Tunisia Remains A “European” Country

If Europeanness is so broad as to encompass the Berbers, then I don't see why the Arabs couldn't also be European or Turkish Anatolia. Or Egypt which is a great example since a lot of Roman Egypt customs persist even to this day within Arab Egyptian populations.
The International Baccleuariate program I beleive until only just recently classified Egypt as Europe, mind you it was alone in that, surronded by Africa and Asia
 
The International Baccleuariate program I beleive until only just recently classified Egypt as Europe, mind you it was alone in that, surronded by Africa and Asia
I think that is simply nonsense. I don't see why they would classify it as Europe. Europe was initially categorized as a geographical term rather than reflecting anything "cultural". But if there is something called "European culture" it should be limited to the geographical region known as Europe rather than extent outside of it. That's like describing America as "Asian culture" or something even America is not Asia.
 
What I am thinking is that a good POD would focus around the Fall of the Diocese of Africa to the Vandals. As that appears to have been the major tipping point which saw the collapse of Roman influenced culture - and more importantly the increasing desertification of not just Tunisia but major parts of Numidia and Libya. Of course part of it is due to climate change but organized agriculture can go a long way.

So in essence the hypothetical European Tunisia would be a heir to the Diocese of Africa but would also be in effect a more stable Mauro-Roman Kingdom/Successor.

Much in the same way France is a Frankish-Gallo-Roman Successor. Or Spain as a Visigoth-Roman-Iberian Successor.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. The region had, after all, had far fewer Muslim c. 600 than it did Christians c. 1000, and there's precedent for the redeconversion of previously Christian lands in the form of Spain. If Tunisia remains under Christian rule for long enough -- say, four to five hundred years -- there's no reason it can't flip back.
The difference is there was far greater Arab migration to Tunisia than there ever was to Spain. Christianity in Late Antiquity was of course very fractitious and divided, and it isn't surprising that many locals converted. It's very possible given the prevelance of Judaism among the Berbers and Berber pagan tribes in the region as late as the 6th century that Christianity was poorly established in many areas. Islam was practically considered just a heretical sect of Christians by some. And at the time North Africa was conquered, the Caliphate just kept conquering and there were basically no attempts to restore Christian rule there before the Normans.

The situation is totally different a few centuries later where doctrines of holy war are so much more developed, there was a glorious Islamic past in Tunisia (albeit quite weakened at that time due to fighting between Muslim states), and plenty of Arab and Berber tribes, let alone the stronger states next door, will use every opportunity they get to raid the "Kingdom of Africa" or whatever Sicilian/Crusader entity takes hold in Tunisia. And I'm pretty sure massacres and buffer zones between Christian and Muslim territories were just as important for returning Iberia to Christianity as conversions were, and of course it was the Spanish Inquisition and lack of any nearby Muslim states strong enough to aid local Muslims that solidified it.
Because the Christian Amazigh tribes that would be running Tunisia would have a fundamentally different culture and social structure than European feudalist society? 7th century Arabs were right next to the Byzantines and the Sassanids but neither, not even the Ghassanids or the Lakhmids, were very culturally influenced by either. I just don't think you are fully aware of the situation of Tunisia during this period and who was actually in charge of it (which was a patchwork of different Berber tribes and clans). You're dealing with them, not Greek Byzantines.

And so I doubt that if Tunisia was Christian (which, even when it was Christian you still had Berber paganism that was semi-tolerated) it would remain culturally European. As long as Berbers control the Sahara, they will effectively have full control over Tunisia and North Africa due to the low strategic depth of Tunisia from the desert relative to the sea. And Amazigh tribes are more connected to Sub-Saharan Africa than they are to Europe since they are also migratory or nomadic.

If you want a Christian Tunisia that remains culturally European, you need a POD before the fall of the Roman Empire and you need to find a way for Amazigh or Berber tribes to somehow never be capable of taking over or migrating into Tunis. Which is very difficult.
Christian Berbers would be closely linked with Christian Europe and develop institutions along similar lines to rule their society. In all processes they have the church and its institutions influencing their society. It's very similar to Germanic Europe, given the Germanic tribes of 500 AD didn't have the same institutions they had two centuries later. It helps too that Tunisia was the most Roman part of Africa and had a very substantial number of Latin speakers until the era after the Muslim conquest. Since "Berber" is a very broad term, I'd expect some Berbers to completely settle down and potentially be assimilated by Latin culture (especially within the bounds of the wetter part of Tunisia) and other Berbers would remain more tribal and exist in the hills. Which would be pretty much equivalent to what happened with Vasconic-speaking tribes in the Pyrenees (of whom modern Basques are the only remnant) and the Gaels of Scotland (of whom the Highlanders are the remnant).
As such, I see very little reason to believe a Berber North Africa, given how Berbers have closer cultural ties to sub-Saharan Africa than they do Western Europe, would be culturally European at all. Even if it was Christian and this isn't even getting into what variant of Christianity Berbers will likely have which will definitely be syncretic in some fashion (and that is assuming Christianity even becomes powerful since it wasn't very prominent in Berber tribes OTL at all).
Christianity wasn't very prominent among Germanic tribes either since paganism was still very common. North Africa had well over a hundred bishoprics (three of which survived into the 11th century) and there are also several records of monasticism as well. How is that any different than early Anglo-Saxon England or Saxony? Religious syncreticism was obviously quite common as well in this region, but gradually it declined until paganism became mere folklore.
I don't see how it was more Roman influenced at all? Sure, there were plenty of Roman infrastructure but that doesn't necessarily imply any sort of cultural Roman-ness. I also don't know how much prestige the language actually had among Berbers so I would like some sources on this part.
Mauro-Roman states in North Africa used Roman imagery and Christianity in their titles and edicts, and we know this because one edict proclaims the ruler Masuna (a Berber) rules the "Kingdom of the Mauri and Romans" even using the title rex. If the Berbers weren't culturally Roman, they surely wouldn't have bothered with that. It's also clear they were erecting churches in the typical Roman style. Further, the Berber language to this day has hundreds of loanwords from Vulgar Latin, mostly relating to agriculture and plant life, and many toponyms in the Maghreb directly continue their old Roman names.
The Amazigh historically were the main thorough-line for trade between Sub-Saharan Africa and the Mediterranean as they basically ran that trade and jealously guarded those trade routes. Thus, they had the most contact with sub-Saharan African cultures and had their own cultural traditions due to their lifestyles which were completely different from urbanized Roman life.
Some Berbers, yes, but not the ones in North Africa who were subjects of the Roman Empire. Before the dromedary was introduced, the trans-Saharan trade was done through a series of intermediaries. Very few people ever crossed the desert in a single trip. I don't see how you can at all say there were sub-Saharan influences on the Berbers during Late Antiquity beside perhaps the fact some of them may have had children with sub-Saharan African slaves purchased from Berbers involved in the trans-Saharan trade.
 
I’d imagine we would get a Mauro-Roman style state across Tunisia and Algeria at the least. Of course this would also have ramifications for Morocco but regardless. I’d imagine the blended Amazigh/Latin language and the people themselves we could see would probably be classified as “Mauri” by the rest of Europe while the people themselves would refer to themselves as Amazigh or Africans in general. Similar yo Greeks being “Hellenes” or the Dutch and “Nederlanders”
 
Christian Berbers would be closely linked with Christian Europe and develop institutions along similar lines to rule their society. In all processes they have the church and its institutions influencing their society. It's very similar to Germanic Europe, given the Germanic tribes of 500 AD didn't have the same institutions they had two centuries later. It helps too that Tunisia was the most Roman part of Africa and had a very substantial number of Latin speakers until the era after the Muslim conquest. Since "Berber" is a very broad term, I'd expect some Berbers to completely settle down and potentially be assimilated by Latin culture (especially within the bounds of the wetter part of Tunisia) and other Berbers would remain more tribal and exist in the hills. Which would be pretty much equivalent to what happened with Vasconic-speaking tribes in the Pyrenees (of whom modern Basques are the only remnant) and the Gaels of Scotland (of whom the Highlanders are the remnant).
That presupposes Christian Berbers would be in any way similar to Germanic Europe when their society is actually a lot closer to pre-Islamic Arabs than Germanic tribes. I do not see why they would develop the same way especially since Berbers had their own closely guarded cultures and strong connections with sub-Saharan Africa through trade. I do not think that Christian Berbers would in any way identify as European or even by their North African-ness since that would involve foregoing connections with their Saharan Berber tribes which is unlikely. Especially if Berbers as a whole trend towards Christian with a mix of polytheism.

I see very little reason to believe that Christian Berbers would develop institutions similar to Christian Europe when A. they are fundamentally different societies (not all tribes are the same; the Berbers were not agriculturally oriented and were nomadic while the Germanic tribes were not nomadic pastoralists and traders) and B. they had close ties with sub-Saharan African and their own culture. That just sounds like an assumption without much basis to it.

Even if there were Berbers who settled down, like many Arabs also did, that doesn't actually mean urbanization entails creating a completely different social structure. The Mausa-Roman kingdom itself was more closer to a loose tribal confederation than an actual polity and it is unlikely that the beliefs of the ruling class actually reflected the beliefs of regular Berbers.

Christianity wasn't very prominent among Germanic tribes either since paganism was still very common. North Africa had well over a hundred bishoprics (three of which survived into the 11th century) and there are also several records of monasticism as well. How is that any different than early Anglo-Saxon England or Saxony? Religious syncreticism was obviously quite common as well in this region, but gradually it declined until paganism became mere folklore.
That is a good point. However, the difference is that Europe as a whole more thoroughly became anti-pagan after the emergence of and competition with Islam which doesn't exist in this TL which means that Christian Europe, and Berbers especially, remain tolerant of paganism. Indeed, the Merovingians didn't fully oppose traditional European paganism and didn't really take the concerns of the Church very seriously. Without Islam, this continues and that includes the local paganism of Berbers. Since paganism tends to be heavily localized and culturally unique, this means that this another unique cultural aspect which distinguishes North Africa from Europe. That is the reason why paganism became folklore, not due to some gradual progression of assimilation but outright extermination that did not occur until there was sufficient external pressures for it to happen.

Mauro-Roman states in North Africa used Roman imagery and Christianity in their titles and edicts, and we know this because one edict proclaims the ruler Masuna (a Berber) rules the "Kingdom of the Mauri and Romans" even using the title rex. If the Berbers weren't culturally Roman, they surely wouldn't have bothered with that
The Ghassanids did something similar but that does not mean the Arabian Peninsula was predominantly Roman and Christian or that the vast majority of people within under the Ghassanids were culturally Roman and Christian. No matter the number of bishops nor amount of ruling classes using Roman iconography reflects the general culture of a society.

Further, the Berber language to this day has hundreds of loanwords from Vulgar Latin, mostly relating to agriculture and plant life, and many toponyms in the Maghreb directly continue their old Roman names.
My understanding is that it has 40 which have been identified. Where is the literature you've found that have discovered hundreds? I don't see how that is a lot at all or reflects the penetration of Roman culture into Berber culture.

Some Berbers, yes, but not the ones in North Africa who were subjects of the Roman Empire. Before the dromedary was introduced, the trans-Saharan trade was done through a series of intermediaries. Very few people ever crossed the desert in a single trip. I don't see how you can at all say there were sub-Saharan influences on the Berbers during Late Antiquity beside perhaps the fact some of them may have had children with sub-Saharan African slaves purchased from Berbers involved in the trans-Saharan trade.
The camel was domesticated and utilized since the 3rd century. You are right in the sense that regular trade routes utilizing the camel were not commonplace until the Islamic period but persistent contact with the entire Sahara was facilitated by the camel. In a TL without Islam, this persists.

If we assume you are right that Berbers were somewhat Roman in culture before Islam, then this would mean that Berbers may become more sub-Saharan and distinctive from Romans as time went on rather than the opposite.
 
The difference is there was far greater Arab migration to Tunisia than there ever was to Spain. Christianity in Late Antiquity was of course very fractitious and divided, and it isn't surprising that many locals converted. It's very possible given the prevelance of Judaism among the Berbers and Berber pagan tribes in the region as late as the 6th century that Christianity was poorly established in many areas. Islam was practically considered just a heretical sect of Christians by some. And at the time North Africa was conquered, the Caliphate just kept conquering and there were basically no attempts to restore Christian rule there before the Normans.

The situation is totally different a few centuries later where doctrines of holy war are so much more developed, there was a glorious Islamic past in Tunisia (albeit quite weakened at that time due to fighting between Muslim states), and plenty of Arab and Berber tribes, let alone the stronger states next door, will use every opportunity they get to raid the "Kingdom of Africa" or whatever Sicilian/Crusader entity takes hold in Tunisia. And I'm pretty sure massacres and buffer zones between Christian and Muslim territories were just as important for returning Iberia to Christianity as conversions were, and of course it was the Spanish Inquisition and lack of any nearby Muslim states strong enough to aid local Muslims that solidified it.
Christianity was clearly well-established in North Africa, even if there were some holdouts -- indeed, North Africa had arguably been the intellectual centre of Latin Christendom from the time of Tertullian down to the Vandal conquest, so there was plenty of glorious Christian past for the inhabitants to point to. As for Spain, the Reconquista had to deal with powerful North African states like the Almohads and Almoravids, and of course the Spanish Muslim states were considerably stronger than the Christian ones for the first few centuries, so I don't think the balance of power was any more favourable there than it would be for a Norman African kingdom. Christianity had gone from literally nothing to the most powerful religion in Europe over the course of 400 years or so, so the idea that it can't do the same in a much smaller area over a much longer timeframe strikes me as excessively deterministic.
 
Christianity was clearly well-established in North Africa, even if there were some holdouts -- indeed, North Africa had arguably been the intellectual centre of Latin Christendom from the time of Tertullian down to the Vandal conquest, so there was plenty of glorious Christian past for the inhabitants to point to. As for Spain, the Reconquista had to deal with powerful North African states like the Almohads and Almoravids, and of course the Spanish Muslim states were considerably stronger than the Christian ones for the first few centuries, so I don't think the balance of power was any more favourable there than it would be for a Norman African kingdom. Christianity had gone from literally nothing to the most powerful religion in Europe over the course of 400 years or so, so the idea that it can't do the same in a much smaller area over a much longer timeframe strikes me as excessively deterministic.

I fully agree, the Latin rite Christianity was extremely rooted in the region, just think that there were 3 pontiffs from the region ( Victor I, Miltiades and Gelasius I ) so I don't see why in a scenario where Carthage survives after 698 or the Norman conquests persist ( there would also be the scenario in which the naval expeditions organized by Pisa against the African coasts, already begun in 828, were more successful (1) so it does not seem unlikely to me to see an albeit small rebirth of the local Christian community


1) which under the guidance of the Orlandi family, reached their peak, with the conquests and occupation of Bona ( today's Annaba ) in 1034, the victorious expedition against the city of El Mehedia in 1087-88 ( to which Pisa took part together with Genoa and Amalfi ) and finally the sacking of Palermo in 1063, with whose marbles the construction of the Piazza del Duomo began
 
That presupposes Christian Berbers would be in any way similar to Germanic Europe when their society is actually a lot closer to pre-Islamic Arabs than Germanic tribes. I do not see why they would develop the same way especially since Berbers had their own closely guarded cultures and strong connections with sub-Saharan Africa through trade. I do not think that Christian Berbers would in any way identify as European or even by their North African-ness since that would involve foregoing connections with their Saharan Berber tribes which is unlikely. Especially if Berbers as a whole trend towards Christian with a mix of polytheism.
I don't understand why you're attributing to much significance to the trans-Saharan trade when the main revenue of Africa was from exporting grain and locally-produced dyes to Europe. The Berbers of North Africa were fundamentally a Mediterranean nation, with their culture deeply influenced by the same beats of history as the rest of the Mediterranean--Phoenician influence, Greek influence, and then domination by the Romans.
I see very little reason to believe that Christian Berbers would develop institutions similar to Christian Europe when A. they are fundamentally different societies (not all tribes are the same; the Berbers were not agriculturally oriented and were nomadic while the Germanic tribes were not nomadic pastoralists and traders) and B. they had close ties with sub-Saharan African and their own culture. That just sounds like an assumption without much basis to it.

Even if there were Berbers who settled down, like many Arabs also did, that doesn't actually mean urbanization entails creating a completely different social structure. The Mausa-Roman kingdom itself was more closer to a loose tribal confederation than an actual polity and it is unlikely that the beliefs of the ruling class actually reflected the beliefs of regular Berbers.
You're generalising "Berber." Some Berbers were nomadic. But some clearly were not. Numidia--a Berber kingdom--was famous for its wheat and barley. A nation is not exporting a vast amount of wheat if they do not have full-time agriculturalists. Now granted, it is likely that the spread of Punic language after the Roman conquest, and later Latin, was at the expense of these sedentary agricultural populations of Berbers. But it does also seem that they were often identified with the same words and language like in St. Augustine's accounts to the point where it can be difficult to tell which linguistic group a writer is referring to (hence the debate over whether Augustine's first language was Punic or Berber).

Let's recall as well that Basques and Gaels were also mostly pastoralists, but both of them eventually founded united kingdoms, in part thanks to economic factors and military pressure. State formation in North Africa is inevitable, and the Mauro-Roman kingdom was quite large and had it conquered Carthage would be just as wealthy as the Lombards. Often those tribal identities vanish in time, just like it did in Scotland. The Romans recorded a number of tribes there, and it's clear that a united Pictish state came about because one tribe dominated the others, and then the Picts themselves faded away when the Gaels conquered them. I don't see how North Africa is any different.

The assumpton the Berbers had close ties with sub-Saharan Africa lacks any evidence. That trade was done through intermediaries, and even in the Arab period still was often done through intermediaries at the various oases south of the Atlas or the Tuareg even further south. That's why those groups have a distinct culture, lack the Roman influence, and maintained use of the Berber alphabet for much longer. Their main export market was the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, and they were exporting grain, dyes, and things like the African red slip pottery of Late Antiquity. A small minority who dealt with outsiders who dealt with sub-Saharan Africans doesn't mean much. The Romans traded with Persia and Scythia who traded with China, but the Romans weren't Chinese.
That is a good point. However, the difference is that Europe as a whole more thoroughly became anti-pagan after the emergence of and competition with Islam which doesn't exist in this TL which means that Christian Europe, and Berbers especially, remain tolerant of paganism. Indeed, the Merovingians didn't fully oppose traditional European paganism and didn't really take the concerns of the Church very seriously. Without Islam, this continues and that includes the local paganism of Berbers. Since paganism tends to be heavily localized and culturally unique, this means that this another unique cultural aspect which distinguishes North Africa from Europe. That is the reason why paganism became folklore, not due to some gradual progression of assimilation but outright extermination that did not occur until there was sufficient external pressures for it to happen.
But heresy was a problem, and North Africa had a long history of dealing with heresy. Paganism and syncreticism could often be labeled heresy by the church, and thus there is an excuse to persecute it. I don't see how North Africa is any different than Europe in this respect. Greece had both indigenous and Slavic pagans in 700 AD, but a few centuries later neither group survived.
The Ghassanids did something similar but that does not mean the Arabian Peninsula was predominantly Roman and Christian or that the vast majority of people within under the Ghassanids were culturally Roman and Christian. No matter the number of bishops nor amount of ruling classes using Roman iconography reflects the general culture of a society.


My understanding is that it has 40 which have been identified. Where is the literature you've found that have discovered hundreds? I don't see how that is a lot at all or reflects the penetration of Roman culture into Berber culture.
The Berbers of Tunisia had over 700s under Roman rule with one interruption during the era of the Vandals (who themselves had many Latins among them like the writer Corippus), and before that a few centuries under Carthage's rule in which they were increasingly integrated into the Mediterranean world to the point many of them ended up speaking Punic and then Latin. They were governed by Roman magistrates for 700 years, conducted commerce under Roman laws, and worshipped in temples and then churches built in the Roman style. Berber adoption of Christianity is little different than how Berber gods took on Greek and Roman elements in later times. That's rather different than a vassal kingdom on the Roman-Sassanid frontier.

Given that most of the loanwords are linked to agriculture, this suggests that Berbers were involved in farming during the Roman era, which is logical because the area was Rome's breadbasket. And they weren't just slaves or serfs, given the high ranks they reached in the empire (Severan dynasty) and church. Speaking of language, there are no written records of the indigenous Berber alphabet in North Africa after the mid-6th century, and no Arab records at all. This suggests it was declining due to links with paganism (it was used in funerary epigraphy) and both Christians and Muslims desire the end of its existance, which clearly happened because there aren't many more inscriptions of it outside of the Sahara after the 6th century. Which once again suggests that Berber society was Romanised.

And there's also the crucial question of how you're defining "general culture of society." How was the average Frankish peasant in 500 AD any different from the average Berber peasant living in the Mauro-Roman Kingdom? They probably were superficially Christian at best, they probably never thought of themselves as Latins or Romans, and they probably had a dim view on what some fancy churchman or noble thought. And yet their average descendant 800 years later spoke French and was often fanatically Christian (sometimes to the point of mass murder as the popular crusading movements show) even if they lacked a deep understanding of their faith. Why would it not be the same in Tunisia?
The camel was domesticated and utilized since the 3rd century. You are right in the sense that regular trade routes utilizing the camel were not commonplace until the Islamic period but persistent contact with the entire Sahara was facilitated by the camel. In a TL without Islam, this persists.

If we assume you are right that Berbers were somewhat Roman in culture before Islam, then this would mean that Berbers may become more sub-Saharan and distinctive from Romans as time went on rather than the opposite.
How in any way were the Berbers "sub-Saharan?" "Berber" defines a bunch of different tribes, many of which had zilch connection with those Berbers who did trade with sub-Saharan Africa. Did Arab North Africa become sub-Saharan culturally? Did Portugal become sub-Saharan culturally given the large amount of slave trading they did?
 
Crusaders using Tunisia as a trial run or a backup, Belisarius success? Perhaps the Pied Noir and Italo-libici somehow prefer setting up there rather than their very close homelands?
 
I don't understand why you're attributing to much significance to the trans-Saharan trade when the main revenue of Africa was from exporting grain and locally-produced dyes to Europe. The Berbers of North Africa were fundamentally a Mediterranean nation, with their culture deeply influenced by the same beats of history as the rest of the Mediterranean--Phoenician influence, Greek influence, and then domination by the Romans.
I didn't know that. I had distinguished between Amazigh peoples who were nomadic during this period, settled Amazigh people, and the Romans who were settled in urban areas. Do you have any sources for the main revenue streams?
But heresy was a problem, and North Africa had a long history of dealing with heresy. Paganism and syncreticism could often be labeled heresy by the church, and thus there is an excuse to persecute it. I don't see how North Africa is any different than Europe in this respect. Greece had both indigenous and Slavic pagans in 700 AD, but a few centuries later neither group survived.
I just explained why it is a problem. Especially without Islam.

You're generalising "Berber."
No I simply maintain that there were connections between the Berbers of North Africa and the Berbers deep into the Sahara. Cultural connections which the Berbers of North Africa are more likely to prioritize. Especially when the sub Saharan trade kicks off.
How in any way were the Berbers "sub-Saharan?"
I said they could become more culturally Saharan and sub-Saharan once the trade kicks off.

And there's also the crucial question of how you're defining "general culture of society." How was the average Frankish peasant in 500 AD any different from the average Berber peasant living in the Mauro-Roman Kingdom?
Generally speaking, peasants in all societies were very similar to each other. So in terms of broad culture there are similarities between economic classes. But that is a similarity based on economic class and social position, not based on European-ness.

Did Arab North Africa become sub-Saharan culturally?
Kind of yeah. There was cross pollination and Islam spread into sub-Saharan Africa through trade primarily due to difficulties with conquest.

Did Portugal become sub-Saharan culturally given the large amount of slave trading they did?
Slave trading produces a different cultural relationship than other kinds of trade. Amazigh people did take slaves but slaves were not the primary source of revenue. Gold and other sources of wealth were more important.

But overall you've actually convinced me. These are just minor points.
 
download


Taking into account not just Tunisia but also Algeria and parts of Morocco

I think we can see a good number of towns and cities throughout much of the coast and hinterlands of the barrier mountains

numidia.gif
 
Europe is just some political tem the deniziens use to make themselves better, that's why we got OTL mess, regardless who cares?

Maybe Muslim taking more of Italy and Iberia fully, that way they can't count out
 
century Arabs were right next to the Byzantines and the Sassanids but neither, not even the Ghassanids or the Lakhmids, were very culturally influenced by either.
that is very wrong on the ghassanid part Schreiner defnes what he called Byzantinization as the infuence of the Byzantine institutions and culture on the peoples inhabiting
the territory of the Byzantine Empire or living near the border pertaining to the state, state ideology, the church, literature with education and visual arts with music the ghassanids fit
And so I doubt that if Tunisia was Christian (which, even when it was Christian you still had Berber paganism that was semi-tolerated) it would remain culturally European. As long as Berbers control the Sahara, they will effectively have full control over Tunisia and North Africa due to the low strategic depth of Tunisia from the desert relative to the sea. And Amazigh tribes are more connected to Sub-Saharan Africa than they are to Europe since they are also migratory or nomadic.
the only confederation and not even tunisia that remained pagan was the Nasamones but even then Procopius tells us by the time of justinian these were being converted, the garamantes in 570 aprox, only the very interior ones like the Iznaten amazigh did not at least nomalily covert and were very pluralistic but your assesment would have been acurrate for say the 4th and 5th century not by the 6th this saw a lot of proselytization an example outside of the amazigh is how chirstianity won out in lazica started to convert caucasian albania or how this century saw the converison of the nubian kingdoms

If you want a Christian Tunisia that remains culturally European, you need a POD before the fall of the Roman Empire and you need to find a way for Amazigh or Berber tribes to somehow never be capable of taking over or migrating into Tunis. Which is very difficult.
they already were prior to
Because the Christian Amazigh tribes that would be running Tunisia would have a fundamentally different culture and social structure than European feudalist society?
one that did not exist yet, ignoring the whole concept and problems with the term fuedal that is mostly a later carolingian thing, neither the lombards, visigothic or ostrogothic kingdoms fit in to fuedal in the high middle ages the primary sources is that "Europe" is the territory of the western Roman Empire plus the additions of the Holy Roman Empire. This effectively gives you a map of Christendom in obedience to Rome, but the problem here is we are putting high medieval thinking to late antiquity.

in which europe was more like what the byzantines belived it was a geographical term not a cultural one
 
That presupposes Christian Berbers would be in any way similar to Germanic Europe when their society is actually a lot closer to pre-Islamic Arabs than Germanic tribes. I do not see why they would develop the same way especially since Berbers had their own closely guarded cultures and strong connections with sub-Saharan Africa through trade. I do not think that Christian Berbers would in any way identify as European or even by their North African-ness since that would involve foregoing connections with their Saharan Berber tribes which is unlikely. Especially if Berbers as a whole trend towards Christian with a mix of polytheism.
1) pre islamic arabia society was very diverse with full nomads to very established kingdoms and...so were the germanics the eastern ones were more nomadic for example also not all the amazigh had closer tides to subsaharan africa, before islam the trade was not a strong example there is some evidence of garamantes trading with sahelian population but much more of them trading with rome
. I do not think that Christian Berbers would in any way identify as European or even by their North African-ness since that would involve foregoing connections with their Saharan Berber tribes which is unlikely. Especially if Berbers as a whole trend towards Christian with a mix of polytheism.
that assumes a monolith what you can say is true say for the souther Iznaten would it also be true for the kingdom of aures? also becoming european what ever that means in this context how does that involve cutting ties with the other amazigh? trade can still occur
I see very little reason to believe that Christian Berbers would develop institutions similar to Christian Europe when A. they are fundamentally different societies (not all tribes are the same; the Berbers were not agriculturally oriented and were nomadic while the Germanic tribes were not nomadic pastoralists and traders) and B. they had close ties with sub-Saharan African and their own culture. That just sounds like an assumption without much basis to it.
kingdom of altava, kingdom of aures ,Kingdom of Ouarsenis were all sedentary agricultural socities and many other confederations were semi nomadic like some of the germanic tribes and they had all connections with byzantine africa
Even if there were Berbers who settled down,
they already were example the nomadic Laguatans who by the time they kicked the vandals off Tripolitania they had settled down
like many Arabs also did, that doesn't actually mean urbanization entails creating a completely different social structure. The Mausa-Roman kingdom itself was more closer to a loose tribal confederation than an actual polity and it is unlikely that the beliefs of the ruling class actually reflected the beliefs of regular Berbers.
the mauro roman kingdom could have been a loose confederation it still governed many cities also define regular here you mean the city dwelling be they elite or no? the semi nomads near the frontier and other areas? also the slavs were more tribal than this and they completly changed their social structure
That is a good point. However, the difference is that Europe as a whole more thoroughly became anti-pagan after the emergence of and competition with Islam which doesn't exist in this TL which means that Christian Europe, and Berbers especially, remain tolerant of paganism. Indeed, the Merovingians didn't fully oppose traditional European paganism and didn't really take the concerns of the Church very seriously. Without Islam, this continues and that includes the local paganism of Berbers. Since paganism tends to be heavily localized and culturally unique, this means that this another unique cultural aspect which distinguishes North Africa from Europe. That is the reason why paganism became folklore, not due to some gradual progression of assimilation but outright extermination that did not occur until there was sufficient external pressures for it to happen.
islam had little to with becoming anti pagan i mean Gregory the great ordered that shrines in england should be destroyed and relaxed to convert them to churches and the greogorian mission started before mohamed even got his first revelation.
The Ghassanids did something similar but that does not mean the Arabian Peninsula was predominantly Roman and Christian or that the vast majority of people within under the Ghassanids were culturally Roman and Christian. No matter the number of bishops nor amount of ruling classes using Roman iconography reflects the general culture of a society.
because by the time the ghassanids show up the most powerfull states were in the south and later shifted to hejaz, the most powerful tribes and confederations of the amazigh were actually close to the roman frontier

No I simply maintain that there were connections between the Berbers of North Africa and the Berbers deep into the Sahara. Cultural connections which the Berbers of North Africa are more likely to prioritize. Especially when the sub Saharan trade kicks off.
if you lived i say aures why would you prioritize cultural connections to the nomads of the south and not byzantine africa ie your biggest trading partner
 
Theoretically you could have this with a late 19th Century POD by having Italy or even a properly led Kingdom of Two Sicilies colonizing it alongside Libya. There was already a wave of Italian settlers steadily migrating there and with its proximity to Italy as well as its sparse population, an Italian government could be able to "Italianize" the region (of course won't be a clean or bloodless affair either). Had Italy not entered WW2, this was what probably would have been the fate of Libya as part of the "Fourth Shore" initiative.

And considering how states like Portugal's Estado Novo collaborated with Rhodesia, this might throw open an opportunity for France keeping all or parts of Algiers.

Of course as for the POD, there are multiple options to choose from. The first being, that the Exarchate of Africa survives and working together with local Berbers, possibly as foederati and a little old divide et imperia, the state survives and manages to hold off against the Arabs.

Alternatively if you avoid the Muslim conquests, the state might drift off from Constantinople's orbit through another rebellion becoming a rival Mediterranean power.

For a later pod, you could have the Norman Lordship over Africa. They briefly conquered Tunisia and Libya as part of the Kingdom of Sicily.

Alternatively you could have the Eight Crusade be a success for King Charles of Anjou. Louis IX wanted to help out his brother, and this might have helped as well. Considering how well the Angevin Kings mostly ruled, its possible that even if the War of Sicilian Vespers isn't launched, or simply fails, Charles might simply have his hands too full to intervene against the Byzantines.

Other than that, you could maybe have the Spanish take over as Charles V did briefly conquer Tunis, the city not the wider realm. If you change things up during his reign and Charles ends up like the undisputed master of Europe like he almost became, he could probably lead a Crusade against the "Babary Pirates" and conquer the region. Charles could have been in a better position simply by doing things such as more decisively dealing with France (capitalizing on the Victory at Pavia or successfully launching the conspiracy with the Duke of Bourbon to partition France), more pro-actively dealing with the reformation, and maybe having a different marriage for a better overall position such as marrying Anne of Bohemia and then inheriting Hungary and Bohemia, possibly making the Ottomans think twice about attacking such a massive dynastic behemoth.
 
Other than that, you could maybe have the Spanish take over as Charles V did briefly conquer Tunis, the city not the wider realm. If you change things up during his reign and Charles ends up like the undisputed master of Europe like he almost became, he could probably lead a Crusade against the "Babary Pirates" and conquer the region
if you give an big ottoman screw this could be plausible because before lepanto the ottomans nearly won all naval battles but charles is also very busy with a lot of things
 
Perhaps something along the lines of.

418 - The Gothic War in Spain between the Romans and Visigoths versus the Alans and Vandals grounds down to a stalemate as while the Visigoths are able to push the other tribes out of eastern and southern Hispania they still main a grip over central and western regions of the peninsula. Much to resentment of the Subei and Romano-Iberians Honorus gives agreements to ascend both groups of Alans and Vandals to Foderati.

422 - Despite personal rivalry between the comes Bonifatius and Castinus Patricus both men see it as an opportunity to gain favor over the other in a campaign against the Vandals and Alans after Honorus revoked their foderati status. The campaign is devastating to all those involved. Weakening the positions of everyone and especially Bonifatius’ bucellarii goths - a key component of his military strength forcing him back to his stronghold in Roman Africa to lick his wounds.

During this time he looks to the Romanized Aure Mountain Numidians for support - and makes a deal with their king in exchange for campaigns against the Gatueli who had encroached on the southwestern lands of the Aures Numidians.

427 - Bonifatius is accused of being a usurper leading to the siege of Carthage by generals loyal to his rivals but the generals quarrel - two kill one another and another is overthrown by his Hunnic foderati lifting the siege. Eventually a truce is negotiated between Bonifatius and peace resumed for the time being. During this time Bonifatius asks his friend Augustine of Hippo to baptize his daughter.

432 - At the Battle of Ravenna, Bonifatius defeats Aetius and is not mortally wounded leading to his de facto control over much of the Western Empire as protector of the future Emperor Valentinian III.

Much of his time afterward is spent putting down revolts and incursions by the various non-Roman barbarians in the Empire. Due to the relationship he has forged with the Numidians he feels comfortable giving them autonomy with his supported replacement as Comes of Africa being half-Numidian.

439 - Bonifatius is defeated and killed by the Visigoths in the 436-439 Gothic War. This leads to the position of prestige enjoyed by the Numidians buccellari to wane and they return to Roman Africa with resentments.

451 - The Hunnic Horde draws a narrow victory against the Romans and the Roman Foderati following disputes with the Visigothic King Theodoric who just barely survives the battle. The Roman army disappears completely at this point leading to what would be known in Italy as the Mercies as the Huns proceed to cement power in Roman Gaul and sack Rome. Which leads to an influx of Romans to flee to Carthage. The Huns eventually move back north but the death of Atilla sees their gains disintegrate.

Valentinian’s death leads to an open collapse of much of Western Roman authority as a series of senators and generals in mainland Europe claim their authority - which is rejected by Roman Africa which cuts off the grain trade as an attempt to put a strangle hold on the usurpers but this leads to a revolt lead by Numidian-Roman farmers who lose out on the lack of trade. The Numidian-Roman leader Guenfen takes advantage of the situation and seizes control - asserting himself as count of Africa and negotiates with the eastern Roman emperor Marcian for recognition and autonomy which was granted.

455 - The Vandals and Alans having held onto their territory in western-southern Hispania cross the straits and invade Mauritania leading to a naval war between the Vandals and Numidian-Romano Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
The Maghreb north of the Atlas Mountains forms an oasis, although a huge one just next to Europe, but it is well an oasis of the Sahara. Like the rest of the Sahara, the region has been populated for thousands of years by nomadic Afroasiatic tribes, who have created a tribal society adapted to the aridity of the region.

Berbers have much less in common with the European continent/Indo-European civilization than you think. The Maghreb is indeed deeply linked with sub-Saharan Africa, with many cultural exchanges taking place (for example, the spread of the marabout profession). There is also very exotic cultural practices that date back far in ancient times and reinforce the indigenous character of the Berbers (collective trances and erotic dances as in sub-Saharan cultures, male fighters shave their head and keep a small plait in the middle as in Mongolian cultures, women practice tattooing as in Polynesian cultures...).
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the eastern empire doesn’t lose Carthage to the Arabs. The Romans hold them off long enough to stabilize the battle lines but eventually the moors take over as the empire can no longer hold onto it. That way you get Carthage in Romano moor/Berber hands and a kingdom that has close ties to Italy, Iberia, and France.
 
Top