Wanted to remake this for a long time. The Reconquista fundamentally shifted the world, and I wanted to explore in detail a full alternate world where it never happens. Apologies on taking so long, this script took a while. I also have a second channel now. I talk about pointless stuff, like Battle LA, if you remember that. If you just like hearing me talk about stuff then check it out. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WHkednE7TPk.html
I just watched the original the other day! A lot of your older stuff is super-duper interesting, and I'd love to see a good chunk of it be remade with higher production quality!
I can't predict the next ten years of a Crusader Kings game at this point. One moment byzantium will conquer everything up to the Chinese border, the next minute they're in a civil war against jews, the next minute the whole of Northern Europe belongs to Croatia.
Most CK2 games usually ends up with either Sunnis or Catholics devouring the entire map tho, so there is a form of predictabily. Which one usually depends on the start dare. The earlier the date, the most likely Sunnis will snowball (especially after decadence was made a non-factor patch after patch). The more you start forward, closer to the Crusades unlock, the more likely Catholics will snowball instead
Literally playing a mega-campaign from CK2 Halfdan White Shirt start right now. One thing led to another and now the British Empire is more of a European Empire.
So the thing about Asturias is "go around the mountains" wasn't a thing. The reason Asturias survived is cause there were no roads into it, and there were no roads because it was such a hard to get to back water that even the romans couldn't be bothered to build them. Though in hindsight it was the correct move, were you in the sultan's court and were urging him to cross over, you would have been dismissed from the court for incompetence, and expedition like that would have easily gone badly, and if it did that would have caused the entire kingdom to fall apart.
Quite true. My original point was more to just remove Asturias from the question. Mountains/roads were the main factor as to why the Muslims couldn't take it, and I probably should have worded that better. This is already a tentative scenario as it is, considering how unlikely it'd be the Muslims could have kept Spain. Appreciate the insight.
Maybe if Muslims win Battle of Covadonga, the death all remaining Visigoth nobility will be enough of a blow to cause Asturias to fall apart and be gradually taken over?
@@jeffreyli7421 You mean French in the video he say that France and Uk speaks French and are the same country so obviously the combined countries could spread much further in americas
@@zakback9937 I don't think because modern Moraco followed sharia law that means that it's necessarily what would happen in the America's. The Moroccan empire was reasonably tolerant.
"Hey Cody, what if Moors held Spain?" "French Dialects" "Wow, what else?" "The Dutch are deleted" "What about things in Al Andalus, could they get to the new world?" "There can be only one Caliphate... Also yes but I'll discuss that later." "Yes!"
You forgot the most important fact. Without Portugal, there is no Catherine of Bragança, No Catherine of Bragança, there is no introduction of Tea to England. Without Tea in England, there is no civilized western world.
It would just be changed to those sharia patrols and secret police checking to make sure men's downstairs hair were cut to the appropriate measurements.
Cody: "In this alternate timeline, even without the Portuguese, somebody eventually would find the America's, but that is for another time." Me: "Sequel?" Cody: "And yes this is a two part-er." STOP READING MY MIND CODY.
I'm certainly eager to hear what this alternate Age of Discovery would yield. Presumably "Latin America" as we know it would instead be more of an "Islamic America", which would certainly have strong ideological ramifications in the long run.
Damn, when you really think about it, this really is one of the most consequential PODs in history, as Cody mentions. So much of the modern world in this timeline would be unrecognizable without the Catholic Iberian monarchies, the protestant reformation, and the European colonization of the Americas. Mind-blowing.
Two empires, both claiming to be the true Empire, positioned on opposite ends of the Mediterranean with growing reasons to dislike each other? It’s Rome all over again, just Islamic this time.
with how much random chance was left up to that point, even odds that he even gets the throne in the first place(and all that snowballs from that point onward)
Annulments happened all the time. No doubt Henry VIII would have likely had one But the Pope would likely have accepted it It's just that in our timeline, Catherine of Aragon happened to be the aunt of the most powerful European king at the time, who just happened to be occupying Rome and keeping the Pope hostage
If so much had happened from the 8th century onwards to the point that the Hundred Year's War of the 14th-15th century never happens, then you can bet there's no Wars of the Roses, no Tudor takeover, and no Henry VIII.
I think it's awesome you remade this. I hope your other videos get the same treatment. Not saying they are terrible or anything, but there is nothing wrong for with going over something when you're skills improve
I miss your old white back ground. Nostalgic for me man. Sorta like my childhood. I remember when you posted videos and you didn’t speak and it was like a slide show. I think it was like what if Germany won WW2 or won the Battle of Britain. A looooong time ago. But you should redo the rome series if you are redoing videos.
Another possible historical tangent: With a strong al-Andalus providing a counterweight to Ottoman Turkish rule of the Islamic world, it might be that the fight over the spice trade becomes more about a fight over Egypt than a search for a route to India around back of the world. al-Andalus tries to secure Egypt as an alternate route for the Silk Road, the Ottomans try to stymie them, and it turns into a political clusterfuck. Moreover, canal projects to connect the Mediterranean and Red Sea were floated a couple times in history, but maybe it's this fight between the Western and Eastern Caliphates that provides the necessary motivation. If the focus stays on the canal and it gets built, suddenly that's the new fulcrum of the world's trade... Which allows me to play my true endgame card, NEVERENDING GOLDEN AGE OF PIRACY BABY. Pirates of the Aegean! Mediterranean island-hopping, hidden ports of call all through Malaysia, Blackbeard with a turban! It's all coming up pirates!
Also we should include that Al Andalus and Abbasids had rivalry against each other so Abbasids allied with Franks while Al Andalus allied with Byzantines. And we already know Ottomans were allied with France. So this would've mean that Al Andalus would either ally with Austria or Commonwealth.
@@ghrtfhfgdfnfg I know. In Europa Universalis IV I only play as Castile if I use a mod I have to create a nation called Iberia when I control all of it
"You know now that I think about it, this whole alternate timeline really just seems like an elaborate way to make sure the Dutch never exist" *Nigel Powers has entered the chat*
@@Deridus Belgium are just traitorous catholic dutch who larp as french. Without the dutch you'd just stop larping and actually be as French as the Picards. Edit: If you don't know what I mean when I say Picards, there's a people and language in the one area of the lowlands that neither Belgium or the Neatherlands ever managed to get back with a people who have been ruled over by the french for quite some time.
@@Piratejoe44 lmao as an Australian I had never conceived of Dutch-Belgian roasting but it makes perfect sense; any two groups who border and have so much in common (language, history, etc.) are going to hate the differences. Like England-Scotland, no? Except the Belgians actually managed to get free.
You should do "What if Bismarck never left power and stayed chancellor?" What would European politics be like if the iron chancellor was in charge of Germany instead of Wilhelm II
By the time he was dismissed he was becoming too old to rule, and Bismarck, the ultimate conservative, wouldn't have ever let Germany not have an emperor with a large amount of executive power.
I don't think the path Germany was on (eg. the runaway train of Prussian militarism) could have been avoided. Bismarck was unparalleled in geopolitical skill, and knew when to trust his pragmatism over his nationalism - keeping the balance of power in Europe whilst growing German influence. There simply wasn't anyone suitable to replace him, even if he had hung around into his wheelchair bound years. Weak reformers like Caprivi and blustering jingoists like von Bülow just weren't in the same league. Wilhelm II was always going to get his way.
I'm normally not here this fast. But considering the algorithm messed you up last time, you better believe I'm gonna try my best to support you this time!
I think Andalusia would heavily antagonize the Ottomans: they would threaten their title of Caliph, and also advance into the Mediterranean Isles for control. Probably the Mamluks would ask for andalusian help to remain independent, or Andalusia would ally with European states to combat the Ottomans, like the Battle of Lepanto.
What I see will be almost the same thing happened between Safavid Persia and Ottoman. This scenario will have both Ottoman Empire and Al Andalus will always have constant Battle for North Africa especially area around Algeria today. Just like Ottoman-Safavid War that always fought around their border and modern day Iraq And if there will be Alliance it will also like this Ottoman ally with France and Al Andalus Ally with Austria or Hungry (well depend who the great power in this scenario.)
@@Whatareyoudoinnhere Its depends tho who controls Algeria if Andalus can somehow defeat Ottoman and defend Algeria. But what certain tho I can see Al Andalus rule Morocco even tho I would 100% sure they have full control of the north of Morocco instead and have less control or not even under their rule south of Morocco. based on their OTL history that they once only rule the north to stop Fatimid Caliphate expansion
Also another important thing happening is that the influx of jews and moriscos that were scholars, doctors and more academics the Ottomans received wouldn't happen... since you know, no Spanish Inquisition
"Somebody would eventually find the Americas" - the Polynesians. If Andalus was even a century later than our own timeline in sailing to the New World, chances are the Polynesians may have set up establishments on the west coast of South America.
there is already evidence that the polynesians had already touched into the americas. The thing is, either way, their presence wouldnt be nearly as impactful as eventual european colonization. Though, spain's original intention with the native americans was to set up trade routes, so there is a possibility that if cortez doesnt do a cortez, the central american kingdoms and the like would have been around for a bit longer, and their cultural presence would be more considerable.
You cant find something thats been already found, that be like me going to japan and say i found this place because the inhabitants of this place dont look like me.
@@gabbo7101 this is something people often ignore. Cortes left Cuba as a traitor, and would most certainly had been executed on any other circumstance. They had been given clear orders of establishing trade with the Americans. Then Cortes lied his way through Mesoamerica claiming to be a representative of the Castilian crown, which he was not. If it wasn't for the Tlaxcalans he would have failed. And with that the fate of the indigenous peoples western hemisphere would've been changed forever.
@@Lustratic85 NO you CAN discover a place that other people already know about. You are discovering something that you or your group don't know about, it doesn't matter who knows about it or if there are people living there. Hell you are also discovering that those people exist. Discovery isn't some sort of shared accomplishment for all of humanity nor is it the first comment on the comment section.
Very interesting video, although as a Portuguese it’s always when someone uses “Spain” when in reference for the whole Peninsula. Iberia, or even Hispania would be better. One interesting aspect is that the Christian “states” that emerge in the Reconquest, are based on the heterogeneous cultural substratum of the Peninsula, meaning that they are political reflections of local identities. It’s well likely that even if Muslim rule was maintained, distinct cultures would emerge in the Northeast and Northwest, analogous to Galicia-Portugal and Aragon-Catalonia. It’s very probable that political autonomies would emerge here as well, even becoming independent like in our timeline, just in a Muslim version like “Ghalisyya” and ‘“Arajun”. About the fact that this timeline denies the existence of the Netherlands as we know it. Well, there is another factor. Muslim Iberia was more tolerant to other religions. In our timeline, the Jews were expelled in the XVI century, many migrating precisely to the Netherlands, were they helped finance the emerging Dutch colonial empire. If Iberia had remained Muslim, the Netherlands would probably never become the financial powerhouse they were in our timeline. Finally I would just despite the claim the 80% of Al-Andalus was Muslim. The elites were, but the population remained largely Christian, although they followed their own rites. They were called the Mozarabs.
@@shinsenshogun900 german*. Both belgium and Netherlands remain part of the holy Roman empire, and will continue speaking dialects of german until germany eventually unifies. The spanish empire habsbrug split will ot happen.
Your right, there will be some autonomous provinces and the population would follow a very mixed faith, with majority being Muslim folowed by Christian and Judaism. The Netherlands would most likely never become the powerhouse of became in our timeline, instead this will further help cordóba.
Probably a swift collapse after the founder died, meaning an earlier warlord era. Also, the Taiping would attempt to modernize China, and while they will fail, it would still allow it to develop early, meaning that it might just have a shorter century of humiliation. Oh, and the warlord era would cause a scramble for China by the Europeans, with all the major power backing a few contestants in an attempt to outmaneuver their rivals. This would probably cause an early world war since Russia would annex or vassalize all of the north, causing Britain and Japan to panic, while the heated competition would give the Europeans a lot of opportunities to fight against each other. Oh, and the Taiping might just create a massive "Christian" minority in China, which would alter the whole nation in various different ways.
The Taiping (like most Chinese millenarist insurrections) were insanely unstable, having no real societal organisation besides warfare and relying solely on the charisma of Hong Xiuquan. If they eventually did managed to overthrow the Qing (which they could never unless they have either outside support or other rebellions happening at the same time and joining them), the only two logical outcomes would either be : 1. China fell into chaos as absolutely no one would recognize the weak Taiping state as legitimate, plunging the country in an early warlord era. 2. Someone at the Taiping court that wasn't absolutely crazy manages to take power and consolidate the country, removing all crazy elements from society (first and foremost getting rid of Christianity) and establishing a "regular" Chinese dynasty that could actually have some chance of surviving. However, China is only weakened by this so the century of humiliation carries on and probably intensifies. I could see for example the Japanese managing to push their "twenty-one demands" on China in this timeline. Finally I don't think the Taiping would actually help China to modernize, on the contrary while they were "Christian", they also were incredibly xenophobic and traditionalistic, rejecting foreign influences on China. If anything, they would have pushed Chinese isolationism even further.
Video idea: During the movie "The Final Countdown (1980)" an aircraft carrier travels back in time to the day of the attack on pearl harbor. At the end of the movie, the carrier returnes to its own time. What if, instead, the carrier stayed back in 1941? How would this have affected the war?
@@KingdomofEgypt123 At least we didn't force our religion on the Africans unlike the muslims. Also Hitler is an entirely different thing, makes no sense to compare.
How about an ''What if the Swedish Empire didn't go to Moscow and instead looked south'' video? Would be interesting I think and you could look at the ''Pax Swedeanica'' alternate timeline for some inspiration :)
Granada one of my favorite eu4 playthroughs. I would recommend people to try out ante bellum if you'd like to have this somewhat similar experience of Iberia being Muslim at the start date.
It screws with Russian unification and the rise of Moscow over Novgorod for starters- and China and the Levant are going to be better off- Iran is going to be FAR better off. Most the the 'stans (minus eastern Pakistan) are going to remain firmly Iranian/Iranic (not as in Persian, but as in Aryan/Iranian), and Iranic nomadic peoples are going to remain a significant force in northern Eurasia up to and including the Ukraine. OTL Iranic peoples were both greatly reduced and assimilated by Slavic, Turkic, Mongolian, and Germanic peoples- much of that isn't going to happen here, at least not in the same sense. And then finally, no Mongols = no Pax Mongolica- the progression of trade and ideas is going to be considerably lessened. Western Europe is the loser in that case- by and large kind of a backwater then- alternate Russia, Italy if and when it unifies, and the Byzantines if they survive (they have a pretty good shot at it without the Mongols IMO, not due to Mongols having been disastrous for them but rather due to the Mongols having further empowered and spread Turkic peoples- the whole Turko-Mongol synthesis thing) will probably all be more significant- France, Spain (or Andalus, but more likely Spain), England and some power on the Great European Plain (German or Polish, probably) will all still be significant eventually, but not overwhelmingly so. The Mongols massively depopulated central Asia in particular (bad blood with the Iranic Khwarezmians). So my guesses would be- later and much different unification of Russia/the Eurasian steppe (a Eurasian power, likely centered around some former Kievan Rus state just like OTL); slightly more prosperous China and Arab states, and any ATL version of Iran is going to be massively buffed. Big winners- Iran, with some chance of the Polish-Lithuanians also capitalizing on later Russian unification enough to take a lead in the process at least in the west, of sorts. Considerably improved situation for China, the Arabs and their golden age, and probably to Italy and the Byzantines- weakening the Turks makes them likely to remain the economic and cultural hearts of Europe for longer and disincentivizes Christian powers from their whole "age of exploration" thing.
Maybe China starts the Industrial Revolution in the 1200s It's like going from Crusader Kings to Victoria in fast-forward China, India and Turks become Imperial Powers like the Europeans WW1 in 1314!!!
My favorite way to see how this plays out is in Europa Universalis, playing as the Ottomans and assisting Granada in reclaiming Spain. This prevents any Spanish or Portuguese colonization in the New World.
Great video as always. One of my favorites for sure. Would be cool if you could do a video on Africa-India relations ive been researching it recently super interesting
8:21 Cody: The English language as we know it fundamentally changes in such an important period of development. Book in the background animation: Я--русская книга.
Great video and I can imagine why you have chosen not to elaborate on the Ottoman Empire and their further expansion into Europe after the fall of Constantinople, because it is a complicated calculation. Indeed, the lack of a Spanish armada puts the Ottomans at an advantage on the sea at least on paper, because removing the spaniards from Lepanto is basically giving the turks a free win (provided that Al-Andalus does not participate against them!). However, in land it is VERY difficult to hypothesize an outcome: you could assume Habsburgs would be weaker (no dynastic ties to Spain, reduced impact on the HRE) making things easier for the turks, but you have to consider as well that the lack of Reformation also implies a more stable central Europe and, more importantly, no wars of religion, particularly the desvastating Thirty Years War. In any case it is a fun scenario to hypothesize with and it was a good effort. I hope to see the second part soon!
While I'm a big fan of Cody's work, I have to say that I disagree with one of the underlying assumptions of this video. The northern Christian kingdoms of Iberia we're not constantly and consistently pushing Southward throughout the entirety of Andalusian history, in fact throughout most of their history Andalusia had fairly strong Geographic protection from the north in the form of the Central and Iberian Mountain chains of Spain (yes that's what they're called). I bring this up because there was actually a much more natural point of Divergence much later in Andalusian history involving a war over the succession of Muslim Toledo between Leon and Seville. Leon ended up winning this war and it was because of that they were able to unite the rest of the peninsula, so it stands to reason that if Seville had won the war they would at least be able to unite the southern half over the peninsula under new Muslim rulership.
Another more natural point of divergence could also have been the reign of Hisham II through Hajib Almanzor. If I remember correctly, even though the Caliph was basically a figurehead during his reign, it still represented the peak of power for Cordoba, and Almanzor essentially reduced the northern Christian kingdoms to a state of indefinite vassalage, sacking their capitals multiple times and pushing the borders slightly further north. He didn't conquer the cities because garrisoning them would have been more expensive than just plundering and returning home. However a more conquest bent rather than raid focused foreign policy could have changed that.
@Fajr Core That is also common on the western (for example in spain it was called pena ha galeras)but your dont talk about other of the main sources of slaves that where the batles and the raids across the mediterranean coast
As a Sephardic Jew with some Iraqi heritage, I wouldn't have been born at all. My ancestry would be split between Al Andalus and/or Morocco together with Iraq. The mass expulsion of Sepharadim from Iberia wouldn't have occurred as part of the Reconquista, and I suspect Sephardic Judaism would be largely isolated to Spain, Portugal, and possibly Morocco and not as prevalent globally as it is today.
@@milipathiyil6044 No, They actually pretty chill compared to Inquisition. The worse they do is either forced conversion or kicked out of the city. Correct me if I'm wrong, my knowledges about Europeans history is pretty lacking in some places.
@@unknownguyindo4356 well im not saying the inquisition was not bad. There are SOME places where people actually oof others... But its 21st century so its only some places. And im sure the dumb people who oof would oof everyone back in time.. But yeah if you still compare then yes Inquisition was more horrible.
depends where you draw the line regarding india, also there were many kingdoms in the way between the umayydis and the franks, so your claim of boardering france would also be wrong. The ummayyids also collapsed shortly after, and were so decadent and corrupt that a giant, large-scale revolution was able to overthrow them. Abbassids are way better then umayyids, btw.
Here is an idea: What if the first Arab siege of Constantinople ended in Arab victory? Would a Muslim/Greek kingdom emerge and preserve Greek culture similarly to what the Saffarid dynasty did for Persia?
@@shzarmai same a lot of Muslim kingdoms really have no interest in converting the local population a good example is was the way the Arabs never converted the Turks in the first place and many thought that if they converted the local population that mean no non-Muslim tax along with no slave.
As a historian on this period, I actually agree with your assesment on Al-Andalus, but I would add that they would also expand into Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean as a result of competition with the Ottomans. They would also expand into Morocco, since keeping the Berber tribes (who migrated in large numbers into Al-Andalus) in check was vital to their survival. I would also add that this Islamic society would be very different from the Córdoba we imagine, since, in order to conquer the mountainous northern Iberia, one needs Berber troops, who converted in the 740's to another sect called Kharijism. The Kharijites would have then unified Iberia under their rule, and thus prevent an Arab caliphate from rising. In other words, Al-Andalus would be essentially a wierd mixture between Visigothic and Berber Muslim cultures. But I do still think they would continue their Golden Age of science down to today.
I would say no. The importation of Berbers was one of the factors that destabilized Andalus. With the Berbers not getting along with the local population whether muwallasa (Iberian Muslims) or Mozaradics (Christians of the Caliphate) they were to ortodox for nation. What Andalus needed was to start using muwallads in government and military positions. Not to mention that the tribes began their same shift to Iberia with Al-mansur to combat the influence of the saqaliba (Slavic slave soldiers) and loyalists of the Umayyads. Importing Berbers is probably one of the worst possible tactics.
I don't think they would "compete" with the Ottomans at all. In our timeline, when Al-Andalus got completely wiped out by the Spanish, most of the Muslim (and even the Jews) requested help from the Ottomans; which accepted and sent their navy to escort the Muslim transport ships. This caused fightings between the Spanish and the Ottomans trying to get the Muslims out. This proves that Al-Andalus had a good relationship with the Turks, that they would risk sparking war with the Spanish to help the Al-Andalus if they would need.
English and Irish fisherman were within two or three decades of discovering Newfoundland in our time, and this is a phenomenon that would likely be independent of great men history and politics, so I'd wager the Anglo-Irish still find the new world and get there before al Andalus. Also it occurs to me if the Muslims don't go for Tours, than Charles Martel never rises to prominence and Pepin the Short is much less likely to overthrow the Merovingian dynasty.
The interesting thing here is if Al-Andalus was extremely stable in Iberia since the arrival of Muslims, that means the ruling dynasty in all of this video would be Umayyads. This is important since the Umayyads was the Second Caliphate in Islamic history that took power after the Rashidun Caliphs. If Iberia was stable, the Umayyads would probably try to use it as a base to retake the territories that was lost after the Abbasid Revolution. The Maghrebs would probably either be conquered or become vassal state of the Iberian Caliphate. So they would also have more reasons to hate the Ottomans who in their opinion would be another upstart who usurped their rightful title as Caliph. If the Ottomans reached much of their historical extent, the Umayyad and Ottoman power struggle would most likely take place in Italy and Libya. Interesting stuff
One thing to add to this scenario is the relationship Al Andalus would have with it's north african neighbourgs. Al Andalus in our timeline had little enclaves on the north-african cost (aside from the Mallorca islands which you put on the christian side while they were also conqueres by Al Andalus, but regardless). Al Andalus, probably, would try to expand in order to make a firm frontier against invasions from the south, which would have happened regularly because the almohads and Almoravids would probably still try to invade, even if they weren't invited like in our timeline, kinda like what the Franks did with the Pyrenees. Aside from that, the conflict between the Ottomans and Al Andalus, aside from religious differences, it would probably be in the view of the world as well. I don't know about if the ottomans really advanced in technology themselves, but I heard that since the Mongols and the sack of Baghdad the muslim world changed completely and it became a lot more conservative. But Al Andalus wouldn't be that affected, since it is already so detached from the main land of Islam, the middle east, and it also calls itself a caliphate, in opposition to the one of Baghdad (the rulers of Al Andalus were Umayyads, which themselves were purged by the Abbasids but one escaped to Al Andalus and so on). So, in this world, one caliphate would represent the liberal side of Islam, maybe progressing more and more and having a more liberal thought, meanwhile the other would be more so conservative on their interpretation of Islam. Also, Al Andalus was known for its religious tolerance (which the ottomans supposedly also partaked in, but I heard that they weren't that tolerable in the balkans), so such caliphate would still have it's jews and it's christians as minorities. Al Andalus was also kinda stratified by race, as the arabs nobles would be the rulers meanwhiles the native population were treated with "less respect" lets say, and also need to add the berbers into the mix. Al Andalus, kinda like "What if Japan became christian" would be islamic but it would be pretty different from other muslim regions. They might even have more in common with western Europe than the islamic world itself, and the enlightenment might have spread as well to muslim spain, regardless of religion.
Also, I might add that the ottomans could have prohibited the spice trade to Al-Andalus as well, as they might even see them as heretics, and also because they could just sell it again to the christians for a profit.
@@jmgonzales7701 The sack of Baghdad was an event so traumatic for the middle east (well, the mongol and timurid invasions in general) that in theory people became pretty much fundamentalist over their interpretation of islam. Kinda like with christianity on the early middle ages if I can make the analogy. Supposedly, this ended the age of science in Islam leading to an age of obscurantism. This, I think, wouldn't really have affected the Umayyad, as first they were the fuck away from it, and they were ruled by the Umayyads, a dinasty which was absolutely massacred by the Abbasids leaving just one umayyad alive which then proceeded to conquer the peninsula, thus making Al Andalus and also making a new caliphate (kinda like a new popedom). This, imo, would make Al Andalus a refuge for that ancient, world of science islam. Why would they be discriminant of race? It's not why would they, I'm not saying hypotheticals. I'm saying that they were: "The Muslims, although united on the religious level, had several ethnic divisions, the main being the distinction between the Arabs and the Berbers. The Arab elite regarded non-Arab Muslims as second-class citizens; and they were particularly scornful of the Berbers.[86]" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus
Well, if that happen, there will be no invasion of the Portugal to the Malay Muslim Sultanate of Malacca in 1511. The sultanate would prosper as a trading hub for many years to come. There would be no conquer on the isles on Philipines ( Hell there will be no such name) and Sultanate of Manilla would remain.
Could you do more remakes please. Like "What if we Lost the Cold War" could be more detailed. I'm not saying it was bad, but it would still be cool to redo
Ideas:What if Persia made a colonial empire? What if Thailand was colonized? What if Japan was divided after WW2? What if the Jews migrated to Madagascar? What if Greece fell to communism? Edit:Also do What if Italy joined central powers?
Or even better: What if Milan unified Italy (or at least the northern part) in the 14th century (And they were quite close to that under the leadership of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, who wished to create an Italian superpower out of Milan and turn the north into a great European power, but was stopped short of his objectives and died without even claiming himself king).
Loved the video! But for the best part could you go deeper into the effects in the Islamic world? This part mostly focus around Europe itself but I believe the divergence will have as much or close of an effect to the Arab and Islamic world politically, culturally and even religious wise. Anyways great video 👍
Just a quick correction. I don’t think Córdoba invited the Almoravids and the Almohads. The taifa kingdoms did after the Caliphate of Córdoba collapsed and Castile took Toledo. It’s a tiny bit like how Byzantium called Western European kingdoms for help across the pond when the Seljuks won at Manzikert and took a chunk of Anatolia (starting the Crusades) Only on the other side of the continent.
Ah my favorite achivement to get in CK3 was the Al-Andalus one were you had to avenge the battle of tours, if anyone hasn't tried it in ck3 then do so because its a pretty fun ( and long) run!
@@salimelmouaffaq1351 as salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh I started in 867 as the umayyad and beat the revolts I then recommend doing duchy conquests on north africa to bolster your holy sites for buffs and declaring a khalifat Then try to take over the north, declare a kingdom war for aquitaine and its easy sailing from there
I think a video on what if the US never took the Philippines in the future would be really interesting. Its a concept thats been floating in my head for a while, and I'm quite surprised nobody has done it yet. My headcannon would be that Japan takes over and WW2 ends very differently, but idk. Maybe a good idea for a future video?
It would end up in the US territory anyways but this time during and after WW2 since Japan would've still invaded them and US save them just like ur timeline
"Let's be honest, Iberia even today isn't really that populated". Excuse me, we are 46 millions just in Spain, the fifth country more populated of Europe, plus the 10 millons in Portugal.
First off, those are rookie numbers, second he mant unuformely oopulated, as the pop map that flashes when he says that, shows most of the population lives on coast and inland is sparsely populated
I think most people lives on the coastal areas and Madrid while the Castillas and Extremadura are not as densely populated. Madrid alone is probably 7-10M people and Catalonia is probably another 5M. Soria, in Castilla, was under 1M last time I've checked, maybe they're over the mark now.
Great video! I've always thought that there could have been more made out of this scenario five years ago. But I'm not sure about the "There is no need to find new trade routes, even if the Ottomans take Constantinople" part. You've said earlier that Al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire could have become the East and West of the Islamic world. As barring the Christians from using the Asian trade routes was IMO more of a political decision than anything else, it could have happened with this ideological conflict between two caliphates as well.
Without Columbus's deliberate plans to reach across the Atlantic I doubt anyone swept across by accident would be able to make it back. It would take extra supplies, a general idea of how to get there (and thus back) and a direct journey insuring the vessels were in good shape (as opposed to a ship-wreck) upon arrival to have any guarantee of a return voyage and thus being able to inform your countrymen of your discovery.
The video is showing something analogous to the discovery of Brazil. The Portuguese had discovered the Volta do Mar (a navigational technique) even before the discovery of America. Of course, as you have noticed, the Andalusians would have to do the same in order to return home. Unfortunately, Cody didn't mention whether the Andalusians had discovered the Atlantic Islands or not.
Jup. The Netherlands (and probably the rest of the Benelux) would probably end up becoming like a few extra North German states. For regular people in the Netherlands not a lot would probably change, since a single Dutch national identity was only really caused by WWII. Before that many people rather associated themselves with their province, instead of country. Belgium however would maybe find less French influences with the French being busy with their Southern border and the Meditterranean. I'm however not sure what would have happened to the Hanseatic trading league in this time line.
16:08 You have a strange audio issue where your volume is much lower than the rest of the segment, and it is part of a statement where the rest of it is normal.
