WI No Almoravid Spain

and you are removing that.
Mostly agreeing, but OP removed one of the Berber Dynasties : you have a lot of them existing or potential in Maghrib after the collapse of Umayyad rule.

The survival of an independent kingdom of Valencia under Christian leadership, wether as a kingdom of its own or as a vassal of Leon-Castile once Zaragoza is taken out, is certainly a colorful and not explored development. Maybe an actually separate Romance language called Valencian is developed ITTL
I agree that the development of a Valencian kingdom is underestimated, but it would still be largely dependent (probably more) of foreign support than Leon/Castille. I could see a distinct Valencian dialect (either from Hispano-Romance or Occitano-Romance ensemble) arising from the various settlement (akin to what existed in Norman Italy), but not something utterly "other" geopolitically and culturally.

As for less evident consequences, the Almoravid/Almohad interludes also islamized southern Spain more than we tend to think, both because of prolonging Muslim rule there and the outright flight of Mozarabs and Jews to the Christian kingdoms
They mostly par-achevied the work when it come to Mozarabs : by the Xth century, Islamisation of the native population was well underwent and what greatly helped Andalusian Christianism was the arrival of "neo-Mozarabs" with the Christian immigration in Muslim Spain (which as well greatly helped the transition between Islamic and Christian rule for Mozarabs). But by the XIth, it's too late to say the bulk of rural population was still Christian.

oddly mirroring the territories that Aragon would take later)
Not that odd, actually : Saragossa was an hard nut to crack (wealthy, well fortified, stronger Arabo-Berber presence, etc.) and eventually Leon/Castille went for easier preys. Aragon mostly filled the gap when Almoravids pressured the taifa in the south.
ITTL, assuming a late Berber takeover of what remains of al-Andalus, I wouldn't see Aragon (or Leon/Castille) having as much opportunities (in a first time at least), ironically.


What about the Andalusian Muslim population?
You could basically split Andalusian part of military into four groups.
- Junds (regiments). Mostly hereditary at this point, and largely declining.
- Urban militias. Largely local, and not really used, due to a relatively poor quality, and lack of real reliability (politically, for instance).
- Hashids. The equivalent to piétaille, rank and file.
- Mujahid. Sort of lay fighting monastic orders. We're touching to some actual quality there, admittedly, but reduced in numbers.

Then you had the bulk of Andalusian armies, the mercenaries, themselves divided between permanently raised mercenaries (murtaziqa) and the raised mercenaries that were promised part of loot as payment (mujahids).

While, technically, several districts owed a militart service since the Xth, it was never really applied because Andalusian armies proper weren't considered as good (which was true) or reliable (which is an extremely common feature in the whole of Arabo-Islamic world). It was seen as better to have "houseold" armies (composed by slaves, mostly) as more fidels (the notion of fidelity between an army and a dynasty as you had in Rome, let alone vassalic link as in Europe, didn't really existed as such in the medieval Arabo-Islamic world); or using foreign mercenaries arguing that they were foreign to inner networks.

It costed a lot, but Umayyad Spain could afford it, trough wealth AND geopolitical control of Maghrib. Taifas? Not really : they had to deal with mostly local armies and limited mercenaryship which meant small armies (Seville took over Cordoba with less than 2000 men).

Is it fair to say that if Islamic Spain falls to Christian rulers by then that this flowering doesn't happen?
As said above : I don't think Islamic Spain will fall in its entierty by the XIth or even early XIIth : Christian kingdoms can only conquer so far without overstretching themselves, and a Berber takeover is bound to save what remains of al-Andalus sooner or later. Of course, we're talking of a much reduced Islamic Spain compared to IOTL.
While I could see the falsafa having a more pessimistic tone, and al-Andalus being possibly a secondary center compared to Syria (or even Africa in the case of an exile before Christian advance as it was observed IOTL in the XIVth century).
 
I think what I'm getting at is, could that very order fall without collapsing Islamic rule in Spain entirely? Could shu'ubiyya (more or less) actually happen here around this time?
It already happened in Spain by the late IXth and early Xth centuries, on the wake of the important crisis that Umayyad knew : whole regions revolted and allied with their foes, and some cities as Toledo litterally revolted on some period on an average of each two years.
It was only partially resolved trough integration of muladi into caliphal administration and once this disappeared, it was Taifa-fest.

Arguably, the new wave of mercenaryship in Xth and XIth al-Andalus provoked a new shu'ubiyya, unrelated to the first, which still had some importance to legitimize some taifa rule.

Note that, tough, it was essentially something giving body to the ethnic strife that was particularily problematic in al-Andalus compared to the core of Arabo-Islamic world : it found its translation rather in outright conflicts, pogroms (as anti-berber pogroms during the Fitna) than litterary style at first.
 
It costed a lot, but Umayyad Spain could afford it, trough wealth AND geopolitical control of Maghrib. Taifas? Not really : they had to deal with mostly local armies and limited mercenaryship which meant small armies (Seville took over Cordoba with less than 2000 men).
It already happened in Spain by the late IXth and early Xth centuries, on the wake of the important crisis that Umayyad knew : whole regions revolted and allied with their foes, and some cities as Toledo litterally revolted on some period on an average of each two years.

It was only partially resolved trough integration of muladi into caliphal administration and once this disappeared, it was Taifa-fest.

Arguably, the new wave of mercenaryship in Xth and XIth al-Andalus provoked a new shu'ubiyya, unrelated to the first, which still had some importance to legitimize some taifa rule.
This is a one of the reasons why the idea of the taifas managing to rebuild (a version of) Al-Andalus without a (*puritanical*) Berber or African army is something I find so intriguing -- the taifa period, despite (or because of) its instability, saw a number of social upheavals (Muradi and Jews gaining access to social mobility like never before, etc) that seem like they had the potential to found an emirate/caliphate/etc very different from what OTL saw.
While I could see the falsafa having a more pessimistic tone, and al-Andalus being possibly a secondary center...

Note that, tough, it was essentially something giving body to the ethnic strife that was particularily problematic in al-Andalus compared to the core of Arabo-Islamic world : it found its translation rather in outright conflicts, pogroms (as anti-berber pogroms during the Fitna) than litterary style at first.
Sounds like philosophy takes a hit TTL.
 
Another thought occurs to me -- some of the most important philosophers in western history (eg Mainonides, Aveorres) worked and wrote during the Almohad Dynasty, which doesn't exist TTL, regardless of whether the taifas can hold off Christians or if the Reconquista hapoens much earlier. Is it fair to say that if Islamic Spain falls to Christian rulers by then that this flowering doesn't happen? Even if we take the more *optmistic* (and already argued to be unlikely) scenario, where the taifas manage to hold together, would this dawn of scholasticism now be less likely without the context of Almoravid and Almohad *Islamification*?

Well, Maimonides pretty famously sought refuge in Egypt late in his life (although from the Almohads rather than the Almoravids). Averroes, I'm ashamed to admit that I was under the impression that he was earlier. Checking (Spanish) Wikipedia, it seems that the Almoravids actually forbade him from teaching in Seville and exiled him, first to the Cordoba area and then to Africa.

This roughly matches with the common image in Spanish historiography of the Almoravids and Almohads as foreign, rugged zealots who saw Andalusis with contempt and considered them weak, sleazy and bad Muslims bordering heresy in general. But I concede this might not be a neutral view.

Not that odd, actually : Saragossa was an hard nut to crack (wealthy, well fortified, stronger Arabo-Berber presence, etc.) and eventually Leon/Castille went for easier preys. Aragon mostly filled the gap when Almoravids pressured the taifa in the south.
ITTL, assuming a late Berber takeover of what remains of al-Andalus, I wouldn't see Aragon (or Leon/Castille) having as much opportunities (in a first time at least), ironically.

I'm seeing an apparent trend of Christian armies raiding and taking fortresses in the area of Almeria and Murcia in the period both before the Almoravids and between Almoravids and Amohads. Alfonso VI took Aledo, Alfonso VII took Almeria... I wonder, if in a TL with no Berber interventions, we could end at one point in the 12th century where the Christians (well, Leon-Castile) have a soild foothold in the Mediterranean through this route, but they have yet to take the Guadalquivir basin or Zaragoza, and Al-Andalus is divided in two parts. With Christian-led but majority-Muslim Valencia playing both sides in the middle for extra bizarreness.
 
the taifa period, despite (or because of) its instability, saw a number of social upheavals (Muradi and Jews gaining access to social mobility like never before, etc)
Erm...Not exactly : while the initial part of the taifa period did allowed a certain lberalisation for al-Andalusian minorities, it eventually died out brutally as the population of al-Andalus during what was arguably seen as a period of decline and identitary stress (we're talking of a culture that was partially definied by its fight against Christian Spain being dominated if not conquered by Christians) : when I say brutally, I mean outright pogroms as in Grenada.
Muladi situation arguably blossomed, at the contrary : but doing so they lost all real hope of political autonomy, as it was a social mobility bolstered (as for Jews) by the emir good will once the muladi taifa were written off, and they eventually disappeared as a distinct grouping with the continuation of the conquest (Berber takeover was arguably one thing that definitely allowed them to merge with Arabs)

that seem like they had the potential to found an emirate/caliphate/etc very different from what OTL saw.
I'm not sure : after the revolts of the Xth century, the caliphal bureaucracy did integrated a lot of Muladies within its agency and administration, but depended from the power good-will. A bit like it happened in taifa, with Ibn Gundisbad (Gondislav) in Saragossa. I'd rather see a continuity in this case.

Sounds like philosophy takes a hit TTL.
A certain change of flavour, indeed. Of ideas? I'm not sure.
 
This roughly matches with the common image in Spanish historiography of the Almoravids and Almohads as foreign, rugged zealots who saw Andalusis with contempt and considered them weak, sleazy and bad Muslims bordering heresy in general. But I concede this might not be a neutral view.
Traditional Spanish historiography, sometimes mocked as "geologic Hispanism" tended to go in the direction of al-Andalus as the expression of a native presence, rather than the avant-garde of the Islamic West whom native population grew increasingly arabized and culturally islamized including for the Christian part.
And while the foreigness of Berber Dynasties certainly reflect a view of a Arabo-Andalusian develloped cultural level, it was also an expression of the independence and fierceness of Arabo-Andalusian elites (which continued way after the end of an independent al-Andalus) convenient enough to mark them as Spanish at heart.

I wonder, if in a TL with no Berber interventions, we could end at one point in the 12th century where the Christians (well, Leon-Castile) have a soild foothold in the Mediterranean through this route, but they have yet to take the Guadalquivir basin or Zaragoza, and Al-Andalus is divided in two parts. With Christian-led but majority-Muslim Valencia playing both sides in the middle for extra bizarreness.
I'd rather agree with your first proposition, and find it quite likely : a geopolitical expansion of Castille/Leon in the south-east of the peninsula.

I'd make a caveat when it comes to institutions and culture : I really think an even greater first wave of Reconquista will increase the importance of Occitan, Norman and overall transpyrenean presence as the need of military force and settlement would increase. I'm not expecting something diffuse, but rather something akin to what happened in Portugal and Levante IOTL, providing a certain nuance to political and cultural Leonese/Castillan dominance.

Interestingly, the chronology would favour a Pyrenean-led takeover of Saragossa : IOTL the return from Crusade provided cispyrenean principalties and lords with a great knowledge of poliorcetics and adaptable tactics (I'm especially thinking to Gaston IV there, but as well Alphonse Jourdain there for what matter Occitano-Romance lords) which were a great asset for Aragonese and Catalans. ITTL this return could parallel the relative isolement of Saragossa and turn most of the taifa into an enlarged Catalonia, more turned to the Ebre valley (I must admit I'm influenced by my own TL on this part, but I do think it plausible)

On an unrelated note : I think we're managing to draw a good allohistorical structure there, and coherent too!
 
I'd rather agree with your first proposition, and find it quite likely : a geopolitical expansion of Castille/Leon in the south-east of the peninsula.

I'd make a caveat when it comes to institutions and culture : I really think an even greater first wave of Reconquista will increase the importance of Occitan, Norman and overall transpyrenean presence as the need of military force and settlement would increase. I'm not expecting something diffuse, but rather something akin to what happened in Portugal and Levante IOTL, providing a certain nuance to political and cultural Leonese/Castillan dominance.

...holy shit. Can Henry of Burgundy be given Murcia instead of Portugal? A Condado Cartaginense? It'd be a monumental kick to the teeth to the "Inevitable Portugal" trope.
 
Muladi situation arguably blossomed, at the contrary : but doing so they lost all real hope of political autonomy, as it was a social mobility bolstered (as for Jews) by the emir good will once the muladi taifa were written off, and they eventually disappeared as a distinct grouping with the continuation of the conquest
See, that kind of reminds me of the War of the Roses, which likewise saw traditional elites declining, forcing the rulers to rely more and more on "new men"; yeah, there are plenty of reasons the two are different, but doesn't it at least show that relying on the goodwill of the emir/king doesn't necessarily mean that old ethnic or even class hierarchies will re-emerge unscathed when order returns.
 
...holy shit. Can Henry of Burgundy be given Murcia instead of Portugal? A Condado Cartaginense? It'd be a monumental kick to the teeth to the "Inevitable Portugal" trope.
Well, maybe not Henri de Bourgogne (the set up of a County of Porto did made sense in the inner politics of Leon) but you get the idea :D
 
I could see a distinct Valencian dialect (either from Hispano-Romance or Occitano-Romance ensemble) arising from the various settlement (akin to what existed in Norman Italy), but not something utterly "other" geopolitically and culturally.
How about the ATL Valencian language as the lone survivor of Mozarabic language?

PS:
I should include Lleida and Andorra as part of the hypothetical ATL Valencian language area....
 
How about the ATL Valencian language as the lone survivor of Mozarabic language?

PS:
I should include Lleida and Andorra as part of the hypothetical ATL Valencian language area....
Can one say really that the Mozarabic language died OTL, as opposed to losing good part of his arab adstratum?
 
How about the ATL Valencian language as the lone survivor of Mozarabic language?
I don't think we can really talk about a distinct Mozarabic language : most of what I went into, safe vague sources as Wikipedia, goes in the way of describing the various Romance speeches of al-Andalus (including Jewish Romance) as closely related to northern speeches, especially (but not exclusively) central-northern speeches, while having a more archaising feel in phonology and, obviously, more influenced by Arab. The contact between northern speeches and emigrants, as well "Old Mozarabs" and neo-Mozarabs of the Xth that emigrated from northern kingdoms only blurred, IMO, what wasn't a clear distinction to begin with.

Eventually, I'd rather agree with Corriente, when he coins the term "Romandalusi", that he stresses the southern dialects survivance mostly held on geocultural features the relatively quick abandon of romandalusi dialects with the change of dominant culture would certainly happen there as well, probably even quicker.
Not to say that you wouldn't have an influence of southern speeches into dialectal forms as you did IOTL albeit significantly reduced, but these speeches were already increasingly declining by the XIth century and except in Christian cultural bastions as western Andalusia, maybe outright dying.
The survival of romandalusi speeches as such is not really plausible with such a late PoD, and only let the question on their possible influence : for what matter Valence, I have to re-state my opinion that while you might see an important cispyrenean influence (Occitan-Catalan, Franco-Norman, mostly), I'd eventually see a continuity with what happened with the christian reconquest in Middle Spain, as in a castillanisation of local population possibly helped by centuries of direct contact between northern and southern speeches.

I'd rather see a survivance, more or less partial, of Romandalusi in regions around Cordoba and Seville where Christian presence seems to have been more noticable in the XIth, but I also think that Christian reconquest wouldn't really be able to conquer these regions in the same wave of conquest that gaven them Toledo or ITTL Valence.

I should include Lleida and Andorra as part of the hypothetical ATL Valencian language area....
Why? At this point these regions are almost entierly held into an Occitano-Romance ensemble. Arguably, you might have some chances that transpyrenean speeches would rather be considered as part of this ensemble as well, or at least closer than IOTL, due to the larger needs of re-settlement.
 
Top