Surviving Al-Andalus: Ways, means, chances.

[Elfwine]

Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=215558 and based on my thread earlier on "What exactly would it take for the HRE to be centralized and united in the Staufen era?", this is for Al-Andalus (A Muslim, Iberian-based polity) post-1200.

What would it take? Can it be done?

The Emirate of Granada lasting a little longer isn't enough - I mean something that can contest control of the peninsula with the Christian powers.

It doesn't have to take it all, but what would it take for it to remain/become such a power?

Could this be done without there being one united Muslim state on the peninsula? For most of the Reconquestia, the Christian kingdoms were divided amongst themselves - Castile vs. Leon vs. Aragon and picking on Navarre when there was nothing better to do.

Or is this something where the (Iberian) Muslim presence is too weak, and it would be part of an Africa-based Muslim polity, if it existed at all?

Surely there's nothing that means that the Christian kingdoms inevitably are able to avoid civil war and crown-vs.-noble struggles leaving them weakened but Muslim states can no more avoid that than the 15th century Byzantines could avoid failing in the end.

 

[Kalvan]

A Great Islamic Council of Fez happens, resulting in the rapproachment of Iberian muslims with their fellows across the Straight. This leads to the unification of all Arabs and Berbers (with the exception of a few southern Berber clans) west of Tripoli in the Caliphate of Tunis through a Dynastic Marriage with Grenada. Every attempt to reduce Genada results in massive blocades of Seville, Valencia, Barcelona, and sackings of the Ballerics and the Canaries. Then when the Sultan buys the other major claim to the Caliphate, there is another great council, this time in Cairo or Jerusalem to settle the matter in a peaceful way...

 

[Elfwine]

A Great Islamic Council of Fez happens, resulting in the rapproachment of Iberian muslims with their fellows across the Straight. This leads to the unification of all Arabs and Berbers (with the exception of a few southern Berber clans) west of Tripoli in the Caliphate of Tunis through a Dynastic Marriage with Grenada. Every attempt to reduce Genada results in massive blocades of Seville, Valencia, Barcelona, and sackings of the Ballerics and the Canaries. Then when the Sultan buys the other major claim to the Caliphate, there is another great council, this time in Cairo or Jerusalem to settle the matter in a peaceful way...

Well, that just preserves a Muslim outpost by the African powers.

 

[Ofaloaf]

The biggest problem with Al-Andalus, best I can figure, is that they never managed to sort out shit amongst themselves. The Berbers and Arabs kept fighting amongst one another, Al-Andalus kept dissolving into city-states, and the Christians were way sharper on capitalizing on Muslim moments of weakness than vice versa.

Get a centralized administration that can keep going even when there's an absolute twit on the throne. The problem is one of political structure.

 

[Elfwine]

The biggest problem with Al-Andalus, best I can figure, is that they never managed to sort out shit amongst themselves. The Berbers and Arabs kept fighting amongst one another, Al-Andalus kept dissolving into city-states, and the Christians were way sharper on capitalizing on Muslim moments of weakness than vice versa.

Get a centralized administration that can keep going even when there's an absolute twit on the throne. The problem is one of political structure.

Do tell (underlined). I mean, its not as if the Christian kingdoms were perfectly united, but they never dissolved like that. Even the HRE nominally held together in the first century of this (1200-1300 Christian calender).

 

[Ofaloaf]

Do tell (underlined). I mean, its not as if the Christian kingdoms were perfectly united, but they never dissolved like that. Even the HRE nominally held together in the first century of this (1200-1300 Christian calender).

Thing is, Al-Andalus has more in common with the Roman Empire than with later Christian kingdoms regarding rulership. There was never a good succession law in place, and the rulers never quite seemed as... "legitimate" isn't the right word, but it's close enough to get the gist of it, as their Christian counterparts. They could be wise and noble in character, certainly, but they weren't really blue-blooded.

The Emir was an appointee from Damascus, the ruler a glorified governor. The Umayyads had a touch of regality, but their claim to the Caliphal title had more to do with recognizing Andalusia's de facto independence than any claim to better blood, and most people recognized that and remembered that the ruler used to be just a governor. Al-Andalus didn't evolve from a local, established monarchy, but from an appointed governorship.

I wish I hadn't lent my tome of Muslim Spain to a friend of mine right now.

 

[Elfwine]

Thing is, Al-Andalus has more in common with the Roman Empire than with later Christian kingdoms regarding rulership. There was never a good succession law in place, and the rulers never quite seemed as... "legitimate" isn't the right word, but it's close enough to get the gist of it, as their Christian counterparts. They could be wise and noble in character, certainly, but they weren't really blue-blooded.

The Emir was an appointee from Damascus, the ruler a glorified governor. The Umayyads had a touch of regality, but their claim to the Caliphal title had more to do with recognizing Andalusia's de facto independence than any claim to better blood, and most people recognized that and remembered that the ruler used to be just a governor. Al-Andalus didn't evolve from a local, established monarchy, but from an appointed governorship.

I wish I hadn't lent my tome of Muslim Spain to a friend of mine right now.

Interesting.

That sounds like something that would require a very successful king (for want of a better term) leaving a solid dynasty behind him to base the idea of how Al-Andalus is his - sort of like the Ayyubids did in Egypt and Syria to some extent. That ought to at least set a strong precedent of _____'s Legacy (like Charlemagne to Western Europe).

Do you remember the title and author of the book you lent the friend?

 

[Glen]

Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=215558 and based on my thread earlier on "What exactly would it take for the HRE to be centralized and united in the Staufen era?", this is for Al-Andalus (A Muslim, Iberian-based polity) post-1200.

What would it take? Can it be done?

The Emirate of Granada lasting a little longer isn't enough - I mean something that can contest control of the peninsula with the Christian powers.

It doesn't have to take it all, but what would it take for it to remain/become such a power?

Could this be done without there being one united Muslim state on the peninsula? For most of the Reconquestia, the Christian kingdoms were divided amongst themselves - Castile vs. Leon vs. Aragon and picking on Navarre when there was nothing better to do.

Or is this something where the (Iberian) Muslim presence is too weak, and it would be part of an Africa-based Muslim polity, if it existed at all?

Surely there's nothing that means that the Christian kingdoms inevitably are able to avoid civil war and crown-vs.-noble struggles leaving them weakened but Muslim states can no more avoid that than the 15th century Byzantines could avoid failing in the end.

I was going to refer you to the Empire of Al-Andalus but I see that your query requires a post-1200 POD....yeah, that's a hard one....

 

[Faeelin]

Get a centralized administration that can keep going even when there's an absolute twit on the throne. The problem is one of political structure.

I wonder if you could get the Caliph to end up sort of like the Japanese Emperor, as a nominal authority figure while real power is run behind the scenes? IMO that's where the Umayyads were going, before the end.

I'm a bit skeptical of blaming the fall on ethnic conflicts. More than those between Catalans and Castillians? Or the kingdoms that were continuously merging and breaking apart?

 

[Elfwine]

I was going to refer you to the Empire of Al-Andalus but I see that your query requires a post-1200 POD....yeah, that's a hard one....

Will give it a read anyway, might inspire an idea or two. Or at least be enjoyable.

Just thinking that up to its defeat at Las Navas de Tolosa, the Almohads didn't look that weak - yes, they're an African state, but if they can beat the Christian kingdoms, maybe there's time for an Iberian one to form.

 

[Shevek23]

I think it would be nice to see this, especially if they don't lose that relatively tolerant and progressive character they were famous for in their heyday. Or lose it but regain it.

I suspect that an Iberia divided between Christian and Muslim powers is unstable though. Even if the Christian realms are only holding on to a third or a quarter of the peninsula they will keep fanatically trying to drive out the Muslims. If our strong Muslim regime, be it a dynasty or a shogunate type deal with a process for putting in a strong minister--or dare I imagine it, a constitutional monarchy or even...a Republic!...OK, if they can get control to the Pyrenees then perhaps the rest of Europe might content itself with holding them there. (Or vice versa as OTL of course--once the last Muslim holdout state is banished from the peninsula, further ventures by the Christians into Muslim Africa are likely but their extent is negotiable, there won't be the same eliminationist drive).

One reason I'd like to see an al-Andalus timeline is that I do think the Reconquista put a cultural stamp on Spain that was rather unfortunate. It could be of course that a Muslim recovery and consolidation of the whole peninsula would have the same effect on them, but I'm hoping not.

 

[Elfwine]

I think it would be nice to see this, especially if they don't lose that relatively tolerant and progressive character they were famous for in their heyday. Or lose it but regain it.

That's my hope. Its not necessary for the question, but its the reason I care enough to ask - Al-Andalus the tolerant, progressive and generally enlightened is cool. And such an attitude at least as a matter of realpolitick isn't beyond states of the era (the Byzantines at their best being the only Christian example, but they're also the only organized Christian state).

I suspect that an Iberia divided between Christian and Muslim powers is unstable though. Even if the Christian realms are only holding on to a third or a quarter of the peninsula they will keep fanatically trying to drive out the Muslims. If our strong Muslim regime, be it a dynasty or a shogunate type deal with a process for putting in a strong minister--or dare I imagine it, a constitutional monarchy or even...a Republic!...OK, if they can get control to the Pyrenees then perhaps the rest of Europe might content itself with holding them there. (Or vice versa as OTL of course--once the last Muslim holdout state is banished from the peninsula, further ventures by the Christians into Muslim Africa are likely but their extent is negotiable, there won't be the same eliminationist drive).

A republic would be fascinating. Kudos to anyone who can figure out that one in this situation.

Why will the Christians keep trying to drive out the Muslims entirely? I mean, let's say you have a Muslim state about this big; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Espa%C3%B1a1150.jpg in 1350. And the Christian kingdoms are still divided amongst themselves as they usually were.

Are they really going to be able to maintain the idea of liberating the peninsula? Sure there will be fighting against the Muslim state, but there's a difference between fighting over the border and individual kings having visions of uniting all of Iberia behind their rule, and something where the area being All Christian is held as a fanatical obsession, not just by fanatics but as part of basic policy.

I mean, I'm sure there were Scottish kings who would have liked to extend Scotland further south, but doing so in 1400 would probably have struck most as fanciful however badly they wanted it. Why can't such a situation be achieved in Iberia?

Religion or no, the diehards are going to find themselves dying off.

One reason I'd like to see an al-Andalus timeline is that I do think the Reconquista put a cultural stamp on Spain that was rather unfortunate. It could be of course that a Muslim recovery and consolidation of the whole peninsula would have the same effect on them, but I'm hoping not.

I think it would be slightly less so, though a lot depends on what kind of Muslim group is behind the recovery. Muslim Spain seems to have varied between the cultured but not necessarily militarily effective to the militarily effective intolerant fanatics.

 

[MNP]

Why will the Christians keep trying to drive out the Muslims entirely? I mean, let's say you have a Muslim state about this big; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Espa%C3%B1a1150.jpg in 1350. And the Christian kingdoms are still divided amongst themselves as they usually were.

Same reason everyone tried to expand.

It was easier taking on the divided Muslims who fought each other more often though obviously Navarre and Toulouse were in play for many centuries. (What if Albigensian operation had gone Pedro II's way for instance?) The southern lands were better agriculturally compared to the northern ones and geographically more accessible than France. On the frontier with the Muslims, settlers often acquired greater rights and privileges, creating an incentive to advance the frontier.

Tyerman writes the First Crusade was transformational in the way the Reconquista was understood within Spain. The arrival of religiously inspired soldiers from abroad (Crusaders and Almoravids) led to casting the past as a more religious conflict than it was. (Plus it let kings raise taxes from the church to fund wars!) Even here it had a strong elemental of localism and an undercurrent of practicality that mitigated the anti-Islam mentality. While the fanaticism belongs more to Isabel's time and later, but it was built on the union of Iberian conquests and religion that began around 1100. In a world without the Crusades, or where there is far less religious fervor, once the era of conquering your neighbors for territory goes out of style, they could reach equilibrium.

Simply put, they are the best targets. As long as the Muslims can't destroy them, they'll keep trying to attack Al-Andalus. If the Muslims are too strong they will leave them alone. I think there were also some technology improvements in warfare Muslims did not adopt at this time, but they were a minor element.

 

[Elfwine]

Same reason everyone tried to expand.

It was easier taking on the divided Muslims who fought each other more often though obviously Navarre and Toulouse were in play for many centuries. (What if Albigensian operation had gone Pedro II's way for instance?) The southern lands were better agriculturally compared to the northern ones and geographically more accessible than France. On the frontier with the Muslims, settlers often acquired greater rights and privileges, creating an incentive to advance the frontier.

Tyerman writes the First Crusade was transformational in the way the Reconquista was understood within Spain. The arrival of religiously inspired soldiers from abroad (Crusaders and Almoravids) led to casting the past as a more religious conflict than it was. (Plus it let kings raise taxes from the church to fund wars!) Even here it had a strong elemental of localism and an undercurrent of practicality that mitigated the anti-Islam mentality. While the fanaticism belongs more to Isabel's time and later, but it was built on the union of Iberian conquests and religion that began around 1100. In a world without the Crusades, or where there is far less religious fervor, once the era of conquering your neighbors for territory goes out of style, they could reach equilibrium.

Simply put, they are the best targets. As long as the Muslims can't destroy them, they'll keep trying to attack Al-Andalus. If the Muslims are too strong they will leave them alone.

Sounds like a situation where, if I'm reading this correctly, a strong Al-Andalus and better opportunities elsewhere would go far towards making it no more inevitable that there would be Iberian-Andalusi conflict than say, French-German conflict. Which is to say, war returns to being merely a convenient way to seize territory with religion as a handy caus belli but not so much "One faith will rule all of Spain, Muslim or Christian, and it won't be over until that's decided.".

Elements of that maybe, given the POD is after the religious factors have been introduced, but not quite so much so as OTL saw in the Catholic Monarchs.

Is this correct? Or am I misreading?

 

[scholar]

In 1350 al-Andalus was just Granada.

Even so, The Emirate of Granada was a vital trading point on the Iberian Continent as it gave the Kingdoms of Iberia an indirect link to the vastly lucrative arabic trade networks which would be more expensive or closed off to Christian powers alone. It is relatively easy to keep Al Andalus around. Simply delay the spread of trade and their irrelevance. Should Granada continue to serve as a client state for a century or two longer than it already did then it is entirely likely that the Emirate would continue to exist and may possible see a tiny fraction of the new world as one of their colonies. It would also help if you managed to have Granada keep some African holdings, such as Ceuta, and stopped Granada from behaving stupidly such as siding against the Christian kingdoms in an invasion of the peninsula. Neither of these alone were the death knells for the emirate, but they certainly hastened their fall. It is also of note that it would take about ten years for Spain to actually defeat the relatively small state due to the wealth, prosperity, natural defensive terrain, and strong army of the Emirate, so it is also possible for them to call off an invasion after a few years of conflict with little gain.

 

[Elfwine]

Scholar: Interesting, but...

The Emirate of Granada lasting a little longer isn't enough - I mean something that can contest control of the peninsula with the Christian powers.

And the idea on 1350 is that the 1150 borders are somehow preserved/regained with a POD at some point after 1200 by 1350, my bad if I worded that poorly.

 

[scholar]

Scholar: Interesting, but...

The Emirate of Granada lasting a little longer isn't enough - I mean something that can contest control of the peninsula with the Christian powers.

And the idea on 1350 is that the 1150 borders are somehow preserved/regained with a POD at some point after 1200 by 1350, my bad if I worded that poorly.

Then reverse course, instead of delaying their decline make them far more important. Prevent the rise of the Portguese in Africa, prevent the union of Aragon and Castille-Leon, and finally have a significant muslim power which controls much of the Mediterranean coast that becomes even harsher on foreigners making it difficult even for Genoa and Venice to trade. This makes smaller independent and less bigoted Islamic states a boon to trade, rapidly becoming a economic powerhouse. Not simply an important regional trading center. Such actions may actually prompt crusades to happen again, especially since the Il Khanate was practically begging Europe to send an army to Judea. It keeps Iberia from getting united and centers their attention firmly on the markets and lands of the middle east. Have a crusade end badly for Castille-Leon that would enable Granada to acquire a great deal of their territory in the south while not appearing to be a true threat to the rest of the peninsula. One of slow and steady reconquest and protection to do being one of the few free and open trading centers in the Islamic world to Europe will certainly allow them to be in a position to be able to take control of the peninsula. They may not succeed, may fail miserably, or not even try, but it appears likely that a scenario like this may allow such a thing to happen.

 

[Elfwine]

Then reverse course, instead of delaying their decline make them far more important. Prevent the rise of the Portguese in Africa, prevent the union of Aragon and Castille-Leon, and finally have a significant muslim power which controls much of the Mediterranean coast that becomes even harsher on foreigners making it difficult even for Genoa and Venice to trade. This makes smaller independent and less bigoted Islamic states a boon to trade, rapidly becoming a economic powerhouse.

Wouldn't a harshly bigoted Muslim state be seen with even greater hostility than the OTL powers there? And where are these independent Islamic states?

And how does one do that? That is, make them more important, prevent the rise of the Portugese, etc.? Looking for details in this thread, since this is a complicated area.

Not simply an important regional trading center. Such actions may actually prompt crusades to happen again, especially since the Il Khanate was practically begging Europe to send an army to Judea.

But more likely to smash the North African power than to go to Palestine.

 

[scholar]

Wouldn't a harshly bigoted Muslim state be seen with even greater hostility than the OTL powers there? And where are these independent Islamic states?

And how does one do that? That is, make them more important, prevent the rise of the Portugese, etc.? Looking for details in this thread, since this is a complicated area.

But more likely to smash the North African power than to go to Palestine.

You posted before I finished my edit!

The point is that there wouldn't be many, a truly dominant muslim power would have most independent states on the caribbean as vassals or clients. An earlier, probably Mamluke centered, Ottoman analog would fit the bill just fine. Just make them not venture into Europe and be harsh on the Europeans.

The Portuguese's rise was a culmination on a number of factors, not in the least was the greater susceptibility of the Moroccan coast to invasion and influence. Have them fail spectacularly in their initial forays into Africa, that would be enough to give them pause in the future and certainly to delay them long enough for other avenues to open.

The North African coast is strong. Most people either don't realize it or simply ignore it. The Algiers, the Barbary coast, all of this entangles a mess that has been difficult for any European power to significantly harm or damage until long after the Europeans had a significant tech advantage. The notion of France or Spain having a crusade to take out a few ports in Tunisia and Tripoli is not impossible, but is not very likely to have lasting success. Or much success at all. Further the massive islamic state would have already gained the nominal submission of these states lining the coast so any attack on them will result in their getting reinforcements. The Il Khanate is simply too good an ally to pass up for any invasion to open up trade.

 

[Elfwine]

You posted before I finished my edit!

My bad.

The point is that there wouldn't be many, a truly dominant muslim power would have most independent states on the caribbean as vassals or clients. An earlier, probably Mamluke centered, Ottoman analog would fit the bill just fine. Just make them not venture into Europe and be harsh on
the Europeans.

Ah. Still sounds problematic for the state when it comes to the European response.

The Portuguese's rise was a culmination on a number of factors, not in the least was the greater susceptibility of the Moroccan coast to invasion and influence. Have them fail spectacularly in their initial forays into Africa, that would be enough to give them pause in the future and certainly to delay them long enough for other avenues to open.

Sounds good.

The North African coast is strong. Most people either don't realize it or simply ignore it. The Algiers, the Barbary coast, all of this entangles a mess that has been difficult for any European power to significantly harm or damage until long after the Europeans had a significant tech advantage. The notion of France or Spain having a crusade to take out a few ports in Tunisia and Tripoli is not impossible, but is not very likely to have lasting success. Or much success at all. Further the massive islamic state would have already gained the nominal submission of these states lining the coast so any attack on them will result in their getting reinforcements. The Il Khanate is simply too good an ally to pass up for any invasion to open up trade.

Is it really that strong? I mean, navaly the Barbary pirates and all seem to have done decently enough, but on land...

I'm not really sure how much effort Europe really put into taking out this area, all things considered. Thus asking.

Just how much power can that region actually muster? North Africa isn't the most fertile or heavily populated part of the world.

Certainly extending inward from the coast might be problematic (yay for mountains), but in terms of wrecking the state, that might not be necessary.