Why does European history seem to omit Al-Andalus? Between 700-1500 we have a lot of stories about interactions between the French, English, Italian and German states, Austria etc through war trade etc. Why is Al-Andalus seemingly absent?

It seems to omit al-Andalus because popular narratives don't often tend to include it, mainly because of a lot of post-reconquista efforts to downplay the significance of al-Andalus in the politics and culture of the region. This also means that despite it's importance in shaping the ethnic and cultural background of modern Spain and Portugal, the era of al-Andalus is sometimes looked upon a bit shamefully due to years of Inquisition-type behaviour. In summary, it wasn't absent at all despite how it can sort of seem to be like that. In my opinion, Iberian people nowadays just don't always embrace this very important and distinguishing feature of their history as much as they should because of the legacy of the Crusades.

Anyway, let's move on to describe the reality a bit better. My specialty is of course up to the 11th century, but I do know a bit here and there after that. So I'm going to mostly keep it to the areas of my expertise but I might occasionally stray outside that a bit.

Did they interact with other European states?

Of course they did. Regularly and often. As anybody who follows my posts knows, I have a particular fascination with the the first Caliph of Cordoba, Abdul Rahman III.

That said, people have asked this type of question before, so I'm going to link you to some posts I've made previously on this particular subject.

But, I'm not going to just link you to an old post and be done with it. I can add some more info tailored specifically to you. I believe my earlier post addresses most of the stuff about treaties, embassies, diplomacy, etc in western and central europe. But in eastern europe? Well, you mentioned the Ottomans - I'd like to talk about their predecessor, the Eastern Roman Empire (note when I refer to the ERE and 'Romans' from here on I mean the 'Byzantine' people).

I spoke about this a little bit in the other post I linked, but I want to give you more detail on it here. So basically relations between the Caliph and the Roman Emperor Constantine VII started in 948 - possibly earlier, according to some sources. So basically, the Romans sent an embassy to al-Andalus after the better part of a century of no real contact with them (kind of understandably I guess, what with them being so far apart). We actually don't really know the specific reason this embassy was sent, but it's generally considered to be in relation to the Romans having problems with the Fatimid Caliphate, especially in Italy. Now, the Andalusis also pretty much hated the Fatimids who were a constant threat, so there's no surprise there.

Anyway, the letter the ambassador brought to the Caliph by the Emperor was actually written in gold, on blue parchment, and there were two very precious books as gifts that came with it. One was a book on pharmacology by Discorides, written in Greek - which caused the Emperor to promptly ask for a translator as he couldn't locate anybody in al-Andalus who could read Greek. Promptly a monk named Nicholas arrived in al-Andalus and Hasday ibn Shaprut (hell yeah) worked with him and some others to translate the book. The next gift was a latin history book by Orosius. Soon after, the Caliph send an embassy with a local Christian bishop originally from Germany named Recemund (a lot of history behind this guy, he features in the other post I linked to) from Cordoba to Constantinople.

What do we know about this embassy to Constantinople? Well, I note a transcript Elsa Cardono cited that is fun to read that you'll find insightful as well. Book II of a very important old Roman text, De Ceremoniis, gives a bit of an account of a visit by "the Spaniards" (yes, that's how they referred to people from al-Andalus):

"Note that when the Spaniards came, a reception was held like this one, except that the pergola of the Magnaura was not decorated with sendals but entirely with great skaramangia, and the Phylax's enamelled objects were also hung in it. The reception for the Spaniards was held on October 24th."

So, when it says "like this one" it's in reference to an embassy from the Abbasids who also conducted obviously diplomacy with the Romans. Now there's a bit of stuff in there I'm unfamiliar with since the specifics of ceremonial interior decoration in the ERE aren't really my forte. But I can tell one thing: Where it refers to 'the Magnaura', this means the Great Hall of the Magnaura. It's close to the Hagia Sophia and it was used as a reception hall and a throne room. I think you can actually still go to this building today as it's now part of a University.

There were at least four of these diplomatic events. Possibly five or more, but we know beyond all doubt that at least four happened.

They also had an alliance - Qadi al-Nu'man, a Fatimid historian, writes that after the Fatimids attacked Almeria in 955, Abdul Rahman III sent an embassy to Constantine VII asking for military assistance against the Fatimids. Constantine VII promptly responded by sending an entire fleet, whereupon the Andalusis were joined off the shores of Sicily. So the ERE and al-Andalus definitely bonded over mutual hatred of the Fatimids. Cardono points out that this alliance was over mutual interests in the Mediterranean, and Andalusi foreign policy at that time definitely saw a big dimension around the north africa-sicily region.

Since you did also ask about trade with europe - it did happen, certainly. This is just one example among many but basically there's plenty of archaeological evidence for Andalusi ceramics being a major object of trade - cuerda seca pottery and other ceramic goods for instance are found all over southern France to this day and in shipwrecks. Trade relations during the Umayyad emirate years and the Cordoba Caliphate were alive and well. However, once the taifa period began, the Almoravids turned up, and the Crusades began - all that sort of dwindled away.

Although at its beginnings in the 700s, the Reconquista was more of the Northern Kingdoms' (led by Visigoths and Iberians) efforts to take back land they saw as rightfully theirs (led by Moors), by the 11th century it had become infused with religious motives simply by virtue of the fact that the Northern Kingdoms (Asturias initially, later Castile, Portugal, and Aragon) were led by Christians and the Andalusians were led by Muslims (Cordoba, then the small taifas, later the Almohads, and even later Granada). And because of this shift and because of the other big Christian vs Muslim conflict of the later middle ages, the Crusades, the Reconquista was seen as a western counterpart to the Crusades. In 1064 Pope Alexander II sanctioned the Crusade of Barbastro, a city near Zaragoza. Additionally, when the First Crusade began in 1095, Pope Urban II urged those fighting the Moors in Iberia to remain there rather than join the Crusades in the East. These are early example showing that (1) Al-Andalus was indeed on the rest of Europe's radar and (2) they were seen as enemies because of their religion. These sentiments of course persisted until the end of the Crusades in 1444 and the end of Moorish rule in Iberia in 1492, but by the later stages, they were not in any real position to fight anyone but the Castilians.

I cannot, however, speak to what things were like before the 11th century.