Discussion:
No Muslim conquest of Spain
Add Reply
Alex Milman
2017-06-15 18:24:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start (say,
the Byzantine ruler of Ceuta did not provide the ships for transporting the
troops). The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.

Consequences?

[
Perhaps a factor in Roderic's defeat and the following Muslim
conquest was the fact that Roderic was an usurper and his coup resulted
in splitting the country into two factions, with the southwest (the provinces of Lusitania and western Carthaginiensis around the capital Toledo) in Roderic's hands and the northeast (Tarraconensis and Narbonensis) in the hands of Achila. At least according to the legend at the battle of Guadalete some
of the Visigoth leaders betrayed him (taking into an account that most of
them presumably died in a battle the whole thing looks a little bit on a
sado-masochistic side) and it seems that after the battle at least some of the
local rulers made deal with the invaders.

Presumably, the military organization of the kingdom was not very strong,
being based on the troops raised by the aristocratic clans and king's own following, but, OTOH, this model does not look too different from the "typical"
organization of the feudal armies elsewhere and from the armies that started
Reconquista just years after the Muslim conquest. The earlier Muslim raids
had been successfully repulsed (by King Wamba).
]
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-15 19:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...

Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.

The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.

The Moslem Maghreb will be exposed to Christian counterattack,
and not supported by Moslem Iberia. This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb, similar to
Christianity in the Moslem-ruled Near East. Also diminished
activity of the Barbary pirates.

Possible Christian missionary work along the West Africa
coast in 800-1300 CE. Moslem expansion was across the
Sahara, and they ignored the coast, AFAICT. Christian
expansion along the coast was blocked till the 1400s. This
could mean earlier and greater Christianization of that
area.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-15 21:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
Presumably, Charles Martel introduced, as a response to the Muslims, a cavalry
with the stirrups as an addition to the traditional Frankish infantry, and
eventually this cavalry evolved into the knights gradually replacing the
Frankish infantry as a main branch. If this theory is correct and if the
Franks are not facing the Muslims (unless they are landing directly in
Provence), then this cavalry may not be created with a future impact on
the later conquests of Charlemagne.

Of course, there are too many "IFs" in the whole idea but OTOH an absence of
a clear and present danger may at least delay these developments thus
postponing creation of Charlemagne's empire.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
AFAIK, they became "mainstream" long before the Muslim conquest.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Moslem Maghreb will be exposed to Christian counterattack,
and not supported by Moslem Iberia.
Couple things.

1st, the Muslim raids started well before the real conquest
but the Visigoth kings limited themselves to repulsing these raids without
landing in Africa. Can't say if it was due to (a) an absence of a navy
or (b) because of a relative military weakness or (c) the internal problems
of the kingdom (just before going against the Muslim invaders Roderick had to
deal with the Basks and it looks like his predecessors had never ending
problems as well). Perhaps all of the above.

2nd, I was under the impression that it was Muslim Iberia that was getting
support from North Africa and not other way around. But an absence of a base
would definitely make the later invasions (by Almohades) much more difficult
if not impossible.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb,
Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) had been established before conquest of the Peninsula so I'm not sure how your schema would work out.
Post by Rich Rostrom
similar to
Christianity in the Moslem-ruled Near East. Also diminished
activity of the Barbary pirates.
The Barbary piracy started in the XVI century as a byproduct of the
Muslims from Spain after the Reconquista so we are talking about the
much later times but the point is interesting: would the "natives" start
piracy "industry" on OTL scale without an influx of the financially destroyed
refugees exposed to the European technology?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Possible Christian missionary work along the West Africa
coast in 800-1300 CE. Moslem expansion was across the
Sahara, and they ignored the coast, AFAICT.
My impression was that they started expansion along the Northern coast of
Africa (Loading Image...)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Christian
expansion along the coast was blocked till the 1400s. This
could mean earlier and greater Christianization of that
area.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-16 03:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb,
Umayyad Caliphate (661­750) had been established
before conquest of the Peninsula so I'm not sure how
your schema would work out.
The Ummayuds ruled the Near East from 650 on, followed
by the Abbasids, but very substantial Christian
populations have remained in those regions right down
to now (Copts in Egypt, Maronites in Lebanon, quite a
few others). The Greek and Armenian Christian communities
in Asia Minor survived the Turkish conquest and were only
abolished in the early 1900s.

So Ommayud rule in Spain/Maghreb in 650-1000 did not
mean full de-Christianization of the Maghreb. That
happened circa 1100, under the Almohads, who believed
in forced conversion to Islam. (Which was actually
rather unusual.)

What I think is probable is that Almohad extremism
arose in the context of a large Islamic comnunity in
the far west. If half of that community doesn't exist,
there will be less "energy", less aggressiveness, and
(IMO) no extremism of the Almohad type.

Incidentally, I missed another major knock-on: there
will be no Ommayad Caliphate in exile in Cordoba, with
various consequences.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-16 13:01:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb,
Umayyad Caliphate (661­750) had been established
before conquest of the Peninsula so I'm not sure how
your schema would work out.
The Ummayuds ruled the Near East from 650 on, followed
by the Abbasids, but very substantial Christian
populations have remained in those regions right down
to now (Copts in Egypt, Maronites in Lebanon, quite a
few others). The Greek and Armenian Christian communities
in Asia Minor survived the Turkish conquest and were only
abolished in the early 1900s.
But these regions are too far away from Spain for the Visigoths
being able to provide any meaningful interference. It would make
practical sense if there were noticeable numbers of Christians among
the Berbers but was this the case by the early VIII century?
Post by Rich Rostrom
So Ommayud rule in Spain/Maghreb in 650-1000 did not
mean full de-Christianization of the Maghreb.
See above: are there some known facts?
Post by Rich Rostrom
That
happened circa 1100, under the Almohads, who believed
in forced conversion to Islam. (Which was actually
rather unusual.)
What I think is probable is that Almohad extremism
arose in the context of a large Islamic comnunity in
the far west.
If half of that community doesn't exist,
there will be less "energy", less aggressiveness, and
(IMO) no extremism of the Almohad type.
They had been invited into Spain by the religious leaders
of the local Muslim states who were unhappy with what they
consider excessive secularization and a luck of a proper
Muslim zeal among their rulers. By that time the Almohads
already had a well-established reputation of the religious
fanatics so I did not quite get that part about half of
community, etc.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Incidentally, I missed another major knock-on: there
will be no Ommayad Caliphate in exile in Cordoba, with
various consequences.
Indeed. There could be more. The Visigoth state would be a big one
and if it manages to achieve a reasonable degree of the internal
stability it may start pushing Northward into what's now the Southern
France: for quite a while these territories retained a considerable
degree of independence and the "central power" was rather nominal.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-17 00:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb,
Umayyad Caliphate (661750) had been established
before conquest of the Peninsula so I'm not sure how
your schema would work out.
The Ummayuds ruled the Near East from 650 on, followed
by the Abbasids, but very substantial Christian
populations have remained in those regions right down
to now (Copts in Egypt, Maronites in Lebanon, quite a
few others). The Greek and Armenian Christian communities
in Asia Minor survived the Turkish conquest and were only
abolished in the early 1900s.
But these regions are too far away from Spain for the Visigoths
being able to provide any meaningful interference...
I have no idea why you think I was discussing possible Visigothic
intervention in the Near East. My point is that Ommayud rule
(nor Abbbasid, Fatimid, Mamluk, or Turkish rule) did not lead to
total de-Christianization of the Near East, so there is no reason
to think it would have that effect in NW Africa.
Post by Alex Milman
It would make practical sense if there were
noticeable numbers of Christians among the Berbers
but was this the case by the early VIII century?
There were large numbers of Christians in the Maghreb until
the Almohad persecutions in the 1100s.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
If half of that community doesn't exist,
there will be less "energy", less aggressiveness, and
(IMO) no extremism of the Almohad type.
They had been invited into Spain by the religious leaders
of the local Muslim states...
The Almohad movement began with one man - Ibn Tumart.
Its theology was pretty eccentric, acclaiming Ibn Tumart
as the Mahdi - and denying the status of dhimmi.

First, it is obvious that butterflies will remove Ibn Tumart.
Second, ISTM that in a much smaller community, doctrines
so aggressive, which are likely to provoke violent conflict
with nearby states or communities, are less likely to catch on.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-16 21:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
Presumably, Charles Martel introduced, as a response to the Muslims, a cavalry
with the stirrups as an addition to the traditional Frankish infantry, and
eventually this cavalry evolved into the knights gradually replacing the
Frankish infantry as a main branch. If this theory is correct and if the
Franks are not facing the Muslims (unless they are landing directly in
Provence), then this cavalry may not be created with a future impact on
the later conquests of Charlemagne.
Of course, there are too many "IFs" in the whole idea but OTOH an absence of
a clear and present danger may at least delay these developments thus
postponing creation of Charlemagne's empire.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
AFAIK, they became "mainstream" long before the Muslim conquest.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Moslem Maghreb will be exposed to Christian counterattack,
and not supported by Moslem Iberia.
Couple things.
1st, the Muslim raids started well before the real conquest
but the Visigoth kings limited themselves to repulsing these raids without
landing in Africa. Can't say if it was due to (a) an absence of a navy
or (b) because of a relative military weakness or (c) the internal problems
of the kingdom (just before going against the Muslim invaders Roderick had to
deal with the Basks and it looks like his predecessors had never ending
problems as well). Perhaps all of the above.
2nd, I was under the impression that it was Muslim Iberia that was getting
support from North Africa and not other way around. But an absence of a base
would definitely make the later invasions (by Almohades) much more difficult
if not impossible.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb,
Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) had been established before conquest of the Peninsula so I'm not sure how your schema would work out.
Post by Rich Rostrom
similar to
Christianity in the Moslem-ruled Near East. Also diminished
activity of the Barbary pirates.
The Barbary piracy started in the XVI century as a byproduct of the
Muslims from Spain after the Reconquista so we are talking about the
much later times but the point is interesting: would the "natives" start
piracy "industry" on OTL scale without an influx of the financially destroyed
refugees exposed to the European technology?
There was a good portion of Italian and Spanish
turncoats "renegades" among the Barbary pirates.

Preying upon European shipping was more lucrative.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Possible Christian missionary work along the West Africa
coast in 800-1300 CE. Moslem expansion was across the
Sahara, and they ignored the coast, AFAICT.
My impression was that they started expansion along the Northern coast of
Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate#/media/File:Umayyad750ADloc.png)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Christian
expansion along the coast was blocked till the 1400s. This
could mean earlier and greater Christianization of that
area.
Alex Milman
2017-06-16 23:13:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
Presumably, Charles Martel introduced, as a response to the Muslims, a cavalry
with the stirrups as an addition to the traditional Frankish infantry, and
eventually this cavalry evolved into the knights gradually replacing the
Frankish infantry as a main branch. If this theory is correct and if the
Franks are not facing the Muslims (unless they are landing directly in
Provence), then this cavalry may not be created with a future impact on
the later conquests of Charlemagne.
Of course, there are too many "IFs" in the whole idea but OTOH an absence of
a clear and present danger may at least delay these developments thus
postponing creation of Charlemagne's empire.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
AFAIK, they became "mainstream" long before the Muslim conquest.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Moslem Maghreb will be exposed to Christian counterattack,
and not supported by Moslem Iberia.
Couple things.
1st, the Muslim raids started well before the real conquest
but the Visigoth kings limited themselves to repulsing these raids without
landing in Africa. Can't say if it was due to (a) an absence of a navy
or (b) because of a relative military weakness or (c) the internal problems
of the kingdom (just before going against the Muslim invaders Roderick had to
deal with the Basks and it looks like his predecessors had never ending
problems as well). Perhaps all of the above.
2nd, I was under the impression that it was Muslim Iberia that was getting
support from North Africa and not other way around. But an absence of a base
would definitely make the later invasions (by Almohades) much more difficult
if not impossible.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb,
Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) had been established before conquest of the Peninsula so I'm not sure how your schema would work out.
Post by Rich Rostrom
similar to
Christianity in the Moslem-ruled Near East. Also diminished
activity of the Barbary pirates.
The Barbary piracy started in the XVI century as a byproduct of the
Muslims from Spain after the Reconquista so we are talking about the
much later times but the point is interesting: would the "natives" start
piracy "industry" on OTL scale without an influx of the financially destroyed
refugees exposed to the European technology?
There was a good portion of Italian and Spanish
turncoats "renegades" among the Barbary pirates.
And, IIRC, even the Dutch and Scandinavians. Some of them had been
credited with designing the new type of the ships which was then widely
used by the pirates.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Preying upon European shipping was more lucrative.
Definitely.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Possible Christian missionary work along the West Africa
coast in 800-1300 CE. Moslem expansion was across the
Sahara, and they ignored the coast, AFAICT.
My impression was that they started expansion along the Northern coast of
Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate#/media/File:Umayyad750ADloc.png)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Christian
expansion along the coast was blocked till the 1400s. This
could mean earlier and greater Christianization of that
area.
Miguel Farah F.
2017-06-15 21:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
It was my understanding that Franks and (Visi-)Goths had already reached
a modus vivendi, so to speak, so the latter wouldn't have bothered to
press north of the Pyrenees (the Franks expelling the Goths from Galia
a couple centuries before notwithstanding). PERHAPS, at most, the Franks
would have tried to take Septimania (at that moment already known as
Gothia) away from the Visigothic kingdom, but no more than that.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
At this point, the Visigoths had already converted to Catholicism, so
this should have gone on as usual. Perhaps Peñíscola could have taken
the place of Avignon in the first place! :-D
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Moslem Maghreb will be exposed to Christian counterattack,
and not supported by Moslem Iberia. This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb, similar to
Christianity in the Moslem-ruled Near East. Also diminished
activity of the Barbary pirates.
This would have depended on how strong was Islamic rule in the Maghreb
at this point. It seems that a continued Visigothic kingdom would have
been busy with its own Iberian affairs (including the civil wars every
freakin' time the king died) to bother taking Mauritania Tingitana(which
never had been under their rule to begin with). It's safe to think that
Muslims would have stayed in Africa, trying to invade Iberia every now
and then, only to be rebuffed each time.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Possible Christian missionary work along the West Africa
coast in 800-1300 CE. Moslem expansion was across the
Sahara, and they ignored the coast, AFAICT. Christian
expansion along the coast was blocked till the 1400s. This
could mean earlier and greater Christianization of that
area.
My own take on this:

- A sense of barrier against the "muslim peril" makes the Gothic kingdom
get its shit together and reinforce itself against the periodical
succession crises.

- Due to the latter, Spain turns into "Godia" proper, just as Galia
turned into France. Also, no fragmentation of the country, with all
what that entails.

- Toledo remains the capital.

- Later on, trade routes to the east blocked, Gothia would start
looking for a new route around Africa, much like our Portugal did...
but without a Portugal/Castille divide, there's no pressure for anyone
to try a route straight west, delaying the discovery of America by,
quite possibly, several decades, and quite probably by northern
European powers.

- Gothia, meanwhile, would have taken foothold in subsaharan Africa,
colonizing and evangelizing that area, trying to keep it from being
taken over by Islam.

- Possibly formal contacts established between Gothia and Ethiopia,
leading to some kind of trade network?
--
MIGUEL FARAH // ***@farah.cl
#include <disclaimer.h> // http://www.farah.cl/
<*>
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the fucking word processor.
Then came the thought processor. Then came the death of literature. And
so it goes."
- Martin Silenus, _Hyperion_
Tim
2017-06-16 02:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Miguel Farah F.
Post by Miguel Farah F.
- Later on, trade routes to the east blocked, Gothia would start
looking for a new route around Africa, much like our Portugal did...
but without a Portugal/Castille divide, there's no pressure for anyone
to try a route straight west, delaying the discovery of America by,
quite possibly, several decades, and quite probably by northern
European powers.
- Gothia, meanwhile, would have taken foothold in subsaharan Africa,
colonizing and evangelizing that area, trying to keep it from being
taken over by Islam.
- Possibly formal contacts established between Gothia and Ethiopia,
leading to some kind of trade network?
--
#include <disclaimer.h> // http://www.farah.cl/
<*>
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the fucking word processor.
Then came the thought processor. Then came the death of literature. And
so it goes."
- Martin Silenus, _Hyperion_
Don't know if the Iberian Peninsula would have stayed as a united state. Even in OTL Portugal and Aragon-Catalunya kept their independence in face of Muslims from the south. OTOH in this ATL scenario, Madrid remains an obscure country town.
Alex Milman
2017-06-16 13:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Miguel Farah F.
Post by Miguel Farah F.
- Later on, trade routes to the east blocked, Gothia would start
looking for a new route around Africa, much like our Portugal did...
but without a Portugal/Castille divide, there's no pressure for anyone
to try a route straight west, delaying the discovery of America by,
quite possibly, several decades, and quite probably by northern
European powers.
- Gothia, meanwhile, would have taken foothold in subsaharan Africa,
colonizing and evangelizing that area, trying to keep it from being
taken over by Islam.
- Possibly formal contacts established between Gothia and Ethiopia,
leading to some kind of trade network?
--
#include <disclaimer.h> // http://www.farah.cl/
<*>
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the fucking word processor.
Then came the thought processor. Then came the death of literature. And
so it goes."
- Martin Silenus, _Hyperion_
Don't know if the Iberian Peninsula would have stayed as a united state. Even in OTL Portugal and Aragon-Catalunya kept their independence in face of Muslims from the south. OTOH in this ATL scenario, Madrid remains an obscure country town.
But in OTL scenario the regional independence is relatively easy to understand:
whoever manages to beat off the Muslims, rules the region. Even then, prior to
the Almohad invasion, Castile was more or less recognized leader: at least one
of its kings styled himself an emperor and the local Muslim rulers more or
less recognized his supremacy. Actually, if they had enough brains and power
to execute their troublesome clerics, the following stages of Reconquista could
look seriously different from OTL: El Cid spent a big part of his career
cooperating with the Muslim rulers and this seems to be a general pattern.

As for Madrid, IIRC, Phillip II chose it more or less arbitrarily based on
the location so, yes, there was a good chance for its future relative obscurity.
Pete Barrett
2017-06-16 17:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Tim
Post by Miguel Farah F.
Post by Miguel Farah F.
- Later on, trade routes to the east blocked, Gothia would start
looking for a new route around Africa, much like our Portugal did...
but without a Portugal/Castille divide, there's no pressure for
anyone to try a route straight west, delaying the discovery of
America by, quite possibly, several decades, and quite probably by
northern European powers.
- Gothia, meanwhile, would have taken foothold in subsaharan Africa,
colonizing and evangelizing that area, trying to keep it from being
taken over by Islam.
- Possibly formal contacts established between Gothia and Ethiopia,
leading to some kind of trade network?
--
#include <disclaimer.h> // http://www.farah.cl/
<*>
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the fucking word processor.
Then came the thought processor. Then came the death of literature.
And so it goes."
- Martin Silenus, _Hyperion_
Don't know if the Iberian Peninsula would have stayed as a united state.
Even in OTL Portugal and Aragon-Catalunya kept their independence in face
of Muslims from the south. OTOH in this ATL scenario, Madrid remains an
obscure country town.
But in OTL scenario the regional independence is relatively easy to
understand: whoever manages to beat off the Muslims, rules the region.
Even then, prior to the Almohad invasion, Castile was more or less
recognized leader: at least one of its kings styled himself an emperor and
the local Muslim rulers more or less recognized his supremacy. Actually,
if they had enough brains and power to execute their troublesome clerics,
the following stages of Reconquista could look seriously different from
OTL: El Cid spent a big part of his career cooperating with the Muslim
rulers and this seems to be a general pattern.
As I recall, in the early years, immediately after the Muslim conquest, the
remaining Christian kingdoms (Asturias, Pamplona, Leon Galicia, Aragon) in
the north of Iberia were continually uniting and splitting and uniting again
and splitting again, as kingdoms were split among brothers, who then fought
each other or simply inherited to re-unite their kingdoms. Eventually they
stabilised into four separate kingdoms: Navarre, Portugal, Castille, and
Aragon.

Now, the Visgothic kingdom doesn't seem to have done anything like that. As
far as I know, it was united at its beginning, middle, and end (though of
course it didn't always control the whole of Iberia), without any splitting
of the kingdom among brothers.

It seems to me, that unless there is some major event which causes the
kingdom to split, that tradition would continue, with the effect of there
being a united Hispania/Gothia as Europe emerges into the High Middle Ages.

One other thing - Hispania was one of the more cultured areas of western
Europe, and when the north-western Europe was cut off from contact with it
by the Muslim conquest, that must have had an effect on learning in that
region. By remaining Christian, it may stay in contact with the rest of
Europe. And by avoiding the reconquista, it may preserve and transmit some
learning which was OTL only available to the Muslims.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-16 18:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Tim
Post by Miguel Farah F.
Post by Miguel Farah F.
- Later on, trade routes to the east blocked, Gothia would start
looking for a new route around Africa, much like our Portugal did...
but without a Portugal/Castille divide, there's no pressure for
anyone to try a route straight west, delaying the discovery of
America by, quite possibly, several decades, and quite probably by
northern European powers.
- Gothia, meanwhile, would have taken foothold in subsaharan Africa,
colonizing and evangelizing that area, trying to keep it from being
taken over by Islam.
- Possibly formal contacts established between Gothia and Ethiopia,
leading to some kind of trade network?
--
#include <disclaimer.h> // http://www.farah.cl/
<*>
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the fucking word processor.
Then came the thought processor. Then came the death of literature.
And so it goes."
- Martin Silenus, _Hyperion_
Don't know if the Iberian Peninsula would have stayed as a united state.
Even in OTL Portugal and Aragon-Catalunya kept their independence in face
of Muslims from the south. OTOH in this ATL scenario, Madrid remains an
obscure country town.
But in OTL scenario the regional independence is relatively easy to
understand: whoever manages to beat off the Muslims, rules the region.
Even then, prior to the Almohad invasion, Castile was more or less
recognized leader: at least one of its kings styled himself an emperor and
the local Muslim rulers more or less recognized his supremacy. Actually,
if they had enough brains and power to execute their troublesome clerics,
the following stages of Reconquista could look seriously different from
OTL: El Cid spent a big part of his career cooperating with the Muslim
rulers and this seems to be a general pattern.
As I recall, in the early years, immediately after the Muslim conquest, the
remaining Christian kingdoms (Asturias, Pamplona, Leon Galicia, Aragon) in
the north of Iberia were continually uniting and splitting and uniting again
and splitting again, as kingdoms were split among brothers, who then fought
each other or simply inherited to re-unite their kingdoms. Eventually they
stabilised into four separate kingdoms: Navarre, Portugal, Castille, and
Aragon.
Now, the Visgothic kingdom doesn't seem to have done anything like that. As
far as I know, it was united at its beginning, middle, and end (though of
course it didn't always control the whole of Iberia), without any splitting
of the kingdom among brothers.
It seems that there was a split between Roderic and Aachila (sp) as well as
the earlier splits but not up to the same degree as in OTL: no long-term
independent kingdoms.
Post by Pete Barrett
It seems to me, that unless there is some major event which causes the
kingdom to split, that tradition would continue, with the effect of there
being a united Hispania/Gothia as Europe emerges into the High Middle Ages.
That's the whole idea. :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
One other thing - Hispania was one of the more cultured areas of western
Europe, and when the north-western Europe was cut off from contact with it
by the Muslim conquest, that must have had an effect on learning in that
region. By remaining Christian, it may stay in contact with the rest of
Europe. And by avoiding the reconquista, it may preserve and transmit some
learning which was OTL only available to the Muslims.
I would not overestimate a degree to which the Peninsula had been cut off from
the rest of Europe: creation of the Christian states started soon after the
initial Muslim conquest and these states had extensive connections, cultural
and dynastic, with their Christian neighbors.

Speaking about the relations, I wonder what would they be between Visigoth
Hispania and Frankish Kingdom. Well, there was also Aquitania in between: in
OTL the Franks were the saviors from the Muslims but in ATL they could be
there only as the conquerors. Would Charlemagne try to conquer the Christian
Hispania just as he did with the Christian states of the Langobards, Bavaria,
etc.?
Pete Barrett
2017-06-18 12:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
One other thing - Hispania was one of the more cultured areas of western
Europe, and when the north-western Europe was cut off from contact with
it by the Muslim conquest, that must have had an effect on learning in
that region. By remaining Christian, it may stay in contact with the rest
of Europe. And by avoiding the reconquista, it may preserve and transmit
some learning which was OTL only available to the Muslims.
I would not overestimate a degree to which the Peninsula had been cut off
from the rest of Europe: creation of the Christian states started soon
after the initial Muslim conquest and these states had extensive
connections, cultural and dynastic, with their Christian neighbors.
No doubt, but ancient texts which seem to have been available in Muslim
Spain don't seem to have made it across the Pyrennees. Not all of those
texts would have been available in Gothic Spain (some of them may have
reached Muslim Spain from the Middle East via North Africa only _after_ the
conquest), but almost everything available in Gothic Spain OTL (before 750)
would have continued to be available, and would have percolated over the
mountains to north-western Europe.
Post by Alex Milman
Speaking about the relations, I wonder what would they be between Visigoth
in OTL the Franks were the saviors from the Muslims but in ATL they could
be there only as the conquerors. Would Charlemagne try to conquer the
Christian Hispania just as he did with the Christian states of the
Langobards, Bavaria, etc.?
I don't know why he would. The Pyrennees are an obvious border, so unless
he's called in by the Gothic kings, or they do something to provoke him, or
he gains some sort of dynastic claim in Iberia which he needs to defend,
wouldn't be more natural for him to concentrate on expanding elsewhere
(Saxony, Bavaria, the Danube, Dalmatia, the Baltic - he was fighting in all
of these areas)? And if he's not distracted by events across the Pyrennees,
he might be more effective, either in the sense of conquering more
territory, or absorbing the territory that he did conquer more completely.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-18 14:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
One other thing - Hispania was one of the more cultured areas of western
Europe, and when the north-western Europe was cut off from contact with
it by the Muslim conquest, that must have had an effect on learning in
that region. By remaining Christian, it may stay in contact with the rest
of Europe. And by avoiding the reconquista, it may preserve and transmit
some learning which was OTL only available to the Muslims.
I would not overestimate a degree to which the Peninsula had been cut off
from the rest of Europe: creation of the Christian states started soon
after the initial Muslim conquest and these states had extensive
connections, cultural and dynastic, with their Christian neighbors.
No doubt, but ancient texts which seem to have been available in Muslim
Spain don't seem to have made it across the Pyrennees. Not all of those
texts would have been available in Gothic Spain (some of them may have
reached Muslim Spain from the Middle East via North Africa only _after_ the
conquest), but almost everything available in Gothic Spain OTL (before 750)
would have continued to be available, and would have percolated over the
mountains to north-western Europe.
That's possible. Not sure about a true (vs. "alleged") value of these ancient
texts within framework of the future development.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Speaking about the relations, I wonder what would they be between Visigoth
in OTL the Franks were the saviors from the Muslims but in ATL they could
be there only as the conquerors. Would Charlemagne try to conquer the
Christian Hispania just as he did with the Christian states of the
Langobards, Bavaria, etc.?
I don't know why he would. The Pyrennees are an obvious border, so unless
he's called in by the Gothic kings, or they do something to provoke him, or
he gains some sort of dynastic claim in Iberia which he needs to defend,
wouldn't be more natural for him to concentrate on expanding elsewhere
(Saxony, Bavaria, the Danube, Dalmatia, the Baltic - he was fighting in all
of these areas)? And if he's not distracted by events across the Pyrennees,
he might be more effective, either in the sense of conquering more
territory, or absorbing the territory that he did conquer more completely.
I don't remember if he was ever provoked by Bavaria or by the Langobards
(other than within framework of "you did not submit, which is a pure
provocation"). It could be argued that the Saxons were a living provocation
by the virtue of their resistance to convert and that when his state expanded
enough the Avars also provoked him by "being there". But it OTL he did invade
the Peninsula (not too successfully, to be sure) and the Basques were
Christians. IMO Charlemagne had the same type of a personality as Nappy: he
simply could not bear an idea of NOT dominating the neighbors and domination
of a new one provided him with the new neighbors, etc. An excuse could always
be found. Besides, Visigoth state was considered to be rich so what other
provocation would he need? :-)

So all this would boil down to a pure physical ability to conquer, which would
be a subject of the military strength of Visigoth state and logistics. In OTL
Charlemagne and his son managed to establish control over the County of
Barcelona (which was in Muslim hands) and a part of Aragon but it seems that
soon enough these areas became de facto independent. It is anybody's guess
if Charlemagne or his successors could grab much more.
Pete Barrett
2017-06-19 16:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
One other thing - Hispania was one of the more cultured areas of
western Europe, and when the north-western Europe was cut off from
contact with it by the Muslim conquest, that must have had an effect
on learning in that region. By remaining Christian, it may stay in
contact with the rest of Europe. And by avoiding the reconquista, it
may preserve and transmit some learning which was OTL only available
to the Muslims.
I would not overestimate a degree to which the Peninsula had been cut
off from the rest of Europe: creation of the Christian states started
soon after the initial Muslim conquest and these states had extensive
connections, cultural and dynastic, with their Christian neighbors.
No doubt, but ancient texts which seem to have been available in Muslim
Spain don't seem to have made it across the Pyrennees. Not all of those
texts would have been available in Gothic Spain (some of them may have
reached Muslim Spain from the Middle East via North Africa only _after_
the conquest), but almost everything available in Gothic Spain OTL
(before 750) would have continued to be available, and would have
percolated over the mountains to north-western Europe.
That's possible. Not sure about a true (vs. "alleged") value of these
ancient texts within framework of the future development.
Since we don't know what they were, it's not surprising that neither you nor
I know what their true value was!
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Speaking about the relations, I wonder what would they be between
Visigoth Hispania and Frankish Kingdom. Well, there was also Aquitania
in between: in OTL the Franks were the saviors from the Muslims but in
ATL they could be there only as the conquerors. Would Charlemagne try
to conquer the Christian Hispania just as he did with the Christian
states of the Langobards, Bavaria, etc.?
I don't know why he would. The Pyrennees are an obvious border, so unless
he's called in by the Gothic kings, or they do something to provoke him,
or he gains some sort of dynastic claim in Iberia which he needs to
defend, wouldn't be more natural for him to concentrate on expanding
elsewhere (Saxony, Bavaria, the Danube, Dalmatia, the Baltic - he was
fighting in all of these areas)? And if he's not distracted by events
across the Pyrennees, he might be more effective, either in the sense of
conquering more territory, or absorbing the territory that he did conquer
more completely.
I don't remember if he was ever provoked by Bavaria or by the Langobards
(other than within framework of "you did not submit, which is a pure
provocation"). It could be argued that the Saxons were a living
provocation by the virtue of their resistance to convert and that when his
state expanded enough the Avars also provoked him by "being there". But it
OTL he did invade the Peninsula (not too successfully, to be sure) and the
Basques were Christians. IMO Charlemagne had the same type of a
personality as Nappy: he simply could not bear an idea of NOT dominating
the neighbors and domination of a new one provided him with the new
neighbors, etc. An excuse could always be found. Besides, Visigoth state
was considered to be rich so what other provocation would he need? :-)
Well the Pope called him in against the Lombards; and the Bavarians had been
subject to the Frankish kingdom under the Merovingians, so he wasn't doing
anything more than assert his authority as King of the Franks. In the case
of the Saxons and the Avars, he was expanding Christendom at the point of a
sword, something the Christians of the time would have had no qualms about.

The Basques straddled the Pyrennees, of course (still do), so suppressing
them on the French side would almost certainly entail at least some
operations on the Spanish side - but in the ATL, that could be done in
alliance with Gothic Spain, who would be no happier about Basque
independence on their side of the mountains than Charlemagne on his.

And as far as operations against Muslim Spain are concerned, according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Roncesvalles_campaign, Charlemagne
was called in by some of the emirs, who had a problem with Abd-al Rahman I.
In the ATL, that wouldn't happen, of course.

So I think it's quite possible that Charlemagne would stay north of the
Pyrennees, and concentrate his energies on eastward expansion.
Post by Alex Milman
So all this would boil down to a pure physical ability to conquer, which
would be a subject of the military strength of Visigoth state and
logistics. In OTL Charlemagne and his son managed to establish control
over the County of Barcelona (which was in Muslim hands) and a part of
Aragon but it seems that soon enough these areas became de facto
independent. It is anybody's guess if Charlemagne or his successors could
grab much more.
--
Pete BARRETT
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-16 04:02:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Miguel Farah F.
It seems that a continued Visigothic kingdom would
have been busy with its own Iberian affairs
(including the civil wars every freakin' time the
king died) to bother taking Mauritania Tingitana
I am looking at the very long term, i.e. the next
five centuries. It is unlikely that the disorder of
Gothic Iberia would persist so long, and (IMO) there
would be the occasional strong ruler or hungry nobles
who would go looking for fun overseas, and possibly
some quasi-Crusade expeditions.

Not any sort of well-organized or sustained efforts,
but a lot more pressure on the Moslem Maghreb than
OTL - when there was none.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-16 13:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Miguel Farah F.
It seems that a continued Visigothic kingdom would
have been busy with its own Iberian affairs
(including the civil wars every freakin' time the
king died) to bother taking Mauritania Tingitana
I am looking at the very long term, i.e. the next
five centuries. It is unlikely that the disorder of
Gothic Iberia would persist so long, and (IMO) there
would be the occasional strong ruler or hungry nobles
who would go looking for fun overseas, and possibly
some quasi-Crusade expeditions.
OK, if their state is to survive for a long period of time,
they'd have to achieve some internal stability which could be
either by setting a dynastic succession or succession by a
reasonably regulated election. The 1st option would, of course,
provide a greater stability but the 2nd could work as well
(HRE, Hungary, Poland).

Even before looking for fun overseas they can start looking for
it on the other side of the mountains: in OTL there were strong
ties between the rulers of Aragon and Toulouse (all the way to
Albigensian Crusade) so at least the attempts to expand into the
Southern France are not out of question.

Then, there could be dynastic marriages and other events leading to
the claims for the territories in, say, Italy (as happened in OTL).

Crusades in the Northern Africa could happen but in OTL they were either
a failure (Portuguese) or a temporary success (Charles V). It is hard to
tell how exactly the military system of the surviving Visigoth state will
evolve but, based on OTL experience, by the time of Almohad invasion Spanish
Christian states practically did not have an infantry while the invaders
had a reasonably good one (El Cid was the only commander who managed to win
with cavalry only a combined force). It seems that at the time of the initial
conquest the Visigoths had been lagging in tactics as well.

Adding to this the obvious problems related to fighting in the desert, the
significant successes in the North Africa look questionable. This, of course,
does not exclude a possibility of a long-term holding of some limited areas
(for example, Ceuta).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Not any sort of well-organized or sustained efforts,
but a lot more pressure on the Moslem Maghreb than
OTL - when there was none.
There were efforts in XVI by Spain and Portugal but they ended up with a
Spanish withdrawal (well, in OTL Spain was too busy elsewhere to maintain
a sustainable effort) and Portuguese defeat (with a following union with
Spain).

In general, the OTL western-European warfare was not well-suited for the
guerilla-style fighting: the Spaniards could beat the Janissary and capture
the coastal fortresses but they did not have the light troops capable of
acting effectively in the desert/semi-desert areas.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-16 22:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
am looking at the very long term, i.e. the next
Post by Rich Rostrom
five centuries. It is unlikely that the disorder of
Gothic Iberia would persist so long, and (IMO) there
would be the occasional strong ruler or hungry nobles
who would go looking for fun overseas, and possibly
some quasi-Crusade expeditions.
OK, if their state is to survive for a long period of time...
It does not matter whether the Visigothic state survives,
breaks up, or is replaced by an ethnically different regime.
(A French incursion, perhaps Scandinavians settling some
part of Iberia in the pattern of OTL Normandy.)

In any of these cases, it is overwhelmingly probable that at
some point Iberia will develop stronger political institutions
for at least some time, and these states will be Christian.
Even before looking for fun overseas they can start looking for
it on the other side of the mountains...
Which is the more likely theater for adventurism from Andalusia
and Portugal - southern France, a thousand km away across mountains,
or North Africa, 250 km away, across a narrow sea?

All-Christian Iberia would probably be much more involved in France
than OTL. The Moslems couldn't get to France after the 700s, and
the small Christian realms of the northern fringe lacked the muscle.

Again, this about 750-1050, not later periods when Christian
Iberia was much stronger.
... It is hard to tell how exactly the military
system of the surviving Visigoth state will evolve...
Impossible. And thus irrelevant. In the course of 500 years, Iberia
will develop new military forces, and will at some time become
effective. Possibly under Visigothic kings, or under other regimes.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Not any sort of well-organized or sustained efforts,
but a lot more pressure on the Moslem Maghreb than
OTL - when there was none.
There were efforts in XVI by Spain and Portugal...
750 years later than the PoD. The point I was making is about
that intervening period, when the Maghreb was beyond any Christian
reach OTL - but would not be ITTL.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-16 23:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
am looking at the very long term, i.e. the next
Post by Rich Rostrom
five centuries. It is unlikely that the disorder of
Gothic Iberia would persist so long, and (IMO) there
would be the occasional strong ruler or hungry nobles
who would go looking for fun overseas, and possibly
some quasi-Crusade expeditions.
OK, if their state is to survive for a long period of time...
It does not matter whether the Visigothic state survives,
breaks up, or is replaced by an ethnically different regime.
(A French incursion, perhaps Scandinavians settling some
part of Iberia in the pattern of OTL Normandy.)
In any of these cases, it is overwhelmingly probable that at
some point Iberia will develop stronger political institutions
for at least some time, and these states will be Christian.
With the premise being an absence of the Muslim conquest, this is
granted. However, to be safe from the future Muslim invasions the ATL
state must be reasonably strong and preferably united (at least as far as
this term is applicable to the medieval state).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Even before looking for fun overseas they can start looking for
it on the other side of the mountains...
Which is the more likely theater for adventurism from Andalusia
and Portugal - southern France, a thousand km away across mountains,
or North Africa, 250 km away, across a narrow sea?
If Hispania consisted only of these two parts, this could be a valid
consideration but for the Central/Northern regions the Northward direction
is much more probable and "adventurism" had been happening in that direction.
Post by Rich Rostrom
All-Christian Iberia would probably be much more involved in France
than OTL.
How this is going together with your previous statement to the contrary?
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Moslems couldn't get to France after the 700s, and
the small Christian realms of the northern fringe lacked the muscle.
Again, this about 750-1050, not later periods when Christian
Iberia was much stronger.
Well, in this ATL we are not talking about these small OTL states pressed from
the South.
Post by Rich Rostrom
... It is hard to tell how exactly the military
system of the surviving Visigoth state will evolve...
Impossible. And thus irrelevant. In the course of 500 years, Iberia
will develop new military forces, and will at some time become
effective. Possibly under Visigothic kings, or under other regimes.
If Hispania is a part of the Christian World it is a fair guess that the
developments will go along the same general lines as in the rest of the
Catholic Europe.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Not any sort of well-organized or sustained efforts,
but a lot more pressure on the Moslem Maghreb than
OTL - when there was none.
There were efforts in XVI by Spain and Portugal...
750 years later than the PoD.
Yes, I know.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The point I was making is about
that intervening period, when the Maghreb was beyond any Christian
reach OTL - but would not be ITTL.
The point I'm making is that the Western warfare of OTL was not well-suited
for the fighting in the desert or semi-desert areas against the light cavalry
if that cavalry was half decently led. On the top of it, unlike the pre-Ottoman
"Eastern front", the Muslim invaders (at least Almohades) had a decent infantry,
which the Spanish states of that time were lacking. Anyway, it is one thing
to defend your own territory and quite different to launch a reasonably big
scale seaborne operation with an intention substantially more serious than
just a coastal raiding. To start with, you'll need a navy. Then, you need a
tactical edge over your opponent and what it could be in VIII - XII? In OTL
Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (early XIII) was considered as some kind of a
miracle because it was the first time in a very long run when the Christians managed to win a pitched battle (the same Alfonso VIII suffered a crushing
defeat at Alarcose in 1195). While fighting was within the Peninsula, the
Moors had a limited strategic space because the areas that mattered were
reasonably densely populated (more or less the same goes for Outremer) but
this was not a situation in the Northern Africa (and Asia Minor, look how
well the German and French crusaders did there during the 2nd Crusade when
they did not have Byzantine assistance). How heavy cavalry would be able to
pursue the light one across the desert with any chance for success?

The examples of the later Spanish and Portuguese invasions are not directly
related to the earlier times but they show the problems which existed even
when the Western military system became noticeably more advanced than the
regional forces.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-18 16:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any of these cases, it is overwhelmingly probable that at
some point Iberia will develop stronger political institutions
for at least some time, and these states will be Christian.
With the premise being an absence of the Muslim conquest, this is
granted. However, to be safe from the future Muslim invasions the ATL
state must be reasonably strong and preferably united (at least as far as
this term is applicable to the medieval state).
The way southern Italy and Sicily were united?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Which is the more likely theater for adventurism from Andalusia
and Portugal - southern France, a thousand km away across mountains,
or North Africa, 250 km away, across a narrow sea?
If Hispania consisted only of these two parts, this could be a valid
consideration but for the Central/Northern regions the Northward direction
is much more probable and "adventurism" had been happening in that direction.
And if Iberia consisted only of its northern section,
all-Christian Iberia would be involved only in France.
But Iberia is not so composed, and and if _southern_
Iberia remained Christian, rather than Moslem, there
would be Christian Iberian involvement in the Maghreb,
in 750-1050, when OTL there was none.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
All-Christian Iberia would probably be much more involved in France
than OTL.
How this is going together with your previous statement to the contrary?
_What_ statement to the contrary? My first response
to this thread noted "Gothic pressure on France".
Post by Alex Milman
If Hispania is a part of the Christian World it is a fair guess that the
developments will go along the same general lines as in the rest of the
Catholic Europe.
Yes. With appropriate tweaks for the climate and
terrain of Iberia.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The point I was making is about
that intervening period, when the Maghreb was beyond any Christian
reach OTL - but would not be ITTL.
The point I'm making is that the Western warfare of OTL was not well-suited
for the fighting in the desert or semi-desert areas...
The Maghreb (areas north of the Atlas mountains and
along the coast) is not desert and semi-desert (at
least not more than southern Iberia is).

Iberian operations in the Maghreb would be inefficient,
but not completely ineffective. Like the Crusades in
the Near East, they could have considerable impact.

WHereas OTL, in the period in question, they were
nonexistent,
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-18 21:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any of these cases, it is overwhelmingly probable that at
some point Iberia will develop stronger political institutions
for at least some time, and these states will be Christian.
With the premise being an absence of the Muslim conquest, this is
granted. However, to be safe from the future Muslim invasions the ATL
state must be reasonably strong and preferably united (at least as far as
this term is applicable to the medieval state).
The way southern Italy and Sicily were united?
Visigoth Spain was united state with a reasonably well established laws and
even some notion of a national unity. AFAIK, Naples and Sicily did not
represent such a case.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Which is the more likely theater for adventurism from Andalusia
and Portugal - southern France, a thousand km away across mountains,
or North Africa, 250 km away, across a narrow sea?
If Hispania consisted only of these two parts, this could be a valid
consideration but for the Central/Northern regions the Northward direction
is much more probable and "adventurism" had been happening in that direction.
And if Iberia consisted only of its northern section,
all-Christian Iberia would be involved only in France.
But Iberia is not so composed, and and if _southern_
Iberia remained Christian, rather than Moslem, there
would be Christian Iberian involvement in the Maghreb,
in 750-1050, when OTL there was none.
Well, there was "involvement" in "France" (which was not, yet,
France) prior to the Muslim conquest - Pyrenees were not a
real border and for quite a while Septimania was a part of
the kingdom and even in the VII century most of the governors
and holders of the public offices were Goths. In OTL it became
a march of the Frankish Empire so it is reasonable
to assume that in ATL some tensions would arise over control of
that area.

Even your reasoning does not exclude activities on the North while
assuming that in ATL the Visigoths will be much more active in
Africa than they were in OTL. Of course, the notion of the Crusades
is hardly applicable to the VIII century and your idea assumes existence
of a reasonably strong Visigoth navy and an absence of other problems
so that the help to the Christians of Maghreb becomes a high priority.
BTW, you still did not produce any information on how numerous and
strong they were (judging by what Yusuf wrote, they were hardly a serious
factor in Maghreb, unlike Egypt).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
All-Christian Iberia would probably be much more involved in France
than OTL.
How this is going together with your previous statement to the contrary?
_What_ statement to the contrary?
All that you wrote about Andalusia and Portugal.
Post by Rich Rostrom
My first response
to this thread noted "Gothic pressure on France".
Ability to conduct an aggressive policies BOTH on North and South assumes
very strong state.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
If Hispania is a part of the Christian World it is a fair guess that the
developments will go along the same general lines as in the rest of the
Catholic Europe.
Yes. With appropriate tweaks for the climate and
terrain of Iberia.
OK, whatever these "tweaks" are supposed to be, by the time of the Almohades
invasion the Spanish Christian states had "classic" feudal armies strongly
relying on knights and seemingly no infantry useful in the field. Situation
was slowly changing over the centuries but creation of the high-quality
Spanish infantry is credited to the Great Captain, which is WELL after the
time period we are talking about.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The point I was making is about
that intervening period, when the Maghreb was beyond any Christian
reach OTL - but would not be ITTL.
The point I'm making is that the Western warfare of OTL was not well-suited
for the fighting in the desert or semi-desert areas...
The Maghreb (areas north of the Atlas mountains and
along the coast) is not desert and semi-desert (at
least not more than southern Iberia is).
Iberian operations in the Maghreb would be inefficient,
but not completely ineffective.
If they would happen, which is anything but obvious.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Like the Crusades in
the Near East, they could have considerable impact.
WHereas OTL, in the period in question, they were
nonexistent,
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-19 21:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any of these cases, it is overwhelmingly probable that at
some point Iberia will develop stronger political institutions
for at least some time, and these states will be Christian.
With the premise being an absence of the Muslim conquest, this is
granted. However, to be safe from the future Muslim invasions the ATL
state must be reasonably strong and preferably united (at least as far as
this term is applicable to the medieval state).
The way southern Italy and Sicily were united?
Visigoth Spain was united state with a reasonably well established laws and
even some notion of a national unity. AFAIK, Naples and Sicily did not
represent such a case.
And yet southern Italy was never conquered by Islam, and
Sicily was held by Islam for a relatively short time.
Thus a strong national state was not a requirement to
resist Moslem invasion.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Which is the more likely theater for adventurism from Andalusia
and Portugal - southern France, a thousand km away across mountains,
or North Africa, 250 km away, across a narrow sea?
If Hispania consisted only of these two parts, this could be a valid
consideration but for the Central/Northern regions the Northward direction
is much more probable and "adventurism" had been happening in that direction.
And if Iberia consisted only of its northern section,
all-Christian Iberia would be involved only in France.
But Iberia is not so composed, and and if _southern_
Iberia remained Christian, rather than Moslem, there
would be Christian Iberian involvement in the Maghreb,
in 750-1050, when OTL there was none.
Well, there was "involvement" in "France" (which was not, yet,
France) prior to the Muslim conquest - Pyrenees were not a
real border and for quite a while Septimania was a part of
the kingdom and even in the VII century most of the governors
and holders of the public offices were Goths. In OTL it became
a march of the Frankish Empire so it is reasonable
to assume that in ATL some tensions would arise over control of
that area.
Have I ever written otherwise?
Post by Alex Milman
Even your reasoning does not exclude activities on the North
Why do you keep attacking this straw man?
Post by Alex Milman
while
assuming that in ATL the Visigoths will be much more active in
Africa than they were in OTL. Of course, the notion of the Crusades
is hardly applicable to the VIII century...
This PoD is centuries before the OTL Crusades, which therefore will
not happen in the same way or at the same time or with the same name.

My suggestion is only this:

In the _seven_ _centuries_ after the PoD, OTL Iberian
Christians were fully occupied with fighting Moslems
in Iberia. ATL Iberian Christians would not be so
occupied, and would be much stronger and more
numerous. Thus at some times during that _seven_
_centuries_, Iberian Christians _might_ experience an
episode of enthusiasm for religious war, _similar_ to
OTL's Crusades, with the most likely target being the
nearest non-Christian realms in the Maghreb.

This would be significant change from OTL, and a
direct consequence of the PoD.
Post by Alex Milman
and your idea assumes existence
of a reasonably strong Visigoth navy and an absence of other problems
so that the help to the Christians of Maghreb becomes a high priority.
Nothing of the kind. Was there a strong French navy when
William of Normandy invaded England? Or a strong French
state? Was the invasion of England a high priority for
anyone except William and his followers?

That is, of course, the most famous and most successful
example of a noble going filibustering, but not the only case.
Post by Alex Milman
BTW, you still did not produce any information on how numerous and
strong they were (judging by what Yusuf wrote, they were hardly a serious
factor in Maghreb, unlike Egypt).
No one has strong demographic data about the period
and area. There were enough Christians living there
to produce a Church Father (Augustine of Hippo), and
to provide a list of martyrs killed in the Almohad
persecutions.

But after the Almohads there were none.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
All-Christian Iberia would probably be much more involved in France
than OTL.
How this is going together with your previous statement to the contrary?
_What_ statement to the contrary?
All that you wrote about Andalusia and Portugal.
How does anything I wrote about Andalusia or Portugal
argue against greater Iberian involvement in France?

Or do you assert that Iberian activities in France
in 750-1450 drew on Andalusia or Portugal?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
My first response
to this thread noted "Gothic pressure on France".
Ability to conduct an aggressive policies BOTH on
North and South assumes very strong state.
Why is it so hard to understand that the discussion
is about what could happen from time to time across
_seven_ _hundred_ _years-, not about some fixed and
continuous "policy"?

Was the French state "very strong" when French forces
intervened in Castile in the 1360s?
Post by Alex Milman
Situation was slowly changing over the centuries but
creation of the high-quality Spanish infantry is
credited to the Great Captain, which is WELL after
the time period we are talking about.
Do you really think that across 700 years, no
Christian Iberian state ever had good infantry?

The tercios represent one period when Spain had some
very good infantry, but that one episode of prominence
does not translate to "there was nothing else ever".

Nearly all medieval armies had infantry - sometimes
good, sometimes bad. Looking around, I find this book:

James F. Powers,
_A Society Organized for War: The Iberian Municipal
Militias in the Central Middle Ages, 1000­1284._

Almost certainly such forces would be infantry, and
they were large enough to merit substantial scholarly study.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-21 13:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any of these cases, it is overwhelmingly probable that at
some point Iberia will develop stronger political institutions
for at least some time, and these states will be Christian.
With the premise being an absence of the Muslim conquest, this is
granted. However, to be safe from the future Muslim invasions the ATL
state must be reasonably strong and preferably united (at least as far as
this term is applicable to the medieval state).
The way southern Italy and Sicily were united?
Visigoth Spain was united state with a reasonably well established laws and
even some notion of a national unity. AFAIK, Naples and Sicily did not
represent such a case.
And yet southern Italy was never conquered by Islam, and
Sicily was held by Islam for a relatively short time.
Thus a strong national state was not a requirement to
resist Moslem invasion.
Not a requirement but Visigoth state was united and had reasonably well
developed state structures so how this is relevant?

[]
Post by Rich Rostrom
How does anything I wrote about Andalusia or Portugal
argue against greater Iberian involvement in France?
What you wrote assumes that each geographic area is behaving independently
which is less likely in the case of a state with a reasonably strong central
power. Example of William the Bastard is not applicable because France of the
XI century obviously was not one. OTOH, it seems that in the Visigoth state
the most independent entities were on the North, not South.


[]
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Situation was slowly changing over the centuries but
creation of the high-quality Spanish infantry is
credited to the Great Captain, which is WELL after
the time period we are talking about.
Do you really think that across 700 years, no
Christian Iberian state ever had good infantry?
At the time of the 1st conquest the Visigoth army had both
cavalry and infantry but the infantry was seemingly not up
to the task: a big pat of it were personally unfree people
raised from occasion to occasion, some raised by the royal
power (but not a part of the personal royal band) and some
by the local feudals. Desertion or dodging the call was a
problem (King Wamba was issuing special regulations on that
account).


By the time of Almohades invasion they clearly did not.
This is why that invasion was successful: the Christian
cavalry had been facing cavalry and a reasonably well
organized infantry. Only El Cid managed to win against
that combination.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The tercios represent one period when Spain had some
very good infantry, but that one episode of prominence
does not translate to "there was nothing else ever".
"Nothing else ever" is your invention. You are seemingly
confusing 2 different things. Of course, there was always
_some_ infantry (city militias, garrisons, etc.) but this
is not the same as "the high-quality infantry" which can make
(consistently) a difference on a battlefield.

When Gonsalvo landed in Italy he started creating the Spanish infantry
out of the "raw material" available by the end of Reconquista and
his initial experiments were all over the place. The tercios were the
final step in a process he started.

Nothing unique there.

Carolingian warfare drifted from the traditional Frankish militia (mostly
infantry) to a more mobile system based on the heavy cavalry and the
process continued for the following centuries across the Western Europe
(Spain including). Probably the same, with some modifications, applied to
the Christian part of the Eastern Europe as well.

France after the 100YW ended up with having the permanent army based on the
lance unit and it does not look like the archers played and serious role in
any of the battles even if there were some at Monthlery: the dismounted
knights (and their followers) still had been used as a substitute of an
infantry. During the Italian Wars France was systematically hiring the Swiss
to compensate for the absence of its own infantry. SOME infantry was developed
during the Wars of Religion (and even relatively progressive in the terms of
a fire to pike ratio) but after the war these troops were disbanded and
France did not have a high quality NATIONAL infantry all the only to the end
of the reign of Louis XIII: the Battle of Rocroi was considered a "birthday"
of the French infantry (of course, the process started few years earlier when
Richelieu finally figured out that hiring foreign armies is not a substitute
of having one of your own).

At Tannenberg/Grunwald the Order's infantry had been guarding the wagenburg
and I'm not sure if there was too much of an infantry on an opposite side.

In Italy with its numerous city states situation was a little bit different
but by the time of the Italian Wars the condottieri companies were built on
a "lance" basis. The "English system" was unique enough to guarantee the
victories of Hawkins and his band.

Charles the Bold was trying to create a "modern" army with some infantry but
his infantry was administratively attached to the lances, which prevented any
meaningful usage.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-21 19:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
With the premise being an absence of the Muslim conquest, this is
granted. However, to be safe from the future Muslim invasions the ATL
state must be reasonably strong and preferably united (at least as far as
this term is applicable to the medieval state).
The way southern Italy and Sicily were united?
Visigoth Spain was united state with a reasonably well established laws and
even some notion of a national unity. AFAIK, Naples and Sicily did not
represent such a case.
And yet southern Italy was never conquered by Islam, and
Sicily was held by Islam for a relatively short time.
Thus a strong national state was not a requirement to
resist Moslem invasion.
Not a requirement but Visigoth state was united and had reasonably well
developed state structures so how this is relevant?
It is a direct response to your comment quoted above.
(The first quoted paragraph in this post.)
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rob
2017-06-16 00:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
Actually the Visigoths converted to Catholicism prior to the Muslim invasion.

The Ostrogoths remained Arian for the duration of their rule over Italy, but that was a bit shorter, scarecely more than 50 years.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-16 21:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
The Moslem Maghreb will be exposed to Christian counterattack,
and not supported by Moslem Iberia. This could (probably does)
lead to survival of Christianity in the Maghreb, similar to
Christianity in the Moslem-ruled Near East. Also diminished
Christianity in the Muslim Near East did not survive because
of Christian raids. The portion that did not survive were the
Roman / Greek elite along the coasts and some cities. These
people were not very much liked by the local Christian
Aramaean, Arab and Coptic population either.

It appears that North Africa was very superficially
Christianized, most were the Roman and Greek elite
and some Hellenized Berbers in big cities along or
near the coast. Again, these people stood out as
foreign to the Berbers, whose military value was
aprreciated and privilages were given to them even
if they remained pagan.

One exception was Qafsa / "Gafsa" (in Tunisia),
Latin Capsa which still had a bishopric in the
9th cent. and perhaps until the 12th. Idrisi (12th cent.)
remarked that the "Latin" of Sardinia resembled that
of N. Africa. Probably the remaining North African
Romance speakers, who were Christian, dissolved
amongst the Italian and Spanish traders.

I presume that the remaining Byzantine Greeks of the
Levant and Egypt dissolved amongst mainland Greek
traders that came and went and sometimes took up
residence.
Post by Rich Rostrom
activity of the Barbary pirates.
Possible Christian missionary work along the West Africa
coast in 800-1300 CE. Moslem expansion was across the
Sahara, and they ignored the coast, AFAICT. Christian
expansion along the coast was blocked till the 1400s. This
could mean earlier and greater Christianization of that
area.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
pyotr filipivich
2017-06-21 21:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start...
The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Knock-ons...
Gothic rather than Moslem pressure on the Franks; no battle of Tours,
obviously.
The Goths were Arian; if they remain Arian, besides that
direct effect (Arianism persists), the religious unity of
Western Europe never really arises.
The Goths had been Arians - the whole "filioque" controversy stems
from that addition at the Council of Toledo, which was intended to
combat/correct the error in Iberia.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-16 21:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Umayyad conquest of Hispania (711 to 788) failed or did not even start (say,
the Byzantine ruler of Ceuta did not provide the ships for transporting the
troops). The Peninsula remains under the Visigoth rule.
Consequences?
Iberian Romance wouldn't be so distinct.
Post by Alex Milman
[
Perhaps a factor in Roderic's defeat and the following Muslim
conquest was the fact that Roderic was an usurper and his coup resulted
in splitting the country into two factions, with the southwest (the provinces of Lusitania and western Carthaginiensis around the capital Toledo) in Roderic's hands and the northeast (Tarraconensis and Narbonensis) in the hands of Achila. At least according to the legend at the battle of Guadalete some
of the Visigoth leaders betrayed him (taking into an account that most of
them presumably died in a battle the whole thing looks a little bit on a
sado-masochistic side) and it seems that after the battle at least some of the
local rulers made deal with the invaders.
Presumably, the military organization of the kingdom was not very strong,
being based on the troops raised by the aristocratic clans and king's own following, but, OTOH, this model does not look too different from the "typical"
organization of the feudal armies elsewhere and from the armies that started
Reconquista just years after the Muslim conquest. The earlier Muslim raids
had been successfully repulsed (by King Wamba).
]
Loading...