What if the Reconquista continued to Morocco/North Africa?

Does anyone know the population size of Morocco at that time? How does it compare to Spain or Portugal?

Portugal had 1-1.5M and Spain, I read had 7 times our population so, 7-7.5M.

Couldn't find anything on Morocco at that time but found their population in 1890 was 3.5M-4M, compared to the Portuguese population of 5M and the Spanish population of 18M. Guess that maybe they had a population equal, or slightly smaller, than the Portuguese one in the 16th century.
 
Does anyone know the population size of Morocco at that time? How does it compare to Spain or Portugal?
5-3 million, quite low but quite higher than Portugal´s 1-2 million.

Portugal had 1-1.5M and Spain, I read had 7 times our population so, 7-7.5M.

Couldn't find anything on Morocco at that time but found their population in 1890 was 3.5M-4M, compared to the Portuguese population of 5M and the Spanish population of 18M. Guess that maybe they had a population equal, or slightly smaller, than the Portuguese one in the 16th century.
Way to low, Morocco at probably at least 3 million, in no way the same as Portugal.
 
5-3 million, quite low but quite higher than Portugal´s 1-2 million.

Care to share the source?

Way to low, Morocco at probably at least 3 million, in no way the same as Portugal.

I'm guessing basing myself on the 1890's numbers. populstat places their Population in 1890 in the 3.8M, compared to the 5M of Portugal in the 1890's, so I assumed that their pop in the 16th century must be on the 1-2M mark.
 
Care to share the source?



I'm guessing basing myself on the 1890's numbers. populstat places their Population in 1890 in the 3.8M, compared to the 5M of Portugal in the 1890's, so I assumed that their pop in the 16th century must be on the 1-2M mark.
Thing is the population of North Africa didn´t grow from 1500 to 1850, Egypt stayed at 3 million despite having higher numbers in previous times.

If Morocco had 1-2 million then they wouldn´t have been able to field large armies against the Portuguese.
 
Thing is the population of North Africa didn´t grow from 1500 to 1850, Egypt stayed at 3 million despite having higher numbers in previous times.

If Morocco had 1-2 million then they wouldn´t have been able to field large armies against the Portuguese.

5 million would be the entire population of the Maghreb during the 16th century, the best number that I can think for Morocco is 3 million, but I'd guess 1-2 million as well. Remember how 350k Moriscos completely changed the entire region.

EDIT: According to this the population of the entire Maghreb was of 4,7 million in 1500, so Morocco had 1,5-2 million people.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Early Iberian union shortly after the formation of Spain. Say this guy: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afonso,_Prince_of_Portugal takes all three crowns. That butterflies the Habsburgs in Spain and potentially keeps them out of many European conflicts.

Combine this with a delay in the discovery of America which lasts until Spain is sufficiently embroiled in North Africa. Then focus the plundered resources into the new world. Throw in tax incentives of settlers and converts, a hostile Spanish inquisition, an expulsion of Arabs.

We can either have a naturally weakened Ottomans or some kind of general war which Europeans win which pushes the Ottomans significantly back. A Spanish-Austrian alliance with Spain in the med and the Austrians in the Balkans.

It is certainly easy to imaging. Such a scenario would see North Africa embedded into the wider European framework with the Sahara a more prominent boundary between culture and possibly evenue the very idea of continent. Sub-Sahara being considered far more relevant than some kind of pan-Africa.
 
Thing is the population of North Africa didn´t grow from 1500 to 1850, Egypt stayed at 3 million despite having higher numbers in previous times.

If Morocco had 1-2 million then they wouldn´t have been able to field large armies against the Portuguese.
That depends on how militarized their society is. Given the Berber tribal influences I would hypothesize a greater degree of mobilization in the interior than the typical 1% of pre-modern societies. Moreover the Portuguese were quite successful in subduing the coastal cities, which were undoubtedly where a good chunk of the population resided as IIRC North Africa was heavily urbanized in the 14th and 15th centuries. Moreover numbers aren't everything.
 

Deleted member 97083

Thing is the population of North Africa didn´t grow from 1500 to 1850, Egypt stayed at 3 million despite having higher numbers in previous times.

If Morocco had 1-2 million then they wouldn´t have been able to field large armies against the Portuguese.
True but 1-2 million is about the Portuguese population at that time.

It is certainly easy to imaging. Such a scenario would see North Africa embedded into the wider European framework with the Sahara a more prominent boundary between culture and possibly evenue the very idea of continent. Sub-Sahara being considered far more relevant than some kind of pan-Africa.

Well the Ottoman Empire didn't really change the definition of Europe. The Western definition of Europe, Asia, and Africa hasn't really changed since the ancient Greeks.
 

Deleted member 97083

Still, it wasn't a centralized state and lagged behind in technology.
Portugal or Morocco? Both were relatively decentralized, but I thought Portugal was fairly close to the cutting edge military technology of the time, considering the success of their fleets and fortresses abroad.
 
Portugal or Morocco? Both were relatively decentralized, but I thought Portugal was fairly close to the cutting edge military technology of the time, considering the success of their fleets and fortresses abroad.

If I wasn't clear enough I was talking about Morocco. During the early 1500's Portugal surely was one of the great powers of Europe.
 
Portugal or Morocco? Both were relatively decentralized, but I thought Portugal was fairly close to the cutting edge military technology of the time, considering the success of their fleets and fortresses abroad.

Actually Portugal was rather centralized, at least compared to the rest of Europe.
 

Lusitania

Donor
As a matter of fact, the treaty of Tordesillas defined the zones of Portuguese and Spanish influence in Morocco, being the Spanish area limited to the Mediterranean coast (this sphere of influence reflected much the border of the 19th-century Spanish Morocco). That being said, Portugal is in the best position to occupy and control Morocco. Heck, the Portuguese king even styled Morocco as Algarve of Overseas.

As you can see in the map, the Portuguese were much more succesful than we actually think they were. IMHO it was the Iberian Union that demolished the project of a Christianized Morocco. As I see it, the Portuguese can concentrate much more resources in North Africa than the Spanish, as the Hapsburgs have other concerns both in Europe and in the Americas. Also, Portugal can and will avoid unneeded rivalry with other European powers, such as France, England and the Netherlands (the English notably provided weapons to the Moroccans to fight against the Iberian Union). Of course, there will always be the problem of having an important population densitiy and the eventual Ottoman support will always be a probability, but with some luck I think that Portugal can slowly conquer the entire country.

Wattasids_-_Simplified_map.PNG

What you need would of been that Wattasid Kingdom became unstable due to infighting for the throne by various members of the ruling family. Some would of enlisted Portuguese help and Morocco could of continued splintered country. Also would of helped if King Manuel I did not die in Morocco.
 
If Spain and Portugal do occupy of Morocco, how much of the population can they possibly convert? Does it have the potential to be majority Christian if the region is held on to long enough?
 
If Spain and Portugal do occupy of Morocco, how much of the population can they possibly convert? Does it have the potential to be majority Christian if the region is held on to long enough?
I would say it has the potential to be just as Christian as the rest of Spain and Portugal. There were once a lot of native Muslims in Iberia; they all disappeared by the 17th century. The same thing could happen in Morocco and the rest of the Maghreb.
 
I do wonder if this would cause an Exodus to the south, pushing Islam into Senengal more quickly. Still, once you had driven Muslims out of Spain you could hunker down. And clean house. If you keep going south you eat into a lot of resources and men after a bloody couple of centuries. If there are some Berbers and others who were untouched by Islam but can be convinced to become Christian then you can get some popular appeal among the peasentry, though it is still questionable just how to do it. And heck, if the Spaniards couldn't expell their Muslims and Jews to Morocco then they would have to either slaughter them or send them to the Levant where they are crusading, to North Africa where they would have presumably tried invading after finishing Morocco, or send them to... Maybe the Balkans? All of these are impractical or counterproductive. With the exception of the first, which is monsterous. Anyone got some good maps of Europe for this general time period? I imagine it will go on for a century after the original Reconquista it may take some time for the Iberians to unite enough to go southwards. Not to mention needing to deal with Barbary pirates and such. Come to think of it, that might be a good way to get support from Northern Europe. Have a period of intense slaving raids by Corsairs, then get some support from the English, Danish, Irish statelets, etc to secure the Straits of Gibrlater. Maybe turn the Rif into a fortress.
 
Top