Western Europe without a Muslim conquest of the Maghreb

[walmart]

Basic Pod, the Byzantines are able to keep the Islamic conquests out of the Maghreb. So what would be the impact on Western Europe ?
Unlike with keeping the Muslim out of Spain only, in this case there would be a lack of raids from North Africa. So I would imagine maritime trade and coastal settlements are going to be more secure. Likewise I imagine a lot more trade between North Africa and Europe with additional European access to Sub-Saharan African goods. I assume without the religious divide, conquests either from Africa into Europe or vice versa is going to be easier.

 

[Elfwine]

If the Byzantines are able to keep the Muslims out of the Maghreb, one significant thing to note is that this means the Byzantine position in the West is significantly stronger than OTL - with all the impacts within the empire and within Italy (and beyond) that suggests, too.

 

[kholieken]

Key question here is Egypt. Did Egypt fall ?

With Muslims Egypt, Maghreb would be in precarious position, second Muslim army could defeat Byzantines in Maghreb.

On other hand, if Egypt stay Byzantines, Muslims likely kicked out of Syria and Medditerranean very soon. With secure Med, Roman trade route would continue to operate. Christendom would become Roman Empire successor.

 

[walmart]

Key question here is Egypt. Did Egypt fall ?

Yes

With Muslims Egypt, Maghreb would be in precarious position, second Muslim army could defeat Byzantines in Maghreb.

Could Muslim armies be directed elsewhere or some other way to keep the Muslim armies out of the Maghreb ?

 

[Tupiniquim]

Yes

Could Muslim armies be directed elsewhere or some other way to keep the Muslim armies out of the Maghreb ?

Almost impossible if Egypt falls to the caliphate. They will eventually expand to the rest of the maghreb. No way. Even with an independent christian kingdom in North Africa acting independent from the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

Almost impossible if Egypt falls to the caliphate. They will eventually expand to the rest of the maghreb. No way. Even with an independent christian kingdom in North Africa acting independent from the Eastern Roman Empire.

Though I suppose that Spain could try conquering North Africa (minus Egypt) back after it completed the Reconquista of Iberia and try to forcibly convert the locals back to their ancestral faith of Christianity, no?

 

[Tupiniquim]

Though I suppose that Spain could try conquering North Africa (minus Egypt) back after it completed the Reconquista of Iberia and try to forcibly convert the locals back to their ancestral faith of Christianity, no?

The portuguese tried to invade the moroccan hinterland and it ended with the Iberian Union - their king was killed in battle. North Africa have a very rugged terrain, and by the time of the end of the reconquista, had a population big enough to resist any forced conversion or cultural assimilation. The portuguese reconquista ended ~500 years after the muslim conquest of north africa, their identity it's totally different. It's like trying to force english people from the 17th century to became medieval pagan celts again.

It was hard for the french, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, to control Algeria and Morocco. They used relatively modern technology, struggled but were able to conquer. The french spent 20 years to conquer Morocco in the 20th century (!!!)

 

[Lady Visenya]

I imagine that in this case the scenario is somehow managing to get a few major Berber victories which make it just... undesirable to keep trying to take Africa. With Libya being the westernmost limit of Arab expansion.

If the Berbers and Romans get lucky a few times, it might just mean they'd want to put it off, and then put it off again, and then the Caliphate focusing more on internal issues. And their eastern concerns.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I imagine that in this case the scenario is somehow managing to get a few major Berber victories which make it just... undesirable to keep trying to take Africa. With Libya being the westernmost limit of Arab expansion

Yh a slightly earlier Berber revolt which uses Christianity as the driving force of the rebels would be enough to stop the caliphate from controlling the hinterlands. It might end up similar to the Muslim presence in Italy, with a number of ports and islands controlled by Muslims, from which they're gradually expelled by the second millenium.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Almost impossible if Egypt falls to the caliphate. They will eventually expand to the rest of the maghreb. No way. Even with an independent christian kingdom in North Africa acting independent from the Eastern Roman Empire.

The conquest of Tunisia and Algeria were incredibly hard-fought battles for the Caliphate, it wasn't some preordained thing they'd win. And even if they do win, once Christianity is even more cemented in the mountains then there's still potential for decades for a Reconquista/Berber Asturias equivalent to win back enough land to get a coast and ability for Christian reinforcement. Developing a strong fleet would be crucial since it could harass places to stage an invasion and shut down the potential of naval invasion. As the southern coast of the Gulf of Syrte is very difficult terrain, this would help keep the region safe and make it too costly to permanently conquer.

Also, the political situation by the 12th century may well be different and protecting Africa from Islam will be a huge cause for crusaders TTL. Carthage will be one of the major centers of Christianity, and having it in the hands of the infidel completely unacceptable for both symbolic purposes as well as security purposes (as it puts Italy--and Rome--within striking distance of the Arabs).

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I agree that the Byzantines can hold North Africa through the seventh and eighth centuries. In this timeline, they will likely lose it in the tenth century, when there was a big movement of Arab nomads into the area, and the Byzantines were having trouble generally. But if they can hold it through the seventh century, they should keep it until at least the tenth, given the Byzantine recovery or expansion in the ninth and tenth centuries.

This means no Arab raids, no Arab Sicily or Spain, and in fact no Arab Crete. The economic situation of both the Byzantines and Western Europe is a lot stronger. There is probably more Byzantine influence on Western Europe, and Visigothic Spain survives.

The Normans still get hired in Italy as mercenaries, so Norman Sicily and Naples still happens, though a scenario where the Byzantines themselves hire then to hold North Africa, and the Normans carve out a kingdom there, is possible.

Muslim Arab civiliation does fine, but the Christian states are much stronger. Probably the biggest effects are on Spain, and the second biggest on Sicily, since the Byzantines still have their internal problems and still have to face nomadic movements in the 11th century.

 

[Elfwine]

The Normans still get hired in Italy as mercenaries, so Norman Sicily and Naples still happens, though a scenario where the Byzantines themselves hire then to hold North Africa, and the Normans carve out a kingdom there, is possible.

Why would this still happen?

Butterflies aside, the conditions in southern Italy (and Sicily) are rather different. There's no guarantee of the Normans being hired, or if hired being in a position to carve out a kingdom.

 

[Byz]

North Africa was a very essential piece of the Justinian Era Empire. Heraclius was able to do what he did thanks to the resources of North Africa. It was a net gain in taxes and the Byzantines had christian berbers- critically, Nicenian christian berbers- whom they could rely on as allies.

The connection between Constantinople and North Africa is somewhat tenuous with the fall of Egypt, so it's tough. They'll essentially have to keep north Africa using the resources of North Africa, maybe even using less- obviously if Constantinople is being attacked, that's where the troops are going.

But it's not impossible, just really hard. And I'd imagine, as a struggling Byzantine empire loses more and more resources, their actual control will be reduced to a few cities and strongholds like OTL in Italy, with christian Berber Kingdoms who pay some form of lip service to Constantinople actually running the show. If a Byzantine resurgence even happens ITTL, even those holdouts might be gone by the time it does.

The idea of Venice-like Carthage is fun, albeit kind of silly.

Edit: And obviously there are tons of knock on effects beyond Byzantium. North Africa remaining part of "Christendom" alters how Europeans will see the world severely. It's likely west African kingdoms get converted to Christianity, and we see slaves travelling northwards during the middle ages to the Mediterranean at much greater rates. One can imagine an Italy, the Aegean area, and Southern Spain with massive African slave populations, similar to OTL Arabia and Mesopotamia.

 

[Terço]

Something interesting would be a union between Western and Middle Francia into a single romance speaking kingdom that then moves to conquer the Iberian peninsula and Otl Morocco first and then continue east until it reaches Tripolitania.
Eventually the Norman invasion of England happens more or less like Otl but unlike Otl the normans impose a romance language on it's territories on both shores of the English Channel.
Latin becomes the administration language and the new Western Roman Empire is composed of several different states led by dukes, princes and kings that elect the Emperor.

 

[Tupiniquim]

The conquest of Tunisia and Algeria were incredibly hard-fought battles for the Caliphate, it wasn't some preordained thing they'd win. And even if they do win, once Christianity is even more cemented in the mountains then there's still potential for decades for a Reconquista/Berber Asturias equivalent to win back enough land to get a coast and ability for Christian reinforcement. Developing a strong fleet would be crucial since it could harass places to stage an invasion and shut down the potential of naval invasion. As the southern coast of the Gulf of Syrte is very difficult terrain, this would help keep the region safe and make it too costly to permanently conquer.

Also, the political situation by the 12th century may well be different and protecting Africa from Islam will be a huge cause for crusaders TTL. Carthage will be one of the major centers of Christianity, and having it in the hands of the infidel completely unacceptable for both symbolic purposes as well as security purposes (as it puts Italy--and Rome--within striking distance of the Arabs).

They could resist for some decades, but the arabs will always have a power base in Egypt to launch future campaigns to the maghreb. A christian north africa have to resist islamic invasions for at least, 1400 years (from the rise of islam until the modern era). This is insanely difficult. Not even the byzantines were able to stop islamic invasions and they were a great power in the middle ages.

The christian mountainous Asturias is also a different matter compared to a alternate christian mountainous state in the maghreb - the iberian christian kingdoms had support from the rest of christian western europe, like the Franks. In the maghreb they would be surrounded by a islamic power.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

But between Egypt and the true Maghreb there are still the deserts of OTL Libya with only a narrow coastal plain to exploit for western movement. With the right POD's (and those I do know) I can see the survival of a Christian western littoral with OTL Tunisia as a contested battle ground. I think that a continued Western Christian presence on the west Mediterranean littoral may have significant impact on the concept and self-identification of Europe, at least the Western Christian Europe.

 

[raharris1973]

Edit: And obviously there are tons of knock on effects beyond Byzantium. North Africa remaining part of "Christendom" alters how Europeans will see the world severely. It's likely west African kingdoms get converted to Christianity, and we see slaves travelling northwards during the middle ages to the Mediterranean at much greater rates. One can imagine an Italy, the Aegean area, and Southern Spain with massive African slave populations, similar to OTL Arabia and Mesopotamia.

Who is enslaving exactly who in this situation during the high Middle Ages?

Are Catholic Christians from North Africa and the Mediterranean converting west African kingdoms to Christianity, while also purchasing slaves from them and selling them up north. Had Christendom started inventing strictures against Christian enslavement of Christians yet in medieval Europe? Or would Christians from the Med and Europe be purchasing "heathen" and "pagan" sub-Saharan Africans captured by newly converted sub-Saharan African Kingdoms?

But between Egypt and the true Maghreb there are still the deserts of OTL Libya with only a narrow coastal plain to exploit for western movement.

That can be a logistical challenge, but it is one that Arab warriors, Bedouin hosts, and Arab tribesmen that have migrated from Arabia through Sinai to the Egyptian western deserts, are some of the people best equipped to master.

 

[Gloss]

They could resist for some decades, but the arabs will always have a power base in Egypt to launch future campaigns to the maghreb. A christian north africa have to resist islamic invasions for at least, 1400 years (from the rise of islam until the modern era). This is insanely difficult. Not even the byzantines were able to stop islamic invasions and they were a great power in the middle ages.

The christian mountainous Asturias is also a different matter compared to a alternate christian mountainous state in the maghreb - the iberian christian kingdoms had support from the rest of christian western europe, like the Franks.

You know that North Tunisia is like 2000 kilometers away from the Nile Delta? You are arguing as if the Nile Delta was right in front of the core regions in the Maghreb when in reality it's very far away.

In the maghreb they would be surrounded by a islamic power.

What? Have you looked at a map of the region? Why would they be surrounded by Islamic power? It's unlikely that Islam would spread to the Tuareg of West Africans, in fact given the Christian Makurians it's more like Egypt is surround by Christianity on the 3 sides.

 

[Xenophonte]

Could Muslim armies be directed elsewhere or some other way to keep the Muslim armies out of the Maghreb ?

The only way that I think to make it somewhat possible, would be that the Eastern Romans, even if as OTL, were defeated on land... But that, on a very different TL, Constantinople, still would have a meaningful reserve of military and manpower resources for while fighting the Arab offensive in Siria, they would be able, too, to keep the dominion of the Mediterranean sea against the Caliphate.
But, also, and thanks to it, that they would be able to keep secure Carthage, defeating well away from the city the Caliphate army and defeating them once and again.

 

[Tupiniquim]

You know that North Tunisia is like 2000 kilometers away from the Nile Delta? You are arguing as if the Nile Delta was right in front of the core regions in the Maghreb when in reality it's very far away.


What? Have you looked at a map of the region? Why would they be surrounded by Islamic power? It's unlikely that Islam would spread to the Tuareg of West Africans, in fact given the Christian Makurians it's more like Egypt is surround by Christianity on the 3 sides.

And?? It's not like distance is an obstacle for the early islamic powers lol the the early caliphates were able to conquer almost the whole sassanid territory. They were able to reach the borders of iran/afghanistan, more than 2500 kilometers away from Mecca.

And if we're talking about an Asturias-like phenomenon in north africa, they would be surrounded by a greater islamic power... the christian kingdoms will be confined to the mountains (likely the Aurès and Tell Atlas) while the rest is islamic, like this (I think that's what OP meant)