WI: No Hapsburg Spain, Spain focused on North Africa

Deleted member 67076

Ok so Spain can´t get food from there because arid land but there is a food surplus. I mean I get those are more expert on the surroundings but to a point where they can maintain foreign soldiers while Spain can´t get the same food otherwise used by them is odd.
Differences in logistics, need of upkeep and type of food consumed. You keep assuming this is a video game scenario where Spanish troops and Moroccan troops are functionally equal in their needs and have not had

Desert dwellers are considered very hardy due to being trained that way in an environment that is often short of food.

Wait I thought we were talking about land raids on the coast, anyway I would think that instead of focusing on sieging inland forts they would try to destroy the Moroccan apparatus by destroying its cities, would that really be something impossible for the Spanish?

If instead of sieging and staying they just burned everything to the ground and retreated? I´m not talking about coastal cities but hinterland.
Then that just makes any invasion utterly worthless and would make the Spanish even bigger idiots than they were historically.

Why invade then? What is the appeal of taking the Maghreb then if you're not going to get anything out of it?

Like, even if the Spanish do this it would make their job harder in the long run since it just forces more people to become nomadic, where they cannot be monitored as easily and grants the resistance even more mobility.

Because you say contradicting thing, first you say the advantage is that they can disperse and go back doing their stuff, now you say the food is enough for a foreign army to survive. Maybe it´s because we are talking on vague terms.
I'm not being contradictory; you keep assuming Moroccan, Saharan and other Maghrebi troops = Spanish troops as if this was a video game.

The guys the Moroccans are moving into their battlefields are other desert dwellers who are used to having less food, and have better techniques of preservation.

But that´s going to be small compared to the supposed Spanish force(up to 100k), and if things don´t go as planned do they starve?
Asymmetric warfare bruh. The defending party on rough terrain with better mobility than the invaders needs less forces. But this assumes the Spanish would throw everything they have on the initial expeditionary force. That is very unlikely given shipping all those troops at once (as in, at one campaign) is a logistical nightmare and impossible to accomplish. To achieve near 100,000 men on the ground, the Spanish would need years of increasingly upping their presence in the region and devoting their economy to the upkeep of their military machine.

But this assumes that the Spanish would put on the field the needed amount of troops to make any conquest feasible. I disagree this would happen given its simply too much effort, and would bankrupt the state. But even before that, the Spanish would suffer enough losses that the cost/benefit ratio analysis would say its better to take the loss and move on.

If things don't go as well, the Maghrebis starve. Just like anyone else. But that's unlikely to happen given the Spanish will almost certainly get their teeth kicked in and leave soon enough.

So winning will cause propaganda boost but losing would mean that more people would support the Moroccans anyway? Is it realstical to assume that the same many people would fight after some lost battles?
If your homeland is being invaded, the loss of territories would cause an additional upswing in volunteers out of a mix of fear that you'd be next, and residual loyalties to the region and its inhabitants. Then it would decline as time passes and the effort doesn't seem to be worth it.

However, if as time passes, your side is seen to have been increasingly victorious, then you will see another growth in recruitment and morale as the odds of winning look ever so closer to your favor, then more and more individuals will throw in your support.

Things need not happen at the same time.

Dirt poor farmers in Late Medieval/Very Early Modern Southern Italy?
Yes, Italy had become an economic backwater since the Holy Roman Empire's brief annexation of the region in the late 1200s.

Because they were idiots, my entire premise is that they aren´t IATL. Also if we assume Italians still fight against the Ottomans why would the money not be present when the destruction of Barbary States would be of vital importance to them?
If they were not idiots, they would not invade the Barbary states. "Reconquista" isn't a good enough reason. Invading the Muslim states gave the Christian realms money, manpower, taxes, access to skilled labor, more territory to farm, new ports, new agricultural products, new technologies, security, the ability to project greater power in the Mediterranean and prestige.

What does the Maghreb offer the Spaniards this? And to preemptively respond to you just repeating the above to me as an argument, none of that in the Maghreb is offered in enough quantities to be worth the fools errand of trying to conquer the place due to the myriad of factors I've previously mentioned that make conquest much harder to achieve in the region and the differences in setting from the Reconquista to the Renaissance that make applying the logic of the Reconquista to a Maghreb conquest difficult.

Now if they weren't idiots, the Spanish crowns would step up coastal patrols, establish a coast guard, a shipping convoy system and invest heavily in their Italian possessions of Sardinia, Sicily and Naples so the Italian possessions put in their share of work instead of leech off the Iberians. That would, after a century of work, give enough manpower, money and ships to cut a dent into Corsair raids. Wouldn't end them, but would reduce them. Trade would pick up drastically, the populations would be more willing to settle the coast, and the Spanish don't have to stick their fingers into the meatgrinder.

The Spanish managed to retain Belgium in the Netherlands, expand in the New World and Philippines so they are not total idiots.
None of these are comparable to invading the Maghreb. Belgium is tiny, flat and the Spanish had legitimacy in addition to a massive garrison and local aid. The New world had no offensive technology to contest the Spanish (in comparison to the Spaniards) and was in the midsts of and economic, social and political collapse thanks to disease and the Philippines were drastically underpopulated in addition to having little infrastructure built by the natives due to said underpopulation. Even then, Spanish rule was very tenuous and relied on the good will of the local elites.

Spain has none of that here.

At the same time Austria could have a different approach to the Protestant meaning less troubles north.
I find this to be highly unlikely. Austria's claim to the imperial title was heavily rooted in their Catholicism, and their legitimacy was very much rooted in attempting to be good, pious Catholics. That, combined with their military effectiveness (in comparison to other Europeans) means that there's little reason to yield to Protestants initially. And even if they lose out, the Austrian Monarchy were historically very stubborn people.

You are implying this would mean endless flow of troops, if that was the case how did Andalus even fall? Southern Spain is also mountainous and climate similar to north Morocco.
Al Andalus fell because of extreme political instability and using the Maghreb as a troop factory instead of building up their own native army. This forced them to rely on the Maghreb's military strength to intervene. This inadvertently backs up my initial points of the Spanish having a very hard time in the Maghreb because they had a history of being such excellent soldiers.

So defeating Crusaders means less people show up in the next but defeating Ghazis or Berbers means nothing for the Moroccans? And no, you are not talking about Muslim Crusades but the underlying idea is the same(helping same religion brothers)
The difference is the Crusades had been a thing and had been failing for well over 400 years now. The Muslim world's major military attacks with Ghazis had led to the fall of the Sudanese, the Byzantines, the rest of the Balkans, Georgia, opened up India for Muslim Conquest, had converted vast swaths of Western Africa, etc, etc.

I´m talking about the whole Mediterranean Muslim world and more uniting without any problems and acting as perfectly as humanly possible while you assume the other side can´t.
The Mediterranean Muslim world at this time consists of the Ottomans and the Moroccans. Far easier to get to work together than the patchwork of states in Europe.

C´mon. So now the Spanish are blocked from learning logistics by magic? More so when where they live is not THAT far from Morocco?
Took them until the 30 Year's War to have a semblance of a logistical systems. Why would here be any better?

Being closer means they'd be more reliant on shipping, which puts them at the greater mercy of Corsair raids.

Why would it be better to put troops in the New World? There were no real treats outside those Comanches and Mapuche raids and I seriously don´t see why they would choose to fight them over the Barbary states just south of Andalusia.
Except all the revolts in the region during the 1500s?

Like how the Spanish were almost kicked out of Santo Domingo in the 1530s by Enriquillo? And incidents like Manco Inca's Revolt? Or the fact that the Mayans were subdued only until the 1700s and were a continuous pain for the Spanish? Or that many of their garrisons were pathetically small like Jamaica's 500 troops?

They'd be better served tightening their grip of the New World, settling the region even more, and using more troops on their Indian Ocean adventures.

Then the Spanish conquer all major ports until the activities ends, they conquered up to a dozen enclaves, if they can do more then you can´t just let the Barbary state use villages without infrastructure or move to Libya where it´s harder to sack the Western Mediterranean ports.
How are they going to do that? Does the Spanish navy just grow to double the size of the Ottoman/Corsair navy or something? How are they then able to penetrate Ottoman waters and attack Libyan ports?

Nevermind that trying to attack all Corsair ports means stretching forces even thinner and now forcing the Ottoman sultan to directly respond due to his subjects and trade being attacked.

I understand that but I´m trying to show that the Spanish already have the upper hand in immediate manpower and that they, like you say, need to know how to move and feed those but for some reason they can´t.
No, they don't. What proof do you have of the Spanish having the upper hand? How many troops can they possible marshal out immediately?

Army doctrines can change, same with the other thing. If that was not possible in AH we would have way less "WI X won in Y"
How would they change to allow them victory? What would cause change? How would such innovations be created, and would they be useful not just here in the Maghreb but elsewhere in Spain's ambitions? Can't just have one set of tactics for one region; that impedes the troop's and the commander's flexibility.

And why would the Spanish be willing to put through all effort in one region when they can make so much more money for far easier abroad?

I see, but were settlers themselves the main part or was the capacity to have an army stationed there? Or both?
Army occupation first, then settlement.
 
Differences in logistics, need of upkeep and type of food consumed. You keep assuming this is a video game scenario where Spanish troops and Moroccan troops are functionally equal in their needs and have not had

Desert dwellers are considered very hardy due to being trained that way in an environment that is often short of food.

I'm not being contradictory; you keep assuming Moroccan, Saharan and other Maghrebi troops = Spanish troops as if this was a video game.

The guys the Moroccans are moving into their battlefields are other desert dwellers who are used to having less food, and have better techniques of preservation.
You keep talking about desert dwellers and magic troops when we are in Northern Morocco and you assume Spain doesn´t know the climate in that region when it spent its last century raiding Granada and its mountainous territory.

Then that just makes any invasion utterly worthless and would make the Spanish even bigger idiots than they were historically.

Why invade then? What is the appeal of taking the Maghreb then if you're not going to get anything out of it?
Spread the faith, stop the pirates and slow conquest. I´m not saying now they go all in but that they do it slowly by destroying Morocco. I´ve to thank you though for reminding me of the logistics.

Like, even if the Spanish do this it would make their job harder in the long run since it just forces more people to become nomadic, where they cannot be monitored as easily and grants the resistance even more mobility.
It would reduce their population, infrastructure and income. I mean there is a reason why people are not primary nomad when not necessary?





Asymmetric warfare bruh. The defending party on rough terrain with better mobility than the invaders needs less forces. But this assumes the Spanish would throw everything they have on the initial expeditionary force. That is very unlikely given shipping all those troops at once (as in, at one campaign) is a logistical nightmare and impossible to accomplish. To achieve near 100,000 men on the ground, the Spanish would need years of increasingly upping their presence in the region and devoting their economy to the upkeep of their military machine.
There is a point where asymmetric warfare doesn´t help you and that´s when you have to siege down coastal cities. Now you need Moroccan and Ottoman direct hand(if the later can manage to bring troops there) but dwellers can help you so much when you have fortifications.

But this assumes that the Spanish would put on the field the needed amount of troops to make any conquest feasible. I disagree this would happen given its simply too much effort, and would bankrupt the state. But even before that, the Spanish would suffer enough losses that the cost/benefit ratio analysis would say its better to take the loss and move on.
I disagree that that would be the case, maybe we should see how their finances can go in great detail, Ill try to check. Surely how things were handled were sub optimal even without wars.

If things don't go as well, the Maghrebis starve. Just like anyone else. But that's unlikely to happen given the Spanish will almost certainly get their teeth kicked in and leave soon enough.
If the Spanish set a policy of owning the coast and burning down the immediate hinterland to remove opponents?
If your homeland is being invaded, the loss of territories would cause an additional upswing in volunteers out of a mix of fear that you'd be next, and residual loyalties to the region and its inhabitants. Then it would decline as time passes and the effort doesn't seem to be worth it.

However, if as time passes, your side is seen to have been increasingly victorious, then you will see another growth in recruitment and morale as the odds of winning look ever so closer to your favor, then more and more individuals will throw in your support.

Things need not happen at the same time.
I see so the Spanish need to have early victories and stand the ground.



Yes, Italy had become an economic backwater since the Holy Roman Empire's brief annexation of the region in the late 1200s.
But that´s not just true, while Neaples was less rich than Sicily(still better than England and the HRE), the later was strong and didn´t really decline until later, for example Palermo from 50.000 in 1300 pre Black Death grew to 100k in 1600, meaning they didnt´t even really decline.

If they were not idiots, they would not invade the Barbary states. "Reconquista" isn't a good enough reason. Invading the Muslim states gave the Christian realms money, manpower, taxes, access to skilled labor, more territory to farm, new ports, new agricultural products, new technologies, security, the ability to project greater power in the Mediterranean and prestige.
Those are the reason we have:

-Religion
-Reconquista(roman North Africa not Visigoths)
-Barbary Pirates
-Southern Saharan Trade(at least for the start, later on it would be replaced but still)

Also we have knowledge that after the reconquista the monarchs wanted and thought it would be natural that Spain would expand south but with all the Hapsburg drama and the New World it was forgotten.

Now if they weren't idiots, the Spanish crowns would step up coastal patrols, establish a coast guard, a shipping convoy system and invest heavily in their Italian possessions of Sardinia, Sicily and Naples so the Italian possessions put in their share of work instead of leech off the Iberians. That would, after a century of work, give enough manpower, money and ships to cut a dent into Corsair raids. Wouldn't end them, but would reduce them. Trade would pick up drastically, the populations would be more willing to settle the coast, and the Spanish don't have to stick their fingers into the meatgrinder.
Wait wait wait, I thought I talked about using Italians to settle the cities in North Africa and a bigger naval presence around the place before settling inland in Morocco. In any case I was also thinking about making the Spanish more practical with their inquisition avoiding expulsion of Moriscos and Sephardi that weren´t an actual problem, making Spain stronger and North Africa a bit weaker. I don´t mean no inquisition just no expulsion of people that actually converted because paranoia. More on the map below.

None of these are comparable to invading the Maghreb. Belgium is tiny, flat and the Spanish had legitimacy in addition to a massive garrison and local aid. The New world had no offensive technology to contest the Spanish (in comparison to the Spaniards) and was in the midsts of and economic, social and political collapse thanks to disease and the Philippines were drastically underpopulated in addition to having little infrastructure built by the natives due to said underpopulation. Even then, Spanish rule was very tenuous and relied on the good will of the local elites.

Spain has none of that here.
Is not about how they dealt tactically in each region but strategically. They did manage to succeed or hold on numerous and distant fronts, far more distant than Morocco and Neaples.

I find this to be highly unlikely. Austria's claim to the imperial title was heavily rooted in their Catholicism, and their legitimacy was very much rooted in attempting to be good, pious Catholics. That, combined with their military effectiveness (in comparison to other Europeans) means that there's little reason to yield to Protestants initially. And even if they lose out, the Austrian Monarchy were historically very stubborn people.
That´s also false. The peace of Augsburg is a clear sign of this, it was a later monarch that was zealous that sparkled all that mess. Ferdinand brought that peace, Maximilian didn´t even surpress protestantism in Austria and Bohemia when it was its right.

Al Andalus fell because of extreme political instability and using the Maghreb as a troop factory instead of building up their own native army. This forced them to rely on the Maghreb's military strength to intervene. This inadvertently backs up my initial points of the Spanish having a very hard time in the Maghreb because they had a history of being such excellent soldiers.

The difference is the Crusades had been a thing and had been failing for well over 400 years now. The Muslim world's major military attacks with Ghazis had led to the fall of the Sudanese, the Byzantines, the rest of the Balkans, Georgia, opened up India for Muslim Conquest, had converted vast swaths of Western Africa, etc, etc.
I know why Al Andalus fell specifically but I was talking about why those Ghazis didn´t manage to win them.

The Mediterranean Muslim world at this time consists of the Ottomans and the Moroccans. Far easier to get to work together than the patchwork of states in Europe.
But like you said Ottoman North Africa was quite autonomous.

Took them until the 30 Year's War to have a semblance of a logistical systems. Why would here be any better?

Being closer means they'd be more reliant on shipping, which puts them at the greater mercy of Corsair raids.
I don´t know, a crazy or intelligent king there and there and voila.

One thing though, without Spanish Netherlands you have no Dutch pirates joining specifically against them making the whole thing weaker, now French would still be a pain but it´s a difference in scale.

Except all the revolts in the region during the 1500s?

Like how the Spanish were almost kicked out of Santo Domingo in the 1530s by Enriquillo? And incidents like Manco Inca's Revolt? Or the fact that the Mayans were subdued only until the 1700s and were a continuous pain for the Spanish? Or that many of their garrisons were pathetically small like Jamaica's 500 troops?
They can surely get more presence but that would not occupy fully their army, it didn´t IOTL and wouldn´t now more so when they can´t move 100k people around.

Securing their routes from pirates both in the Caribbean and in North Africa would be more of a priority so I think we will see a double effort both those regions.

They'd be better served tightening their grip of the New World, settling the region even more, and using more troops on their Indian Ocean adventures.

And why would the Spanish be willing to put through all effort in one region when they can make so much more money for far easier abroad?
Well it would have been better for them to do so over going in Europe without successes but they didn´t know they and will not know now giving us freedom to make them do that given people in power wanted it.

Also 1 million people were enslaved by ONLY 3, albeit big, cities in the Barbary states, now that´s a big plus for the economy of their kingdom to fix that.

How are they going to do that? Does the Spanish navy just grow to double the size of the Ottoman/Corsair navy or something? How are they then able to penetrate Ottoman waters and attack Libyan ports?

Nevermind that trying to attack all Corsair ports means stretching forces even thinner and now forcing the Ottoman sultan to directly respond due to his subjects and trade being attacked.
No no, they would not attack Lybia but confine the pirates there by laying siege on more Algerian and Tunisian cities. More on the map below.

No, they don't. What proof do you have of the Spanish having the upper hand? How many troops can they possible marshal out immediately?
I´ll inform better when I start the TL but I would say 120k(1% mobilization rate) if they develop a more permanent French style system(not all will be permanent soldiers ofc), this is a lot and will let them siege a lot of coastal cities and deal blows to the Maghrebi.

How would they change to allow them victory? What would cause change? How would such innovations be created, and would they be useful not just here in the Maghreb but elsewhere in Spain's ambitions? Can't just have one set of tactics for one region; that impedes the troop's and the commander's flexibility.
I will try to find a way. It doesn´t strike me as impossibility given history.

Army occupation first, then settlement.
I see.


This map shows us what the Spanis took in North Africa during the early 16 century and lost some immediately, some decades later and some never(Oran was left peacefully), now if the Spanish can retain those I really don´t see how piracy can still be strong.

A60BsEf.png
 
Last edited:
Well, we are forgetting that Spain had renunced to any ambition over Morocco in favour of Portugal by treaty. That's why all the iberian incursions there were carried by the portuguese, except the conquest
of Melilla. This sais a bit about the spanish desires to expand in the Maghreb beyond strategic ports. Also, the relations between the Catholic Monarchy and the Sultanate of Fez were not always not necessarily hostile, though they varied along the time.

Without so much european involvement (Italy and France will be in the focus in either case) and depending on the circumstances that led to the POD, those resources will probably used into the Americas and perhaps after Maghellan/Elcano expedition and specially after Legazpi conquest of the Philippines (if those go as OTL) a beachhead in the Spice Islands could be tried, after all expanding the faith and all that is cool and makes a good theme for propaganda, but bussines are bussines. Wether the attempt would work or not, I can't say.

And talking about bussines, it's possible that many of those resources would stay in Spain herself, feeding and boosting Seville's financial market, which in OTL was raped and destroyed by Philip II in his need to squeeze every avilable money. If the POD is, say, a Comunero victory, you could see castilian cities developing much more and earlier than in OTL. Just my two cents.
 
Well, we are forgetting that Spain had renunced to any ambition over Morocco in favour of Portugal by treaty. That's why all the iberian incursions there were carried by the portuguese, except the conquest
of Melilla. This sais a bit about the spanish desires to expand in the Maghreb beyond strategic ports. Also, the relations between the Catholic Monarchy and the Sultanate of Fez were not always not necessarily hostile, though they varied along the time.

Without so much european involvement (Italy and France will be in the focus in either case) and depending on the circumstances that led to the POD, those resources will probably used into the Americas and perhaps after Maghellan/Elcano expedition and specially after Legazpi conquest of the Philippines (if those go as OTL) a beachhead in the Spice Islands could be tried, after all expanding the faith and all that is cool and makes a good theme for propaganda, but bussines are bussines. Wether the attempt would work or not, I can't say.

And talking about bussines, it's possible that many of those resources would stay in Spain herself, feeding and boosting Seville's financial market, which in OTL was raped and destroyed by Philip II in his need to squeeze every avilable money. If the POD is, say, a Comunero victory, you could see castilian cities developing much more and earlier than in OTL. Just my two cents.
I thought about that, the POD could be that Castille sieges Ceuta and stays there during the succession war and there is no Portuguese only Morocco. Or even earlier Iberian Union.
 
Last edited:
In the 15th century the Portuguese nobility began envisioning the conquest of Morocco as part of a continuation of the reconquista. For the nobility, the heroic acts of conquest served as a testing ground to win glory and wealth through plunder. For many petty nobles and members of the religious/military orders it offered a prospect for acquiring higher titles and prestige. Early on, the area was seen as a granary, helping to alleviate Portugal's shortage of grain, and the overland gold trade was also a major draw.

The garrisons were costly however, and once the Portuguese established themselves in Guinea, particularly at São Jorge da Mina (El Mina, Ghana) in 1471, they were able to access the lucrative gold trade, making Morocco no longer as valuable.

Because of the prestige of the conquests of Morocco, the policy of taking coastal settlements was encouraged and expanded until the reign of Manuel I. However, by 1520 these garrisons cost the same amount as the entire revenue from West Africa. Vasco da Gama even suggested that they be abandoned in 1522. However, this would have been a dangerous step as the nobility and clergy.

Prior to 1550, the Portuguese were able to cultivate alliances with local chiefs and tribes and engage in trade with mouros da paz (peaceful moors). After the fall of Agadir in 1550, the Portuguese withdrew to Mazagan, Tangier and Ceuta where the best natural anchorage. The Portuguese also rebuilt the fortifications at a great cost and Mazagan for instance was able to withstand a siege where thousands of Moors lost their lives with few defenders losing theirs.

The major issue was that the fortified citadels became virtual prisons for those living there. Additionally, the English and French were increasingly trading with the Moors, supplying them with weapons, but finding a lucrative market for textiles for instance. During the 1570s negotiations between Portugal and England to get the English to abandon the Guinea and Barbary trade show that the English were willing to sacrifice their Guinea trade, but not that with the Barbary States. Only in 1576 did England finally agree to stop trade with the Barbary States, and this of course was short-lived until 1580. After 1640 after Ceuta had remained loyal to Spain, the Portuguese were only too willing to negotiate Tangier and Mazagan as part of a marriage dowry for Princess Catherine.

What the Portuguese experience shows is that Castile would likely be similar in having the nobility back this costly endeavour, but that the best policy would be to occupy and fortify the best harbours. That would have alleviated piracy as the pirates needed anchorage for their ships.
 
What the Portuguese experience shows is that Castile would likely be similar in having the nobility back this costly endeavour, but that the best policy would be to occupy and fortify the best harbours. That would have alleviated piracy as the pirates needed anchorage for their ships.
Thank you for this explanation, Castille also used the Knights that fled Rhodes in North Africa so I think they can use some of the old Catholic Nobility in Greece to defend and settle the important ports in Tunisia while they occupy themselves with Northern Morocco and Algeria also with South Italian help.

Prior to 1550, the Portuguese were able to cultivate alliances with local chiefs and tribes and engage in trade with mouros da paz (peaceful moors). After the fall of Agadir in 1550, the Portuguese withdrew to Mazagan, Tangier and Ceuta where the best natural anchorage. The Portuguese also rebuilt the fortifications at a great cost and Mazagan for instance was able to withstand a siege where thousands of Moors lost their lives with few defenders losing theirs.
Interesting, so a local approach could be taken, that is not too foreign for Castile that even if strongly Catholic could negotiate with Granada and with local nobles from both sides playing diplomatic games in the border regions.

The major issue was that the fortified citadels became virtual prisons for those living there. Additionally, the English and French were increasingly trading with the Moors, supplying them with weapons, but finding a lucrative market for textiles for instance. During the 1570s negotiations between Portugal and England to get the English to abandon the Guinea and Barbary trade show that the English were willing to sacrifice their Guinea trade, but not that with the Barbary States. Only in 1576 did England finally agree to stop trade with the Barbary States, and this of course was short-lived until 1580. After 1640 after Ceuta had remained loyal to Spain, the Portuguese were only too willing to negotiate Tangier and Mazagan as part of a marriage dowry for Princess Catherine.
I wonder if in the Northern tip it´s possible to create a more or less "free" zone to allow the Castilians garrison and settlers a bit of breath, in the sense that a series of fortification makes raiding hard for the Moroccans and lets the countryside being settled and letting it be relatively safer than it would be otherwise.
Can the English be convinced to stop if the Castilian are on their good side(maybe no Anglicanism)? I know that the Moroccans used a lot of European artillery so that would be a big blow.


Also I would like to ask you what would expect to happen if the Moriscos and Sephardi are not expelled from Spain? I don´t mean toleration but simply that Castile is pragmatic and doesn´t want to weaken their economy.
 
Top