WI: The Visigoths defeat the Umayyad invasion of the Iberian peninsula?

[Karolus Rex]

I wouldn't agree on "experiental attack" : you had rezzous on Betica since the late VIIth century after all, and the 710 raid might have not been much more that another precedent one (as the later raids in Gaul) while it's possible that the loot and the results were encouraging enough to have a mostly Berber expedition in Spain (altough 7000 or 12000 is certainly a bit too much : logistically and knowing a bit how armies evolved in Maghrib, you could easily reduce it by half or at least two-thirds).

I meant it was just a test the watters kind of thing.

A raid big enough to hurt but small enough to pass as a raid just to see how Roderick's control was.

7000-12000 I personaly bet on a small figure. I read that Tariq reached the peninsula with 7000 but fought the battle with 12000 so I guess some visigoths fought on his side.

Which doesn't meant that Achila did that or even took the decision : the southern Vittizists were essentially their own men, and maybe their own pretenders (as Oppa), so while Achila certainly didn't demonstred any real intend to deal with Arabo-Berbers (it seems he was let to himself as was Ardo, in the North-Eastern corner until 718), I don't think it's impossible to see Achila joining forces with Roderic : for exemple if Oppa or another southern Gothic nobles tried to use Arabo-Berbers for his own ends.

Agila went to Damascus in 712 to receive the blessing of the Umayyads as the King of the Visigoths so I thought he was the one of the group that had the idea to call them to aid him. I doubt the Bishop of Toledo would go to Morocco if he didn't had the blessing of Agila or from someone powerful enough on his party.

We know virtually nothing about the battle : we can assume from usual Arabo-Berber tactics that they did used light cavalry, but not only the Gothic army must have been composed more from just cavalry if we follow the traditional ordinances on the matter, but it's not really impossible (and even credible) that Arab or North African heavy cavalry may have been decisive.

I'm not saying it was the case, tough, just merely it could as well have been giving our knowledge of the battle.

The Gothic army just cavalry?

I think you misunderstood me.

I meant that Roderick's cavalry was killed by the Berber light cavalry, his horse was found killed by dozens of arrows, and that with the gothic cavalry dead the Arabs flanked the infantry. This could explain the knowledge we have that the Gothic flanks were unprotected.

Not necessarily : as you said, in the situation he does win without Achila, he would have certainly fewer resources avaible and would have to choice between attacking 1) Achila, 2) Arabo-Berbers (without even mentioning Vascons, of course). Giving the long established tradition in Gothic Spain to resort to sub-kingdoms during crises, I'd suspect that Achila would have been let (I'm not saying acknowledged) as a sub-king or anti-king in the eastern part (basically what Paulus attempted some decades then)

I think Roderick would be put on the defensive.

Agila would try to gain for the situation that comes after the battle with Roderick's forces almost being defeated. His men are rested and his army is intact while Roderick just lost many men.

Actually, if we can follow the treaties passed between Arabo-Berbers and Goths, you have a lot of names associated with Vittizean support popping around Betica : it's more probable that Betica itself wasn't or only partially, under Roderic's control (and maybe why he prefered to deal with Vascons than the Arabo-Berber raid of 710)

From what I read the division was confusing. Roderick got Lusitania and Carthaginiensis, but if that is true then Baetica would be of Agila and then it would be cut off from Agila's support in Tarraconensis.

I just went with a source that claims that "Agila and his partisans controlled the north and east of Spain; Roderick and his, the south and west".

No, or at least, not like that. The anti-dynastic nature of the Visigothic kingdom was something expected for (or, as we could put it : "it's not a bug, it's a feature"). Basically the gothic magnates of Spain feared the establishment of a dynasty that could impair their power, and managed to provoke a cycle of anti-dynastic succession whom a good part managed to avoid civil war. (Roger Collins wrote a very interesting article on this matter : the ongoing trend since decades wasn't centralisation but a lot of caution to prevent dynastical succession)

Would Achila attempt to change something that institutional, he would likely face an important revolt eventually.

Not that, eventually, it woudn't be a challenge that Gothic kings or curia wouldn't have to face : but if they attempt to do so during the VIIIth century, when they would be at their weakest, they would likely fail.
That said, failure is an option there : we can't rule out a Gothic magnate (most probably from the western corner, due to economical changes that would benefit western courts) pulling a Peppinid partially because the anti-dynastic kings before didn't manage to and made Gothia implode.[/QUOTE]

Can you link me the article? I would like to read it sounds interesting.

Also I don't mean that Agila would do anything, he sounds too weak to do anything, just that the birth of a dynasty would aid in uniting the Gothic Kingdom in the long turn.

 

[Karolus Rex]

I think you're misinterpreting the civil war of 710, personally : Roderic was mostly shunned not because he attempted to continue the anti-dynastical succession (that almost nobody really minded so far), but because he seems to have been a rebellious general, maybe causing the demise of Vittiza. It's not because the gothic high nobility did wanted an anti-dynastical succession, that they were all for any yahoo rebelling crushing the heck out of their little party.

Vitiza appointed Agila as his heir but part of the nobility ignored Agila and gave the crown to one of their own, Roderick. The "Civil War" of 710 was a confrontation between palace factions, one that wanted Agila and another that wanted one of their own as puppet. Look at Ervigio the man was a puppet king in all sense of the word.

True that this can all be a lie.

The Chronicle of 754 says that it was a coup but that he had the support of the senate but otters say that he was the Dux of Baetica and that he used his power to gain power from there.

Frankly, it would have been weird seeing provinces that mere decade ago, were anti-Vitizzeans (such as Tarraconensis or Gallia) suddenly switching side just because they liked the old fart after all.

I also don't understand that to be honest.

All that I know is that Roderick had control of Toledo and of the West and that Agila controlled the east.

Which isn't the same than "a weak kindgom" tough : as the exemple of the contemporary situation in Francia can point. Of course, it quickly evolved in Francia trough majordomos gaining power and with a political selection favouring Arnulfids/Peppinids. I think it's mostly due to the fact Merovingian succession was never broke the way it was with Amales/Balthes, leaving Goths without clear choice on the matter (which then evolved as an institution).

Eventually, Gothia held fairly well structurally after the conquest (many of its institutions surviving the conquest) so, I'm not sure if a declining but still surviving Gothic power couldn't rise from this without resorting to too much simplification.
Again, from a magnate (IDK, Theodomir, Iohannes, etc.) attempting to pull a Peppin (especially if they gain some autonomy with a king vassalized by Franks, trough some form of proto-nationalism); or the simple imitation of late Peppinid institutions...You have a lot of choices that could work, but not on short term.

I meant weak in the sense that in comparison to other Gothic Kings Roderick and Agila were basically puppets.

For example Wamba despite being brutal managed to reform the kingdom, he broke, temporarily, the power of the nobility and imposed justice. And want did he gained? A coup that ended with drugged so that the nobility could make him a monk so that they could put a weaker king.

I mostly agree : with the caveat that you did have a nobiliar resistance that lasted years, more in the North-West and North-East (we know, for exemple, that the Gothic nobility of the province of Gallia quickly teamed up with Franks or Aquitains when given the occasion. While the province of Gaul was one of the more touchy about its autonmy).

I agree because, face to a situation of obvious conquest, most magnates were indeed inclined to surrender (especially Vittizeans or Vittizeans-named nobles) and especially in Betica. Which makes me think that, if Arabo-Berbers are out of the way, and that the anti-dynastic institution will still play fully, not only Frankish intervention is quite likely, but may end as a vassalization (if temporary, I don't think Francia can't absorbate even only an half of Spain : maybe transpyrenean places but not much more) of Gothic nobles more or less directly to a Frankish or related to Peppinid king.

Good examples of the Goths accepting Umayyad rule are Teodomiro of Murcia that had fought the Arabs years before and even crushed several raids but that when the time came out he accept Damascus without any problem. Also the "Heirs of Cassius" the Banu Qasi from the Ebru with Cassius even converting only to gain more power.

One thing that I also read and that it could explain the acceptance is that for the Visigoths Islam, at the time, was just another sect of Christianity and that their position of Jesus as a man chosen by God went with conformity with their original Arian position that still had power between the Visigoths.

 

[LSCatilina]

I meant it was just a test the watters kind of thing.

Well, I'd have said myself "opportunity attack" but I think we eventually agree on the same thing.

A raid big enough to hurt but small enough to pass as a raid just to see how Roderick's control was.

I'm not so sure it would have been planned for that right from the start, but rather Arabo-Berbers were as much veterans one could be, and that they could deduce and find a window of opportunity. It's how Arabic conquest generally proceeded after all : raid, raid raid, bigger raid, no much resistence? Well, might as go big then.

I read that Tariq reached the peninsula with 7000 but fought the battle with 12000 so I guess some visigoths fought on his side

That goths or north african romanized peoples (such as whatever remained of byzantine presence in Maroc) might have fought with him, I wouldn't be surprised.
But I think the disprency in sources may be more due to the existence of several bad estimations. I'd trust more Sénac's guesstimate that range from 3,000 to 5,000 personally (while it does think they outnumbered Goths)
.
Any army going close to 10,000 is generally an imperial one in the Mediterranean West : Byzantines for exemple. Giving that the campaign in Spain was essentially a matter of local rulers without backing from Dimashq (sort of conquistadors, ironically) I don't think that's really viable. The djunds that took refuge in al-Andalus in the 750's maybe had the half of it and they were imperial armies.

Agila went to Damascus in 712 to receive the blessing of the Umayyads as the King of the Visigoths so I thought he was the one of the group that had the idea to call them to aid him. I doubt the Bishop of Toledo would go to Morocco if he didn't had the blessing of Agila or from someone powerful enough on his party.

I frankly doubt the history of Agila going all the way to Dimashq, at least so soon. At this point, it wasn't clear even for Arabs if they were there to stay or just to plunder.
As for the bishop of Toledo, giving the bishop of...was it Cordoba? anyway, giving that the bishop of Cordoba is said to have been related to Vitizza and maybe attempting something funny for his own, I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops (that were the stabler institution of Gothic Spain after all) wouldn't have his own policy or at least its own political autonomy.

The Gothic army just cavalry?

No it's not exactly what I said you did say : just that we don't know much about the battle itself, and what we know is essentially posterior accounts that have to be considered, but cautiously so.

Now, I do agree that Roderic was on the defensive, giving the nature of the campaign : I just think that we shouldn't burn our brain too much about which PoD during the battle, because frankly, it's not well known about that we can be creative without risking a breach of reality.

To quote Collins

The only strictly contemporary material relating to the events surrounding the end of the Visigothic kingdom comes in the form of coinage

Everything else, while not automatically wrong, can be deal with litterary and historical analyisis, IMO.

From what I read the division was confusing. Roderick got Lusitania and Carthaginiensis, but if that is true then Baetica would be of Agila and then it would be cut off from Agila's support in Tarraconensis.

Actually, it's more obscure than that.

Collins, again.

The names on the coins are Ruderic and Achila. Coins of Ruderic are known bearing the mint signatures of Toledo and Egitania (probably Idanha a Velha, northeast of Castel Branco in central Portugal) on their reverse. Achila’s coins come from Narbonne, Gerona, Tarragona, and Zaragoza. Small as the sample may be, especially of the coinage of Ruderic, the lack of geographical overlap between them would imply that one king ruled over Toledo and at least parts of Lusitania, while the other controlled the major settlements of the provinces of Tarraconensis and Narbonensis. No clear view can be taken from coin evidence of the political situation in Baetica and Galicia.

I'd think that Baetican and Galicians nobles may just have been attentists : as you said, and I agree with, they had nothing to gain lumping everything they had in the conflict.

Can you link me the article? I would like to read it sounds interesting.

Done

Also I don't mean that Agila would do anything, he sounds too weak to do anything, just that the birth of a dynasty would aid in uniting the Gothic Kingdom in the longturn.

My bad, then : I misunderstood your point as it would happen quickly ITTL. I think we agree then.

 

[Karolus Rex]

I'm not so sure it would have been planned for that right from the start, but rather Arabo-Berbers were as much veterans one could be, and that they could deduce and find a window of opportunity. It's how Arabic conquest generally proceeded after all : raid, raid raid, bigger raid, no much resistence? Well, might as go big then.

That goths or north african romanized peoples (such as whatever remained of byzantine presence in Maroc) might have fought with him, I wouldn't be surprised.
But I think the disprency in sources may be more due to the existence of several bad estimations. I'd trust more Sénac's guesstimate that range from 3,000 to 5,000 personally (while it does think they outnumbered Goths)
.
Any army going close to 10,000 is generally an imperial one in the Mediterranean West : Byzantines for exemple. Giving that the campaign in Spain was essentially a matter of local rulers without backing from Dimashq (sort of conquistadors, ironically) I don't think that's really viable. The djunds that took refuge in al-Andalus in the 750's maybe had the half of it and they were imperial armies.

I also doubt the numbers I have and every time I see army numbers on the 700's I just think that the author counted the slaves, the cooks, etc... as part of the army. So when they say 7000 I read 3000 fighters. The Byzantine campaigns in Africa was done by an army that was what 12000-15000 men? and that was considered big.

As I say I bet they were just "Lets go to Hispania raid a bit and see what happens". I doubt that Tariq in his wildest dreams would had thought that he would go to history as the conqueror of the Visigothic Kingom.

I frankly doubt the history of Agila going all the way to Dimashq, at least so soon. At this point, it wasn't clear even for Arabs if they were there to stay or just to plunder.
As for the bishop of Toledo, giving the bishop of...was it Cordoba? anyway, giving that the bishop of Cordoba is said to have been related to Vitizza and maybe attempting something funny for his own, I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops (that were the stabler institution of Gothic Spain after all) wouldn't have his own policy or at least its own political autonomy.

I also doubt it but then why would his supporters appoint another King in 714? I think he only traveled to Morocco and offered his allegiance and then they sent someone to inform Damascus of what happened.

Oh the Bishops were real killers at that time. In Gothic Hispania the bishops were a power to be feared and that would go into the future Christian Kingdoms. Erwig, Wamba's successor, was a puppet of the Bishops.

I'd think that Baetican and Galicians nobles may just have been attentists : as you said, and I agree with, they had nothing to gain lumping everything they had in the conflict.

Agree on the Baetican but the Galicians are more hard to understand.

Pelagio was a son of the Dux of Galicia and was a cousin of Roderick, and he supposedly fought at his side as a sworn sword, so the Duces of Galicia shared blood ties with him and might had been a supporter of his elevation to puppet King.[/QUOTE]

 

[LSCatilina]

The "Civil War" of 710 was a confrontation between palace factions, one that wanted Agila and another that wanted one of their own as puppet. Look at Ervigio the man was a puppet king in all sense of the word.

In fact, if you look at the Chronicle of 754, it does say something slightly different.

Ruderic “tumultuously invaded the kingdom with the encouragement of the Senate". By “Senate” is surely meant the leading members of the aristocracy, and perhaps also some of the bishops, in other words, the lay and ecclesiastical elite that had been involved in virtually every royal succession since the time of Reccared.
Quite how literally we should take the chronicler’s reference to an invasion is an open question: was this a reprise of the events of 631 with a provincial military commander, or even an exile, rebelling against a king who had lost the support of the court nobility? Or did the events just unfold in the context of the royal court? The latter must be thought the more probable, but in either case, the reference to Ruderic taking power tumultuose must imply that this was far from being the kind of discreet coup carried out within the ruling group, leaving little evidence of itself, that had taken place in 680.

As already mentioned, no word is given here of the fate of Wittiza. Nor is there any mention of Achila. It would seem to be a reasonable assumption, if no more, that Wittiza had been overthrown violently. If he had just died of natural causes, and Ruderic had been chosen to succeed him with the backing of the political elite, it is hard to see why confusion or tumult should enter into the picture, especially as all royal successions since 642 had been made to seem peaceful and the result of consensus.

Basically, if we entierly trust the Chronicle (which I wouldn't entierly, for various reasons, see below), Roderic's attempt, at least, wasn't like the regular succession matter, but provoked a breach within the high gothic nobility. We have at least some big attentists, Roderic is mostly ruling the West (without Galicia) which aren't the most important lands in the visigothic Kingdom...

To be honest, it seems to me that Achila beneficied from more resources including legitimacy (enough to be considered king for some years, at least)

True that this can all be a lie.

I don't think the Chronicle of 754 is a lie or a work of propaganda, and I think it's must more safe to follow it than the Alfonsine Chronicle.
That said, the author regularily mixes up things (such as the year when Arab invaded Spain : it might have been as late as 712) and were written at a date where everything was fresh : bad blood, responsabilities, pointing and accusing...

The author writes this to complain about the situation Christians were in 750's : defeated, submitted, etc. Most specialists seems to think it's a trust-worthy one, with reason in my humble opinion. But the goal of the author wasn't to provide us with details : it was to make a tragic narrative about how Goths fallen that low when others conquered (Arabs) or resisted (Franks). It calls for a bit of prudence in the acceptance of the Chronicle, again IMHO.

All that I know is that Roderick had control of Toledo and of the West and that Agila controlled the east.

Roderic's capital may have been, actually, Merida. For what it's worth.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...iberian-peninsula.403075/page-2#post-13580359

Good examples of the Goths accepting Umayyad rule

Never said the contrary : just point how these exemple happen to take places in regions heavily controled by Arabs and without real hope to fight off efficiently (even if having a far suzerain, especially while Islam wasn't seen as really distinct from Christianity yet by Ltins did played an important role) when other regions (more peripherical or with more odds to fight off) existed as much.

One thing that I also read and that it could explain the acceptance is that for the Visigoths Islam, at the time, was just another sect of Christianity and that their position of Jesus as a man chosen by God went with conformity with their original Arian position that still had power between the Visigoths.

Goths weren't Arian, or at least not "original Arians".

They rather abided by some soft version of it called "Homeism" which was far less radically distinct from Nicean beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or from Homeism to Niceanism : see Suevi or Burgundians)

Not only, by the VIIIth, Homeism had virtually disappeared from Spain (the fusion happened really quickly after that, "Goths" being the generic name for the population of the peninsula at this point).

That said, Islam and Christianity (even Nicean) weren't fully understood as that distinct : each early Latin chronicler on the question doesn't seem to fully grasp (if they grasp at all) that Islam was another religion, not just a curious heterodox beliefs whom tenents happened to be Saraceni (remember that with the monothelist crisis, Latin Christianity got a grasp at the religious diversity on the East and decided it wasn't its business).

So, this statement is half-true : they weren't seen as radically distinct from Christianism, but generally so and not because of a survivance of Arianism (which should be prooved first)

 

[LSCatilina]

I also doubt it but then why would his supporters appoint another King in 714?

Some even smaller palace coup? Maybe, but that's speculative, that Ardo was more hostile to the whole Arabo-Berber takover and whatever remained of the "Senate" just get rid of Achila. It might be an explanation why Arabo-Berber resumed their raids and campaigns in the mid 710's.
I'm not saying that is what happened, but giving we know almost nothing reliable about Achila...

I think he only traveled to Morocco and offered his allegiance and then they sent someone to inform Damascus of what happened.

In which text is it reported already? I know it's one of the latter ones, but can't remember if it's Christian or Arab source. Neither of them after the Mozarab Chronicle are that reliable, tough.

Pelagio was a son of the Dux of Galicia and was a cousin of Roderick, and he supposedly fought at his side as a sworn sword, so the Duces of Galicia shared blood ties with him and might had been a supporter of his elevation to puppet King.

That's a much later tradition (in the Vigilanus, right?) , which have, to be honest, almost nothing to base it. For all we know, he was a lord in Cantabria, just like the Petrus was.

 

[Karolus Rex]

In fact, if you look at the Chronicle of 754, it does say something slightly different.

Basically, if we entierly trust the Chronicle (which I wouldn't entierly, for various reasons, see below), Roderic's attempt, at least, wasn't like the regular succession matter, but provoked a breach within the high gothic nobility. We have at least some big attentists, Roderic is mostly ruling the West (without Galicia) which aren't the most important lands in the visigothic Kingdom...

To be honest, it seems to me that Achila beneficied from more resources including legitimacy (enough to be considered king for some years, at least)


I don't think the Chronicle of 754 is a lie or a work of propaganda, and I think it's must more safe to follow it than the Alfonsine Chronicle.
That said, the author regularily mixes up things (such as the year when Arab invaded Spain : it might have been as late as 712) and were written at a date where everything was fresh : bad blood, responsabilities, pointing and accusing...

The author writes this to complain about the situation Christians were in 750's : defeated, submitted, etc. Most specialists seems to think it's a trust-worthy one, with reason in my humble opinion. But the goal of the author wasn't to provide us with details : it was to make a tragic narrative about how Goths fallen that low when others conquered (Arabs) or resisted (Franks). It calls for a bit of prudence in the acceptance of the Chronicle, again IMHO.

Don't disagree, I just said that it was basically a palace coup so I guess we are in agreement?

Never said the contrary : just point how these exemple happen to take places in regions heavily controled by Arabs and without real hope to fight off efficiently (even if having a far suzerain, especially while Islam wasn't seen as really distinct from Christianity yet by Ltins did played an important role) when other regions (more peripherical or with more odds to fight off) existed as much.

Wasn't arguing, I was just offering some examples.

Goths weren't Arian, or at least not "original Arians".

They rather abided by some soft version of it called "Homeism" which was far less radically distinct from Nicean beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or from Homeism to Niceanism : see Suevi or Burgundians)

Not only, by the VIIIth, Homeism had virtually disappeared from Spain (the fusion happened really quickly after that, "Goths" being the generic name for the population of the peninsula at this point).

That said, Islam and Christianity (even Nicean) weren't fully understood as that distinct : each early Latin chronicler on the question doesn't seem to fully grasp (if they grasp at all) that Islam was another religion, not just a curious heterodox beliefs whom tenents happened to be Saraceni (remember that with the monothelist crisis, Latin Christianity got a grasp at the religious diversity on the East and decided it wasn't its business).

So, this statement is half-true : they weren't seen as radically distinct from Christianism, but generally so and not because of a survivance of Arianism (which should be prooved first)

Arians when they reachead the peninsula, I missplealed. Forgive me but it's 4 AM and my brain is half working.

The author pointed out that the early Islam lacked the stric rules that would latter gain and that for the Goths being a Arian, a Nicean and a Islamic was all the same for them.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Some even smaller palace coup? Maybe, but that's speculative, that Ardo was more hostile to the whole Arabo-Berber takover and whatever remained of the "Senate" just get rid of Achila. It might be an explanation why Arabo-Berber resumed their raids and campaigns in the mid 710's.
I'm not saying that is what happened, but giving we know almost nothing reliable about Achila...


In which text is it reported already? I know it's one of the latter ones, but can't remember if it's Christian or Arab source. Neither of them after the Mozarab Chronicle are that reliable, tough.


That's a much later tradition (in the Vigilanus, right?) , which have, to be honest, almost nothing to base it. For all we know, he was a lord in Cantabria, just like the Petrus was.

Agila does sounds weak enough to suffer a coup and Ardo was hostile to the Arabs so a small palace coup could be the answer.

I was just doing some mild speculation. It could explain the myth of him going to Damascus tho.

Agree. Again just speculating and the link could had been forged to forge a link between Asturias and the Visigothic Kingdom, like they are the indirect descedents of the last king or something on those lines.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Have we determined to what extent the Visigoths become victorious? Otherwise, I must say that I am little help haha.

 

[LSCatilina]

Have we determined to what extent the Visigoths become victorious? Otherwise, I must say that I am little help haha.

Well, we can argue that they could have been barely victorious but that would have certainly led to another expedition and just a delayed fall.
And they can't be victorious at the point that would have handwaved the political decline they were in it (I stress *political*, culturally it was still vibrant)

So, the extent on which they could be victorious without loosing too much realism would certainly be based on the end of the Civil War one way or another : either one of the sides just loose, or the kingdom is split between two sub-kingdom (superficially close to the Regnum Francorum of the VIIth, only more unstable to its anti-dynastical nature)

The extent of the victory is also limited by the two powerful neighbours of Goths : Arabo-Berbers (but if we think the Great Berber Revoly happens earlier ITTL, this might me not as much as an existential threat) and Franks (or Franco-Aquitain is, as I believe, the absence of Arabo-Berber raids in southern Gaul would make Aquitaine stronger and more able to pull a stem-duchy rather than obliteration for 5 decades)

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Well, we can argue that they could have been barely victorious but that would have certainly led to another expedition and just a delayed fall.
And they can't be victorious at the point that would have handwaved the political decline they were in it (I stress *political*, culturally it was still vibrant)

So, the extent on which they could be victorious without loosing too much realism would certainly be based on the end of the Civil War one way or another : either one of the sides just loose, or the kingdom is split between two sub-kingdom (superficially close to the Regnum Francorum of the VIIth, only more unstable to its anti-dynastical nature)

The extent of the victory is also limited by the two powerful neighbours of Goths : Arabo-Berbers (but if we think the Great Berber Revoly happens earlier ITTL, this might me not as much as an existential threat) and Franks (or Franco-Aquitain is, as I believe, the absence of Arabo-Berber raids in southern Gaul would make Aquitaine stronger and more able to pull a stem-duchy rather than obliteration for 5 decades)

How possible is the Visigoths launching a counter offensive into Umayyad Maghreb? This is what would seriously change things in the areas I have an interest in (actual Middle East).

 

[Karolus Rex]

How possible is the Visigoths launching a counter offensive into Umayyad Maghreb? This is what would seriously change things in the areas I have an interest in (actual Middle East).

They didn't launched one during Wamba's reign and he, supposedly, defeated a Umayyad invasion (most likely the invading force was like the one Charles Martel defeated, just a big raiding force that was testing the terrain for future incursions) and unlike Agila or Roderick he controlled the all Kingdom.

If like @LSCatilina says the worst scenario happens with the Kingdom being divided into two for a long time then neither side will attack the Maghreb, they will spend more time trying to keep the palace nobility from removing them from the throne.

But even at the best scenario I doubt they would attack, foreign forces interfering in the Visigothic succession was common (the byzantines did it, the franks did it. The Umayyad were just the last on a long list of foreign powers backing a candidate to the throne) and they never went throw the revenge road.

 

[Gasmask134]

Have we determined to what extent the Visigoths become victorious? Otherwise, I must say that I am little help haha.

Let's give two (rather simple) scenarios:

1. The Visigoths completely crush the Umayyad force and the umayyads are forced to leave hispania with very few troops left (if that's possible).

2. Visigoths just barely defeat the umayyads, they still leave hispania but with a big enough army to take their time burning everything on their way back.

 

[LSCatilina]

First, we should be extra-careful when we say "Umayyad", as it could give the impression that Dimahq controlled Maghrib or Ifriqiya, its walis and generals, as well as it did in Middle-East.

The Islamic West, at this point, was already largely autonomous, and the wali of Ifriqiya (at Karwan) largely served as a de facto vice-king (wali of al-Andalus, for instance, were nominated by the wali of Ifriqiya and not the Caliph).

It doesn't mean it wasn't under Caliphal authority, but it was peripherical enough for that the expeditions in Spain and Gaul, historically, were entierly decided and made by local rulers.

How possible is the Visigoths launching a counter offensive into Umayyad Maghreb? This is what would seriously change things in the areas I have an interest in (actual Middle East).

Virtually none : not that Visigoths didn't have naval possibilities (it seems they defeated a rogue Byzantine expedition some decade earlier), but these were reduced.
Plus, it seems that the locations in North Africa that were more or less under Visigothic influence (mostly remnants of Byzantine and Romano-Berber Africa) turned the table in favour of Arabo-Berbers (as, as it seems, some coastal regions in Spain)

The kingdom was in a succession crisis, and all the main southern ports seem to have avoided choosing a side for all we know.

Basically what KR said, eventually.

Now, with an earlier Great Berber Revolt, you'd certainly have enough changes echoing in Middle-East, if you search for some.

1. The Visigoths completely crush the Umayyad force and the umayyads are forced to leave hispania with very few troops left (if that's possible).

In Middle-Ages, entiere armies being crushed generally comes from an existential threat for one of the sides. It was not the case of most Arabo-Berbers raids and campaigns in the West, and their defeats in Gaul (Toulouse, Tours, La Berre) point that they did know when to call off in order.

I'd think that a decisive Visigothic victory wouldn't turn to a crushing Arabo-Berber defeat.

2. Visigoths just barely defeat the umayyads, they still leave hispania but with a big enough army to take their time burning everything on their way back.

Arabo-Berbers returns two years later to plunder southern Spain. Big odds to just have a delayed conquest ITTL.

---

There's possibly a third scenario, a mix between them, that may be both more likely and useful if you strive for a surviving Gothic kingdom.
Basically (and very roughly and simplified)
1) Guadalete is a victory, albeit not a crushing one.
2) A pretender (ideally) Roderic dies
3) The other (ideally) Achila is dominant, even if you're still bound to have rogues areas (mostly West and South) that won't, ITTL, be able to represent such a threat to his rule.
4) Arabo-Berbers attempt a new raid, and manage to control part of southern Betica
5) They're defeated, but not toally expelled from the peninsula
6) Earlier Berber Revolt provoke the political balkanisation of Islamic West

Basically a scenario that have some closeness with what happened in Gaul IOTL, that would make a Visigothic victory not coming from one battle, but from several (again, Toulouse, Tours, La Berre)
It could strengthen a bit the Visigothic kingdom, while certainly not sheilding it from foreign intervention (Berber, Frankish) and even less make it suddenly stabler politically : VIIIth century is still going to be the Visigothic low point IMO.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

First, we should be extra-careful when we say "Umayyad", as it could give the impression that Dimahq controlled Maghrib or Ifriqiya, its walis and generals, as well as it did in Middle-East.

The Islamic West, at this point, was already largely autonomous, and the wali of Ifriqiya (at Karwan) largely served as a de facto vice-king (wali of al-Andalus, for instance, were nominated by the wali of Ifriqiya and not the Caliph).

It doesn't mean it wasn't under Caliphal authority, but it was peripherical enough for that the expeditions in Spain and Gaul, historically, were entierly decided and made by local rulers.


Virtually none : not that Visigoths didn't have naval possibilities (it seems they defeated a rogue Byzantine expedition some decade earlier), but these were reduced.
Plus, it seems that the locations in North Africa that were more or less under Visigothic influence (mostly remnants of Byzantine and Romano-Berber Africa) turned the table in favour of Arabo-Berbers (as, as it seems, some coastal regions in Spain)

The kingdom was in a succession crisis, and all the main southern ports seem to have avoided choosing a side for all we know.

Basically what KR said, eventually.

Now, with an earlier Great Berber Revolt, you'd certainly have enough changes echoing in Middle-East, if you search for some.


In Middle-Ages, entiere armies being crushed generally comes from an existential threat for one of the sides. It was not the case of most Arabo-Berbers raids and campaigns in the West, and their defeats in Gaul (Toulouse, Tours, La Berre) point that they did know when to call off in order.

I'd think that a decisive Visigothic victory wouldn't turn to a crushing Arabo-Berber defeat.


Arabo-Berbers returns two years later to plunder southern Spain. Big odds to just have a delayed conquest ITTL.

---

There's possibly a third scenario, a mix between them, that may be both more likely and useful if you strive for a surviving Gothic kingdom.
Basically (and very roughly and simplified)
1) Guadalete is a victory, albeit not a crushing one.
2) A pretender (ideally) Roderic dies
3) The other (ideally) Achila is dominant, even if you're still bound to have rogues areas (mostly West and South) that won't, ITTL, be able to represent such a threat to his rule.
4) Arabo-Berbers attempt a new raid, and manage to control part of southern Betica
5) They're defeated, but not toally expelled from the peninsula
6) Earlier Berber Revolt provoke the political balkanisation of Islamic West

Basically a scenario that have some closeness with what happened in Gaul IOTL, that would make a Visigothic victory not coming from one battle, but from several (again, Toulouse, Tours, La Berre)
It could strengthen a bit the Visigothic kingdom, while certainly not sheilding it from foreign intervention (Berber, Frankish) and even less make it suddenly stabler politically : VIIIth century is still going to be the Visigothic low point IMO.

I disagree on this point. The Umayyads while they did not rule entirely, where still the main arbitrators across the entire ummah of this period as the Abbasid where later. Caliphal rule even in the time of Muhammad (SAW) was decentralized to an extent however, with the overseer and steward being the caliph and the Ahl ul Hali wal Aqd (people of influence).

Furthermore, it was virtual Umayyad policy for the area to be decentralized and war based upon its own needs and whims as was the case in the Rashidun. Umayyad powers in Dimshaq had the role of assisting when the situation became to precarious, launching the main assaults on Byzantium, quelling religious revolts and ensuring the Sharia and Hadood, also within the realm of their power was the Aslam Taslam which was required reading to enemy leaders both in Asia, Europe and Africa. Otherwise, the war was up to the local Muslim leaders appointed by the Umayyad or by the people of the area.

 

[Gasmask134]

In Middle-Ages, entiere armies being crushed generally comes from an existential threat for one of the sides. It was not the case of most Arabo-Berbers raids and campaigns in the West, and their defeats in Gaul (Toulouse, Tours, La Berre) point that they did know when to call off in order.

I'd think that a decisive Visigothic victory wouldn't turn to a crushing Arabo-Berber defeat.

That is true, I suppose "decisive" would be a better description.

 

[LSCatilina]

I disagree on this point. The Umayyads while they did not rule entirely, where still the main arbitrators across the entire ummah of this period as the Abbasid where later.

As arbitrators? I entierly agree.
But the comparison with Abbasid itself is spot on, as they tended to let the Islamic West autonomize even more (map IXth century). Aghlabids* enjoyed a great deal of independence, and their predecessors, the Muhallabids** weren't that much dependent from Abbasid either.

Now, Abbasid did managed to get a tighter reign in Ifriqiya for some years, in order to oppose the takeover on the region made by Fihrids (which were present in Islamic West, and influencing much of its policy since the late VIIth century) in the 740's.
Umayyad did something quite similar (up to appointing wali of Egypt to control Ifriqiya) in order to prevent more defeats against Berbers.

The point is : the caliphal power could have a better control of the Islamic West, but it never really worked out more than one decade.
The autonomy of the region was real : I don't see any other equivalent to the power of the wali of Karwan (that could delegate its power to wali he nominated himself in Maghrib or al-Andalus) to the point they often ignored caliphal edicts when it was too unconvenient to do so (as for Yazid II's edicts).

Not to say it was independent, of course, but the autonomy of the Islamic West never really ceased to grow even with short-lived attempts at a better control (especially when it was about local rule definitely not fitting caliphal interests or unable to deal with Berbers). That both Umayyad and Abbasid eventually failed at stopping this trend (when they did have more success in Middle-East, at least for a time) point that the tendency of autonomisation was not only very real, but well rooted into western Islamic politics.

*For people who don't know them, it was an Arabo-Islamic dynasty that ruled most of Ifriqiya which means a territory, mostly coastal as heterodoxial Berbers controlled the hinterland, from Eastern Algeria to (and not included) Cyrenaica.
** Arabo-Islamic dynasty known to have opposed Umayyad early, and put in charge of what remained of Ifriqiya during the last echoes of the Great Berber Revolt (which was mostly over at this point, but you still have some guerilla in Ifriqiya)

Umayyad powers in Dimshaq had the role of assisting when the situation became to precarious, launching the main assaults on Byzantium, quelling religious revolts and ensuring the Sharia and Hadood, also within the realm of their power was the Aslam Taslam which was required reading to enemy leaders both in Asia, Europe and Africa

You'd notice that the expeditions and support you mention were much more focused on regions close to Caliphal centers tough : Byzantium, Caucasus, Transoxiana, etc.
As far as I can remember, the first caliphal-supported expedition in the Islamic West happned to take place in order to counter the success of the Great Berber Revolt that managed to conquer almost all Ifriqiya and threated to turn as a rival, heterodoxial, Caliphate (even if this threat was mostly void, tough, given the unstability of Berber polities).

And when this expedition failed, only one other was attempted in the late VIIIth century against the Arabo-Andalusian Umayyads (which failed as well).

My point being that Dimashq was more focused on the Middle-East (you don't see the likes of generals as Maslamah ibn Abd-al-Malik in the West, for exemple) and really intervened in the West when it was about an existential or legitimacy threat (Great Berber Revolt, against Umayyads). The fact that these failed pitfully makes me think that Dimashq didn't took as much heart on these things as they did with eastern peripherical regions (Transoxiana, for exemple) or their Middle East core regions.
(That said, I don't see what they could have done more : Islamic West was the Arabo-Islamic equivalent of Far West on more things than just a pun).

Giving that Franks weren't seen as an existential threat IOTL, I don't think Visigoths, even somewhat victorious in Spain, would be (and I don't think they would be able to turn into this before a long time).

(Please, don't quote posts at the point the quotation is longer than your actual post. Maybe just -snip- it or quote only the part you want to discuss. It makes the whole thread easier to read. Thanks)

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

To reply to @LSCatilina , after reassertion of your position, I agree with you. Just remember that the caliphal authority was still important to these conquests and it's will was in the minds of any Islamic entity in Ifriqiya.