AHC: Romano-Berber rump state

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

While there's been talk of surviving Roman Africa prior, much of the discussion has been a surviving Western Empire. What would be the least drastic changes needed for a remnant of Roman Africa to survive the Muslim conquest?

Could a small state exist in the fringes of Mauritania or Numidia where the African Romance Christian population is preserved? In a somewhat similar fashion how Asturias managed to survive as a refuge. Or could a reconquista type event happen leading to the Romance speaking population to be restored as the elites, with a gradual process of converting the population back to Christianity?

 

[LSCatilina]

Africano-Romans and Berbers relations were extremly tense. The threat of a Maur takeover of Africa on Vandals is basically what made Africano-Roman calling Constantinople for help.

Assuming a more troubled situation in ERE, that prevents intervening in VIth western Mediterranean basin, it would be likely to have a Maur take-over.

Now, this Maur takeover would likely be not unified, but come out of the Berber Kingdoms appearing by the Vth century at the border of the Vandalic Kingdom.

There was an interesting, recent study about Maurs whom I translated crudely the conclusion, if you're interested, especially the latter part.

They lead us to close this book on what should be more than a paradox. C.Courtois, achieving his thesis, tought that the real drama of roman Africa wasn't the Vandal invasion, but the riebirth of a Berber world remained itself, meaning rejecting necessary the romanity.

At the end of this long study, we wonder if the real rupture in this history wasn't the byzantine reconquest. Without this, in an easter Maghreb where the roman influence was really strong, the Maur expansion could have lead, not without violence, to a berbero-roman civilisation, original and dirable, as was merovingian civilisation in Gaul.

The "divine surprise" that was Belisarius' sucessful expedition, aprooved by a roman society proclaiming its fear of the Maur, broke this possibility. Maybe did it as well condamned the future of the romanity it claimed to save.

Basically, already partially romanised Berbers (trough centuries of contact and relationship with Rome, but as well with the presence of "Inner Mauri" entities within Roman and post-Roman Africa) could not only take over the region without Byzzies but allox a proper African Romanity to blossom.

Of course, butterflies would most certainly impact on Muslim conquests if ever.

 

[Abhakhazia]

Africano-Romans and Berbers relations were extremly tense. The threat of a Maur takeover of Africa on Vandals is basically what made Africano-Roman calling Constantinople for help.

Assuming a more troubled situation in ERE, that prevents intervening in VIth western Mediterranean basin, it would be likely to have a Maur take-over.

Now, this Maur takeover would likely be not unified, but come out of the Berber Kingdoms appearing by the Vth century at the border of the Vandalic Kingdom.

Relations between the Berbers and Roman Africans were not at all tense, in fact there was a prosperous trade activity and even some population exchange, as there were quite a few Berbers who became rather prominent members of Roman society in Africa. There is also little archaeological evidence for constant raiding in the 4th and 5th centuries, and until the Vandal and Alan invasion, African was widely considered to be the safest province of the Empire- having almost no field army and a smaller force of garrison troops than any other frontier by far. The only threat to Roman Africa during the 5th century was the Vandals, and Vandal confiscation of the estates of the wealthy in addition to the central Western Empire shocked by the sudden loss of their wealthiest province was almost certainly was what caused the plea to the Byzantines.

 

[LSCatilina]

Relations between the Berbers and Roman Africans were not at all tense, in fact there was a prosperous trade activity and even some population exchange, as there were quite a few Berbers who became rather prominent members of Roman society in Africa.

Nobody said that you didn't have different kinds of relationship, and that this one was only based on warfare : the distinction made between Outer and Inner Mauri can point to a more gradual political and/or social presence in Africa.

But calling these relations "not at all tense" is really puhsing it.
The ethnic distinction in Procopios and critically Corripus on Berbers, accompagnied by a really negative description (such as "savage, violent, britstly, abominable, harsh, cruel, impious, wicked.").
Both authors consider Maur presence as a threat for Africa, when they don't rally to the Empire (opposition Cusina/Antalas but as well Iaudas)

It's interesting to point out that the African Corripus was far more harsh on Berbers that Procopius ever was.

There is also little archaeological evidence for constant raiding in the 4th and 5th centuries, and until the Vandal and Alan invasion, African was widely considered to be the safest province of the Empire

I'm talking about the Vth/VIth centuries there, so I'm not sure what your point is. While there was little raiding (well, except if we consider eastern attacks) with the constitution of Berber kingdoms in Aures or Nemencha, you did have a really important Berber threat on Vandalic Kingdom that culminated with 530's raids and occupation (that wasn't importantly reverted by Byzantines).

As for archeological evidence, the thing is that we have a really important litterary evidence on a generalised Mauri raiding then takeover of Vandalic Africa by the 480's/530's : Procopius, Corripos, local sources... Does these are to be just ignored?

It continued later, while moderated by integration of Inner and Outer Mauri within a regional geopolitical system after than blunt Byzantine tentative to overcome Berber failes (with the Louata's raids, for exemple).

Of course, it doesn't mean that Vandals weren't able to clientelize Maurs, such probably as Cusina; hence the Vandal re-occupation of western North Africa that was largely autonomous on Romano-Berber hands by the 450's/460's.
Hoever, it failed by 484 with the insurrection of Maurs against Vandals and these had to continually fight off them, as Procopius mentions regularly in the Vandal War.

The Crisis of Vandal Africa (second part of this part of the study) is probably more complete than what I could tell you there.

The only threat to Roman Africa during the 5th century was the Vandals, and Vandal confiscation of the estates of the wealthy in addition to the central Western Empire shocked by the sudden loss of their wealthiest province was almost certainly was what caused the plea to the Byzantines.

The calling to Byzantines coincides with a period of general takeover and raids of Vandal Africa by Berbers that basically threatened all the region but coastal parts.

Not that the Carthagian coup didn't coincidate and provided a fair motivation for the war, as it more or less did for Spain; but dismissing out of hand the motivation of Africano-Romans against what looked like a conquest from Mauri would be really strange.

 

[Sime]

I have to add that the Vandal presence in North Africa wasn't negative as anyone would think. They behaved like a rogue Roman garrison that seceded from the Empire. African economy didn't collapse, and the only thing that could ruin the relations with the locals is the behavior of the arian aristocracy/clergy, who behaved very romanly in its persecution of heretics (like the Visigoths, after all).

So, if the Berbers are the African equivalent of the Merovingians (who rejected roman identity), they could indeed be seen as the arch-enemy of the native romans.

Anyway, i'm currenly reading "Staying Roman", of Jonathan Contan, and it says that even Romano-Africans had a distinct identity from the other romans of the former western empire.

 

[LSCatilina]

So, if the Berbers are the African equivalent of the Merovingians (who rejected roman identity), they could indeed be seen as the arch-enemy of the native romans.

Merovingians didn't really rejected roman identity, it's just that you had a quick fusion of romanised population along a political identity, which was Frankish.

Gregorius of Tours, for exemple, still prided himself to be Roman by the VIth century.

(We're essentially talking about Northern Gaul, there).

The rejection on Roma didn't appeared until this fusion of population already largely happened, probably due to an identitarian historiography, and from rivality with Aquitains and Provencals from one hand, and Byzantines from the other.

(Not that this rejection was total, even during the first Carolingian period).

Les Maures et l'Afrique Romaine's conclusions are less about a parallel with Merovingians about reject on Romanity, than a similar political dominance of a romanised population on a Roman population, with a likely similar identitarian switch.

Anyway, i'm currenly reading "Staying Roman", of Jonathan Contan, and it says that even Romano-Africans had a distinct identity from the other romans of the former western empire.

As basically other hypenated-Romans : keep in mind that romanisation is essentially a more or less important creolisation.

 

[Tjakari]

While the conversation on Berber-Roman relationships is incredibly interesting and I'm probably going to use it for reference in the future, I still don't know how it popped up.

Just have Belisarius fail in dispensing with Vandal Africa or have him stop the conquest at Vandalia and not conquer the Kingdom of Altava along with them.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

While the conversation on Berber-Roman relationships is incredibly interesting and I'm probably going to use it for reference in the future, I still don't know how it popped up.

Just have Belisarius fail in dispensing with Vandal Africa or have him stop the conquest at Vandalia and not conquer the Kingdom of Altava along with them.

I guess a more specific question is, how could such a state survive while not having the Islamic invasion of North Africa be butterflied away? Could a remnant hold out like an ATL Asturias until the Reconquista or Crusades happen? Or would it be impossible for this to happen without butterflying the invasion of Spain and North Africa?

 

[LSCatilina]

I still don't know how it popped up.

Mostly because it's the best chance having an independent, politically and culturally, post-imperial Romano-Berber Africa, instead of something that is not wholly different from what existed IOTL.

Just have Belisarius fail in dispensing with Vandal Africa or have him stop the conquest at Vandalia and not conquer the Kingdom of Altava along with them.

The most important problem is that Byzantines had a really bad view of Roman Africa's history at this point, mostly ignoring the relationship between Mauri and Africans that existed at least since the IInd century.

They, mostly wrongly, saw these kingdoms and tribal entities as invaders rather than parts of the old system and actively searched to crush them. Basically the whole campaigns of Solomon is to be understood as a tentative to gain African to Byzantium and to get rid of what was seen as a foreign presence.

In order to have Byzantines ignoring these Mauri Kingdoms (which they largely failed to crush, eventually), you have to give Constantinople a better approach more quickly, with someone as Toglita appearing earlier in Africa (that said, his political realism is largely issued from previous failures in the region).

Now, having a surviving Altava kingdom isn't going to be that efficient : it was only but one of the several kingdoms or principalities that existed at the edge of post-Roman and Byzantine Africa (on both sides of the technical border), and these were politically and culturally partially integrated (while the social and ethnical division remained largely up to the Arab conquest) contrary to a period between 480 and 530 where Mauri kingdoms had ambitions on an imperium over Africa (as with Masiles, dux and imperator)

 

[LSCatilina]

I guess a more specific question is, how could such a state survive while not having the Islamic invasion of North Africa be butterflied away?

An earlier civil war among Arabs could make a conquest of Berbers butterflied away in a first time : IOTL, the campaigns were really hard and Mauri Kingdom held out for a time.

But given the central position of Africa in the region, critically when it comes to its economical role (and not only Carthage), sooner or later, someone is going to come there in force and with a constant pressure at borders, it's not that easy to think that Berbers would unite with Africans (i.e. Africano-Romans).

Could a remnant hold out like an ATL Asturias until the Reconquista or Crusades happen?

Asturias didn't really "hold out". It's almost certain they entered within Arabo-Berber sphere, and maybe not that distinct from other lands ruled by Christians but under wali's supervision (just as Tudmir, for exemple).

What really changed there were defeats of Arabo-Berbers in Francia, that importantly damaged the prestige of the conquerors within a population traditionally opposed to peninsular power, and the Great Berber Revolt that made many garrisons in the North just abandoned and took over by Christians.

Or would it be impossible for this to happen without butterflying the invasion of Spain and North Africa?

I try to not use the word "impossible" too much, but let's say it's going to be really hard, mostl likely requiring a multi-PoD

 

[Russian]

Could a small state exist in the fringes of Mauritania or Numidia where the African Romance Christian population is preserved? In a somewhat similar fashion how Asturias managed to survive as a refuge.

No.

You see, I am pretty sure that if Islam had been butterflied away there would have been a great prosperous Romano-Berber (or Berbero-Roman) civilization in the North Africa.
Even if the Arabs had conquered Egypt and disintegrated failing to invade further west that would have been inevitable.

But a small rump Romano-Berber state?
- No way.
First of all, in order to be a Romano-Berber state it has to be pretty close to the Mediterranean Sea where the actual romanization took root. Meaning - in the open place, urbanized, developed and worth looting - the ideal target for any Muslim polity of the Grand Muslim North Africa.

If this state is far from the Mediterranean, deep in the desert, high in the mountains - that is exactly where the least amount of romanization expected.
So if there was such a rump small state escaping the steamroller of the Arab invasion in the North Africa - that would not qualify as a Romano-Berber state.

 

[Salvador79]

First of all, in order to be a Romano-Berber state it has to be pretty close to the Mediterranean Sea where the actual romanization took root.

Overall, a very interesting perspective.
But I´m not entirely convinced. There were Romanised towns in the interior, like Volubilis, Lambaesis or Theveste. They were in the mountains and relatively defendable.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Overall, a very interesting perspective.
But I´m not entirely convinced. There were Romanised towns in the interior, like Volubilis, Lambaesis or Theveste. They were in the mountains and relatively defendable.

That's kind of the scenario I was thinking of. A city like Volubilis holds out, over the centuries taking back land like the Spanish and Portugese to the North.

The other premise I have is a Crusader-state like entity is formed, of which the indigenous African Romance population takes over and counters the Arabization with its own assimilation policies over the years.

In other words, having the Romano-Berbers survive without the drastic butterflies of no Islamic conquest impacting Iberia as well.

 

[LSCatilina]

There were Romanised towns in the interior, like Volubilis, Lambaesis or Theveste.

Romanisation was far from being only an urban feature : Western Berber peoples were romanized (politically speaking) trough not only contact with Rome for centuries but as well political integration within Roman Africa (which was hugely romanized), would it be only as workers.

The main difference was the maintain of tribal identities, and a certain political isolation, but one can safely talk about Romano-Berbers the same way we talk about Romano-Britons after the IVth century.

The other premise I have is a Crusader-state like entity is formed, of which the indigenous African Romance population takes over and counters the Arabization with its own assimilation policies over the years.

Your best chance may to have Normans holdings in Tunisia living on, as we know they were supported by African Christians, which may even have still spoken a romance language (of course, at this point they were largely arabized).

In other words, having the Romano-Berbers survive without the drastic butterflies of no Islamic conquest impacting Iberia as well.

That's definitely not going to happen : without Berbers, there's no conquest of Spain, pure and simple.
They formed the bulk of Arabo-Islamic forces and were basically in the way.

 

[PuffyClouds]

It may be advantageous to diverge in the 1st Century AD, preserving a stable and prosperous Kingdom of Mauretania as a client and ally of Rome. Endeavoring to win over the remote Berber tribes to the Roman culture adopted by more settled Berbers.

For the Berbers to resist the Islamic Conquest, I think they would need a few steady centuries of prosperous relations with the Roman Empire. A resilient Romano-Berber state may mitigate the Maghreb's ecological decline, yet still facilitate the growth of empires in the western Sahel.

 

[Russian]

Overall, a very interesting perspective.
But I´m not entirely convinced. There were Romanised towns in the interior, like Volubilis, Lambaesis or Theveste. They were in the mountains and relatively defendable.

You see, these towns are in the interior, but they are not in the deep interior.
My point is if the Romans got there - the Arabs will get there with ease, as they were desert people (as opposed to the Romans) and they got so far deep into desert Africa where the Romans never ventured.

And Lambaesis and Theveste were too close to the East from where the Arabs came.

Your only hope is Volubilis as it was farther in the West and a little deeper in the interior.

But with all due respect Volubilis was a pathetic and wretched place by the time the Arabs came. The people occupied only one part of the town and they buried their dead in the former center of the town, meaning cemetery under the triumphal arch.
There were some Christians inside this little town.
But it was a little speck in the mostly Non-Christian sea of the Berber population of the area.
So bordered by Islam with it's aura of invincibility the Berber population would rather get Islamized. as actually did happen in OTL.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

It may be advantageous to diverge in the 1st Century AD, preserving a stable and prosperous Kingdom of Mauretania as a client and ally of Rome. Endeavoring to win over the remote Berber tribes to the Roman culture adopted by more settled Berbers.

For the Berbers to resist the Islamic Conquest, I think they would need a few steady centuries of prosperous relations with the Roman Empire. A resilient Romano-Berber state may mitigate the Maghreb's ecological decline, yet still facilitate the growth of empires in the western Sahel.

This seems to be the necessary POD. It seems like the tribes on the fringe of Mauritania were the least Romanized. Most of the known Romanized Berbers lived around Carthage, which is directly in the way to Spain. While I imagined a rump state existing right near Safi, the Masuda and Barghawata more specifically seem to have had little Roman influence.

The major issue is getting Gaetulia and the nomadic tribes in Mauritania and Numidia to convert and identify with the urban tribes. Or at least a sizable minority of importance that lasts until the Berber Revolt.

 

[LSCatilina]

The major issue is getting Gaetulia and the nomadic tribes in Mauritania and Numidia to convert and identify with the urban tribes. Or at least a sizable minority of importance that lasts until the Berber Revolt.

Geography is going to be a problem there : while Africa (Tunisia and Eastern Algeria) mountain ranges (or absence to) allows for a more important integration of Maurs withing Roman society and provides a natural expension way to the coast, the Inner Maghreb (and Outer Maghreb, of course) to use Abdallah Laroui's terminology tended to live often on their own and after the IIIrd century, to be fairly isolated hence the absence of Romano-Berber kingdoms in the region.

As for Gaetuli, they basically disappeared as a distinct people in Late Roman times, while it's probably more about an identity shift (maybe tied to isolation between tribes) than a replacement as it was theorized in colonial times.

Although Volubilis/Oualila reoccupation shows it shouldn't be systematized, it was quite a timid and later one, probably too late to make it the center of a kingdom.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Geography is going to be a problem there : while Africa (Tunisia and Eastern Algeria) mountain ranges (or absence to) allows for a more important integration of Maurs withing Roman society and provides a natural expension way to the coast, the Inner Maghreb (and Outer Maghreb, of course) to use Abdallah Laroui's terminology tended to live often on their own and after the IIIrd century, to be fairly isolated hence the absence of Romano-Berber kingdoms in the region.

As for Gaetuli, they basically disappeared as a distinct people in Late Roman times, while it's probably more about an identity shift (maybe tied to isolation between tribes) than a replacement as it was theorized in colonial times.

Although Volubilis/Oualila reoccupation shows it shouldn't be systematized, it was quite a timid and later one, probably too late to make it the center of a kingdom.

I guess there's no easy way of containing Muslim rule to inside the Rif. Or keeping them out of the High Atlas mountains like the indigenous Balkans did to avoid Ottoman authority.

 

[LSCatilina]

I guess there's no easy way of containing Muslim rule to inside the Rif.

Not actively. That said, Maghrib was far less interesting for Umayyads than Ifriqiya, and while not harder to conquer when it came to local resistance, lacked structures to do so efficiently (this same issues prevented a real union of tribes and confederations). Technically, Maghrib's conquest was barely finished when Tariq ibn Ziyad invaded Spain (You can even argue it wasn't entierly done by 711).

Have an earlier Umayyad collapse, or more infighting : imagning that Musa ibn Nusayr is called back in Dimashq by an earlier court conflict, for instance, after defeats in the region.
Doesn't mean it would last, but in a context of a generalized Arab takeover, I think it would be one of the more realistic choices.

Or keeping them out of the High Atlas mountains like the indigenous Balkans did to avoid Ottoman authority.

It would likely end the same way than these, or as it ended with Byzantine Africa : clientelisation of these entities (critically if we're talking of the relatively less structurated western tribes) and arabisation, which itself means islamisation on a more or less important scale.