• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Maps #13 - 2nd of August 2024 - Maghreb

Hello, and welcome one more week to another Tinto Maps, where we assemble several maps for the shake of it (well, also to gather feedback, I guess). After the nightmarish maps of last week, we’re showing a much less fragmented region this week, the Maghreb. Let’s take a look at it, then.

Countries:
Countries 1.jpg

Countries 2.jpg

This week I’m showing two versions of the country map, one without colored wastelands, and another with them colored (please take into account that some work still needs to be done regarding the coloring of the corridors). Only four new countries are to be shown this week (as Fezzan already appeared some weeks ago). First is first, there are dynamic keys for them similar to the Mamluks, so their full name in the game are ‘Marinid Sultanate of Morocco’, ‘Zayyanid Sultanate of Tlemcen, and ‘Hafsid Sultanate of Tunis’ (Tripoli starts with a random ruler, as we weren’t able to find which was the reigning dynasty in 1337). The main power in this period is the Marinid dynasty, ruling from Fās, after grabbing the power from the Almohads almost a century ago. They start at war with the Zayyanids of Tlemcen, and its capital is close to falling to the mighty Sultan Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali. They also have a foothold in Iberia, around Algeciras and Ronda, which may lead to future campaigns about the control of the Strait of Gibraltar.

Diplomacy.jpg

And this is the starting diplomatic situation between Morocco and Tlemcen, with the capital of the latter almost surrounded by the former...

Dynasties:
Dynasties.png

Here we have the three main dynasties of the Maghreb in 1337, the Marinids, the Zayyanids, and the Hafsids. Apart from those, the dynasties of Tripoli and Fezzan are randomly generated, as we don’t know who was ruling in those places at that specific time.

Locations:
Locations.png

Locations 2.png

Locations 3.png
Here are the maps of the locations. In the first, you may see the corridors (the non-named locations) connecting the Maghreb with the Saharan inner lands and oases. Regarding the location density, we might want to increase it in a few places (that Siṭṭāt location is too big compared to its neighbors, for instance).

Provinces:
Provinces.png

We’re open to suggestions for the provinces, as usual.

Areas:
Areas.png

The areas of the Maghreb correspond to their historical division (al-Aqṣā, al-Awsat, al-Adna, and Tripoli). The northern section of the Sahara is split in two areas, the Western Sahara, and the Sahara Oases.

Terrain:
Climate.png

Topography.png

Vegetation.png

Better late than never!

Cultures:
Cultures.png

The cultural division of the region is very, very interesting, we think. The first thing that I want to stress is that we’ve divided the most Arabized zones from the more traditionally Berber ones. The more Arabized cultures are the Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Lybian, and the Hassaniya tribe, in the western Sahara. Meanwhile, the Berber-speaking peoples are divided into Masmuda, and Sanhaja in al-Maġrib al-Aqṣā; the Zenati in al-Maġrib al-Awsat; the Kabylian, Chaoui, and Mozabite in al-Maġrib al-Adna; and the Eastern Berber (a name that we will probably change, given the feedback already received in the Egyptian Tinto Maps) in Tripoli. The Berber-speaking Tuareg and the Saharan-speaking Toubou inhabit the central Saharan Oases.

Religions:
Religions.png

Most of the region’s population practices Sunni Islam, with a very important zone where Ibadism is the majority, more or less corresponding with Mozabite and Eastern Berbers. Although it’s not shown on the map, there are two religious minorities present, the Mustaʿravi Jews, in a bunch of urban centers across the region, and some native Christians spread through al-Maġrib al-Adna.

Raw Materials:
Raw Materials.png

The Maghreb is very rich in different materials, especially Morocco (which was used a long time ago as a ‘RGO-gameplay’ testing ground by our QAs). The Saharan corridor is way less productive, but it’s somehow important for the next map…

Markets:
Markets.png

The market centers of the region are placed in Fās and Al-Jazā'ir, which makes for good market access and distribution for the start of the game, in general terms. You might notice that trading happens across the corridors, which makes for a real connection between the markets to the north and south of the Sahara in 1337. This means that we can effectively simulate the trading of Saharan and sub-Saharan goods (salt, alum, gold, ivory) to the north until maybe some European countries decide to explore down the African coast and make direct trading in the Gulf of Guinea, avoiding the Maghrebi intermediaries.

Population:
Population.png

Population 2.png

Population 3.png
The population of the region is around 5,5M, with an interesting distribution: al-Maġrib al-Aqṣā and al-Maġrib al-Adna have more or less a similar population, with al-Maġrib al-Awsat having half of them, and Tripoli and Saharan Oases being way less populated.

And that’s all for this week! The next one we will travel across the Sahara, and take a look at the region of Western Africa. See you!
 
  • 156Like
  • 48Love
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Lol, I completely forgot them, for a reason this DD looked lighter compared to last week's HRE one... Give me 10-15 minutes, and I'll upload them, sorry.

Any DD would look lighter than massive mess that was the HRE!
 
We already took a look into this, but kt has two issues:
1. We don't know where exactly they inhabited.
2. We don't know about their size, apart from most likely being a tiny minority.

The original post talked about the Christians helping the Kingdom of Sicily set up and run the Sicilian Kingdom of Africa, but after the collapse of Sicilian rule in the region after the Almohad invasion of 1156 - 1160, it's recorded that most of them fled to Sicily with the retreating armies rather than face the invaders. And those that remained were persecuted by the Almohads not only for their religion, but also due to their collaboration. I would say there would be very few, if any, in at least the eastern half of the Maghreb afterwards.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Blursed Tinto Maps.

Have it include Bermuda, the South Atlantic Islands, and the Caribbean and just call it the "Atlantic Islands" TM or something.

Bonus points if you black out Newfoundland in the Eastern Canada TM and put it in that one as well!

What if Newfoundland is blacked out, but St Pierre and Miquelon are still shown?
 
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Apart from those, the dynasties of Tripoli and Fezzan are randomly generated, as we don’t know who was ruling in those places at that specific time.
I know Wikipedia isn't a good source in on itself, but wasn't Tripoli's ruler Muhammad Banu Thabit/Banu Ammar? If you look up the article called Banu Thabit you'll see the sources too, they say Muhammad started ruling it in 1326/1327 and was assassinated in 1338, therefore in 1337 he should still be ruling it. It also says that, although it had a lot of autonomy, he ruled it on behalf of the Hafsids, so shouldn't it be a vassal of Tunis, at least nominally?

I also think Fezzan should be a vassal/PU of the Kanem, since they managed to conquer it in the early 13th century up until the Awlad Muhammad conquest. The city of Traghan was founded around the time of the Kanem conquest and it was established as its capital. Historian John Stewart says that Kanem's ruler (and I personally would think, consequentially, Fezzan's ruler) at the time was Abdullah II Kaday of Kanem, while other sources say Salmama Ibn Abdullahi II Sefuwa of Kanem ruled at the time.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
There are accounts of the Hassaniya having control of the southwestern territories upon the fall of the Almohad Caliphate, around 1250, and by 1337, they're most likely the most dominant tribe of the region (although we're open to sources potentially correcting this, of course).
Moreso the point I was attempting to make is that the Hassaniya dialect did not exist and should not exist as a culture/language at this point in history.

It is correct the Banu Hassan, stemming from the Banu Maqil, did dominate and collect tribute from the Sanhaja and Masmuda throughout the 13th and 14th centuries as the Banu Maqil are theorized to have migrated to the Maghreb around the same time period as the Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym. The Banu Maqil (and in turn, the Banu Hassan) did take advantage of the weakening of the Almohads around 1250 and establishing themselves as the local power over the Berber of South and Southeastern Morocco, certainly by 1337 yes. This includes areas along the Draa, Sijilmaasa, North into Sus as well.

However, the expansion of their control and migration deeper into the Sahara such as modern Mauritania did not occur until later in the 1300s, but it was moreso a century later, which is when the distinction of Hassaniya Arabic language and their Arab-Saharan culture began to develop. Hassaniya Arabic has a very distinct tie to Classical Arabic, as well as strong influence from the local Zenaga Berber languages of Mauritania. the Tribal Identity of the Banu Maqil and Banu Hassan of the 14th century was still very Bedouin in nature, in fact it remained so for centuries. Frankly, it was truly the Char Bouba War in the 1600s that changed the linguistic and cultural framework of the Western Sahara and Hassaniya language and culture came to dominate the region.

To reiterate, my main point is that Hassaniya Arabic did not yet exist at this point in time, as it developed out of contact with the Berber and other Africans of Mauritania as well as isolation from the Arabs further north that did not occur until later in History. This is not to deny that the Banu Maqil and Banu Hassan lived in Southern Morocco at game start, simply that they should be of Bedouin culture, not Hassaniya.

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03087952/file/2020_Hassaniyya_Arabic_In_Contact induct change.pdf These first two mostly discuss the development of the language and some its unique characterizations, often with ties and similarities to Zenaga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beni_Ḥassān#History (I know Wikipedia is not always the first choice, but it does provide some further insight)
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Overall, this seems pretty good, but I can see one glaring omission: why don’t any provinces follow the traditional Berber religion (or at least have it represented in religious minorities)? The fact that it’s still extant today should be a strong indicator that it was present 700 years ago.

It's still extant today in the same way that european paganism "exists" within Christian populations. As in, there might be some heterodox practices that some hypothesize are pagan in origin, but nobody would identify it as their religion (not talking about fringe Uralic/Caucasian groups, nor neopagans), nor is there anybody who doesn't identify with an abrahamic religion one way or another. The islamization of the region was complete centuries ago.

Guanche are another question, they absolutely are pagan pre-Castillian conquest. Frankly although they clearly had some relation to mainland Amazigh, we don't properly understand what kind of a relationship or how close it was.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The Hassaniya culture was not the predominant in the region until the Char Bouba War around mid 1600s, even the dialect did not begin to form until the mid 1400s when the Beni Hassan tribe really differentiates from the classical Arabic of the Banu maqil (Bedouin).

Talking about the Musta'arabi Jews in the region who lived long before the arrival of the Sephardic Jews, we will see a dynamic assimilation of these communities??
 
Does anyone know when Abu Ali was defeated by his brother Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Othman?

Quote:
A son of Abu-Saïd Uthman (II) ibn Yaqub (1310-1331), named Abu Ali, made Sigilmasa the center of a dissident emirate that tried to extend its rule towards Touat and Marrakesh (1310- 1331). Abu-l-Hassan Ali ibn Uthman (1331-1348), brother of the rebel, confirmed him in power to ensure his neutrality during an expedition against Tlemcen (which he was doing in alliance with the Hafsids ). Finally Abu Ali fell prisoner to his brother and ended his days imprisoned in Fez. But Abu-l-Hàssan Ali, upon the return of the unfortunate expedition to Ifríqiya , had to take refuge in Sigilmasa threatened by his son Abu-Inan Faris; the city soon withdrew its allegiance to the father in favor of the son.
Quote
In 1336 or 1337, Abu al-Hasan suspended the siege of Tlemcen to campaign in southern Morocco, where his troublesome brother, Abu Ali, who ruled an appanage at Sijilmassa, was threatening to divide the Marinid dominions.
Quote
Abu Ali's rise to power and revolt
He had to deal with his brother, Abu Ali, a rebel who held the Saharan side of the Atlas in the Dra` Valley with Sijilmâsa as his capital . Abu Ali had allied himself with the Zianid sultan Abû Tâshfîn , an enemy of the Merinids. Abu al-Hasan then attacked Sijilmâsa in 1332 and captured his brother, whom he had assassinated
Quote
In 1337, Abū l-Ḥasan was forced to lift the siege of Tlemcen because of his brother, Abū ʿAlī, who had proclaimed himself independent sultan of Sijilmassa , and threatened to divide the Merinid dominions in two.
In May 1337, after defeating his brother, he re-sieged Tlemcen, which surrendered to the Marinids.

At the beginning of the 14th century , Touat was under the authority of the Marinid emir Abū 'Alī (1333), king of Sijilmassa. But from the end of the 14th century , Touat, due to trans-Saharan trade, entered the orbit of Tlemcen and the Zianids 8 .
Ibn Khaldoun then mentions the arrival of new tribes, notably the Ma'qīl Arabs who were part of the troops of Abū 'Alī, son of the Marinid emir, who came to conquer the region in 1315. Some of these Ma'qīl are said to have remained in Touat 30, among them the Dhawī 'Ubayd Allāh who left Tell and moved "every year to the Tuatian region and came to take up their winter quarters in Touat 31." They are also mentioned by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa who, during his visit in 1353, mentioned their revolt against the Marinid troops 32. It is interesting to note that these events, like the names of these groups, are absent from local productions.
If Abu Ali was indeed defeated in May, it is possible to weaken Morocco by taking away some of its lands.
start dates.png

Countries 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • 11Like
  • 6
Reactions:
Fezzan

'Between 1300 and 1500 lie the siecles obscurs of the Fazzan and of the relations between the Chad region and the Mediterranean littoral. It is hard to say with much certainty just how long the control of the king of Kanem over the Fazzan lasted. It has been suggested that Kanem controlled the Fazzan through a subordinate king or a viceroy, whose capital was at Tarajin near Murzuq, for about a century after the death of Qaraqush (i.e. to about A.D. 1310). About that time, the representatives of Kanem were supposedly expelled by a Moroccan sharif named al-Muntazar, or perhaps al-Muntasir, b. Muhammad al-Fasi, traditionally the founder of Murzuq, south of Zawila. Murzuq now became not only the capital of the Fazzan, but also the seat of a dynasty called the Awlad Muhammad. Other sources put the establishment of the Awlad Muhammad in the Fazzan at some time between 1500 and 1550, so that an accurate fixing of the end of Kanemi rule, of the chronology of the Qurman and the Awlad Muhammad (and possibly of a re-establishment of the rule of Bornu also) has yet to be worked out.'
(Source: B. G. Martin: Kanem, Bornu, and the Fazzan: Notes on the Political History of a Trade Route, p. 20-21, in: The Journal of African History, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1969), pp. 15-27.)

'In the Hafsid period Fazzan was nominally unter the rule of Tunis, but actually it was controlled by the Khattab tribal dynasty. During the twenty years the knights of St John held Tripoli [i.e. from 1530 onwards] a Moroccan sharif called Muntasir b. Muhammad took control of Fazzan. From Murzuq, which he made his capital, he and his descedants ruled the province as far as Sukna in the north and controlled the caravan trade with the wester Sudan. The pasha of Tripoli Muhammad al-Turki (1578-86) was able to bring the Banu Muhammad to recognize Ottoman sovereignty over Fazzan, but left them to run the affairs of Fazzan themselves.'
(Source: Abun-Nasr, Jamil M. (1971). A history of the Maghrib, p. 195)

Given that al-Muntazar from the first source and Muntasir b. Muhammad from the second source are the same person, the sources present contradictory timelines and details. The first source suggests that Kanem’s control over Fazzan may have lasted until around 1310 through a subordinate ruler, but this is not definitively established. The first source states that around 1310, Kanem’s representatives were expelled by a Moroccan sharif named al-Muntazar, who established Murzuq and initiated the rule of the Awlad Muhammad dynasty. The second source, however, indicates that Muntasir b. Muhammad (the same person as al-Muntazar) took control of Fazzan during the period when the Knights of St. John held Tripoli, which began in 1530. This would suggest that his control was established much later than 1310.

Given the contradictory nature of the sources, it is challenging to establish a clear political situation in Fazzan for the year 1337. However, based on the available information, it can be concluded that:
  • Kanem's influence over Fazzan likely ended around 1310.
  • The exact timing and establishment of Muntasir's (al-Muntazar’s) rule are unclear, with conflicting accounts suggesting either an early 14th-century or mid-16th-century start.
  • In 1337, Fazzan was probably experiencing a period of local control and political transition, potentially under emerging local leaders or dynasties, but without strong, centralized external control.
  • The political landscape was fragmented, with significant local autonomy and ongoing shifts in power dynamics.
Given these uncertainties, it is reasonable to conclude that Fazzan in 1337 was characterized by local governance, likely under the influence of emerging local dynasties, in a period marked by political transition and fragmentation.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello, and welcome one more week to another Tinto Maps, where we assemble several maps for the shake of it (well, also to gather feedback, I guess). After the nightmarish maps of last week, we’re showing a much less fragmented region this week, the Maghreb. Let’s take a look at it, then.

Countries:
View attachment 1170526
View attachment 1170527
This week I’m showing two versions of the country map, one without colored wastelands, and another with them colored (please take into account that some work still needs to be done regarding the coloring of the corridors). Only four new countries are to be shown this week (as Fezzan already appeared some weeks ago). First is first, there are dynamic keys for them similar to the Mamluks, so their full name in the game are ‘Marinid Sultanate of Morocco’, ‘Zayyanid Sultanate of Tlemcen, and ‘Hafsid Sultanate of Tunis’ (Tripoli starts with a random ruler, as we weren’t able to find which was the reigning dynasty in 1337). The main power in this period is the Marinid dynasty, ruling from Fās, after grabbing the power from the Almohads almost a century ago. They start at war with the Zayyanids of Tlemcen, and its capital is close to falling to the mighty Sultan Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali. They also have a foothold in Iberia, around Algeciras and Ronda, which may lead to future campaigns about the control of the Strait of Gibraltar.

View attachment 1170528
And this is the starting diplomatic situation between Morocco and Tlemcen, with the capital of the latter almost surrounded by the former...

Dynasties:
View attachment 1170971
Here we have the three main dynasties of the Maghreb in 1337, the Marinids, the Zayyanids, and the Hafsids. Apart from those, the dynasties of Tripoli and Fezzan are randomly generated, as we don’t know who was ruling in those places at that specific time.

Locations:
View attachment 1170530
Here are the maps of the locations. In the first, you may see the corridors (the non-named locations) connecting the Maghreb with the Saharan inner lands and oases. Regarding the location density, we might want to increase it in a few places (that Siṭṭāt location is too big compared to its neighbors, for instance).

Provinces:
View attachment 1170533
We’re open to suggestions for the provinces, as usual.

Areas:
View attachment 1170534
The areas of the Maghreb correspond to their historical division (al-Aqṣā, al-Awsat, al-Adna, and Tripoli). The northern section of the Sahara is split in two areas, the Western Sahara, and the Sahara Oases.

Terrain:
View attachment 1170973
View attachment 1170974
View attachment 1170976
Better late than never!

Cultures:
View attachment 1170535
The cultural division of the region is very, very interesting, we think. The first thing that I want to stress is that we’ve divided the most Arabized zones from the more traditionally Berber ones. The more Arabized cultures are the Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Lybian, and the Hassaniya tribe, in the western Sahara. Meanwhile, the Berber-speaking peoples are divided into Masmuda, and Sanhaja in al-Maġrib al-Aqṣā; the Zenati in al-Maġrib al-Awsat; the Kabylian, Chaoui, and Mozabite in al-Maġrib al-Adna; and the Eastern Berber (a name that we will probably change, given the feedback already received in the Egyptian Tinto Maps) in Tripoli. The Berber-speaking Tuareg and the Saharan-speaking Toubou inhabit the central Saharan Oases.

Religions:
View attachment 1170543
Most of the region’s population practices Sunni Islam, with a very important zone where Ibadism is the majority, more or less corresponding with Mozabite and Eastern Berbers. Although it’s not shown on the map, there are two religious minorities present, the Mustaʿravi Jews, in a bunch of urban centers across the region, and some native Christians spread through al-Maġrib al-Adna.

Raw Materials:
View attachment 1170537
The Maghreb is very rich in different materials, especially Morocco (which was used a long time ago as a ‘RGO-gameplay’ testing ground by our QAs). The Saharan corridor is way less productive, but it’s somehow important for the next map…

Markets:
View attachment 1170538
The market centers of the region are placed in Fās and Al-Jazā'ir, which makes for good market access and distribution for the start of the game, in general terms. You might notice that trading happens across the corridors, which makes for a real connection between the markets to the north and south of the Sahara in 1337. This means that we can effectively simulate the trading of Saharan and sub-Saharan goods (salt, alum, gold, ivory) to the north until maybe some European countries decide to explore down the African coast and make direct trading in the Gulf of Guinea, avoiding the Maghrebi intermediaries.

Population:
View attachment 1170539
The population of the region is around 5,5M, with an interesting distribution: al-Maġrib al-Aqṣā and al-Maġrib al-Adna have more or less a similar population, with al-Maġrib al-Awsat having half of them, and Tripoli and Saharan Oases being way less populated.

And that’s all for this week! The next one we will travel across the Sahara, and take a look at the region of Western Africa. See you!
I can't stress enough how proud I am of this game. Other Paradox games have butchered the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the region. Thank you so much for this rendition. Keep up the good work, and thank you for respecting the historical sources.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
-Not sure about algiers being chosen as a market over tunis in 1337.
-Tripoli should be ruled by Muhammad ibn Thabit of the banu Thabit dinasty
-Fezzan should be under the control of Kanem Bornu
-Not sure about the marinids being the rulers of morocco instead of Fez given that morocco was oroginally a reference to the city of Marrakech which was not their capital.
-There should be andalusi minorities in Tangiers, Ceuta and Melilla.
-Gabes should start as a vassal of Tunis rather than directly under their control, it would be ruled by the banu makki dinasty who would conquer tripolitania a few decades later. I would give them control over Tripoli owned Al-gifara.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
The Banu Thabit, a chiefly clan of the Jawari tribe, gained control over Tripoli in 1324. They also controlled Gharyan and Zanzur. In 1354, the Genoese Filippo Doria plundered the city with a fleet and sold it to the Banu Makki, who submitted to the suzerainty of the Marinids. The Banu Thabit were able to regain control in 1370. In 1401, Tripoli came under the rule of the Hafsids.

The Banu Makki were the ruling clan in Gabis. They become independent before 1317 from Hafsids. In the mid-1350s they expanded their authority by the annexation of Tripoli and Sfax. In 1380 the Hafsids ended the rule of the Banu Makki.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions: