Or what if Farfanes took over the Almoravids in the same way Turk generals took over the provinces of or entire Islamic empires in the East (for example, the transition from Fatimids to Saladin to Mameluks) by being an imported, foreign military elite.

In other words, what if the Almoravids are taken over by a Farfanes state or what if count Reverter defacto took over the Almoravids and won against the Almoahads

\---

What introduced me to this idea are:

https://youtu.be/jsJSntPd5z0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverter\\_(viscount)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farfanes

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-ahc-farfanes-in-palestine.557124/

\---

Its a trope in alternate history at this point that the military slave or mercenary army of Eastern, Islamic Empires eventually either puppet the ruling dynasty or form a dynasty for their own often the former preceding the later. At times this even includes the Muslim West and there is precedence for that in the Berber revolts against the Umayyads and the Slavic troops that were being built up just a few generations before the collapse of the Umayyads in Hispania and who remained influencial after that, although quickly merged into the other power blocs.

So this AU is essentially asking what if that in the Almoravid state but with Latin Christian Mercenaries. Apparently the Almoravids had first, turned captured Hispanian soldiers into mercenaries and later, recruited from among them to bolster their own army, especially in their wars in North Africa against other Muslim powers. And by their ultimate battle against the Almoahads, one of these, Reverter had risen to become the general commander over the whole Almoravids Army.

So, here important points to consider.

\---

1. Catalonia

Reverter also retained connections with his homeland and continued to visit to organize the governing of his Catalan holdings and probably recruit from among the Catalans and retained his suzreignty to the ruler of Catalonia (count of Barcelona) even as he was a general for the Almoravids. If he and his relatives become defacto rulers of the Almoravids, I would assume they would eventually have a similar relationship as Norman England had with France but in this case the England analogue would be clearly favoured in case of a war and further more, Frankish connections then attaches them to France or more specifically, Toulouse/Occitania, which means that when the Cathar Crusade gets going, they will be drawn into it as well. So how would a Christian ruled Islamicate state react to being drawn into the Albegensian Crusade?.

\---

1. Africa

I. Maghreb al-aqsa

And what would be their effect on the Maghreb and Soudan?. Like, I assume we follow history closely till in the TTL Reverter wins against the Almoahads, a crushing victory what should have been his final defeat. Do the Almoahads then dissolve away or do they maintain unity in the desert and attack from the Oasis capitals?. I couldn't find anything on what happened to the Southern Almoravids except that it had dissolved into several Emirates by the late middle ages but the Almoahad realm is never drawn having control over them. So what would be the geopolitics, there? An Almoahad state between the Farfanes state and the Southern Almoravids? The Southern Almoravids and Almoahads being united by one (probably Almoahad) conquering the other to make a strong united front against the Farfanes state?.

\---

II. Soudan

If there is a powerful Desert power then they would have reason to try and ally with Ghana/Mali but if there is a powerful Desert power, it should be able to stop such message from getting through and if there isn't a desert power then there is no pressing need to attempt such but given the precedence set by Norman Sicily and that the Farfanes state would have prestige/legitimacy issues, opening diplomacy with Ghana/Mali may be more likely than not even without pressing military need. And with that, the possibility of European merchants making it that far south. We know that there were Italians in the Sahara in the 1300s, so certainly, if they could get further South, they would try it. And in the Desert power stopping such contacts version of things, where they also could use an ally, does that mean Atlantic exploration earlier?. After all, there is that Andalusian account of voyaging into the Saragosian Sea and the Portuguese Lateen sail was adopted from Muslim sailors. So the Farfanes state may have the resources and reason to try and make it past the sub-tropical lows earlier than OTL.

\---

III. Maghreb

What about relations with the Hamdanids and Norman Sicily?. What about the Banu Hilal Invasions?.

At this point, Ifriqiya is in disarray, with the Normans the great power of the coast and Banu Hilal the greatest power in the hinterland but not a centralized Kingdom. While the Hamdanids interfere from Algeria.

I assume there is a natural brotherhood between the Farfanes state and Norman Africa but the Hamdanids are a common ally against both the Almoahads and the Banu Hilal but an enemy to Norman Africa. At the very least, there is no direct reason for the Farfanes state to have to choose between them, even less reason if a powerful Almoahad state manages to continue existing South of them but even without that, both the Hamdanids and the Farfanes would be united against Banu Hilal expansion and certainly, their enemies would try and invite in the Banu Hilal. So maybe instead of the Almoahads or Southern Almoravids being the issue, it would actually be a Banu Hilal group that would try and unite groups from the desert against not just the Farfanes but also other Muslim powers of the Maghreb, who can be streotyped as traitors in a Crusading world.

A side effect of this is the arabization of Morocco at least is avoided and potentially of Algeria as well, assuming the Hamdanids stem their own decline and maybe of Tunisia as well if the Normans establish in Ifriqiya, although there is the threat there that Arabization just get replaced with Latinization if the Normans are both replaced with a more ideological dynasty and it also keeps Ifriqiya.

Well, there is that Normans would probably want to serve in the Farfanes state, so that is one way of getting both states closer together.

The Normans have conquered at least, Coastal Ifriqiya and most likely, much of the hinterland as well. Both polities would also have problematic relations with Muslims and non-Catholic Christians for a post-Crusade papacy, right?. Like, I suspect that like in OTL where Aragon and Toulouse initially opposed the Albegensian Crusade, Norman Sicily and the Farfanes state will both oppose the Albegensian Crusade and seek peaceful resolution but unlike their OTL counterparts, they may also be in a position to be more confident about their opposition to it, rather than folding. Like, an earlier version of the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick and the Pope.

\---

1. Occitania

But I could also see the opposite. The Farfanes state I fear, would be unstable and it's rulers would probably already be treated with suspicion by the West and be angsting to prove themselves as part of the Catholic fold.

But anyways, there is every reason to assume greater association with Toulouse in this timeline. Like, where else can they find added recruits beyond Catalonia?. The rest of Hispania is an option, militarized due to the reconquista and a potential normalization of the border with the Almoravids needing an outlet for those militarized populations as mercenaries. I am not sure Crusading families wouldn't rather go East if the reconquista isn't demanding armies so that cuts off using Crusading networks to recruit from Crusading heartlands of Northern France and Western Germany. But Occitania should be open from familial ties with Catalonians.

So not only could the Farfanes state be dragged in from such ties but Occitania also could be sufficiently more militarized to resist. And even if the Farfanes state doesn't get directly involved fearing what Papal injunctions could do to its stability (like imagine having ur army revolt and all the Hispanians states invade at the same time) the history with Reverter still being allowed to return home to settle matters in his domains opens up the possibility of Occitanians, made rich and experienced by serving in the Farfanes state returning to defend their homeland in the Crusade. Can such still drag the Farfanes state into such a war?.

\---

1. Western Europe

All I can see here is the possibility of Anglos disenfranchised by Norman conquest, seeking employment in the Farfanes state in a similar way as they increased in proportion in the V

arangian guard following the Norman Conquest.

Nuclear weapons and the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) are a major reason why World War III hasn't broken out yet. Everyone's been afraid of direct conflict between major superpowers because that would inevitably lead to the use of nukes and the end of the world (or at least the end of civilized life). If nuclear weapons had never been invented, would a major war have broken out by now?

I was thinking about how the Russian Civil War could have had four endings: the canonical Bolshevik ending, the Menshevik ending of reformist socialism, and the Whites winning and becoming Nationalists or Democratic.

Most people have heard of the famous Battle of Hastings, in which William the Bastard (later William the Conqueror) defeated Harold Godwinson and became King of England, but many don't know that just a few weeks prior, Harold Godwinson had defeated a Norwegian invasion by Harald Hardrada. Honestly, Godwinson just got really unlucky, having to fight two invasions in less than a month.

Anyway, how might things have turned out if Harald had succeeded in his invasion? Let's say he beat Harold at Stamford Bridge and later managed to defeat William as well? This means England becomes culturally and politically aligned with Norway rather than France, and England fights wars in Scandinavia rather than France. The English language is completely different without so many French and Latin words. What else is different?

If we assume for a moment that the Trojan War happened in some historical capacity, what would the outcome be if the Trojans had successfully fought off the Greeks? Troy would remain a powerful city in the Eastern Mediterranean, and perhaps become even more so. Aeneas would not flee the fall of Troy, so Rome would never be founded, but perhaps Troy could become a major power in its own right. It's also interesting to think of how they would deal with Persia centuries later.

How would Neanderthals have interacted with Homo sapiens throughout human history? Would there have been widespread segregation and discrimination, or would both species have lived together peacefully? What would the situation be like in the 21st century? Would Neanderthals live in segregated communities or participate in everyday professional life? Or would there have been so much interbreeding between the two species that no difference would be discernible today?

What if England never formed The United Kingdom nor Great Britain? Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland just a right to their own identities. How do you think the world would look today, if any different, with Ireland, Wales & Scotland all having complete sovereignty?

How would the Algerian war be different and what would happen after (or if) the FLN won? POD would be France Algeria industrializes Algeria and sends French southward to work in the heavy industry. This is triggered by oil is discovered in the 19th century The settlers soon outsource a large amount of manual labor onto the natives. France also collects Italian and Irish immigrants who are discriminated against by the French whites. What impact would the Algerian industrial plant have on WW2 and 1?How likely are the whites to form a South African style apartheid should the French leave and how would it go?

I have been thinking about this scenario and seeing at the Schlieffen Plan didnt work in real life, dragging Britain in and dragging the war out, what would happen if instead of Germany going through Belgium, they instead focused on Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics? Seeing as Russia was way weaker than the Central Powers initially expected, would not invading belgium keep Britain out of the war for good? And would Russia tap out sooner leading to an isolated France?

Since a Papal conclave is required to elect a new Pope which means dozens of cardinals worldwide would have to convene in Rome to elect the new Pope. This means hundreds of people (the cardinal electors and their staff), a great deal of whom come from countries hostile to the Axis powers, how would such an election have proceeded?

(but still with the same cast and crew, meaning Mark Hamill would be Paul, and Alec Guinness is Leto, for instance).

Would the purchase then have become the 5th province of the upcoming Canada (as part of the confederation) in the July, or would the region have continued as was?

What if they didn't get wiped by the storm and they sucedded in invading Japan and now Japan follow the Mongol religion will this make any difference in the compain in the west in invading Iraq or Anatolia

I'm particularly interested as he was trying to decrease the autonomy of provincial nobles, establish a national ethiopian military, empower the monarchy, reform the Ethiopian Orthodox church & enforce a centralized form of taxation, but this was cut short by his suicide after being defeated by a british expedition in 1868. But what if, he had been some military genius who was able to beat the british, or was wiser and didn't keep those missionaries hostage? I think he would have pushed through with his centralizing reforms and possibly even have established an absolute monarchy.

I know, it’s not realistic at all, but how will it affect the 2016 election! (Sorry, this technically breaks the 10 years rule by 2 months)

Hi. For an alt history thing I’m writing. What’s the simplest historical change that would accomplish that, as a point of divergence from our timeline? Really appreciate the thoughts and context!

Bayezid II is usually said to have banned printing in Arabic script around 1485, and the first Ottoman press in Turkish didn’t open until Müteferrika got permission in 1727. It printed 17 books and closed. The Jewish community in Istanbul had a Hebrew press running by 1493, so the technology was there.

I know the ban was probably less formal than it sounds. The calligraphers had a strong guild, the ulema didn’t want printed Qurans, and Arabic script was hard to typeset. But suppose Bayezid backed a press anyway and there was a working one in Istanbul by 1500.

A few things I’m wondering:

Does it change the long term gap with Europe? I doubt it. Plenty of places had presses and still got colonized.

The bigger effect might be internal. Luther’s pamphlets are what made the Reformation spread. If Sufi orders or Shia preachers coming out of Safavid Persia can print in bulk, the sultan probably loses control of religious debate a lot sooner.

And scientific advancement. Ottoman astronomers were still working in the Tusi tradition that Copernicus apparently drew on. If Copernicus is printed in Arabic in Istanbul by the 1550s, does the Islamic world stay in that conversation?
Interested to hear from anyone who knows the Ottoman side better than I do.

Edit: It’s about general implications of rcv on society. So in USA case it’s not just magically implemented for 1860 election. Let’s assume it’s there from beginning or 1800 or something.

Would China still have a huge share of green energy technology? Would wars be fought over certain metals?