A surviving moorish spain
- Thread starter l-101
- Start date
Only if the Christian kingdoms remained even more disunited than the al-Andalusi polities.
A Muslim Spain could survive, maybe. Not Al-Andalus.
Allow me to precise the distinction : An Al-Andalus state would mean a distinct arabo-islamic culture (here based on Arab dominationn associated with muladi), different from its counterparts as Morroco (Arabo-Berber Islamic culture). As Syrian is distinct from, say, Iraqi.
Al-Andalus was created in precise situation, in a limited "window of opportunity". Eventually, it was plagued by recurrent issues that were present everywhere in the western Arabo-Islamic world, but exarcerbated there.
The best chance for a surviving Muslim Spain (and there, we're talking basically of a Morocco extended on two sides of western Mediterranean) would be a lasting Berber dynasty.
It won't be easy though : historically, their empires was a managment hell. Arabo-Andalucians tried to reject their authority as soon they could, other Berber tribes or confederations tookover African regions (cutting the dynasties from reinforcement, income and security).
But, if you manage to weaken Christian states by civil war long enough, and prevent collapse of Maghrebi regions under rival's hands, you may end with a "Morocco" going from Granada or even Seville to Atlas mountains.
That alone wouldn't resolve it, and as much civil war is over, *Castillans ("*" means "or equivalents") would takeover. You'll need a strong Mediterranean empire (as Ottomans) taking over and/or clientelizing *Morocco and preventing a Christian takeover of what would remain of Muslim Spain thanks to naval superiority.
In brief : Berber doing better at first, then worse, than OTL.
Allow me to precise the distinction : An Al-Andalus state would mean a distinct arabo-islamic culture (here based on Arab dominationn associated with muladi), different from its counterparts as Morroco (Arabo-Berber Islamic culture). As Syrian is distinct from, say, Iraqi.
Al-Andalus was created in precise situation, in a limited "window of opportunity". Eventually, it was plagued by recurrent issues that were present everywhere in the western Arabo-Islamic world, but exarcerbated there.
The best chance for a surviving Muslim Spain (and there, we're talking basically of a Morocco extended on two sides of western Mediterranean) would be a lasting Berber dynasty.
It won't be easy though : historically, their empires was a managment hell. Arabo-Andalucians tried to reject their authority as soon they could, other Berber tribes or confederations tookover African regions (cutting the dynasties from reinforcement, income and security).
But, if you manage to weaken Christian states by civil war long enough, and prevent collapse of Maghrebi regions under rival's hands, you may end with a "Morocco" going from Granada or even Seville to Atlas mountains.
That alone wouldn't resolve it, and as much civil war is over, *Castillans ("*" means "or equivalents") would takeover. You'll need a strong Mediterranean empire (as Ottomans) taking over and/or clientelizing *Morocco and preventing a Christian takeover of what would remain of Muslim Spain thanks to naval superiority.
In brief : Berber doing better at first, then worse, than OTL.
Last edited:
It may be quite unrealistic given the circumstances IOTL and the Catholic ardour of the Catholic Monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand, but the Emirate of Granada at least could have survived in late 15th century if it wasn't for constant civil wars, succession struggles and the incompetence of the Emirs.
Also, Castille and Aragon had serious succession struggles. As you remember, there was all the Juana la Beltraneja issue, and if she and Afonso V of Portugal won over Isabella and her fellows, things probably would have developed in a very different way.
Also, Castille and Aragon had serious succession struggles. As you remember, there was all the Juana la Beltraneja issue, and if she and Afonso V of Portugal won over Isabella and her fellows, things probably would have developed in a very different way.
However Granada was already a vassal of Castilla, so it's really only a matter of time until a Castillian king decides to just annex it outright. The only thing that stopped it from happening before was that Castilla spent most of the 14th and 15th centuries embroiled in internal conflicts.
So, in this case, the POD should've taken place earlier, right? In such a time that was balance of power between the Catholic and Moorish Iberian powers maybe.
I'm no expert, LS is probably better, but after 1212 (Navas de Tolosa), the Arab backbone was broken, it was just a matter of time. I could be wrong of course, however, but the Christian victory did destroy any possibility for an sort of Arab domination in the peninsula and also, long-term, their mere presence.
The ideal of reconquering the old Visigothic Kingdom was quite the good symbolism so they'll continue to push forward. So I suppose, 1212 is one of those big PoDs, but idk how the Arabs could win it.
I tried to answer some of these questions, in a similar thread (you'll excuse me to quote myself, but it wouldn't be sensibleto simply copy/paste, critically when other members made really interesting points)
Basically, what's possible to to slow Christian advance, and a victory in 1212 is doable. But, Berber Dynasties faced a geopolitical problem, as they had to maintain their rule on both Spain (where local elites didn't enjoyed too much their rule, and were prone to reject it) and Maghrib (from where most of their forces comes) where rival Berber tribes and groups were continuously present and hostile.
Eventually, Almohads would collapse, some other dynasty would replace them and Christians would use that to advance again.
Basically, what's possible to to slow Christian advance, and a victory in 1212 is doable. But, Berber Dynasties faced a geopolitical problem, as they had to maintain their rule on both Spain (where local elites didn't enjoyed too much their rule, and were prone to reject it) and Maghrib (from where most of their forces comes) where rival Berber tribes and groups were continuously present and hostile.
Eventually, Almohads would collapse, some other dynasty would replace them and Christians would use that to advance again.
I'm thinking about how damn huge would be the difference between the Age of Discovery ITTL and the Age of Discovery from OTL. Probably the Arabs would never have wanted to sat sail to other lands.
In other hand, probably the Arabs could also have influenced the rest of Europe, expanding Islam throughout the continent. Undue and far-fetched? Maybe. But certainly interesting to think about.
Strictly speaking, you are correct, although the later polities of Arabo-Berber extraction still had some of the cultural veneer of the former. It was always "al-Andalus" even to the most fanatic Almoravid. Even to the last Morisco forced to leave his homeland in the early 17th C.
Abhakhazia
Banned
Not to mention the mountains of northern Spain are terrible to control and hold. There was a reason why the Christian Kingdoms appeared there, same reason why the Romans needed a legion in Spain for so long. It would be very easy for Christians to revolt there every couple of generations if they were under Muslim rule.
Incidentally, we talked about this in another thread (Don't worry, after some times, many original ideas were discussed a bit there : it doesn't prevent to discuss it anew and with new point of views
)Basically, Al-Andalus trade was mostly a western Mediterranean and Subsaharian one. The incitative would have been limited, but not totally inexistent.
Interesting certainly, but an Arabo-Berber conquest of Europe is ultimatly impossible with the same conditions than OTL. Simply because they didn't had the numbers to, and that while Visigoths experienced a civil war, Franks enjoyed a period of political and social growth.
Now, Arabo-Islamic world had an huge influence on Western Europe, on almost every matter avaible ; art, science, philosophy, war, music, naval technnology etc. by at first preserving and transmitting hellenistic corpus and then by their own innovations.
Renaissance of XIIth century wouldn't have happened without this.
The best kind of correct.
Of course, Maghrebi culture owes a lot to Al-Andalus as well. Still, such Muslim Spain would be more a northern Morocco with its own particularities than an Arabo-Islamic entity of its own whatever politically or socially even if it keeps the name.
I disagree regarding Moriscos though : they were, except the religion, hardly distinguishable from their Christian neighbours, depsite the resistance to assimilation.
The invading Berber dynasties, initially invited by their co-religionists to Iberia, also would eventually wear out their welcome among the very people they were suppose to assist after it became clear that they came to become ruling dynasts at their expense. To the point that the Al-Andalusi polities would sometimes even conspire with their Christian opponents.
They would be a thorn, but even in OTL we ended up with Islamic Basque Dynasties.
Banu Qasi can't be exactly considered as a Basque dynasty. They had deep relations with Navarrese nobility of course, but their name (Cassius) underlines of Hispano-Roman origin.
Eventually, they're the typical muladi dynasty : arabized but keeping a distinct indentity and interests from Arabs and Umayyads. Another nest of division.
I read in the wikipedia article on Muslim Spain and apparently the Spanish Muslims were notorious throughout the islamic world for their heavy drinking
.I read in the wikipedia article on Muslim Spain and apparently the Spanish Muslims were notorious throughout the islamic world for their heavy drinking
Notorious? I don't know : wine drinking was widespread in all Arabo-Islamic world and as much praised by Arabo-Persians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc.
I don't think Arabo-Andalucians went more drunk than the others, and you probably had more grape production in medieval Arabo-Islamic world (as it extended all over regions that produced some for centuries if not millenias) than in Western Europe where it was concurrenced by beer : admittedly, grapes was used for itself, vinegar, arrùb.
(Without talking about distillated alchool, or date wine, of course)
That part of the article didn't go into detail but it strongly implied that they were serious booze-hounds.
.That part of the article didn't go into detail but it strongly implied that they were serious booze-hounds
But only relative to their co-religionists. (with the probable exception of the Persians, back in the day).
I wonder what Christian Europeans though of Iberian Muslim drinking habits? Probably looked on as total teetotalers.