Post by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromPost by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromIn 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 MilmanPost by Rich RostromPost by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromWhich 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 MilmanEven your reasoning does not exclude activities on the North
Why do you keep attacking this straw man?
Post by Alex Milmanwhile
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 Milmanand 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 MilmanBTW, 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 MilmanPost by Rich RostromPost by Alex MilmanPost by Rich RostromAll-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 MilmanPost by Rich RostromMy 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 MilmanSituation 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