Moonlight in a Jar: An Al-Andalus Timeline

Aren't the Bataids more conservative than the Andalusis? So I doubt they would use an animal on their flag. Maybe they use a turkic sign/rune and combine it with the shahada or takbir. I think the Oguz turks use to that before they became the Ottomans.
But there not turkish or arab, there something....
At this point the ruling class should just be greek muslims.
 
But there not turkish or arab, there something....
At this point the ruling class should just be greek muslims.
The Bataids themselves are Hellenized Patzinaks/Pechenegs, so they're technically Oghuz Turks, although different from the Kizik Turkmen that came later, interestingly enough.
But the people in ar-Rumaniyah are Romans, mainly because everyone in Hellas or in Anatolia is either Greek or extremely Hellenized to the point that they might lose their Patzinak/Turkmen identity over time, so it's now just a unifying identity that unites the Muslim Greeks, Turkmen, and Patzinaks together.

Hats did mention that the court during the Bataid period in the Roman Empire consisted of Muslim Greeks, Patzinaks, Armenians, and Turkmen in post #1733, so you're not far off there. It won't be long before the Muslim Greeks actually become dominant in the Empire in both Anatolia and Hellas over the centuries, which is enough for the possibility of a Greek dynasty to return to ar-Rumaniyah if the Bataids are ever overthrown.

The dominance of Greek culture over Turkish culture in MiaJ probably means we won't see horse tail banners anytime soon, although it's a good point from snassni2 that they might not use the double-headed eagle due to aniconism with more conservative Islamic nations, so the shahada is a good alternative. The Zulfiqar could also be on some Bataid flags as well, but it's all up to Hats to make a canonical flag for the Roman Empire and I can't wait for what he comes up with.

EDIT: All of this talk about ar-Rumaniyah has given me an incentive to ask a small question about the country: What is the Anglicized form of ar-Rumaniyah? Romania or Rumania?
 
Last edited:
The Safavids and Mughals could use the Lion and Sun, don't see why the Bataids can't have an eagle. Bigger problem might be that some Christian nations will use it too, so maybe the Bataids could set themselves apart by having a Sun or Moon peek out from between the two eagle heads or something
 
The Safavids and Mughals could use the Lion and Sun, don't see why the Bataids can't have an eagle. Bigger problem might be that some Christian nations will use it too, so maybe the Bataids could set themselves apart by having a Sun or Moon peek out from between the two eagle heads or something
A Sun peeking out between the two eagle heads would be magnificent .......

But it's definitely peak Moonlight with a moon though
 
Perhaps something relating to this, then. A stylized double-headed eagle with a possible moon in the foreground or background? Another possible variant could be to make the double-eagle out of Islamic calligraphy, like the flag below.

 
Last edited:
The Safavids and Mughals could use the Lion and Sun, don't see why the Bataids can't have an eagle. Bigger problem might be that some Christian nations will use it too, so maybe the Bataids could set themselves apart by having a Sun or Moon peek out from between the two eagle heads or something
The Safavids were shia and the Mughals were not what you call traditional muslim.
Since the crescent was a byzantine symbol, they will probably take that, like in OTL the Ottomans.
 
The Safavids were shia and the Mughals were not what you call traditional muslim.
Since the crescent was a byzantine symbol, they will probably take that, like in OTL the Ottomans.
The Lion and Sun emblem is first traced to the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and was used for centuries before Iran became Shia, and it definitely doesn't make the Mughals untraditional that they also used the motif.
 
ACT VIII Part XXIII: The Fourth Romanian War and the Council of Imola
Excerpt: Christianity in the Crossing Age - Mark Magnuson, Epic Libropress, AD 1999


The centuries following the Great Plague saw an economic and social growth spurt across the Supercontinent. The resulting population pressures helped to drive the early Crossing Era settlement waves out of Asmarid Andalusia and al-Maghrib, and later out of the Atlantic Christian kingdoms. But these pressures also had consequences for central and eastern Christendom at a time when kingdoms were straining for land and grappling with tough social issues as populations bumped up against the capacity of both land and organizational structures to adequately sustain human wellbeing.

The early Crossing Era is associated with two particular arcs outside of the Anglish sphere: The solidification of Romania under Guy the Great on one hand, and on the other, the splintering of the Catholic Church into monarchal spheres influenced by council ecumenism.

*​

The long-standing Romanian Wars had been flaring on and off since 1415, when Duke Berenguer-Ramon III of Provencia accepted the crown of Meridiana and ended up in the position of being both a king in southern Italia and a duke claimed as a de jure vassal by France. The affair brought long-standing tensions between France and the Provencal realm to a head: Provencia had long operated as a de facto independent kingdom, much to France's continuing frustration. The various conflicts between the two powers drew in Genoa on the side of the Provencals and Venice to try and gain mercantile advantage over Genoa.

The wars truly flared, however, with the ascension of Guy the Great to the throne in Marselha in 1449. Guy - a sublimely gifted organizer and orator - began the practice of claiming the title of "King of Romania." In his mind, he was already a king, and the fall of the Roman Empire to the Bataids years before created a void, particularly with the Holy Roman Empire consistently failing to project power in Italy. Stopping short of declaring himself emperor in his own right, Guy based his claim on his realm's possession of the old Roman Province.

Key to the conflict was control of Gascony, the southernmost duchy in France and one prone to functioning effectively on its own. The bloodiest leg of the Romanian Wars centred on this duchy, when in 1456 King Jocelyn III of France moved to confiscate the duchy following the dying out of its ruling family. Guy quickly moved in to press the claim of Bernat of Aurenja, son of a former Gascon duke's daughter. Jocelyn brought his military to bear on the duchy, seeking to install a loyalist as the rightful Duke. The result was the Fourth Romanian War (1456-1462).

Jocelyn enjoyed one of the most powerful feudal militaries in Europe at the time. However, Romanian military might was bolstered by an innovation adopted from Islamic states like the Asmarids and Bataids: A professional standing army at the core of the military.

Romania's military was the first standing army in Europe outside of the semi-monastic Church Knights. Recognizing he would need better-quality troops to stand against France, Guy's predecessor, Arnaut II, had hired mercenaries from Transjurania and kept them on as the core of his force. But Guy bolstered this force by equipping units of men - usually minor aristocrats or former mercenaries - with good horses, armour and blackpowder weapons. These forces - referred to as the Dragons, after their use of the dragón[1] - filled a similar role in Romania's military as groups like the Saqaliba and Black Guard in the military of Andalusia. But rather than being slave-soldiers, the Dragons were paid free men and owed their allegiance not to feudal lords, but to the monarch's coffers.

While France enjoyed a numerical advantage over the Romanian army, French troops were still largely men drawn from the general levy, bolstered by vassal knights whose equipment depended on their personal finances. The Romanian military's advantage in professionalism was plainly illustrated in the summer of 1460 at the Battle of Antagnac, the largest and most decisive battle of the war: Approximately 40,000 French troops seeking to relieve a Romanian siege of Agen were intercepted by an army of about 30,000 Romanians, led by the Dragons and mercenaries from Transjurania and Italy. Poor coordination between the French commanders resulted in the will of many of the French levies breaking in the result of determined dragon fire from the more professional Romanian forces.

The decisive victory at Antagnac resulted in Romanian troops consolidating control of Agen later that year before moving on to capture Bordeaux in a bloody siege, in which the Romanians put bombards to good use battering down the city's defenses. An arriving French army proved unable to dislodge the Romanians. Meanwhile, Bernat was installed as Duke and swore fealty to Guy. With the siege of Bordeaux rapidly sapping the strength of both sides, truce was eventually signed, though both sides understood it more as a chance to catch their breath.

Gascony would remain a point of furious contention between France and Romania for generations, and the two kingdoms developed a fierce territorial rivalry that would leave them ever at odds. However, the Fourth Romanian War proved decisive in that it brought Gascony into Romania's penumbra and cut France off from both old Aquitania and the Roman Province, confining it to reaches north of the Garonne. Romanian territorial gains around Lemotges and Periguers would be offset by France's holding of Clermont, though de facto boundaries would remain vague in this area for generations.[2]

More to the point, the Fourth Romanian War established Romania as capable of standing on its own two feet, and it solidified the professional army as the dominant force on the battlefield of Christendom. It demonstrated decisively that kings could essentially replicate what the Church did with the militant orders, countering that source of troublesome ecclesiastical power by consolidating power through their own treasury - though this would lead to more problems down the line.

*​

As Romania was on the rise, meanwhile, the power of the Papacy was in a steady decline, and with it the centralization of Christendom. The Strong Pope system pioneered by pontiffs like Celestine IV in the 13th century disintegrated under a series of incompetent popes in the early 15th - the so-called Decadent Popes, beginning with Leo XII in 1425. The resulting Tripartite Schism split Christendom between a Roman pope, a German pope and an Anglo-Danish pope, and the resolution to this state of affairs involved deep bloodshed and the influence of radical religious movements.

Since the appointment of the German Antipope Benedict XV in 1428, the Roman popes had refused to crown any Holy Roman Emperor - an additional blow to German prestige, together with the Empire's inability to control Italy. Upon the death of Meinhard II Geroldseck in 1437, his son, Adolph, was crowned Emperor by Antipope Benedict, but excommunicated by Leo's similarly decadent successor. The bulk of the German bishops - save most of those in old Burgundy and parts of Tyrol - endorsed the decision at the Council of Fulda following a vote.

Conflict between the pontiffs largely took the form of the Empire straining to assert control over Italy. The period of centralization brought on in the late 14th century by the political machinations of Guido of Canossa had begun to collapse by the 1430s, and numerous Italian lords and trading cities began to reassert political independence. This state of affairs opened the door for Adolph to invade in the mid-1450s, seeking to depose King Guido II and assert Holy Roman control over the all-important region.

Control of Italy would be contested between the Empire and an alliance known as the League of Udine - the Papal State, the weak Italian claimant, several stronger Italian nobles, Hungary and Illyria. Control would bounce back and forth over the years before disintegrating entirely following the death of Guido II.

The decisive factor in the war proved to be disunity among the Italian nobles following Guido's death, leaving his infant son Umberto in charge. A scheming regency council promptly formed, with nobles maneuvering to try and manipulate the young monarch and the Pope powerless to stop it. Similarly undermining the alliance was a growing sympathy towards conciliarism among the populace in general, both in northern Italy and in Hungary, but it was the feuding among the Italian nobility which directly led to the League's defeat at the Battle of Lenta. The competing egos resulted in two Italian armies, comprised primarily of mercenaries, refusing to support one another: Milanese forces withdrew at a critical point and left the forces of Florence to be crushed beneath a German attack, allowing the Teutonic side to build momentum and carry the day.

The Battle of Lenta (1458) did not, however, end the Tripartite Schism. While Adolph would spend the next few years besieging cities in the north of Italy en route to asserting control, the Roman candidates continued to hold out even as their allies fell apart.

A series of ecclesiastical councils over the years tried and failed to break the deadlock, but efforts to find a solution only succeeded in further dividing the clergy, resulting in Hungary leaving the League of Udine and the French bishops taking no position at all. Finally, however, the Schism would be settled by the Council of Imola, in 1466.

The Schism declared the Roman, German and Anglish papal candidates deposed. In their stead, the Church was reorganized to devolve greater power to local bishops. The Council disbanded the Church Knights - a decision which Emperor Adolph enforced militarily - and established a firm limit of no more than 20 cardinals at a time, curbing the practice of Strong Popes bolstering their power by promoting loyalist cardinals en masse. Further, it demanded an end to the practice of appointing primarily Italians as cardinals, and it married the practice to a deeply conciliar move.

With the Geroldsecks in the catbird seat, the Germans forced a major concession: The Council endorsed a decree giving primacy to the authority of any general church council, even over the Pope. The decree dictated that a church council derives its power directly from Christ, and even the Pope would be bound to obey the decisions of a council as they pertain to the faith.

Forced to knuckle under in the face of heavy German pressure, the new consensus Pope ultimately ratified the decisions of the Council of Imola in 1470. This decision would have far-reaching consequences, opening the door for ecclesiastical councils across Europe to further weaken the central authority of the Bishop of Rome. Further, the decision was rejected in some quarters of Europe, particularly in Angland, where the Archbishop of York continued to operate with virtual impunity, and in the European south, where bishops in Romania, Illyria and much of Italy viewed German influence over the Council with intense suspicion. For the moment, however, the Strong Pope system was decisively smashed, leaving the Geroldseck Emperors riding high.


[1] The blackpowder weapon - in this case, the hand bombard and a middle form of the ribaldequin.
[2] The borders of Romania proper - excluding Sardinia and southern Italy - are shaping up to be what in OTL we'd consider Occitania.

SUMMARY:
1460: The Battle of Antagnac. Romanian forces score a decisive victory over France in the Fourth Romanian War.
1462: The Fourth Romanian War ends, leaving Romania in control of Gascony and Limoges.
1466: The Council of Imola convenes, intent on resolving the Tripartite Schism.
1470: The Council of Imola issues its recommendations, declaring the primacy of any general church council, even over the Pope. All three antipopes are declared deposed and a new Pope is recognized, albeit badly weakened and subject to severe restrictions on the appointment of cardinals. More power is devolved to local bishops to oversee matters of faith. The Church Knights are disbanded. The Strong Pope system ends.
 
Hungary pushed back the bataids and then fought off the HRE good job. They are surrounded nomads have overrun russia, bataids to the south, and HRE to the north.
 
What's the legacy of the Lateran wars and the Teutonic schism in relation to the tripartite schism?
 
Last edited:
A new post from MiaJ means more things to analyze and think about in that great and vast world.
More to the point, the Fourth Romanian War established Romania as capable of standing on its own two feet, and it solidified the professional army as the dominant force on the battlefield of Christendom. It demonstrated decisively that kings could essentially replicate what the Church did with the militant orders, countering that source of troublesome ecclesiastical power by consolidating power through their own treasury - though this would lead to more problems down the line.
1595975409541.png
An independent Provencia/Occitania changes everything in Europe, given how it has effectively split OTL France in half between the French North and the Provencal South. It's ironic that Provencia builds the first Christian professional army to secure its own independence, mirroring OTL France in its establishment of its own professional army to do the same thing against England during the Hundred Years' War. Even if the Kingdom of Romania is split or weakened during its waning years, the fact that Al-Andalus could use Provencia as a buffer state against France or the HRE means that there is a potential interest in the survival of this unique region. Òc to independence!

Another thing of note is that development and spread of Christian/Islamic professional armies in MiaJ is going to be really interesting, especially with the introduction of blackpowder technologies. The success of the Provencal with their standing army during the Fourth Romanian War means Christian kings now have a reason to wrest control from both their feudal lords and the Church through their own army loyal to the monarch alone, which could lead to some interesting events down the line, especially in the HRE, France, and Angland.

However, Muslim armies are infinitely more fascinating, as while they do have standing armies, they are made out of elite slave-soldiers as of now. Despite this, the Andalusian Black/White Guards and the Bataid Mamluks aren't nearly as dominant in their country's military structure unlike the Ottoman Janissaries, and they have stable populations made out of loyal Muslims. It won't be long before the Andalusian Hajib or the Roman Emperor are able to field large professional blackpowder armies made out of native Andalusi/Berbers or Greeks in the late 15th-17th centuries, as well as being able to utilize complex formations that take advantage of blackpowder weaponry like the tercio square to counter heavy cavalry from Hungary or Santiago/France. Blackpowder technology is already more advanced in Islamic nations, as the Andalusi already have the early form of the handheld arquebus (There was no mention of a matchlock mechanism before, so I assume it's not that advanced) while both the Andalusi and the Romans have thorough experience with using tanin/great tanin weaponry. Matchlocks don't seem to be too far away from 1470 and neither is the development of more advanced guns in the 16th century, like wheellocks or even the flintlock, given the Blossoming Period.

Al-Andalus and the Roman Empire are well on their way to becoming Blackpowder Empires, and both Christian and Muslim nations have reason to quake in fear.
1470: The Council of Imola issues its recommendations, declaring the primacy of any general church council, even over the Pope. All three antipopes are declared deposed and a new Pope is recognized, albeit badly weakened and subject to severe restrictions on the appointment of cardinals. More power is devolved to local bishops to oversee matters of faith. The Church Knights are disbanded. The Strong Pope system ends.
The destruction of the Strong Pope system after the Tripartite Schism is a good thing in Christendom, with local church authority being able to supersede the Pope, especially since most of the Popes during this century were hopelessly corrupt. In addition, further restrictions on the Pope from both the HRE Emperor and the local councils means that the dominance of the Pope in Christian European politics has basically imploded far earlier than OTL, leaving behind massive ramifications about the fate of Roman Catholicism and Europe.

However, I don't think that the end of the Strong Pope system means that a united Catholic Europe will survive to the modern day. Corruption amongst the Catholic Church is still rife and indulgences are still a thing, not to mention that any grievances from a future MiaJ Martin Luther counterpart will still attack the institution of the Catholic Church itself, Pope or no Pope. Not to mention that the ideas of Christian heresies like Tellianism/Anicietanism in Santiago will inevitably leak into Christian Europe while a rise of local church authority like the Anglish Archbishop of York, who has already ignored the decrees of the Pope, is only going to lead to a growing separation between Rome and other Christian nations. The arrival of the printing press is going to be the nail in the coffin, with any priest with a bone to pick with the local Catholic church to just post a list of complaints that will set off a powder keg in somewhere like the Holy Roman Empire, not to mention translations of the Bible will lead to wildly different interpretations of Christianity.

But where does that leave Al-Andalus? Unlike the Roman Empire, who is not interested in the affairs of Catholic Europe in terms of religion since their Christians are Greek Orthodox who already ignore the primacy of the Pope post-Great Schism, Al-Andalus is still full of Catholic Christians that recognize the Pope, watching the aftermath of the Tripartite Schism. With the growing power of local churches and their position as a relatively isolated pocket of Christians, being a minority of an Islamic nation, what is the current thought process of the Bishop of Salamanca? Will he follow in the footsteps of the Anglish Archbishop and declare himself independent of the Pope as the sole authority of Iberian Christians with the blessing of Al-Nasr or remain subservient to the Pope in Rome?

More importantly, the dissolution of the Church Knights, the way I see it, is arguably even more destructive to something like Santiago and Navarre than something like Hungary. These small Christian nations have come to rely on these class of elite warriors like the Knights of St. James to complement their own armies to resist the Andalusians, but the War of Navarrese Succession in the 1390s has come to show that the Santiagoans are hopelessly outmatched against the technologically superior Andalusians who have just used tanins, crossbowmen, or other forms of blackpowder weaponry to obliterate Santiagoan heavy cavalry and infantry while Andalusian safinas can just dance around the Santiagoan navy and blast them with blackpowder cannons or crossbow bolts from long range or just repeat the same thing as the capture of Coronna since their navy is much more maneuverable than their Christian counterparts. With the dissolution of the Knights of St. James all that is left is a levy Santiagoan army against Al-Andalus.

A 1490s Asmarid Al-Andalus will be nothing like the Hizamid Al-Andalus the Santiagoans have faced before. They are even more flush with money, they can produce more armor, food/supplies, blackpowder weaponry, and they have significantly higher amounts of manpower than Santiago and Navarre combined. Not to mention that they might field hordes of matchlock arquebusiers, artillery, crossbowmen, and pikemen/spearmen that will make Normando heavy cavalry feel hopelessly obsolete. It can only take an extremely destructive fitna from Hats to throw the Andalusians off their game.

With a weak France that is fighting with Romania, a Pope that probably can't even call an Adventure on Andalusia due to his weakened political power or the fact that the Andalusians are far stronger than they were centuries before, alongside the Bataid threat to the East keeping the HRE and the Hungarians busy, the stage is set.

Al-Nasr can smell the blood in the water. The Iberian Christian kingdoms of Santiago and Navarre are mere insects compared to the falcon of the Quraysh and they will come to finish off what the Umayyads have started. The Reverse Reconquista is upon us....and it's not even 1492.
 
Last edited:
What reverse reconquista? would be the final unification from the Ummayad Side, unless they Expand into Romania...and that would be interesting too
Reverse Reconquista as in taking Santiago and Navarre, the Kingdoms that descended from the Kingdom of Asturias that the Umayyads failed to capture during their initial conquests. At this point the Reconquista has failed, with Guillermo del Toro being the closest one to actually making progress for the Christians during the Saqlabid era. With the overwhelming military/technological advantage that the Hajib has over the Christian kingdoms and Christendom so divided after the Tripartite Schism, leaving both kingdoms relatively isolated, he's in the exact same position that Isabella and Ferdinand are with the Emirate of Granada in OTL.

France has declined in power because of the Fourth Romanian War and now are blocked from the Pyrenees by the Romanians. It's been almost 100 years since the Treaty of Xavier and the cessation of summer raids/incursions due to fear out of French retaliation. Now they're no longer an issue and it would be easy for Al-Nasr to play off the French and the Provencal against one another in order to secure free reign over the northern Christian kingdoms. A renewed jihad from the Umayyad Caliph would mean the end of the Christian kingdoms in Iberia.

Expanding any further into Romania would be a waste of Andalusian resources and wouldn't make sense from a geopolitical perspective, since Romania can serve to balance France's power and prevent any incursions to retake northern Iberia since any action from Romania would mean France gets to invade and vice versa.

The only way that Santiago and Navarre could be saved is if they ally with Angland and they manage to win in a conflict with Al-Andalus, which they could certainly do. That would be how the sovereignty of the Christian Iberian kingdoms could be saved, although it's unlikely since Angland's navy isn't overwhelmingly strong compared to Andalusia and it would be extremely expensive and risky to mount a naval campaign and an amphibious invasion since Al-Andalus would already win in the land war. Still, it's a future MiaJ alternate history trope to think about.

This is what I see from the current political situation in 1470 and Hats or anyone else can feel free to disagree with me on this front.

EDIT: Further elaborated on how Santiago and Navarre could potentially by saved given an Umayyad jihad in the 1490s.
 
Last edited:
Reverse Reconquista as in taking Santiago and Navarre, the Kingdoms that descended from the Kingdom of Asturias that the Umayyads failed to capture during their initial conquests. At this point the Reconquista has failed, with Guillermo del Toro being the closest one to actually making progress for the Christians during the Saqlabid era. With the overwhelming military/technological advantage that the Hajib has over the Christian kingdoms and Christendom so divided after the Tripartite Schism, leaving both kingdoms relatively isolated, he's in the exact same position that Isabella and Ferdinand are with the Emirate of Granada in OTL.

France has declined in power because of the Fourth Romanian War and now are blocked from the Pyrenees by the Romanians. It's been almost 100 years since the Treaty of Xavier and the cessation of summer raids/incursions due to fear out of French retaliation. Now they're no longer an issue and it would be easy for Al-Nasr to play off the French and the Provencal against one another in order to secure free reign over the northern Christian kingdoms. A renewed jihad from the Umayyad Caliph would mean the end of the Christian kingdoms in Iberia.

Expanding any further into Romania would be a waste of Andalusian resources and wouldn't make sense from a geopolitical perspective, since Romania can serve to balance France's power and prevent any incursions to retake northern Iberia since any action from Romania would mean France gets to invade and vice versa.

The only way that Santiago and Navarre could be saved is if they ally with Angland and they invest into another war with Al-Andalus and they would win over Al-Andalus, which they could certainly do. That would be how the sovereignty of the Christian Iberian kingdoms could be saved.

This is what I see from the current political situation in 1470 and Hats or anyone else can feel free to disagree with me on this front.
Without France rushing to their rescue, the Santiagonians in particular are in a bad place, but even Navarre is in a perilous situation. Before the Fourth Romanian War, the Andalusians' buffer between France and themselves was Navarre. Now Navarre is sandwiched between Romania, Andalusia and a weak Santiago. Navarre does have historic dynastic ties to Angland and once held Gascony, but it's also a fairly weak kingdom. Santiago, on the other hand, is a lone isolate beset by religious heterodoxy, an island of Anicetians largely cut off from the rest of Christendom, and even if its ruling class remain mainline Christians, there's a lot of consternation there about tolerance towards Anicetians and other reformists.

Santiago has got to be looking southward pretty nervously right now. As for the Andalusians, Romania may be a dangerous neighbour, but it's preferable to a unified France - and the Asmarids are rich and advanced enough to tangle with them, if need be.
 
As @Denliner said, unless anglish intervention is successful (it happening and failing is as likely a result) the christian kingdoms of Santiago and Navarre are in their last hopes, although i think their situation are even more desperate than OTL Granada's seeing by the perspective of the kingdoms. Going further, Santiago is in a down period since the start of the century while Navarre isn't much of a power to talk about.

IMO, a northern conquest itself would have more cultural effects on the north than all the previous centuries, during these times of eminent conquest, the Anicetians might probably gain a lot of influence in the north, resulting in once the asmarids are fully taking over, most of the important people (nobles, military commanders, etc.) are openly adherents to the anicetian theology, and with the subsequent freedom to go around preaching (since the previously unlikely catholic backlash now turned full-on impossible) might result in an anicetian north with the anicetians preaching that the "catholic heresy" resulted in the muslim takeover and that once this heresy is ended god will give its blessing to the liberation of the faithful (giving pretext to the present-day kinda terrorist groups in the region).

Another thing is that, if the bataids end up superior enough and with an effective enough ruler, you probably would get quite the conquests going on, simply because of strategic goals, like, the borders are quite indefensible so campaigns with the objective of putting the eastern hungarian and ruthenian frontiers on the Carpathians and the Dniester River while removing some "riverheads" that the hungarians have on the Danube, although i think that Hungary is strong enough to not be completely obliterated or something like that. A go for Croatia and Egypt are probably givens if enough time is there, especially the latter, since i think the Harabids are easily overpowered.

I may also question some things regarding foreign relations in the muslim sphere, how are diplomatic relations between the Bataids, the persian muzinids and the caucasian statelets? What about the Qimir, although they are christians i think they would have fairly even relations with the roman bataids due to Black Sea Commerce, but i don't quite can imagine how their relations are with the nations bordering them. I also wonder how "bruh" would be the nasrid situation in case of a bataid conquest of Egypt :p
 
Bataids are are a threat to andalusia as well. They are ottoman empire in alot of ways. I would bet they are are not trady as the ottomans so they wish to instead control the trade routes. Moreover they are the top islamic doggy, unlike Andalusia they can produce big armies comparative to their size. Harabids are literal place holders they don't even get info in the map updates. So egypt will likely fall. So a north african move by them is a possibility. They also have a good enough navy both Cyprus and krete fell to them and have not fallen to italian cities.
 
Top