Not
Not only that, landless and seconds sons also serve as that counted as a job(at times much needed)
WI: Umar ibn Hafsun defeats the Umayyads - Mozarab/Muladí Al-Andalus
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
Bomster
Gone Fishin'
@holycookie How does the Battle of Poley (891) sound as a POD? Around 885 Umar ibn Hafsun moved his headquarters to the city of Poley, now Aguilar de la Frontera, only 50 kilometers from the capital Cordoba. In 891 the forces of the Umayyad Emir Abdullah ibn Muhammad defeated Umar ibn Hafsun in battle, and ibn Hafsun would withdraw to his previous headquarters in Bobastro. Because of Poley’s strategic importance, holding it would have given Umar ibn Hafsun the perfect staging ground to directly attack the heart of Umayyad authority. I can’t find too much about the specifics of the battle however.
Well considered that the Berbers generated two apocalyptic caliphates, I would say that soon
This is something very interesting, adding to the chaos in the region.
I would say that it would be the ideal moment for the victory of the Hafsunite rebellion, it was the moment when the Umayyad dynasty could really disappear from al-Andalus. Umar's army was plundering the Cordoba countryside, which was absolutely essential to feeding the capital, so the matter was not to be taken lightly because famine in Cordoba could lead to the deposition of the Umayyads. Emir Abd Allah managed to gather an army of 14 thousand soldiers, including professionals and volunteers, against a rebel army of around 30 thousand. In theory, this should have been a victory for Umar. The victory would have opened Cordoba to relatively easy conquest.
as this map shows the emirate is on fire and the Umayyad elite controlled only the surroundings of Cordoba.
iirc Maghrebi jihad was more vigilant in frontiers and more relaxed in the Maghrebi base.
considering the concurrent revolt could ibn Hafsun consolidate al Andalus if he topples the Ummayyads AIR from wikipedia last year the Ummayyads weathered out this crisis by sending different rebellions against each other. Without this delegation and triangulation have we just fasttracked the first Andalusi fitna.This is something very interesting, adding to the chaos in the region.
I would say that it would be the ideal moment for the victory of the Hafsunite rebellion, it was the moment when the Umayyad dynasty could really disappear from al-Andalus. Umar's army was plundering the Cordoba countryside, which was absolutely essential to feeding the capital, so the matter was not to be taken lightly because famine in Cordoba could lead to the deposition of the Umayyads. Emir Abd Allah managed to gather an army of 14 thousand soldiers, including professionals and volunteers, against a rebel army of around 30 thousand. In theory, this should have been a victory for Umar. The victory would have opened Cordoba to relatively easy conquest.
as this map shows the emirate is on fire and the Umayyad elite controlled only the surroundings of Cordoba.
Yes, that is true, but it did not prevent the creation of two powerful caliphates.
This is possible, as a whole it will depend on Uma and the Muladi coalition (Which has clans like the Qasi as supporters).
Bomster
Gone Fishin'
Magrebis could become powerful enemies of the Andalusians, unless the Andalusians establish influence over North Africa first and perhaps export their religion. There’s almost 200 years between Umar ibn Hafsun’s life and the Almoravid occupation of Al-Andalus, so hopefully that’s enough time to butterfly them.
I feel that Umar’s Muladí coalition and his proposals for autonomy should be able to keep Al-Andalus together long enough to prevent an earlier Taifa period. Additionally looking at the map above it seems most of the revolts were from Muladí locals too, with some Berber families as well. Was Umar popular enough to stave off a total collapse?
Last edited:
He had diplomatic conversations with Emirate Aglábida and then the Fatimids, which in theory indicates great pragmatism. But considering that he changed his religion when it was more convenient, I would say he will make any kind of agreement to establish his dynasty in the emirate.
These revolts as said by the book "REBELLIONS AND POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION OF AL-ANDALUS: A STUDY OF THE REVOLT OF 'UMAR IBN ḤAFṢŪN IN THE PERIOD OF THE AMĪR 'ABD ALLĀH (888-912)" states that Umar managed to form a coalition of rebels. The reason this coalition is viable in a place as diverse as Andalus is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the rebels were Muwallad (muladi) and were against the Umayyad and the Arabs. So you kind of had a consensus on replacing the Arab elite with the Muladi elite. I would say that replacing one group with another is viable, it won't be pretty. Probably the Umayyads together with the absolute majority of the Arab clans (and a good part of the Berber clans) will be purged. But this will create space for the emergence of a local elite more linked to this land. Hopefully this will also end the ethnic and religious segregation that the Umayyads had (it was quite serious, you had parts of the city that were exclusive to each ethnic group).
Well if we have a Muladi Andalus the butterfly will make Almoravids and Almohads disappear and change the political dynamics of the region, so the 200 years gap is not feasible here, probably 50 or after the death of Ibn Hafsun 'the wise'.
Bomster
Gone Fishin'
What was the situation like in North Africa at the end of the 9th century? Based on my limited knowledge (and over a thousand hours in Crusader Kings III), North Africa at this time was politically fragmented ever since the Umayyads collapsed, with the Abbasids being more eastern oriented than western. I think the Shia Fatimids show up soon, but maybe butterflies change that. Would a stronger Al-Andalus have projected power in the Maghreb? Also, since this Alt-Andalus uses Mozarabic as its court language, could we see the survival of African Romance under the umbrella of Mozarabic?
Well, the Fatimid Caliphate in the OTL ascended 8 years before Umar died (If he died in the same year as in the OTL), and in the OTL this rise generated an Umayyad intervention in the Morroco region. So it is likely that the new dynasty will be forced to do the same. So while it's difficult to say something specific, the region is going to be a mess.
I would say that considering how new this dynasty is when compared to the Umayyads, they can act in two ways, more aggressive or more shy than the Umayyads. If they are more timid, they will probably invade in the same way and hold Melilla, Ceuta and Tangier (thus controlling the Maghreb's access to Iberia). In OTL the Umayyads then occupied the rest of northern Morocco, and spent the next century fighting for control of Morocco against the Fatimids. The most careful case they would expand in the north of Morocco securing that region and a few other important regions such as Alhucemas, the Chafarinas Islands, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera. After that they would strengthen the navy and let the locals fight with the Fatimids. Perhaps they even supported local Berber dynasties against the Fatimids and the local Arab dynasty, the Idrisid. Basically doing the English tactic of preventing an invasion, doing as little as possible and only supporting it indirectly. in the more agressive case they expand more than the Umayyads did in the otl. If it works in theory, they would probably expand to Algeria.
For comparison this is the Umayyad control in the 10 century
This is important because it would be the new emirate's first major campaign and future campaigns used this as a base.
If the tactic of naval expansion, control of key regions and playing the powers of the Maghreb against each other works I imagine they will repeat this on a larger scale. So future expansion will likely be focused on controlling the western Mediterranean. First the Balearic Islands (this is relatively easy) followed by the islands of Sardine and Sicily. If the country secures Sicily and the 6 conglomerates of islands around it, it will have control of most of the western Mediterranean and access to the eastern Mediterranean.
To give you an idea, these were the regions that Portugal and Spain controlled. it would be a more indirect tactic. in which you spend less manpower but gain more economic power. This of course doesn't paint the map but it is a more solid empire in my opinion, especially with the fact that Asturia and France are neighbors of the country. France alone will suck up a large number of manpower. That and in this era we have Vikings who are a problem.
Now if the tactic that gains prominence is expansion, the country will try to expand throughout the Maghreb, probably doing the same thing that the Umayyads did on a larger scale. This will require much more manpower, money and special attention to control the various Berber tribes. But on the other hand it probably allows the emirate to paint the map and directly access the resources of the Maghreb as well as its maintenance costs.
Another factor that is vital is religion and how Muladi Islam will be accepted by the Maghreb. Umar and his descendants may have difficulty gaining support as the Umayyds did, combining this with the Shia rising to the east could generate an orthodox Sunnite Berber movement. This movement can be used by the Idrisid to try to garner support or it can be used by some local Berber. What could also happen is about 20 years of chaos and something coming out of it.
As @Nivek said African Romance is kind of already dead. Now if Mozarabic is the court language you can have it adopted by groups that support Andalus. But it is more likely that the Maghreb will stick to their local Berber and Arabic dialects. And Mozarabic is seen as something unique to the Iberian region. If mozarabic together with the peculiar Islam practiced by the Muladi generates a certain feeling of isolation, it can create two reactions.
The first an adoption of Arab language and culture (considering that the revolt is mostly anti-Arab, I find this unlikely). The second is they double down on this quirk and use it as a form of self elevation. This can be something as simple as a form of identity affirmation or it can go the opposite way and go into a peculiar form of Shu'ubiyya.
If we use Ibn Gharsiya who was a leading proponent and advocate of the Shu'ubiyya thought in Al-Andalus as a basis. Ibn Gharsiya asserts cultural superiority of the Muwalladun over the Arab (and racia as welll ;using the heritage of the Visigoths, Slavs, and Romans. Romans in particular was used frequently, interestingly Persian as well as a way of comparing Arabic with these two groups. Basically he fought Arab racism with Muladi racism). An example of how he did this is the boast about the Muladi mastery of natural philosophy, exact logic, astronomy, music, arithmetic, and geometry, he ridicules Arabs as experts in the description of towering camels. He attempted to formulate and legitimize a non-Arab alternative to Arab rule which involved combining Arab and non-Arab traditions, which were mainly Persian and Byzantine.
Last edited:
If you want the Muslim to keep Arabic romance you need a swiftier conquest.
Here when culture might not be adopted, Arabic as the second language or co-official would be vital in expansion, to keep religious legitimacy.
I would say that's the biggest problem, religious legitimacy. Muladi Islam is very unorthodox, having things like prayer to saints. This in itself will generate a very bad reaction from the orthodox Islamic community (aka the absolute majority of Muslim nations). The biggest advantage of the Muladi is that they are far from the center of Islam's power. The one who will probably benefit from this is the Arab dynasty of Morocco, which will probably have Andalusian Islam and the Shia as neighbors, allowing it to gain legitimacy as the only sane important figure of Sunnite Islam on this side of the world.
Not really- veneration of saints is a pretty well established thing in the Islamic tradition, even if it hasn’t become as mainstream to attribute miracles to people well versed in Sufism as it will be after 1200.
As far as I know, praying to saints is something not allowed. From what I've read, most people when they talk about prayer and saints deny the idea of praying to saints. One who spoke about saints said this: "There is no place whatsoever to pray to a Wali, or even to a Prophet. The Awliyah are people who we can take examples from, we can learn lessons from, and we can study from their works. But they are not to be prayed to, worshipped, called upon, or asked for anything. They have no power to give, no ability to grant, and no strength to offer us. They are the servants of God and fully dependent on His Mercy, as we are.". Although the way I am talking about saints in a more similar to Catholicism, with saints having important functions and people praying to them together with God. So a fishermen could, for example, pray to Allah and Saint Peter: the patron saint of fishermen.
But Sufism was very popular in Andalusia throughout its history, Ibn Arabi for exemple has a importante figure of that sect in andalus. For example, Ibn Arab's concept of Unity of Existence was very different. While mainstream Islam emphasizes the transcendence and otherness of God, Ibn Arabi's teachings emphasizes the notion that all existence is ultimately a manifestation of the divine.
But there is a difference between Sufis and praying to saints. Sufism, focuses on developing a personal relationship with God and seeking spiritual enlightenment. Sufis may venerate or revere spiritual masters or saints as exemplary individuals who have attained a high level of spiritual realization or closeness to God. However, this veneration is not equivalent to worship, and it does not involve praying to saints as intermediaries between humans and God. Muladi practice, probably due to their mixed origin, adopted Christian customs mixed with Islam. Something that the Umayyads did not accept and sought to end this by maintaining an orthodoxy in Islam.
This flexibility and mixture between Islam and Christianity is well demonstrated in that it was easy for muladi leaders like Umar to change religions. Umar ibn Hafsun's syncretic practices involved blending elements of Islam with pre-Islamic Iberian traditions. He would have Incorporation of pre-Islamic festivals, rituals, customs, etc. His syncretic approach aimed to create a sense of cultural integration and acceptance, blending elements of Islamic and pre-Islamic Iberian traditions within a broader framework of likely religious and cultural identity.
Last edited:
In Catholicism as well though prayer to saints isn’t allowed- you ask for the saints intercession with god.
In Islam, even though the saint can’t be asked for anything, the belief is still very prevalent that the barakat of the saint can cause miracles both while they’re alive and also at their graves, and can be used to cure illnesses etc. Saints, both alive and dead can also communicate with people, and signal divine favour.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnRe67HyfUhbwewK-xeHFStoHDvNnAKx1gtekxybEwQg&s
Nope, don't mix folk shikr with the faith
You’re allowed to practice your own faith however you like, and even think it makes people not real Muslims if they do the things i described, but it’s ahistorical to say that that wasn’t a big part of Islamic cultures from at least the 1200s-1900, was the official position of Muslim rulers and courts, many well educated theologians who centred their whole identities around Islamic knowledge as well as the folk beliefs of rural communities.
To ask for a citation is kinda silly because it’s so well attested and accepted as part of the historical record I could literally give you thousands. You might as well ask for a citation that the Roman Empire existed on the basis of it not being part of your life now/ what you would consider a legitimate government.
Once again that is again the concept of absolute monotheism, shikir concept exist because that