AHC: Christian Asia Minor, Islamic Iberia

[Buba]

recognizable France and England, both in control over most of their OTL territory.

England can break up, while France might never be united by the Crown.

Neither France nor England as we know it are predetermined.
In OTL England could had broken up in the early XVth between Wales, North and South, while French unification i.e. imposition of Royal authority over the whole country was a close run thing and could had gone off the rails many times. In OTL France being stuck in a similar mode to the HRE was possible up to the late XVth century, with true unification only coming in the XVIIth.
With the Ebro Valley as a battleground and a different landscpae of northern Iberia the politics of the "French" south will be different from OTL, this affecting the "north of the Loire" area and also impacting upon English and Scottish politics. And the Low Countries!
BTW - with Iberia being an anti-Moslem battleground for longer and further north than in OTL, maybe that syphons off some HRE crusaders, cutting into Teutonic Knights' recruitment and financial base and thus weakens their expansion? Making the Prussian Rebellion of 1280 successful?
In OTL the Sword Brethen were a failure and were bailed out by the Teutonic Knights - maybe here they get thrown back into the sea, Livonia being conquered a century (?) later by Denmark/Kalmar Union Scandinavia?
Italy is different - Aragon is not a player ... but the Eastern Romans are ...
Butterflies everywhere

 

[stevep]

I can foresee the Byzantines long term undergoing a Basil II style renaissance, taking the place of the Ottomans as far as Balkan expansion. Perhaps, too, they can come to puppet/annex the Crusader states in the Levant and then fulfill Manuel's OTL goals for re-conquering Egypt. In essence, restoring the Pre-Islam borders of the Empire, sans the Justinian conquests in the West albeit with much of the rest of the Balkans under their influence?

Such, combined with no Spain, brings up a very important question: what happens with the New World? Obviously, without the economic incentive of Muslims controlling Constantinople nor the Levant, such removes a very big "push" factor that led to the New World.

Does it? The big issue was the growing domination of land routes to the east by a single power, OTL the Ottomans. Here basically the same applies but its Orthodox Byzantium rather than Muslim Ottomans. They would have a similar monopoly on access to eastern spices.

Also if there is a powerful Muslim Spain, then judging by the OTL Barbary states that could be a hell of a problem for western European coastal nations and hence an incentive to develop their own naval power. They would be serious problem for any attempt to find a sea route via Africa which might forces someone else to gamble on a Columbus strategy.

 

[History Learner]

Does it? The big issue was the growing domination of land routes to the east by a single power, OTL the Ottomans. Here basically the same applies but its Orthodox Byzantium rather than Muslim Ottomans. They would have a similar monopoly on access to eastern spices.

Also if there is a powerful Muslim Spain, then judging by the OTL Barbary states that could be a hell of a problem for western European coastal nations and hence an incentive to develop their own naval power. They would be serious problem for any attempt to find a sea route via Africa which might forces someone else to gamble on a Columbus strategy.

For the first, it's not as big of an issue given Byzantium was a Christian power; the Ottomans being Muslim and having a strategic economic advantage was very much cause for concern for the rest of Christian Europe. The rest though is a good point and very interesting to consider, although IIRC Muslim Spain was never much in the raiding business. The Barbary pirates were, as you note, but that reflected local economic conditions a lot.

England can break up, while France might never be united by the Crown.

Neither France nor England as we know it are predetermined.
In OTL England could had broken up in the early XVth between Wales, North and South, while French unification i.e. imposition of Royal authority over the whole country was a close run thing and could had gone off the rails many times. In OTL France being stuck in a similar mode to the HRE was possible up to the late XVth century, with true unification only coming in the XVIIth.
With the Ebro Valley as a battleground and a different landscpae of northern Iberia the politics of the "French" south will be different from OTL, this affecting the "north of the Loire" area and also impacting upon English and Scottish politics. And the Low Countries!
BTW - with Iberia being an anti-Moslem battleground for longer and further north than in OTL, maybe that syphons off some HRE crusaders, cutting into Teutonic Knights' recruitment and financial base and thus weakens their expansion? Making the Prussian Rebellion of 1280 successful?
In OTL the Sword Brethen were a failure and were bailed out by the Teutonic Knights - maybe here they get thrown back into the sea, Livonia being conquered a century (?) by Denmark/Kalmar Union Scandinavia?
Italy is different - Aragon is not a player ... but the Eastern Romans are ...
Butterflies everywhere

This is really interesting, what do you suspect will happen? Honestly seems like an incentive for an earlier industrialization, I think.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Re: England and France, isn't it possible to avert the fall of the Angevin Empire with a 1176 POD? The Plantagenet family tree was still massive - Henry the Young King didn't die until 1183, and depending on how generous you're willing to be with butterflies, you could even save his prematurely born son William (born & died 1177). And if the younger Henry does still die childless, it's also within the realm of possibility that Richard the Lionheart has a legitimate son (he did historically have at least one bastard, Philip of Cognac) or is succeeded by his nephew Arthur of Brittany; if either turn out to be more competent and luckier war leaders than their youngest uncle John, you could in turn butterfly away the near-complete collapse of England's mainland holdings and the Magna Carta under the latter's reign.

 

[History Learner]

Re: England and France, isn't it possible to avert the fall of the Angevin Empire with a 1176 POD? The Plantagenet family tree was still massive - Henry the Young King didn't die until 1183, and depending on how generous you're willing to be with butterflies, you could even save his prematurely born son William (born & died 1177). And if the younger Henry does still die childless, it's also within the realm of possibility that Richard the Lionheart has a legitimate son (he did historically have at least one bastard, Philip of Cognac) or is succeeded by his nephew Arthur of Brittany; if either turn out to be more competent and luckier war leaders than their youngest uncle John, you could in turn butterfly away the near-complete collapse of England's mainland holdings and the Magna Carta under the latter's reign.

IIRC, you could also get England in the HRE at this point still....

 

[f1onagher]

Maintaining Muslim rule of Iberia is pretty simple. If Al-Andalus hadn't fallen apart and eventually gotten usurped by the Moors then the impetus to back the Christian kings never would have solidified and a decentralized but Muslim-dominated Iberia would have continued into at least the 15th century. Not counting the Christian holdouts in the north obviously.

Anatolia is much more open ended since it was never really heavily Islamasized until the 17th or 18 century. Honestly, if you butterfly the Selujics away somehow it likely remains majority Christian since only Islamist regimes would have the motivation to de-Christianize the region.

 

[ATP]

Maintaining Muslim rule of Iberia is pretty simple. If Al-Andalus hadn't fallen apart and eventually gotten usurped by the Moors then the impetus to back the Christian kings never would have solidified and a decentralized but Muslim-dominated Iberia would have continued into at least the 15th century. Not counting the Christian holdouts in the north obviously.

Anatolia is much more open ended since it was never really heavily Islamasized until the 17th or 18 century. Honestly, if you butterfly the Selujics away somehow it likely remains majority Christian since only Islamist regimes would have the motivation to de-Christianize the region.

Muslims in Spain indeed could hold long.Maybe to our times.Anatolia - all you need smarter emperors which would keep themata military system,and nobody would conqer them.Ottomans become powerhouse AFTER they took Anatolia.
Without that they would remain small state.

 

[History Learner]

So how do we think new world discovery and colonization will go? I like @stevep suggestions on that front, but wanted more input on them.

 

[Buba]

Age of Discovery?
About 1500 America starts to get explored from the Grand Banks area.
No push around Africa because why? And how?.
Maybe without Portuguese input naval tech could be less advanced that in OTL.

 

[ATP]

So how do we think new world discovery and colonization will go? I like @stevep suggestions on that front, but wanted more input on them.

English and french sailors were fishing near Labrador and even made there landing before 1500.But - there was no gold cities there,so expansion would be slow.

 

[Buba]

English and french sailors were fishing near Labrador and even made there landing before 1500.But - there was no gold cities there,so expansion would be slow.

And the fun part is that in the XIXth century Nova Scotia averaged 250kg of gold a year for a few decades. First placer, later mining. If half of that would be possible with 16th century technology then it would still be meaningful.

 

[S'task]

The underlying issues spurring of the Age of Exploration isn't eliminated by this alt history. The cutting of the Silk Road by more fanatical Muslims can still very much happen, pushing Europeans to look for alternative routes to China and India. Columbus might still very much be born and looking for patrons, he's Italian after all, not Spanish. Maybe instead of Spain supporting Columbus' expedition it's Byzantine or whatever successor states exist there... I know, it's impractical, the more practical route for Byzantine to seek to reopen trade with the Far East would be to conquer the Sinai and then establish and overland route to the Red Sea, then sail down the Red Sea and through the Indian Ocean (which was one of the historical routes), but I doubt they would have the military might to pull that off given how poorly all efforts went historically.

You might also see one of the Northern Spanish States (which are still Christian as per OTL, they just never managed the Reconquista) being willing to sponsor Columbus. After all, in this timeline they're going to be even more desperate for money and resources than they were historically, and a longshot like Columbus might well be appealing to them in order to continue their efforts holding out against the southern Muslim region.

If Central America is encountered by anyone, it's going to spur off much of the same rush we see in actual history for the gold and silver. Once that gold and silver begins flowing back to Europe and the Age of Exploration truly hits, things get really crazy.

For instance, Islamic Spain likely would want to get in on the action, which then could very well turn the rush for the New World into a Christian vs Muslim thing. Though if there's one place I can see both the Christians and Muslims putting aside their differences it would be in dealing with the Aztecs... Both would be utterly horrified by that civilization in a way that could see a joint Jihaad/Crusade against them. This is especially true if there's enough of a delay to allow the Aztecs to further entrench themselves in Mexico and spread out further into Central America...

Now that would be an interesting conflict to see unfold. A more powerful and centralized Aztec Empire vs. expeditions from Islamic and Christian Spain, which originally set out in competition with each other to claim the riches of Central America...

 

[History Learner]

The underlying issues spurring of the Age of Exploration isn't eliminated by this alt history. The cutting of the Silk Road by more fanatical Muslims can still very much happen, pushing Europeans to look for alternative routes to China and India. Columbus might still very much be born and looking for patrons, he's Italian after all, not Spanish. Maybe instead of Spain supporting Columbus' expedition it's Byzantine or whatever successor states exist there... I know, it's impractical, the more practical route for Byzantine to seek to reopen trade with the Far East would be to conquer the Sinai and then establish and overland route to the Red Sea, then sail down the Red Sea and through the Indian Ocean (which was one of the historical routes), but I doubt they would have the military might to pull that off given how poorly all efforts went historically.

You might also see one of the Northern Spanish States (which are still Christian as per OTL, they just never managed the Reconquista) being willing to sponsor Columbus. After all, in this timeline they're going to be even more desperate for money and resources than they were historically, and a longshot like Columbus might well be appealing to them in order to continue their efforts holding out against the southern Muslim region.

If Central America is encountered by anyone, it's going to spur off much of the same rush we see in actual history for the gold and silver. Once that gold and silver begins flowing back to Europe and the Age of Exploration truly hits, things get really crazy.

For instance, Islamic Spain likely would want to get in on the action, which then could very well turn the rush for the New World into a Christian vs Muslim thing. Though if there's one place I can see both the Christians and Muslims putting aside their differences it would be in dealing with the Aztecs... Both would be utterly horrified by that civilization in a way that could see a joint Jihaad/Crusade against them. This is especially true if there's enough of a delay to allow the Aztecs to further entrench themselves in Mexico and spread out further into Central America...

Now that would be an interesting conflict to see unfold. A more powerful and centralized Aztec Empire vs. expeditions from Islamic and Christian Spain, which originally set out in competition with each other to claim the riches of Central America...

Fisherman from the Basques, Brittany and the British isles were likely already fishing off the coast of North America sometime in the 1400s, so it seems likely something may eventually happen from there; albeit delayed. I can't really see the Spanish states sponsoring expeditions though, both the Christian and Islamic ones, because of the lack of unity that Spain had IOTL as well as the ability to refocus resources since they are still facing off against each other.

Perhaps we get an everyone but Spain type settlement of the New World?

 

[Buba]

I'm not buying the "Ottomans blocking the Route to India" story. The Ottomans conquered Syria and Egypt when the Portuguese were already in India.
A single Moslem entity controlling Egypt and Syria - i.e. the most direct routes to India and China - was the norm from 640AD onward.
Even fanatics like Timur did not close the Silk Road. A Road which, BTW - does not have to pass through the ME to reach Europe - block it in Anatolia and Syria and then the silk will go through the Caucasus - or even the Kazakh Steppe.
Portugal explored the route around Africa for its own reasons after getting its ass kicked in Morocco in 1415. It did so on its own dime, with financing from the Low Countries (helped by family ties with ruling family).
Hence if in 1500 the map of Iberia and Anatolia looks more or less like OTL 1070 - there is no special driver for a route to India. Besides ordinary human greed

 

[ATP]

Fisherman from the Basques, Brittany and the British isles were likely already fishing off the coast of North America sometime in the 1400s, so it seems likely something may eventually happen from there; albeit delayed. I can't really see the Spanish states sponsoring expeditions though, both the Christian and Islamic ones, because of the lack of unity that Spain had IOTL as well as the ability to refocus resources since they are still facing off against each other.

Perhaps we get an everyone but Spain type settlement of the New World?

Probably yes.But - with spain in mostly muslim hands,France would no need to be wary of attack from that side/becouse christian states would block it with small french help,and never attack France themselwes//
So,we could get stronger France then in OTL.Historically,they helped Scotland against England,now they could do the same in Ireland.
Result - North America slowly taken by french-scotish-irish coalition.
Well,Denmark have Ireland and knew about Greenland,so they could join,too.

More interesting is what Byzantine Anatolia mean.Without it,none of islamic states there could become superpower,like Ottomans.Which mean strong Byzantine and strong Egypt,which was conqered by Ottomans in 1517 in OTL.
And with Byzantine remaining strong,Russia would never become superpower,too - and never could try to mecome orthodox leader.
Hungary would never fall,which mean much weaker Habsburgs.Big changes,indeed.

 

[History Learner]

Probably yes.But - with spain in mostly muslim hands,France would no need to be wary of attack from that side/becouse christian states would block it with small french help,and never attack France themselwes//
So,we could get stronger France then in OTL.Historically,they helped Scotland against England,now they could do the same in Ireland.
Result - North America slowly taken by french-scotish-irish coalition.
Well,Denmark have Ireland and knew about Greenland,so they could join,too.

Maybe, maybe not. France still has the HRE to contend with and England is certainly no push over either.

More interesting is what Byzantine Anatolia mean.Without it,none of islamic states there could become superpower,like Ottomans.Which mean strong Byzantine and strong Egypt,which was conqered by Ottomans in 1517 in OTL.
And with Byzantine remaining strong,Russia would never become superpower,too - and never could try to mecome orthodox leader.
Hungary would never fall,which mean much weaker Habsburgs.Big changes,indeed.

Think bigger, honestly.

The Byzantines doing better from ~1176 onwards likely means the Steppe nomads to their North might get Christianized as Byzantium can assert more influence in this region; if the Mongols still happens, it's likely the OTL Golden Horde goes Orthodox, likely resulting in an early "Russian" which not only completes the Christianization project, but likely extends it into the Caucasus and Central Asia to great effect (No Timur analogues here, or at least a Muslim one). Likewise, when the Third Crusade comes it's likely to achieve decisive success; the Two Emperors (HRE and Eastern Roman) would likely be in a position to join it, breaking Muslim power in the Levant.

Finally, Manuel is likely to live longer and thus secure the succession for Alexios. No slaughter of the Latins, no Angelos dynasty, and thus no 4th Crusade coming to Constantinople but instead staying on target for Egypt. Again, entirely possible the Byzantines will support it as Manuel did in the 1160s, possibly resulting in a Christian Egypt. Between stronger Crusader states, Byzantium and a Christian Egypt, it's likely the Ilkhanate goes Christian too give the already existing strong faction there.

 

[WolfBear]

Maybe, maybe not. France still has the HRE to contend with and England is certainly no push over either.



Think bigger, honestly.

The Byzantines doing better from ~1176 onwards likely means the Steppe nomads to their North might get Christianized as Byzantium can assert more influence in this region; if the Mongols still happens, it's likely the OTL Golden Horde goes Orthodox, likely resulting in an early "Russian" which not only completes the Christianization project, but likely extends it into the Caucasus and Central Asia to great effect (No Timur analogues here, or at least a Muslim one). Likewise, when the Third Crusade comes it's likely to achieve decisive success; the Two Emperors (HRE and Eastern Roman) would likely be in a position to join it, breaking Muslim power in the Levant.

Finally, Manuel is likely to live longer and thus secure the succession for Alexios. No slaughter of the Latins, no Angelos dynasty, and thus no 4th Crusade coming to Constantinople but instead staying on target for Egypt. Again, entirely possible the Byzantines will support it as Manuel did in the 1160s, possibly resulting in a Christian Egypt. Between stronger Crusader states, Byzantium and a Christian Egypt, it's likely the Ilkhanate goes Christian too give the already existing strong faction there.

Would Andronikos really feel any differently about usurping the throne if he was dealing with an adult Alexois II Komnenos?

 

[History Learner]

Would Andronikos really feel any differently about usurping the throne if he was dealing with an adult Alexois II Komnenos?

I'd suspect yes, he's better prepared and Manuel here has left him with an excellent position; the Komnenos are still riding high with new victories.

 

[ATP]

Maybe, maybe not. France still has the HRE to contend with and England is certainly no push over either.



Think bigger, honestly.

The Byzantines doing better from ~1176 onwards likely means the Steppe nomads to their North might get Christianized as Byzantium can assert more influence in this region; if the Mongols still happens, it's likely the OTL Golden Horde goes Orthodox, likely resulting in an early "Russian" which not only completes the Christianization project, but likely extends it into the Caucasus and Central Asia to great effect (No Timur analogues here, or at least a Muslim one). Likewise, when the Third Crusade comes it's likely to achieve decisive success; the Two Emperors (HRE and Eastern Roman) would likely be in a position to join it, breaking Muslim power in the Levant.

Finally, Manuel is likely to live longer and thus secure the succession for Alexios. No slaughter of the Latins, no Angelos dynasty, and thus no 4th Crusade coming to Constantinople but instead staying on target for Egypt. Again, entirely possible the Byzantines will support it as Manuel did in the 1160s, possibly resulting in a Christian Egypt. Between stronger Crusader states, Byzantium and a Christian Egypt, it's likely the Ilkhanate goes Christian too give the already existing strong faction there.

1.England was no push over,but Scotland would remain free here,Ireland probably too.
2.Probably,we could have orthodox Africa under ERE after that.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Alot of people would say that this gives the Andalusians the ability to colonize, but I don't believe this. I think instead we would see a few different nations attempt to colonize in there place. personally I see alot more Dutch in the south, perhaps a dutch Brazil, a nordic Canada, America and Mexico are British and France takes alot more central and carib nations.