Re: eskribiw

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:27:13 +0200, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote:

>
> The point of divergence (is it a coorect term?) is the Battle of >Poitiers.The
> Franks won _here_, but _lost_ there. Loire and >Rhone rivers became a kind of
> demarkation line. So, not only >the Iberian Peninsula, but Aquitaine and
> Provence were under >Muslims for a while. A kind of Reconquista happened in
> 9-12th >cc. CE on _those_ lands. Also Basques were able to gain >back some
> territories. Catholic rulers had no enough strength >to gain back the whole
> Iberian P., since there were no >Charlemagne's Empire. Rome (and Pope)
> remained under >Byzantine control, England probably remained faithful to the
> >Celtic rite etc. OTOH, Arabs/Moors at first had no strength, >and later no
> desire to go further. A kind of equilibrium was
> reached in 12th c. CE
Point of divergence is indeed a correct term.

Be aware however that while the Moors did attempt to advance into
France, they did not however control everything south of the
Tours/Poitiers region. There was a good amount left autonomous (more
than I had earlier written), pretty much everything north of Leon,
Huesca, and Barcelona was autonomous. These are all areas outside of
the main trends of Hispano-Romance at the time. They actually allowed
these areas to remain outside of their control (probably to their
downfall as these areas were where the reconquista began.

So i'm not disputing what your plan is, but it's just something to be
careful about when describing it. Why would the muslims want all of
the iberian peninsula there when here it seems the most northern areas
weren't of much interest, even though they took the time to meet
Frankish armies in the battle of Tours?



--
You can turn away from me
but there's nothing that'll keep me here you know
And you'll never be the city guy
Any more than I'll be hosting The Scooby Show

Scooby Show - Belle and Sebastian

Reply