No Almohads?

[Vinization]

The founder of the movement that eventually led to the creation of the Almohad Caliphate, Ibn Tumart, was a puritan Muslim scholar who got into all sorts of trouble during his life. According to Wikipedia:

After his studies in Baghdad, Ibn Tumart is claimed in one account to have proceeded on pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj), but was so bubbling with the doctrines he had learnt and a one-minded zeal to 'correct' the mores of the people he came across that he quickly made a nuisance of himself and was expelled from the city.[24] He proceeded to Cairo, and thereon to Alexandria, where he took a ship back to the Maghreb in 1117/18. The journey was not without incident - Ibn Tumart took it upon himself to toss the ship's flasks of wine overboard and set about lecturing (or harassing) the sailors to ensure they adhered to correct prayer times and number of genuflections; in some reports, the sailors got fed up and threw Ibn Tumart overboard, only to find him still bobbing a half-day later and fished him back (he is also reported in different chronicles of having either caused or calmed a storm at sea).[25]

What if he drowned or was left behind by the sailors, years before he launched his rebellion against the Almoravid dynasty? Would it be completely butterflied away, or would the Masmuda tribes that supported Ibn Tumart still revolt for some other reason?

Could the Almoravids come to Lisbon's aid when the Second Crusade lays siege to it in 1147? Their empire was falling apart at this point IOTL, so it was obviously impossible for them to do so. Finally, how would Al-Andalus be affected by not falling under Almohad rule?

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I think they'll still revolt but one possible other change is Christianity in North Africa survives especially around Tunisia as both Almoravids and Almoahads persecuted the North African Christians and the even more enthusiastic Almoahads ended it so without them they'll survive especially in Tunisia and Algeria.

Norman Africa would last longer as well.

 

[Nivek]

I think they'll still revolt but one possible other change is Christianity in North Africa survives especially around Tunisia as both Almoravids and Almoahads persecuted the North African Christians and the even more enthusiastic Almoahads ended it so without them they'll survive especially in Tunisia and Algeria.

Norman Africa would last longer as well.

I doubt it, they were already their last kegs anyway

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I doubt it, they were already their last kegs anyway

I do disagree, in part the attention paid to them by both the Almoravids and Almoahads is argument that they were enough to be paid attention to and Muslims blamed the fall of Africa to the Normans in part on their support, and while I don't really believe that, that is further evidence of their numbers.

 

[Nivek]

I do disagree, in part the attention paid to them by both the Almoravids and Almoahads is argument that they were enough to be paid attention to and Muslims blamed the fall of Africa to the Normans in part on their support, and while I don't really believe that, that is further evidence of their numbers.

At that point the decline was there,even the franco vikings accelerated it painting open targets now

 

[Deleted member 90949]

The Reconquista might be delayed. The harsh treatment of non-Muslims in Spain led to the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa that pretty much would end Muslim rule.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The Reconquista might be delayed. The harsh treatment of non-Muslims in Spain led to the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa that pretty much would end Muslim rule.

Honestly, the Almohads were unpopular yes, but the unifying aspect that the Almoravids and Almohads brought is indispensable to the temporary repudiation of the states of Leon, Castile and Aragon. Prior to the Almoravids, the varied Taifa were often tributaries and vassals of the expanding and stronger Leonese, Aragonese and Castilian domains, each utilizing their patron against opposing Taifa, the situation was very poor for the Taifa generally. The Almoravids however managed to decisively halt the Christians and went on the offensive for the first time since the initial Islamic conquests in the region some 400 years prior. The Almohads intensified this same trend and struck at the heart of the Christians and defeated them decisively both in Africa and in Iberia and placed fear into Christendom at a time of previous consecutive Christian success since the capture of Jerusalem in the Frist Crusade.

The Almohad zealotry while difficult and causing major issues of their ability to reign effectively, had benefits and its reasons. The Andalusian Islamic communities were notoriously atomizing, frequently rebelling, treacherous to those outside of their city domains and supremacist in despising all foreigners to their lands. Almohad power attempted to readjust matters where the Almoravids had failed; convert and force the Iberian Muslims into a form of consolidation and Islamic identity to subvert the rebellious and treacherous culture of the Taifa and the cultural supremacy that these people held that made common Islamic fronts difficult to maintain. The Almoravids had attempted conciliatory tones to the Iberian Taifa, reducing taxes to near trivialities and promoting the official legitimacy of the Abbasid Caliph alongside not imposing upon the well respected Jewish communities across Iberia. The Almoravids benefitted little from any of this and the Taifa rebelled constantly, aligning to Christian states and piece by piece, were restoring the status of Iberia prior to the Almoravids; namely one wherein the subcontinent was militarily dominated by Leon, Aragon and Castile who lorded over a collection of tribute paying Islamic states who waged petty wars against each other over small pieces of land and bragging rights.

While the zealotry of the Almohads preceded the conditions in Iberia, the policy of imposing harsh restrictions and promoting a strong identity and solidarity within monotheism provided a potential means by which the Islamic states in Iberia may have been able to unite and turn the tide in the subcontinent. However, instead, the tides of history favored the descendants of the Franks and their allies in the states of Leon, Portugal, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, who managed to defeat the Almohads, who declined precipitously from then on and ensuring the victory of Christendom as a civilization in the Iberian subcontinent.

Had the Almohads not existed, the likely result is the Almoravids collapse in a slower fashion, broken down by invading Christian forces and by rebellions of the Taifa states. The situation would return to how it was prior to the Almoravids, a collection of Taifa holding tributary relations to the Christian states to the north. However more importantly is the consequence in other areas. The Holy See will likely promote the end to the tributary relation and promote outward expansion into the Taifa, abolishing their states. Thus, we may see different factions in Iberia of some states promoting continued alliance and tribute from the Taifa and others promoting Crusade to expel and subjugate the Muslims. A potential analogous situation could be the Albigensian Crusade, namely the Pope calling a crusade upon a particularly recalcitrant and tolerant Christian ruler in Iberia etc...

In Africa, the Normans are still likely driven from the lands in Northern Africa, but Christians will likely do marginally better, but the Almohads are likely to be replaced by equally fanatical movements. If the Christians are not eradicated by the Almohads, the Banu Hilali will do so. Indeed, the Banu Hilal could be a counter hegemonic power in Northern Africa in the absence of the Almohads. How one could direct the situation would be to the writer however, but it would indeed by interesting.

 

[Al-Za’im]

Norman Africa would last longer as well.

I do disagree, in part the attention paid to them by both the Almoravids and Almoahads is argument that they were enough to be paid attention to and Muslims blamed the fall of Africa to the Normans in part on their support, and while I don't really believe that, that is further evidence of their numbers.

Not necessarily. By the time of the Almohad expedition into Ifriqiya, much of the littoral formerly occupied by the Normans had already erupted into revolt. Many cities, such as the likes of Tripoli and Sfax, had been lost to local Muslim forces. Caliph Abd'alMu'min's intervention itself had been encouraged by refugees from Zawila, who had fled their homeland as the Norman quashed their revolt.

The perceived benefits that Norman rule provided, such as initial revitalization of Ifriqyan cities following a vicious drought and famine, had been effectively eroded as the economic situation in the region stabilised. A myriad of factors including policies which favoured Christian populations, religious justifications such as traditions of opportunistic holy war in the region and Maliki perspectives on living under non-Muslim rule, genuine support for Muslim rule in the form of the Almohads or simply a breakaway from the Normans, meant that Norman rule was deeply unpopular and triggered significant unrest amongst the local populace.

Had the Almohads not existed, the likely result is the Almoravids collapse in a slower fashion, broken down by invading Christian forces and by rebellions of the Taifa states. The situation would return to how it was prior to the Almoravids, a collection of Taifa holding tributary relations to the Christian states to the north. However more importantly is the consequence in other areas. The Holy See will likely promote the end to the tributary relation and promote outward expansion into the Taifa, abolishing their states. Thus, we may see different factions in Iberia of some states promoting continued alliance and tribute from the Taifa and others promoting Crusade to expel and subjugate the Muslims. A potential analogous situation could be the Albigensian Crusade, namely the Pope calling a crusade upon a particularly recalcitrant and tolerant Christian ruler in Iberia etc...

In Africa, the Normans are still likely driven from the lands in Northern Africa, but Christians will likely do marginally better, but the Almohads are likely to be replaced by equally fanatical movements. If the Christians are not eradicated by the Almohads, the Banu Hilali will do so. Indeed, the Banu Hilal could be a counter hegemonic power in Northern Africa in the absence of the Almohads. How one could direct the situation would be to the writer however, but it would indeed by interesting.

I doubt it would be the Hilali's to assume such hegemonic authority. The Banu Hilal primarily settled in the south of Ifriqiya, the only area they actually conquered. Outside this region, they had created no states and did not overthrow any established governments. Although indisputably destructive in their initial conflict against the Zirids (particularly in the razing of Kairoun), the Hilians established themselves in the hinterlands rather then urban centres. While playing a major role in local politics, there was little attempt at forming a centralized state. In the Maghreb's fractured political environment, established polities often utilised nomadic forces, such as the Hilian Arabs, as mercenaries in various conflicts. Struggles between rival rulers, rulers and pretenders and between local chieftains often saw considerable competition to recruit nomadic soldiers. The Arabo-Berber tribes benefitted off this lucrative relationship, at times taking advantage of the weakness of their employers, enjoying the wealth and land that was granted to them as a reward for their services.

There was little incentive for the Hilali's, primarily focused on ensuring stable pastures for their herds, to abandon such a profitable position. Indeed, even in opportunities to establish such authority, they did not. Ironically, as the Zirid domain fractured into a constellation of semi-automous cities (with the Zirid Emir operating as a first-amongst-equals) as a direct result of war with the Hilal confederations, local governors of Berber, Arab and even Turkic origin seized power in the cities rather then the Hilali's themselves.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Not necessarily. By the time of the Almohad expedition into Ifriqiya, much of the littoral formerly occupied by the Normans had already erupted into revolt. Many cities, such as the likes of Tripoli and Sfax, had been lost to local Muslim forces. Caliph Abd'alMu'min's intervention itself had been encouraged by refugees from Zawila, who had fled their homeland as the Norman quashed their revolt.

The perceived benefits that Norman rule provided, such as initial revitalization of Ifriqyan cities following a vicious drought and famine, had been effectively eroded as the economic situation in the region stabilised. A myriad of factors including policies which favoured Christian populations, religious justifications such as traditions of opportunistic holy war in the region and Maliki perspectives on living under non-Muslim rule, genuine support for Muslim rule in the form of the Almohads or simply a breakaway from the Normans, meant that Norman rule was deeply unpopular and triggered significant unrest amongst the local populace.

Yeah, Norman Africa wouldn't last but I do still think that an indigenous unbroken tradition of Christianity in North Africa would.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@Al-Za’im

My view is not necessarily that the Banu Hilal will become a hegemonic power like the Almohads, but that they could emerge as an entity that devastates the Normans or African Christians. Further, I am sure that Andalusian Muslims would have originally assumed that the Berber peoples of the Atlas Mountains and further south were not liable to found a great hegemonic realm in the region, yet we know how that happened.

 

[Al-Za’im]

Yeah, Norman Africa wouldn't last but I do still think that an indigenous unbroken tradition of Christianity in North Africa would.

Perhaps. Christianity in the region was in the process of terminal decline, most certainly excaberated by the intolerance of the Almohads. My own view is that an absence of the Almohads certainly increases the likelihood of indigenous Christian communities surviving. Nevertheless, depending on the characters of the ruling polities, it is equally likely that local Christianity could become extinct (as OTL) albeit at a slower rate.

@Al-Za’im

My view is not necessarily that the Banu Hilal will become a hegemonic power like the Almohads, but that they could emerge as an entity that devastates the Normans or African Christians. Further, I am sure that Andalusian Muslims would have originally assumed that the Berber peoples of the Atlas Mountains and further south were not liable to found a great hegemonic realm in the region, yet we know how that happened.

Most certainly, I agree that nomadic entities would pose a significant threat to continued Norman rule.

Nevertheless, I am rather apprehensive to state whether or not this would devastate local Christianity. Norman rule saw an influx of Christian refugees, fleeing from the Almohad expansion, into the Ifriqyan littoral. Favoured by their Sicilian overlords, these communities briefly flourished, enjoying the benefits of the new religious dynamic. The developing animosity between local Muslims and Christian’s could be exploited by the notoriously brutal Hilalians, resulting in the fledging communities destruction.

Notwithstanding, it must be considered that without the Almohad expansion, these Christians may not feel the pressure to flee towards Norman domain. This alteration of circumstances may see this hypocritical hegemonic power less inclined to retaliate/forcibly convert the Christian populace. Almohad doctrine is rather divorced from the Maliki “Orthodxy” at the time on the matter of forcible conversions. This Polity may rather impose Jizya, allowing for the survival of scattered Christian communities.

While you are correct that Almohad expansion was rather unexpected, the establishment of a hegemonic realm appears rather unlikely mainly due to existing precedent on the Banu Hilal’s behaviour. That is not to say that later down the line a Hililian/Hililian descended entity could not achieve similar results, especially considering no Almohads butterflies the Battle of Setif.

 

[Portucale]

Honestly, the Almohads were unpopular yes, but the unifying aspect that the Almoravids and Almohads brought is indispensable to the temporary repudiation of the states of Leon, Castile and Aragon. Prior to the Almoravids, the varied Taifa were often tributaries and vassals of the expanding and stronger Leonese, Aragonese and Castilian domains, each utilizing their patron against opposing Taifa, the situation was very poor for the Taifa generally. The Almoravids however managed to decisively halt the Christians and went on the offensive for the first time since the initial Islamic conquests in the region some 400 years prior. The Almohads intensified this same trend and struck at the heart of the Christians and defeated them decisively both in Africa and in Iberia and placed fear into Christendom at a time of previous consecutive Christian success since the capture of Jerusalem in the Frist Crusade.

The Almohad zealotry while difficult and causing major issues of their ability to reign effectively, had benefits and its reasons. The Andalusian Islamic communities were notoriously atomizing, frequently rebelling, treacherous to those outside of their city domains and supremacist in despising all foreigners to their lands. Almohad power attempted to readjust matters where the Almoravids had failed; convert and force the Iberian Muslims into a form of consolidation and Islamic identity to subvert the rebellious and treacherous culture of the Taifa and the cultural supremacy that these people held that made common Islamic fronts difficult to maintain. The Almoravids had attempted conciliatory tones to the Iberian Taifa, reducing taxes to near trivialities and promoting the official legitimacy of the Abbasid Caliph alongside not imposing upon the well respected Jewish communities across Iberia. The Almoravids benefitted little from any of this and the Taifa rebelled constantly, aligning to Christian states and piece by piece, were restoring the status of Iberia prior to the Almoravids; namely one wherein the subcontinent was militarily dominated by Leon, Aragon and Castile who lorded over a collection of tribute paying Islamic states who waged petty wars against each other over small pieces of land and bragging rights.

While the zealotry of the Almohads preceded the conditions in Iberia, the policy of imposing harsh restrictions and promoting a strong identity and solidarity within monotheism provided a potential means by which the Islamic states in Iberia may have been able to unite and turn the tide in the subcontinent. However, instead, the tides of history favored the descendants of the Franks and their allies in the states of Leon, Portugal, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, who managed to defeat the Almohads, who declined precipitously from then on and ensuring the victory of Christendom as a civilization in the Iberian subcontinent.

Had the Almohads not existed, the likely result is the Almoravids collapse in a slower fashion, broken down by invading Christian forces and by rebellions of the Taifa states. The situation would return to how it was prior to the Almoravids, a collection of Taifa holding tributary relations to the Christian states to the north. However more importantly is the consequence in other areas. The Holy See will likely promote the end to the tributary relation and promote outward expansion into the Taifa, abolishing their states. Thus, we may see different factions in Iberia of some states promoting continued alliance and tribute from the Taifa and others promoting Crusade to expel and subjugate the Muslims. A potential analogous situation could be the Albigensian Crusade, namely the Pope calling a crusade upon a particularly recalcitrant and tolerant Christian ruler in Iberia etc...

In Africa, the Normans are still likely driven from the lands in Northern Africa, but Christians will likely do marginally better, but the Almohads are likely to be replaced by equally fanatical movements. If the Christians are not eradicated by the Almohads, the Banu Hilali will do so. Indeed, the Banu Hilal could be a counter hegemonic power in Northern Africa in the absence of the Almohads. How one could direct the situation would be to the writer however, but it would indeed by interesting.

I know it's been 8 months since this, but I like this discussion:
Didn't the Almohads destroy relations between Iberian Muslims and North Africans with their fanatic policies, though? There were Iberian Muslims who prefered to live under Christian rule rather than under Almohad rule.