WI: Abbasids depose Abd al-Rahman

Towelie

Banned
Abd al-Rahman, one of the last of the Umayyad family, was able to escape the massacres after the Abbasid Revolution and take over at Cordoba in al-Andalus a few years later. However, the Abbasids never forgot about him and sent an army to deal with him. The army besieged him at Carmona, where he was able to sortie and defeat the Abbasid Army.

What would have happened to al-Andalus had the Abbasids defeated him? Keep in mind his control over the Emirate (and it was not officially a Caliphate until one of his successors declared himself Caliph) was never absolute, and he constantly had to deal with rebellions and asserting (and reasserting) his authority of the northern regions of Spain under Muslim rule. I do wonder, of course, if the Umayyad Caliphate's reputation for Arab Supremacist Racism played into the lack of immediate authority over al-Andalus. The proportion of Arabs to Berbers to Visigoths and Hispano-Romans in the 700s could not have been good for an Umayyad to have to deal with.

Is it possible that a Visigothic revolt could at some point occur? Would the Abbasids attempt to centralize the province under direct rule from Baghdad? Would the Dominant Arab Warrior class clash with the Berbers (again)? Would Iberia make a fruitful target for Charlemagne eventually to attempt to assert more control over?
 

Towelie

Banned
It might also be worth looking into what would happen to the remaining members of the Umayyad family, and where they might go if al-Andalus is no longer a safe haven.
 
For some reason, until the industrial revolution, it was always difficult for powers based in the Eastern Mediterranean (and the Abbasids were based in Iraq/ Khurasan) to keep control of territories in the Western Mediterranean, particularly North Africa and Spain. Of course, the only case of an Eastern Med based power governing parts of Italy was the Byzantines (the Greek city states there were independent of the ones in Greece proper).

Of course, this worked the other way, except of course for the Romans.

Actually the East Romans and Byzantines had the most success doing this, but they really had to work at it.

By 800 historically, the Abbasids had not only lost effective control of Spain, they lost effective control of everything in North Africa as well, and a century later the Fatimids took over North Africa and didn't even pay lip service to the Abbassid caliphs. No sooner did the Fatimids relocate to Egypt than they lost effective control of North Africa too. Even the Ottomans had difficulty in corralling the North African beys.

There was no "bring back the House of Othman" movement that I know of in the Islamic world, unlike the Party of Ali, so the question is why the Spanish Ummayyads even bothered taking the title of Caliph. The answer seems to have been indicated above, to bolster support among non-Arab Muslims in Spain, and they could get away with it due to the family history.
 
This is essentially a Abbasid al-Anadalus question. I am not an expert on al-Anadalus, but I will give my views on the issue as a whole, mainly from my knowledge on comparative studies of Abbasid vs Umayyad ruling patterns.

One major point where the Abbasid and Umayyad differed greatly and defined both of their regimes more than any other was to whom the state was based and what was the main goal of such state.

In the Umayyad period before the Abbasid revolution, rule was predicated upon several things. The first and most principle of which was the primacy of the Arab warrior/tribal class which would migrate to the borders of Dar al-Islam and often in exchange for loyalty and their service in waging war; would be granted free range over loot form the area and be given authority over the particular population for both slavery and for local administration. This system modernized the concept of Baqiyyah wa Tattamadad (remaining and expanding) and allowed for a highly decentralized yet also organized assault on enemies and rapid expansion of borders and inflating the economy with constant slaves from Europe, Africa and Asia. Both Iberia and North Africa (outside of Egypt) represented this trend, an area of immense distance which is conquered only through constant and decentralized command structures (Arab warriors, Muhjahid/Ghazi/Fidayeen).

In contrast, the Abbasid was a state that attempted to unify and then change the makeup of the caliphate in an almost artificial manner. It did this by removing power from Arab tribal warriors and giving such power and pedigree to the supposed superior Mamluk slaves of Central Asian descent. In later periods, it enforced strict policies upon Muslim of the Sunni variety in an attempt to bring them into the newer Mu'Tazila sect, and in addition Shi'i became even more rebellious in this period than in the Umayyad (which saw the battle of Jami'jan, an alliance of Shi'i and Murji'ah). This lead to vicious rebellions of religious and economic character in both Iraq, Iran and Arabia (in their heartland, not faraway). These effects occurred, because the Khalifa was optimized for outward conquest in the manner of the Umayyad and only ruling in the manner of the Umayyad, directing troublesome individuals to the fringes of the Khalifa, could the state continue to truly function. Th Abbasid failed at this and tore itself apart in rebellion and palace intrigue.

So in short, the Abbasids would lose Al-Andalus to some entity or to local revolt. However, this successor state could be Muslim and or Moorish in nature, as opposed to a Visigothic state or actual rule by Charlemagne.
 

Towelie

Banned
In contrast, the Abbasid was a state that attempted to unify and then change the makeup of the caliphate in an almost artificial manner. It did this by removing power from Arab tribal warriors and giving such power and pedigree to the supposed superior Mamluk slaves of Central Asian descent. In later periods, it enforced strict policies upon Muslim of the Sunni variety in an attempt to bring them into the newer Mu'Tazila sect, and in addition Shi'i became even more rebellious in this period than in the Umayyad (which saw the battle of Jami'jan, an alliance of Shi'i and Murji'ah). This lead to vicious rebellions of religious and economic character in both Iraq, Iran and Arabia (in their heartland, not faraway). These effects occurred, because the Khalifa was optimized for outward conquest in the manner of the Umayyad and only ruling in the manner of the Umayyad, directing troublesome individuals to the fringes of the Khalifa, could the state continue to truly function. Th Abbasid failed at this and tore itself apart in rebellion and palace intrigue.

So in short, the Abbasids would lose Al-Andalus to some entity or to local revolt. However, this successor state could be Muslim and or Moorish in nature, as opposed to a Visigothic state or actual rule by Charlemagne.

The Arab primacy of the Umayyads certainly contributed to their overthrow, but I have to ask, how were they able to govern al-Andalus when what was actually done was basically the opposite of what their governing philosophy was? The Umayyads out of Cordoba encouraged religious tolerance and relative equality between the Arabs and Berbers in terms of status. The state was centralized, with Abd al-Rahman going to great lengths to bring all independent taifas under the control of Cordoba. This basically flies in the face of everything the Umayyads were known for.

On the subject of the development of jihad ideology, al-Andalus provided much like Central Asia an avenue for which warriors in search of an opportunity for frontier struggle could go. Would Abbasid control of the peninsula, however brief, threaten this? Jihad of course changed over the centuries, but in the context of al-Andalus, having a Caliph in Corduba provided legitimacy to the area for warriors to travel to. Would the Abbasids attempt to stymie this?
 
The Arab primacy of the Umayyads certainly contributed to their overthrow, but I have to ask, how were they able to govern al-Andalus when what was actually done was basically the opposite of what their governing philosophy was? The Umayyads out of Cordoba encouraged religious tolerance and relative equality between the Arabs and Berbers in terms of status. The state was centralized, with Abd al-Rahman going to great lengths to bring all independent taifas under the control of Cordoba. This basically flies in the face of everything the Umayyads were known for.

On the subject of the development of jihad ideology, al-Andalus provided much like Central Asia an avenue for which warriors in search of an opportunity for frontier struggle could go. Would Abbasid control of the peninsula, however brief, threaten this? Jihad of course changed over the centuries, but in the context of al-Andalus, having a Caliph in Corduba provided legitimacy to the area for warriors to travel to. Would the Abbasids attempt to stymie this?

The Khilafa al-Qurtubah is not the same entity as when I say, 'Khilafa al-Umayyad. So it is inconsequential what occurred at later occasions to the reality of the Umayyad period.

Note, my area of study is the actual Middle East, thus when I say 'Umayyad period,' I refer only to it when it's capital was Dimshaq, not Qurtubah.

It likely due to distance, be unable to end the travel of muhjahid to the area seeking loot and adventure. However, the influence of such things would be less than in otl, as the Abbasid attempt to control its population, especially in terms of military and religious dissidence.
 

Deleted member 97083

Were there any Visigoths left in Iberia by the time of Abd al-Rahman?
 
The Arab primacy of the Umayyads certainly contributed to their overthrow, but I have to ask, how were they able to govern al-Andalus when what was actually done was basically the opposite of what their governing philosophy was? The Umayyads out of Cordoba encouraged religious tolerance and relative equality between the Arabs and Berbers in terms of status. The state was centralized, with Abd al-Rahman going to great lengths to bring all independent taifas under the control of Cordoba. This basically flies in the face of everything the Umayyads were known for.

On the subject of the development of jihad ideology, al-Andalus provided much like Central Asia an avenue for which warriors in search of an opportunity for frontier struggle could go. Would Abbasid control of the peninsula, however brief, threaten this? Jihad of course changed over the centuries, but in the context of al-Andalus, having a Caliph in Corduba provided legitimacy to the area for warriors to travel to. Would the Abbasids attempt to stymie this?
Actually, there was never equality between Arabo-Andalusians and Berbers; Berbers were typically viewed as "less desirable" and mostly useful as warriors, but otherwise tended to be viewed as lower in status to Arabo-Andalusians.
Were there any Visigoths left in Iberia by the time of Abd al-Rahman?
They might not have been called Visigoths any more but there were tons of Visigothic-ancestry Andalusian Christians, the Mozarabs. The Mozarabic church rite was basically Visigothic.
 

Deleted member 97083

How possible would it be for Charlemagne to conquer the whole peninsula?
 
More difficult than you'd think. The Andalusians weren't helpless by any means. A number of junds from Syria had arrived fifty or sixty years prior to fight the Berber Revolt and had settled, so al-Andalus had access to a solid Arabo-Andalusian standing army at the time, as well as options for mercenaries.
 

Deleted member 97083

I wonder if the Abbasids in al-Andalus might capture/recruit Viking ghilman or mamluks.
 
I wonder if the Abbasids in al-Andalus might capture/recruit Viking ghilman or mamluks.
They sort of did that with Russians and southern Slavs.

Especially in the 900s, al-Andalus did a brisk traffic in saqaliba - Slavic eunuchs. Eventually the saqaliba came to play a role as palace guards and generals. There were the beginnings there of a nascent mamluk-like culture, but Almanzor gutted their leadership to secure his own position and the trend moved towards a semi-professional army of Berber clans imported wholesale from the Maghreb, with obvious consequences.

There were still a few saqaliba taifas - Denia was one.
 

Towelie

Banned
Were there any Visigoths left in Iberia by the time of Abd al-Rahman?
The Visigoths were honestly only about 1-2% of the population of Iberia at the time of the initial Muslim invasion.

The Royal Army was almost entirely Visigoth, as the Visigoths found it easier to control the Hispano-Romans when they were basically unarmed and organized on a town by town basis. With the big Arab victory at Guadelete, there was scarce opposition from thence forwards in the Umayyad conquest of most of Iberia. With the defeat of that Visigoth army, which contained most of the elite warrior groups in the Kingdom, the Visigoths as an entity were basically wiped out. Its highly likely that there were Visigoth descendants alive in the Peninsula, especially in Christian lands, during the time of Abd al-Rahman. But not in an organized or powerful form. The Visigoths really never were a big part of the population of Spain to start with. They were more of a group of warriors who took over and coopted decaying Roman provincial organization. Their rule depended on being able to kill anyone in their way and the remains of Roman authority that they stole. When they lost that, they collapsed.
 
Top