Let's say Miguel da Paz doesn't die in 1500, and Castile, Portugal, and Aragon are united into the Kingdom of Iberia. Then, with all their power focused together, they extend the Reconquista all the way to the Sinai. With a lot of Spaniards who would have gone colonizing in OTL, they instead go to north Africa. The Iberians expel the Arabs from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, forcing them. south into Africa or back to Arabia. The cities from Marakesh to Cairo are resettled with Spaniards and Portuguese people... what happens now?
Spanish Egypt
- Thread starter some kind of chimp
- Start date
The Iberians ethnic cleanse North Africa? Sorry, just not possible. Especially without American silver to keep their economy running. At this point the Ottomans are the strongest state on the planet, possibly bar China, and they wouldn't take to that very nicely at all. Come a North African Ibero-Ottoman war, the Ottomans will win. handily.
Well, depends on what time you have the Spanish conquer Egypt. After the mid-1500's, the Ottomans held Egypt, and they'd be unlikely to part with one of their richer provinces. Even the Mamluks wouldn't be a pushover, but they fell out of power in 1517.
But, if you expect the Spanish to be easily capable of conquering all of North Africa just so soon after their unification, it's essentially impossible.
But, if you expect the Spanish to be easily capable of conquering all of North Africa just so soon after their unification, it's essentially impossible.
An Ottoman-Iberian war over North Africa? That probably wouldn't be a shoe-in victory for the Ottomans. Its way beyond their base, and the Ottomans are facing a Spanish kingdom that not only has all of the Iberian peninsula, but also Naples and Sicily, which are attached to Aragon.
If Miguel da Paz does get the combined Iberian crown, then this is going to mean that Charles Hapsburg (OTL Carlos I/ Charles V) isn't going to be the "Universal Emperor" and the politics of Martin Luther's protest are going to be much changed.
The upshot of this is that Spain may be able to focus on continuing the reconquista into (formerly Christian) North Africa, rather than frittering resources away on the Germans' violent religious differences. An American-gold funded Spain, with no European entanglements, is going to be able to project a lot of power into the Med.
Spain did hold most of the important North African ports at one time of another OTL during the 16th century. They just never had the focus to be able to do much of anything with them. I don't think its inconceivable that with focus on the Med the Spanish are going to be able to achieve a Leponto- like victory earlier.
Egypt might be a strech, but its not undoable. And it would be very cool to have the Most Catholic Kingdom of Spain ruling Egypt. Just the politics of how they would square the demographic impossibility of converting all Egypt with their keen desire to do so would be awesome.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
You have got to be kidding. The OTL battle between the Ottomans and Spanish resulted in Ottoman Algeria. You actually think Spain has any chance of taking EGYPT?!? Not going to happen.
The problem with the scenario is just that Spain reached it's height at the same time as the Ottomans, and Egypt is heavily populated and Muslim. It's just not conceivable.
Algeria is possible, and possibly Tunis - a POD might be something in Persia keeping the Ottomans occupied. But you aren't going to get anyone to move from Iberia to North Africa, especially with all the vacated land just taken in Iberia, and North Africa has too large a population to have any hope of expelling.
And frankly the idea is a bit revolting.
The problem with the scenario is just that Spain reached it's height at the same time as the Ottomans, and Egypt is heavily populated and Muslim. It's just not conceivable.
Algeria is possible, and possibly Tunis - a POD might be something in Persia keeping the Ottomans occupied. But you aren't going to get anyone to move from Iberia to North Africa, especially with all the vacated land just taken in Iberia, and North Africa has too large a population to have any hope of expelling.
And frankly the idea is a bit revolting.
a) The Ottoman army is just, hands down, better than the Iberian one at this point. The Spanish army is improving, yes, but in a stand-up fight they have no chance. The Ottomans are more professional, better trained and equipped, and have better logistics.
b) Iberia, in 1500, was not particularly rich. Again, it was doing better, with its conquest of Italy by the 1530s, and the loot from America, but neither of those has happened yet (and, in order for the Iberians to campaign in North Africa, are almost ruled out).
c) Which leads us to the most important point: France ain't going to take this lying down. If the Iberians go into North Africa in a big way, the French are going to take the opportunity to kick the Iberians in the, erm, Italy. And you'd need some big changes in Iberian decision making to make North Africa more important than Italy.
A no-Hapsburgs-in-Spain TL would indeed be kind of neat. However, it wouldn't change the fact that the Iberians just can't go toe-to-toe with the Ottomans for the better part of a century more.
Circa 1500 you're absolutely right. However, I don't think the Ottomans ever operated in North Africa in the same manner that they did in the Balkans. If I recall correctly, Ottoman-ruled North Africa was mainly through proxies and local allies, not a directly ruled province of the Empire.
The Spanish are going to be operating much close to home in North Africa.
Oh, I don't think that North Africa rules out North America. I think the choice of Miguel was so that there was no familial entanglement in Germany. So Spain can follow the same colonial trajectory vis a vis the Americas (ie conquer Aztecs and Inca and start draining the wealth of the Americas into their own coffers), and then when they start funding and fighting wars, it is in Italy and North Africa, versus Italy, North Africa, and Germany (OTL).
I think that taking Iberia out of the equation of the Valios (sp?) -Hapsburg Wars will change the way those wars play out. Specifically, the main bone of contention between the two families was the Burgundian inheritance. With the survival of Miguel, this continues to be a major bone of contention, and the Burgundian inheritance becomes the western half of the Hapsburg domains. Now there is probably going to be an alliance between the Hapsburgs and the Iberians against the French, to limit their gains in Italy, but its possible that with Iberia focused on its colonial empire and its self-appointed divine mission in the Med, the French simply focus on taking as much of Charles the Bold's old domains as possible, rather than poke the Iberians for limited gain. What I would imagine for the latter scenario is that the Iberians and French come to some kind of understanding, and the French are recognized in Milan, while the French recognize the Spaniards in Naples and Sicily.
I agree they can't go toe to toe for some time. But I think that removing the Hapsburgs from Spain could end up having the effect of focusing many more of Iberia's considerable resources on fighting the infidel Turks rather than the heretic Germans.
OTL the Spaniards were able to decisively defeat the Ottomans at Leponto, while also engaged in large and expensive European projects brought on by the Hapsburg connection. So what I'm imagining is that the armies Philip II (during whose reign Leponto occured) fielded against the Dutch are instead being fielded against the Ottomans. The whole focus of the Spanish monarchy in this scenario is east, not north.
You're definitely right that the Spaniards have little hope of being able to settle North Africa with enough Christians to create the basis of a long-term occupation. There were enough people to make it difficult to rule, but not enough to make taxing them a reason to stay. What Egypt offers is a large enough population that taxation becomes reason enough to stay. Plus, having control of Egypt holds out the possibility of controlling the Red Sea and potentially much reducing the communication time with the Portugese (ruled by Miguel & heirs) colonies in the East Indies.
I agree your point, if Iberia (led by Spain) will try to grab Egypt, Its difficult task for Iberia. There would be a war between the Iberians and Ottomans and the results is a Ottoman victory over Iberians.
I think it should be a much slower project. By 1500 the ottomans were superior to the Iberians both in quality and quantity of troops, but by 1571 the year of Lepanto battle, the iberians had better quality troops although much less in number to take Egypt outright.
It should be something like this:
1502 Miguel da Paz survives.
1510s Miguel da Paz I king of Spain (Castille, Aragon and Portugal) with holdings in Italy, the Americas, Africa and India.
1520s-1540s Oran, Tunis, Tlemzen and other ports in north Africa taken. Diplomatic agreements with local rulers in order to prevent the ottomans from vasalizing them (IOTL PHilip II and Charles V had an active diplomacy on that side that was almost ruined by king Sebastiao crusade in Morocco).
1550s-1560s The ottomans try to expand to Mahgreb but they find fierce resistance by local rules backed up by spanish gold and troops.
1570s The spaniards retake Cyprus and Crete and have their first strongholds in Eastern Mediterranean. Contacts between the iberians and the safawids that forge an alliance: support against the ottomans in exchange for trading rights in the persian gulf.
1580s Contacts between hispanic agents (mahgrebi naturals) and egyptians.
1590s Egyptian rebellion against the ottomans in combination with offensives from Austria and Persia. Hispanic forces land in Egypt supporting the rebels.
1600s Egypt becomes some sort of Hispanic protectorade.
It should be something like this:
1502 Miguel da Paz survives.
1510s Miguel da Paz I king of Spain (Castille, Aragon and Portugal) with holdings in Italy, the Americas, Africa and India.
1520s-1540s Oran, Tunis, Tlemzen and other ports in north Africa taken. Diplomatic agreements with local rulers in order to prevent the ottomans from vasalizing them (IOTL PHilip II and Charles V had an active diplomacy on that side that was almost ruined by king Sebastiao crusade in Morocco).
1550s-1560s The ottomans try to expand to Mahgreb but they find fierce resistance by local rules backed up by spanish gold and troops.
1570s The spaniards retake Cyprus and Crete and have their first strongholds in Eastern Mediterranean. Contacts between the iberians and the safawids that forge an alliance: support against the ottomans in exchange for trading rights in the persian gulf.
1580s Contacts between hispanic agents (mahgrebi naturals) and egyptians.
1590s Egyptian rebellion against the ottomans in combination with offensives from Austria and Persia. Hispanic forces land in Egypt supporting the rebels.
1600s Egypt becomes some sort of Hispanic protectorade.
corourke
Donor
Is there any reason the reconquista couldn't happen in North Africa in a limited fashion, perhaps only limited to Morocco or so?
It seems to me that if the Spanish were so good at depopulating and repopulating southern Spain, they could also do that to Morocco given enough time and will. I imagine if anything Al-Andalus had more people than Morocco, and colonization of that should have presented more of a challenge than a hypothetical colonization of Morocco, especially given that Spain will be more powerful when this colonization takes place.
edit: sorry if this is derailing the thread too much
It seems to me that if the Spanish were so good at depopulating and repopulating southern Spain, they could also do that to Morocco given enough time and will. I imagine if anything Al-Andalus had more people than Morocco, and colonization of that should have presented more of a challenge than a hypothetical colonization of Morocco, especially given that Spain will be more powerful when this colonization takes place.
edit: sorry if this is derailing the thread too much
In fact it should have continued if there had been no Hapsburg ruling in Spain, it was considered that the Hispania Tingitana was part of Hispania (roughly OTL Spanish Morocco extended to Oran).
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
There's a reason why Spain never took on the Ottoman army in this period - it was a conscious decision to avoid getting smecked. There are several issues, and at the risk of repeating myself:
1. In OTL the Spanish took on the Ottomans in N. Africa, and lost. Even when it was the Mega-Haspburg Empire, the most that was achieved was a temporary occupation of the city of Tunis.
2. North Africa is over 90% Muslim, and most of the rest is Jewish. The Spanish would have to fight not only the Ottomans but the entire indigenous population.
3. Logistics. The Ottomans have land and sea routes, the Spanish only easily interrupted sea routes.
As I said, I think if it were established as a serious priority, it would be possible to take Algeria, but that would depend upon something horrible happening to France and the Netherlands, not to mention the Reformation, and Persian would have to develop superpowers. For Spain to attach any sort of importance to trying to conquer fairly poor and desolate N. African countries while half their empire is rebelling and Catholicism crumbling, and in the process having to take on the most powerful state on earth, seems akin to insanity.
Egypt is a non-starter. It's population is too large and it's too close to the Ottomans.
1. In OTL the Spanish took on the Ottomans in N. Africa, and lost. Even when it was the Mega-Haspburg Empire, the most that was achieved was a temporary occupation of the city of Tunis.
2. North Africa is over 90% Muslim, and most of the rest is Jewish. The Spanish would have to fight not only the Ottomans but the entire indigenous population.
3. Logistics. The Ottomans have land and sea routes, the Spanish only easily interrupted sea routes.
As I said, I think if it were established as a serious priority, it would be possible to take Algeria, but that would depend upon something horrible happening to France and the Netherlands, not to mention the Reformation, and Persian would have to develop superpowers. For Spain to attach any sort of importance to trying to conquer fairly poor and desolate N. African countries while half their empire is rebelling and Catholicism crumbling, and in the process having to take on the most powerful state on earth, seems akin to insanity.
Egypt is a non-starter. It's population is too large and it's too close to the Ottomans.
If the Spanish continue East, and actually take some territory, then the dead Byzantine title, which Isabella and Ferdinand bought off a Byzantine pretender, might start being used.
Largely agree, although I'm not sure about the "the only thing they took was Tunis" bit. It was the only Ottoman possession they took, sure, but they also took most of the major ports west of Tunis and held onto them all (except Algiers) for the better part of a century.
Like you say, though, the real problem is that the Spanish are always going to see Italy ans more important that North Africa, and deploy their resources accordingly. Making them see North Africa - especially North Africa that's not Morocco - as a significant theater requires some serious changes in policy (not to mention slightly insane changes in policy).
The Spanish did not want to colonize North Africa in great numbers and wouldn't even in a scenario without a discovery of the Americas in 1492. The myth/belief that it was necessary to restore the kingdom of the Visigoths as an unified Christian state covering the entire Peninsula did not work there. The best theywould do would be more or less the same policy you see before Charles I's coronation in 1517: to take some strategic coastal cities to crack piratic actions and to place friendly rulers in the rest (in fact, the Ottoman annexation of Algiers began as a war between pro a anti-Spanish local factions, with the last receiving aid from the Ottomans and being imposed Turkish sovereignty after their victory). This policy would be a lot more successful in a TL without the Burgundian inheritance to divert the best Spain's money and men to northern Europe.
Of course, this could change if for some reason a Sebastian-like king took over the Spanish throne in the ATL (*cough*Don Carlos*cough*) but I don't see too much success if that was the case. Not enough to take Spanish colonists to Egypt, of course.
The only scenario that I can imagine in which part of the challenge could be achieve would be one in which you avoid Spanish decadence around 1800 (no French Revoluton, no Godoy, Charles IV with brains, whatever) while the Ottoman one continues in schedule. Then the Spanish could back a native Egyptian rebellion against the Ottomans and stablish some sort of "friendship" with the new Egyptian state.
In fact, that was exactly what a James Bond-like Spanish spy claimed to be able at that time. But guess what happened when he told of his contacts with Egyptian notables to Charles IV: The king told him to give his notes to Napoleon, and the spy was murdered some years later, by British agents...
Of course, this could change if for some reason a Sebastian-like king took over the Spanish throne in the ATL (*cough*Don Carlos*cough*) but I don't see too much success if that was the case. Not enough to take Spanish colonists to Egypt, of course.
The only scenario that I can imagine in which part of the challenge could be achieve would be one in which you avoid Spanish decadence around 1800 (no French Revoluton, no Godoy, Charles IV with brains, whatever) while the Ottoman one continues in schedule. Then the Spanish could back a native Egyptian rebellion against the Ottomans and stablish some sort of "friendship" with the new Egyptian state.
In fact, that was exactly what a James Bond-like Spanish spy claimed to be able at that time. But guess what happened when he told of his contacts with Egyptian notables to Charles IV: The king told him to give his notes to Napoleon, and the spy was murdered some years later, by British agents...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
You are forgetting that the North Africans voluntarily joined the Ottoman Empire in order to avoid just a scenario. There is no incentive Spain can provide that would make Spanish domination more attractive than loose association with the Ottomans backed up by Ottoman power.
The diplomacy you posit below is of no benefit to anyone but Spain. Why should the Safavids have any interest in allowing Spain trading rights in the Persian Gulf? After having to deal with the nightmare of the Portuguese they are not going to want to allow in an even greater power - and BTW, you are violating the Treaty of Torsedillas with this.
Crete and Cyprus belong to Venice in this period - I'm not sure why you use the word "retake" - these are not Spanish islands. You have attacked Venice, more or less eliminating any hope of defeating the Ottomans at sea and driving the latter into alliance with the Ottomans, and don't think they wouldn't do this under these circumstances.
There is no way, no how, that Egyptians are going to rebel against the Ottomans in order to join Spain. Local Egyptians are in control of the administration, and have only to pay tribute to the Porte. There is no possible incentive for them to do this. I think you are really overestimating the appeal that Spanish rule will have for the Muslims of N. Africa, many of whom are the survivors of the brutal expulsion from Iberia which occurred all of nine years before the beginning of this scenario.
The diplomacy you posit below is of no benefit to anyone but Spain. Why should the Safavids have any interest in allowing Spain trading rights in the Persian Gulf? After having to deal with the nightmare of the Portuguese they are not going to want to allow in an even greater power - and BTW, you are violating the Treaty of Torsedillas with this.
Crete and Cyprus belong to Venice in this period - I'm not sure why you use the word "retake" - these are not Spanish islands. You have attacked Venice, more or less eliminating any hope of defeating the Ottomans at sea and driving the latter into alliance with the Ottomans, and don't think they wouldn't do this under these circumstances.
There is no way, no how, that Egyptians are going to rebel against the Ottomans in order to join Spain. Local Egyptians are in control of the administration, and have only to pay tribute to the Porte. There is no possible incentive for them to do this. I think you are really overestimating the appeal that Spanish rule will have for the Muslims of N. Africa, many of whom are the survivors of the brutal expulsion from Iberia which occurred all of nine years before the beginning of this scenario.
But they did manage to place some friendly puppet kings in Mahgrebi states. Of course these kings did not seek the enlargement of the Hispanic monarchy but their own interests, they obtained independence from the ottomans, some gold from Spain and the price was small. They had not to fight for Spain and there were no foreign rulers. If you have Spain with the American silver, the trade to the East Indies and no worries in Europe, then these puppet kings would be very happy to receive an extra gold and they would probably be more cooperative.
As for the safavids: they even sent ambassadors to Philip II seeking for that alliance. The iberian possesions in Ormuz were lost and probably the hispanic monarchy would try to get a price for the support to the safavids.
By the way, we have Miguel da Paz surviving ITTL, so there is a union of Portugal, Castille and Aragon and no treaty of Tordesillas apply!
I should have developed a bit more this point. Let's say that Venice loses Crete and Cyprus, Spain blockades both islands and manage to expel the ottomans, then they delay their return to the Venetians. Big powers do that some times.
And I did not say so. They would rebel with spanish support and to be independent, "if those stupid infidels give us silver it is their problem!". There is no spanish rule as there was not in Morocco and other states of the North of Africa with spanish puppet rulers.
This would be possible if Iberia (Spain and Portugal) could get Egyptian allies but must of Egyptians rallied in support to Ottoman Empire.
The main problem with that argument is that the Spanish are more or less equal in terms of technology with the Turks...
The main problem with that argument is that the Spanish are more or less equal in terms of technology with the Turks...
In 1616 you have the battle of Celidonia Cape in which an small force of Spanish galleons defeated a much bigger ottoman force of galleys (IIRC there were three galleons and a couple of smaller ships and around fifty galleys). Just keep the spanish (portuguese-castillian-aragonese) concentrated in the Mediterranean and not in northern Europe, improving their navy as IOTL in order to keep the communication lines with the Americas and East Asia and you have a navy of galleons that the ottomans would not be able to face. Full dominion of the mediterranean would go next and then they would probably attempt to create protectorades from Morocco to Egypt aiming to keep the ottomans off their coasts in Italy and Spain.
IOTL piracy was so active that the spanish crown even considered depopulating Ibiza and other islands and coastal towns. Less piracy would mean more trade, more riches and the full process would self-feed itself.
Please note, that I do not think that we could see ITTL an Spanish Egypt, not even an Spanish North Africa much bigger than what the spanish kings tried to take in North Africa, but I think that it is possible that if they concentrated in the Mediterranean instead of the Mediterranean they could create a chain of puppet states in order to keep piracy off the western mediterranean and eventually they could think of doing the same in Egypt or in part of Egypt as a way of hindering ottoman power.
Last edited: