Again as mentioned none of these states survived and more than bitter figthing the ostorgths where good figthers and she lucky breaks as the romans had infigthing and plague that dealt with the romas them we saw what the romans did with a proper army under narces and how fast the goths where beaten up .
And yeah you can make the claim that the berber where weaker than the caliphate .
You can make the same exact argument for the Vandals in Africa. Of course you can cherrypick and say the "Romans were momentarily weak", I can make the same argument for the Vandals, their weakness was temporary and a issue of leadership.
2) huneric was defeated by them before the state was formed and lets see if your byzantine example holds water.
the byzantines lost the battle of Thacia went they sent a smaller force to deal with them , then the romans won the berbers by using 150 000 troops with the berbers (exageration of the historian Corippus but even then the romans and their allies did out number the berbers)
Nothing needs to hold water,
you are making the claim that it was inevitable, not me, the burden of proof is entirely on you to make a strong case.
yes the byzantine empire defeated them because Garmul raided to their territory and killed 3 roman generals in succesive order theodore , the magister militum Theoctistus both in 570, and the next magister milituim Amabilis in 571)
yes so much so that emperor tiberuis had two apoint to men who had to prepare years to defeat him (which they did in a year) and Gennadius was using terror tactics against Garmul’s subjects to defeat him.
None of this even remotely helps your argument, you can always bring up historical anecdotes, they
do not prove inevitability.
This kind of headless in the context of alternate history. "They won OTL so it's inevitable they will win again", what's the point of even participating in this kind of discussions? One could bring this argument everywhere to shut discussions.
so your saying that the kingdom who defeated the roman empire and destroyed 2 byzantine armies whos king was only defeated after a long planed preparation that one of his comanders was forced to use terrors tactics etc , that means that the vandals would not need to much to defeat them....
So you are saying that the kingdom who defeated the Roman empire, seized one of the biggest cities in the empire, seized singlehandledly large portions of the Roman navy, sacked the symbolic capital of the entire empire, seized virtually all major islands in the West Mediterranean would inevitably fall to an array of divided small berber states of unclear stability?
Fact remains that most individual Berber kingdoms were small, had fewer cities than the Vandals, had a smaller population, had worse land and had worse economic connections to mainland Western Europe.
yeah unlike the empire reinforcments for the vandal king are not comming from anatolia or other parts of his empire the best he can hope for is allying with other berbers tribes who dont like the mauro kingdom in fact the romans migth even help in some way the berbers as they disliked the vandals do their piracy.
The Vandals just need to win militarily which is ultimately highly variable, again there is no reason to believe that the Berbers have to have the exact same kind of circumstantial luck with their engagements or leadership. Any cursory reading of many battles shows how many independent variables exists that can't be handwaved.
Also the Vandals contrary to the Byzantines didn't have to deal with Lombards, Visigoths and Sassanids all on their borders.
and speaking of the kingdoms that proceded ...you do know that despite that some of the kingdoms again where rising like altava or aurales but then again first the vandals would have to defeat the mauro roman kingdom and if took the byzantines time and effort how will the vandal kingdom do it?
Altava and Aurales were shadow of the former Mauri kingdoms and again compared poorly to Africa Proconsularis.
unless they get an amazing king that is so good that he can assure roman neutrality and prepares well and figths so good that he destroys the muaro roman kingdom.
Again this is a discussion within the context alternate history, not "let's pretend somehow history is static and any change is
enormous and
unbelievable".
Yes Vandals having a good king is totally impossible and the Berbers are obviously invincible, you should tell Geiseric when he crossed the Strait of Gibraltar that the local Berbers couldn't be fought off and that his own existence was impossible.