• 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:
I would personally go for that, with possible a situation relating to the collapse of the marinid dinasty in the XV century causing the tag to be renamed to morocco.
Sure, why not. As long as there is the same kind of event for the Zayyanids, since they were already called Algeria by Ibn Khaldun in 1377.
 
It is really unfortunate that, once again, Algeria is forgotten as if it never existed.

Algeria was founded in 777 by the Rustamid dynasty. They established a nation in today's Algeria and checked every box that makes a nation, a nation.

Algeria was NOT founded neither by the Turks nor by the French. It was founded by Algerians.

If the Marinids are Morocco, and the Hafsids are Tunis, then why aren't the Zayyanids Algeria?

I don't understand this bias against Algeria, always.

Morocco wasn't even called Morocco back then, it was Marrakech and Fes, and yet you call in Morocco in game. Makes no sense.

Even in 1560, it wasn't called Morocco, it was Marrakech and Fes, while Algeria was called Algeria.

I truly hope this will be fixed because it's historically inaccurate. Algeria should be an independent nation at the start of the game.
Because the Zayyanid Kingdom of Tlemcen is what it was known as until their complete fall in 1556, It was not known as the Zayyanid Kingdom of Algeria. It wasn't known as Algeria until the Regency of Algiers developed as a tributary/vassal of the ottomans, as the name al'Jaza'ir came to represent the entire region. The Regency existed for centuries until 1830, and the name stuck afterwards. the Kingdom of the Rustamids, as far as I can see, was never called Algeria.

Likewise, many people have already requested Tunis be called Ifriqiyya and Morocco, Fes or Fez, or call them all just by the Dynasty, so the comparison doesn't seem to accurate
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Because the Zayyanid Kingdom of Tlemcen is what it was known as until their complete fall in 1556, It was not known as the Zayyanid Kingdom of Algeria. It wasn't known as Algeria until the Regency of Algiers developed as a tributary/vassal of the ottomans, as the name al'Jaza'ir came to represent the entire region. The Regency existed for centuries until 1830, and the name stuck afterwards. the Kingdom of the Rustamids, as far as I can see, was never called Algeria.

Likewise, many people have already requested Tunis be called Ifriqiyya and Morocco, Fes or Fez, or call them all just by the Dynasty, so the comparison doesn't seem to accurate
That is completely false. Ibn Khaldun called the Central Maghreb "Bilad Al-Jazair" meaning "The Country of Algiers", which he then called Algeria, in 1377, a whole 139 years before the Ottomans.

What you're saying is a French colonial account of events.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
That is completely false. Ibn Khaldun called the Central Maghreb "Bilad Al-Jazair" meaning "The Country of Algiers", which he then called Algeria, in 1377, a whole 139 years before the Ottomans.

What you're saying is a French colonial account of events.
Please provide sources on that then
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Here it is, if you can read arabic.View attachment 1171429
I do recognize al-Jazair here, however I cannot read Arabic unfortunately, however I do not see "Bilad". In the same grain, doing some research, Bilad often was used for many other definitions, such as land, city, area, town. Not just country. The English translation of the Muqadimmah uses city for this context when describing Algiers, so again, I am not sure whether this can be used as definitive proof, but it is evidence, so thank you for providing that.

Though I am curious on your thoughts regarding Al-Hassan al-Wazzan in his accounts, as he did describe the region as the Kingdom of Tlemcen a century later.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing that always bugs me in EU4 is that the Maghreb is always conquered by AI Iberian states, whereas historically the region was mostly independent until the French invaded in the 1800s. Does this also happen in the current builds of Project Caesar, or is the game balanced such that North African states are more resilient to European aggression?
From what I understand about strategy game development, the AI is really preliminary at this stage.
 
From what I understand about strategy game development, the AI is really preliminary at this stage.
Probably, but I've got the impression that a huge reason for most of the big ideas put forward, is that the AI will be able to actually take into account mods/dlcs which expand upon them. And stuff is only shown if and when it actually works.

So, however unfinished the ai is, the big difference with previous pds games definitely seems to be there already.
 
Great map, another one! I'll try to give a insight of portuguese presence in morocco and the addition of some locations!

These 2 blog posts are great posts about portuguese history in the region, with sources and i've found the posts to be really good to reade. There are others post, so I believe it will be a nice read



With that in mind I would start by spliting Habat province in 2, Tanja and Titwan. In Tanja province I would put Tanja, Asila, Al-Arais, al-qasr al-kebir; In Titwan: al-Qsar-as-Seghir, Sehta, Titwan, Targha/Bni Bouzra, Shafshawan

New location:
al-Qsar-as-Seghir - in the middle of Tanja, Sehta and Asila
Shafshawan - south of Titwan
Targha/Bni Bouzra - Southeast of Titwan

Al-Qunayṭra - south of Mouley Bou Salim
 
  • 1Like
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.
I have to disagree with you on this. I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that al-Muntazar in the first source and Muntasir b. Muhammad are the same person. I also don't see a contradiction between Kanem-Bornu being expelled from a part of Fezzan, and nonetheless remaining in other parts of it. Certainly the 14th century was a time of relative weakness and chaos in the Kanem-Bornu state, but a date of 1310 for an end to Kanem-Bornu rule in the area is plainly too early, and I signal some later passages from the first source:

Briefly, the two states [Kanem and Bornu] were engaged in a struggle for political supremacy. Bornu emerged as victor, its rulers endowed with new energies and a will to expand its territories and to continue its indispensable trading contacts over the Kawar-Fazzan route. Thus, after 1475, the Mais of Bornu were in touch with the local Banu Makki and Banu Ghurab shayks of Tripoli, with the temporary Spanish occupiers in 1504 or 1512, and again at least once in the 1530s. After the coming of the Ottoman Turks under Turghut Re'is to Tripoli in 1551, the contacts continued as they had before.
This was not a state which was simply gone from the region in 1310, and I signal my own research a few posts up from yours:
Hello, I've seen that Tripoli was addressed by others. From my own research, it seems that Fezzan was still part of the Kanem-Bornu empire during this period, albeit in decline. Originally this area would have been ruled by a branch of the Sayfawa dynasty ruling from Traghan [Tarajin]. From records I've seen (General history of Africa, IV, page 286), in 1315, the yerima of the region (officially a governor, but plainly highly autonomous) was Muhammad bin Ghadi, who seems to have been something of a king-maker, placing Abdullah II on the throne. Abdullah II ruled until 1335, at which point he was replaced by his son, Salmama II. It's likely, therefore, on a balance of probabilities, that the position of Muhammad bin Ghadi's dynasty would have been fairly secure. Unfortunately, besides a footnote about Muhammad bin Ghadi killing the king and throwing his body in a river, I've found no further references to him, or to the situation in 1337, as even if bin Ghadi was a young man in 1315 (and we don't know that he was), it's highly unlikely that he himself was still ruling 22 years later, especially given the instability of the region.

It's difficult to summarise the rest, but I'm convinced that the rulers of this region, titled yerima, would have belonged to the imperial dynasty, albeit as cousins rather than from the main branch. Surnames will always be 'name of father', so you can pick a common Muslim name, say Abdullah, add 'bin Muhammad' to it for the man who was certainly ruler a generation before, and you have at least a good guess for the actual name of the ruler. Certainly better than something completely random. For the dynasty, I would suggest Sayfawa. I think it's essentially a certainty that some member of this dynasty was on the 'throne' of Fezzan, whether they were specifically a Dawudid, an Idrisid, or neither within that, I don't think anyone can tell you.
We have an attested Kanem-Bornu ruler of the Fezzan, or at least of parts of it (including Tarajin) in 1315. My own opinion is that Kanem-Bornu rule over the Fezzan largely collapsed around the end of the 1300s, however their yerima was almost an independent ruler in his own right for some time before this. Bornu then reasserted at least some degree of control over the region once they had their affairs in order, some time around the 1400s, albeit once again failing to keep it. Of course, there's also the separate issue that the Fezzan was not a single political unit, but rather a loose geographical term (and I would say is not to this day, with individual villages contested between numerous different factions, often very close to each other. The nature of civil war, but also an enduring sign of the instability of the region and the pluricentric nature of political power there). Again, Kanem-Bornu can have been evicted from specific parts of the area without losing the whole thing, or even the most important parts of it. The first source which you provided reads a little too much into one historical event, and ultimately is focused on different periods anyway.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-08-03 231030.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-03 231030.png
    200,7 KB · Views: 0
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that al-Muntazar in the first source and Muntasir b. Muhammad are the same person.
There are undeniable strong similarities: 'supposedly expelled by a Moroccan sharif named al-Muntazar, or perhaps al-Muntasir, b. Muhammad al-Fasi' vs. a 'Moroccan sharif called Muntasir b. Muhammad took control of Fazzan'.

And later the author states: 'Other sources put the establishment of the Awlad Muhammad in the Fazzan at some time between 1500 and 1550 [...].' So the author is clearly refering to Muntasir b. Muhammad from the second source.


We have an attested Kanem-Bornu ruler of the Fezzan, or at least of parts of it (including Tarajin) in 1315. My own opinion is that Kanem-Bornu rule over the Fezzan largely collapsed around the end of the 1300s, however their yerima was almost an independent ruler in his own right for some time before this. Bornu then reasserted at least some degree of control over the region once they had their affairs in order, some time around the 1400s, albeit once again failing to keep it. Of course, there's also the separate issue that the Fezzan was not a single political unit, but rather a loose geographical term (and I would say is not to this day, with individual villages contested between numerous different factions, often very close to each other. The nature of civil war, but also an enduring sign of the instability of the region and the pluricentric nature of political power there). Again, Kanem-Bornu can have been evicted from specific parts of the area without losing the whole thing, or even the most important parts of it. The first source which you provided reads a little too much into one historical event, and ultimately is focused on different periods anyway.

You are referring to 'General History of Africa IV' as well. Indeed, Muhammad b. Ghadi is titled yerima in 1315 there. Yerima is translated there as 'northern governor'. Why do you conclude that the yerima was governor of Fezzan? According to 'The Bornu Girgam' by H. R. Palmer, the word 'Yerima' is derived from the region Yari or Yeri, which is the region Mounio in Niger. The source even states that 'Yeri was the name of a province northwest of Komadugu Yobe' (General History of Africa IV, p. 248). Isn't it more probable that the yerima was governor of this province according to the title is named of?

Fezzan in 1337

Research notes

'Late in the twelfth century the Banu Khattab dynasty had collapsed under the blows of Qaraqush. Early in the thirteenth, Kanem was expanding, and its ruler, Dunama Dibbalemi, marched north to restore stability on his kingdom's vital life-line to the north. [...]. Mai Dunama founded a new capital, Traghen, and installed a lieutenant there, probably Tubu. Effective control over the Fezzan from Kanem was not a practicable proposition in the long term; from the lieutenant evolved a new independent dynasty, the Banu Nasur, which remained until the early fourteenth (or perhaps sixteenth) century, when a Sharif from Fez made Murzuq his capital, and inaugurated yet another dynasty, the Awlad Muhammad. These gradually reduced the Tubu influence and presence in the Fezzan.'
(THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF AFRICA, Volume 3: from c. 1050 to c. 1600, p. 263)

'The expansion of Kanem towards the north is confirmed by al-'Umari, writing in the middle of the fourteenth century: 'The empire [of Kanem] commences on the Egyptian side at a town called Zella [north-east of the Fezzän] and ends on the other side at a town called Kaka; a three-month journey separates these two towns.' [...] It would be rash, however, to assert that in the thirteenth century Kanem was a vast empire with a strong territorial organization. In particular, we have no information enabling us to establish the precise nature of the power that Kanem wielded over the Fezzän. The may Alï, whose tomb can still be seen today at Traghen, was in reality King Idrîs b. 'Alï (c. 1677-96), who died in the Fezzän during the pilgrimage, and not, as was formerly thought, a governor or viceroy representing the king of Kanem.'
(General History of Africa IV: Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century, p. 252)

'Fezzan then passed under the domination of the negro kings of Kanem (13th-15th centuries); they were represented by a governor (mai) who lived in the new capital, Traghen (70 km. east of Zawila); [...]. The negro domination finally declined at the beginning of the 16th century as a result of the wars of Kanem against the Bornu and the long struggles with the Awlad Muhammad dynasty, the founders of Murzuk and of Moroccan and Sharifian origin. The Awlad Muhammad, when finally they became masters of Fezzan, certainly contributed to its Islamization and Arabization; Murzuk was made the capital of the country, remaining so until the 20th century [...].'
(THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM II, FAZZAN, p. 875-876)

'The trouble into which the dynasty then plunged was reflected in the loss of the Fezzan, where the mai’s representative declared himself independent and founded a dynasty known as the Banu Nasur which was destroyed by Arabs from the Maghrib late in the fourteenth century.'
(History of West Africa, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 171, 173)

'It was in this same year [i.e. 1577] that the Ottomans had annexed the Fezzan, formerly a part of Borno territory. At the time of annexation it was under the control of the Awlad Muhammad, a sharifian family originating from Fez, who were perhaps vassals of Borno and had been aided to power by the mais.'
(History of West Africa, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 272)

'How long the Fazzan was under the control of Kanem after 1300 is difficult to say with any certainty. In 1879, the well-informed German explorer Gustav Nachtigal wrote that "at the start of the thirteenth century, the writ of the King of Kanem ran northwards over the entire Fazzan, as far as Waddan and this situation continued... into the fourteenth century. At that time Traghen (or Tarajin) was the capital of the Fazzan, and the seat of the Viceroy from Kanem. Owing to the great distance from the central government, the office of the latter was a quite independent one and doubtless hereditary, for tradition has kept alive in the memory of the people the Bornu dynasty of the Nesur. The viceroys seem to have held the title of king, [...]." Ettore Rossi believed that Kanemi control over the Fazzan may have lasted until the beginning of the sixteenth century, but that the power of Kanem collapsed very soon after that, as Kanem and Bornu were then engaged in a struggle for supremacy in the Chad region, from which Bornu emerged victor. But Yves Urvoy suggests that a political collapse or withdrawal of Kanem took place before that. However, Nachtigal mentions the appearance of a shadowy local dynasty called the Qurman or Kharman in the Fazzan, whose capital was at Zawila. This group seems to have been supplanted rather quickly by another line some time between 1510 and 1551, known as the Awlad Muhammad, whose founder was a sharif from Fas, Muhammad al-Fasi. The capital of the new dynasty was at Sabha or at Murzuq.'
(B. G. Martin: Maî Idrîs of Bornu and the Ottoman Turks, 1576-78, p. 484-485)

Citations from my post above:
'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)

Sadly I have no access to this source: Fazzān Under the Rule of the Awlād Muhammad: A Study in Political, Economic, Social and Intellectual History, by Ḥabīb Wadā’a El-Ḥesnā

Conclusion

My conclusion so far from the given sources:
  • Fezzan was initially under the control of the Kanem Empire, with a governor or lieutenant installed in the new capital, Traghen, established by Mai Dunama Dibbalemi.
  • The lieutenant in Traghen, likely of Tubu origin, eventually established independence from Kanem, forming the Banu Nasur dynasty. This indicates that by the early 14th century, Fezzan had an autonomous local dynasty despite its initial subjugation by Kanem.
  • While Kanem's control weakened, the Banu Nasur maintained their rule over Fezzan, indicating a shift from direct control by Kanem to a more localized governance structure.
  • The Banu Nasur dynasty eventually faced challenges from the Awlad Muhammad dynasty
  • There is a lack of precise information about when the Banu Nasur's rule ended and the Awlad Muhammad dynasty began. Some sources suggest that Kanem’s control lasted until about 1310, but this does not clearly align with the independence of the Banu Nasur, which may have occurred earlier. The establishment of the Awlad Muhammad dynasty is variably dated, with some sources indicating it began in the early 14th century and others placing it between 1500 and 1550.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Thank you very much for your work and research!

I have many questions :
- I'm not sure about the stone production for Qsentina. Qsentina has always been known as a major manufacturing center (textiles, bronze processing) but also as a major trading center, especially for wheat, fruit, meat, precious stones...

- Qsentina had a well-established Jewish community with a strong presence in the craft industry. Will they be represented? The same goes for Tlemcen, which was and remains a sacred place for North Africa's Jewish communities, noting that they greatly enabled the city to become one of the most populous in North Africa.

It would be important to focus on the death of Sultan Abû Yahyâ Abû Bakr al-Mutawakkil, as the country subsequently fragmented into 3 distinct territories: Tunis, Qsentina and Bigaya. The country was unified again only 30 years later, allowing the Zianide sultanate to strengthen.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to populate the territories between Sa'ida and Naima, as these were inhabited by nomadic farmers and herders? (probably terrest same)
And i do not find Batna in the map, where is it ?
If anyone has any further information to share, we've got a great topic here!
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
There should be a larger christian population in Gafsa, Tozeur and Monastir and in some rural areas of the aures monutains. The christian population there should be latin speaking. They were last attested in the XV century so they should certainly be on the decline.
 
Calling the Amazigh people „berber/berberians“ is wrong and discriminating. Nowadays the Amazigh people wish to be called by their name, „Amazigh(en)“ instead of the outdated, discriminating word „berber/berberians“.


„Amazigh (sg.) OR Amazighen (pl.)“ means the people
„Tamazight“ means the language they speak


Please adapt to it!

Who says otherwise knows nothing about the Amazighen and shouldn’t talk.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Calling the Amazigh people „berber/berberians“ is wrong and discriminating.
No it's not at least not nowdays, the word may have come from the Latin ward for barbarian but nowdays the word berber doesn't have that connotation since the majority of people don't even know it. It's like saying that calling Hungarians like this instead of Magyars is insulting
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions: