirable it lasted so long seeing the situation.

Its two big problems (at least for me) were the ultra-minority of "ethnic" Arabs (leading to a rigorist divide of society) and unstable institutions directly taken from tribal ones (both because it was a matter of identity, and because the arab nobles didn't really tought they owned their power thanks to the Emir/Caliphe)

The first problem is almost unavoidable : the Berber Revolt is going to happen, no matter what, leading to not only heavy troubles in Al-Andalus but the cut of the peninsula from Arab migration.

The second...well, it would need several and continuous efforts and out-of-the-box thinking. It's more plausible to happen in the first decennials of Al-Andalus but it would look like an use of visigothic customs and would most probably meant an havy influence from muladi or still christian nobles (Tudmir, Qasi, Ardabas...)

OTL, the most rebellious aeras were both the most arabized, but aslo many muladi. While it was hard to get rid of the first without ouching to its power base (Almanzor did, but almost everyone agrees that his dictatorship pretty well accelerated or even provoked the Fitna), it was more easy for the second.

Well, it COULD have been more easy if they didn't representated the large majority of Muslims in Al-Andalus. They could even afford the luxury to "re"-convert themselves to Christianity in their struggle against Cordoba (Ibn Hafsun is probably the most known, but he's not the only one).

Furthermore, the Christian rulers of the North had many assets : more stable institutions, more militarised ruling class (while the andalusian had to employ mercenaries : Berbers or Christians), many ressources for war (mines in northern Spain by exemple) and a support base (Francia for "Asturians" in the IX century by exemple, or occitan nobility for Aragon and Barcelona during the XII/XIII centuries)

Finally, more important the persecution against Christian in Al-Andalus, more likely the possibility of Mozarabs to help openly or not the Christian raids, campaigns or eventually conquests. It happened OTL, while the pressure wasn't really heavy, and what you'll propose would just giving northern princes more troops. (Also provoking revolts everywhere : not only christians but their patrons, and opportunist using a time of trouble to impose their power).
 
Muslims certainly made the european trade with Asia, follow a much more northerly (and dangerous) route, instead of what would have been relatively simple, via Euphrates, and following the coast.

Venice, Genoa, etc. traded with the Islamic states and were the route of the East Asian goods into Europe. Hell, Venice allied with the Mamelukes against the Portuguese in the early 16th century.


Well, I don't know what he meant but Muslim traders HAD the monopoly of spice trade with Asia and european merchants were more or less forced to trade with them : commercial power-wannabe as Portugal and Spain tried to bypass this monopole.

Maybe it's what he tried to say?

Sure, but Al-Andalus would have the same incentives, IMO.
 
Sure, but Al-Andalus would have the same incentives, IMO.

I don't think so : the andalusian trade was mainly based on west-african ressources. Admittedly a blockade by north african states could push a surviving Al-Andalus to bypass the land roads by sea and sail towards african coast.

It would need a big pack of bad luck to have them discover Americas this way.
 
Top