Muslims conquer Italy

In OTL, Italy brought us a lot in the Renaissance and before - Trade, diplomacy, the first budding of science, arts and literature, Italians were good in everything.

Now I wonder what had happened if the Muslims had conquered Italy (all the way up to the Alps, where the Christians can stop them easily), somewhen between the time when they had secured North Africa and the beginning of the crusades. I don't know how feasible that 'd be - though their wars were successful, they AFAIK never made great maritime operations (except from the time when they invaded Spain first, but at Gibraltar Europe and Africa are as close as nowhere else, while the distance between Italy and Tunisia is ten times bigger). Would Italy blossom even more, or would their new rulers kill it? What would the Europeans do?
 
Italian civilisation would still flower, but it would be very, very different. The Qalbid emirate, later Norman Kingdom of the Sicilies or Al-Andalus gives us a decent idea of what it could be like. Western Europe is screwed any which way, though... Italy was the only remotely civilised region kept in the fold of Western Christendom in the 800s

If it happens before 800, the Bishop of Rome can holler all he want, the barbarian warlords will not heed (not after the Franks get their heads handed to them in a bag the first few times, anyway).

If it happens after the special relationship is built between the Latin Empire and the papacy exists, northern Italy will probably be a war zone, which kind of sucks because we'll need those cities later on.
 
Ooh - good one!

Well, the scientific/mathematical advances of the Italian Renaissance were promted in large part by rediscovery of Classical knowledge of maths (especially geometry), much if which was, by all accounts, already known to Arabic mathematicians. So Islamic Italy might actually have got there quicker.

However, many of the advances in art made by applying this recovered knowledge were explicitly figuratively religious in a way that stricter forms of Islam do not, I think, permit: pictures (sculpted/painted/whatever) of Biblical stories and Biblical figures.

They also took a great deal of energy from comparison with and reference to pagan Classical mythology, to which again stricter forms of Islam might have some objection.

So if you have a strict Islamic Renaissance, you have artistic genii forced to work only with abstract patterns, or maybe the odd nature scene or landscape if you're lucky, which I think comes to a dead end quite quickly, artistically speaking.

Or we see the emergence of a body of Islamic literature/art that includes Classical references and pictorial representation of holy figures, perhaps in conjunction with a more liberal, 'decadent', European Islam.

The other question is whether an Italy dominated by a single Islamic empire would be as imaginatively fertile as a collection of warring city-states. In OTL, intense competition between these cities and royal/noble dynasties gave rise to some of the talismanic images of Western culture. Ruling families poured huge sums into artistic projects in desperate one-up-manship. Without the energy imparted by that rivalry, the Italian Renaissance might have been comparatively tame.
 
"between the time when they had secured North Africa and the beginning of the crusades."

If the Muslims determined that the only way to stop the endless stream of crusaders was to invade Italy and wipe out those who were sending them, then impose a system that would prevent future crusades - a very repressive situation may have occured. Success may have spured the Muslims to press on and eventually concure all of Western Europe.
 
Ursmare said:
"between the time when they had secured North Africa and the beginning of the crusades."

If the Muslims determined that the only way to stop the endless stream of crusaders was to invade Italy and wipe out those who were sending them, then impose a system that would prevent future crusades - a very repressive situation may have occured. Success may have spured the Muslims to press on and eventually concure all of Western Europe.

By the time of the crusades I fear it is too late. You have a rigidly disciplined, fundamentalist 'reform' church in charge in most of western Europe, and the papacy is its command centre. Also, by this time the economic boom in the Northern Italian city states has started. That makes the peninsula a very tough nut to crack militarily, and a hard conquest to hold on to. Before that date, say in 750, or even 900, when Western Christendom is still fairly amorphous and militarily weak, would be a better time.
 
Interesting topic, even if the window of opportunity is not wide.
Arabs first landed in Sicily in 827 (as usual, they were invited by the island governor, Euphemius, revolting against the Byzantine emperor.
The conquest of the island took more than 50 years (Syracuse fell in 878, and the last Byzantine stronghold, Taormina, was taken only in 902).
In 1037, Byzantium tried to retake Sicily, under John Maniakes (and actually was successful in conquering the Eastern portion of the island). In 1059 Roger de Hauteville was invested by the Pope with Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, and landed in Messina in 1061. In 30 years, all of Sicily was in Norman hands.
Therefore, you have to assume that the only real window of opportunity is in the 10th century.
I can accept an arab conquest of Byzantine lands in Southern Italy, and possibly also of the Lombard dukedoms (Spoleto and Benevento). I doubt that they would have the manpower and the drive to reach Rome. North of Rome, all of Tuscany, Umbria and the largest portion of Emilia is a strong feudal state under the family of Canossa (the Marquesses of Tuscany). Pisa is already ascendant (in 1005 Pisans fought in Reggio di Calabria against the Arabs, and between 1016 and 1046 they were strong enough to take Corsica and Sardinia. They should be able to stop the Arabs.
 
A better pod for an Arab conquest of Italy might be in the late 7th century, after the conquest of Ifryqia. North Africa falls as per OTL, but then - instead of surging through Spain - the jihiad targets Byzantine Sicily.
If the arabs have enough shipping capability for an invasion (a big if: Gibraltar is much closer to the African coast), and if the Byzantine hold on Sicily is a bit shaky, they might succeed.
Interestingly, this means that there would not be the conquest of Spain, and Poitiers (and the legend that grew out of that battle: maybe Pippin remains just a majordomo to the Merovingian kings, and no Charlemagne).
The Byzantines should be quite pressed, and without capacity to send help to Southern Italy (which might fall).
The Longobard kingdom in the North is on the raise in the same years.
Would they be able to stop the Arab tide before Rome falls? Possibly, Frankish contingents would fight with the Longobards in defense of Christianity. Again this might change substantially the 9th century. Or you might have a Longobard kingdom fighting to survive beyond the Po, and on the Ligurian Appennines (something like Asturias in OTL Spain).
 
I think 9th C is too late, the Byzantines and Franks will ally and seek to stop it.

7th or 8th C is more likely.

The loss of Rome will surely raise the status of the Constantinople Patriarchate as the last unconquered patriarchate.

I was thinking of Spain falling as well personally - Italy instead is a very good twist.
the Adriatic would be a war zone intriguingly
 
OTL, the Arabs often tried to get a toe-hold in Calabria (after the conquest of Sicily), and Reggio di Calabria was often sieged (the last time I think was in 1016, when pisan contingents fought at the siege). They were unable to gain ground, even if there were a lot of razziahs and pirates were all over the Ionian sea.

My guess is that to make arab more successful you need another civil war on the mainland: maybe Naples revolt against the empire, and invite arab allies; something similar happened in Sicily.

A Frankish intervention is not so easy (in the end, Charlemagne did not even conquer the Longobard dukedoms in Southern Italy (Spoleto and Benevento).
Or, more to the point, he was not really successful in the Spanish marches.
IMO, the Frankish interest were fixed toward Germany, and toward solving the problem of the Avar and Hungar raids. The Norman raids are also a substantial pain in the ass for the Franks. Charlemagne was not really looking to the Mediterranean, that's the truth.

I agree that the first half of the 8th century is the best opportunity: OTOH, I still have my doubts on the arab capacity to successfully ferry an army across the 90 odd miles of the channel of Sicily. And IMHO it should be either Spain or Italy. They cannot do both.
 
All of the posted reasoning for the Muslims to fail in conquering Rome after the Crusades begin sounds very akin to the reasons the Romans gave for why Hannibal would not prevail. My original idea in posting this thread came from Hannibal's experience, and Scipio the Younger's responce, in light of today's war in Iraq.

If the Muslims had determined to attack the west after the Crusades were going strong, the west would be in the same situation America is now. It doesn't have the resources to fight on yet another front, or even to defend itself if attacked. Had the Muslims retraced the path the Crusaders took to the Middle East, after the Crusaders were pinned-down by the conflict before them, and recruited those whom the Crusaders had given a reason for revenge (a large number of folks) they may well have overun the overstretched westerners.

This same tactic was employed by Scipio the Younger, who defeated Hannibal's army, by invading Carthage, after it engaged all of Italy, just when Italy was thinking itself invincible - for all the reason posted above.
 
Ursmare said:
All of the posted reasoning for the Muslims to fail in conquering Rome after the Crusades begin sounds very akin to the reasons the Romans gave for why Hannibal would not prevail. My original idea in posting this thread came from Hannibal's experience, and Scipio the Younger's responce, in light of today's war in Iraq.

If the Muslims had determined to attack the west after the Crusades were going strong, the west would be in the same situation America is now. It doesn't have the resources to fight on yet another front, or even to defend itself if attacked. Had the Muslims retraced the path the Crusaders took to the Middle East, after the Crusaders were pinned-down by the conflict before them, and recruited those whom the Crusaders had given a reason for revenge (a large number of folks) they may well have overun the overstretched westerners.

This same tactic was employed by Scipio the Younger, who defeated Hannibal's army, by invading Carthage, after it engaged all of Italy, just when Italy was thinking itself invincible - for all the reason posted above.

Very few Crusaders came from Italy. the crusades were not a concerted military operation mounted by Western Christendom, they were purely a voluntary undertaking and staffed mostly by military-age men who were surplus to requirements anyway. Any Muslim invaders (and those best placed to undertake such an invasion were not those most affected by the Crusades, quite the contrary) would not meet a country denuded of recruits with an army fighting at a different front. The city militias were still there, as were the castle garrisons and armed farmers. The population density and degree of organisation and coherence in Europe at this point simply was too great for an invasion not backed by overwhelmingly greater military power to succeed.
 
carlton_bach said:
Very few Crusaders came from Italy. the crusades were not a concerted military operation mounted by Western Christendom, they were purely a voluntary undertaking and staffed mostly by military-age men who were surplus to requirements anyway. Any Muslim invaders (and those best placed to undertake such an invasion were not those most affected by the Crusades, quite the contrary) would not meet a country denuded of recruits with an army fighting at a different front. The city militias were still there, as were the castle garrisons and armed farmers. The population density and degree of organisation and coherence in Europe at this point simply was too great for an invasion not backed by overwhelmingly greater military power to succeed.
Quite right. I would add that the Crusades are the most visible result of Europe getting out of the dark centuries, at least in France, Italy and Southern Germany. There is a sharp population increase, and a surplus of foodstuff, and of tradable merchandise.
Since the mid of the 10th century, the Italian republics start to dominate the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic sea, and they are ready and willing to go whenever there is a commercial opportunity. As traders, mainly, but traders wearing a sword. Do not discount too much the turning of the 1000 AD: most of Christians truly believed the world was going to end, and the second Advent was due on that date. When it did not happen, there was an explosion of new interest in the material side of life.
The idea of an Arab invasion post-crusades (say, around 1350 or so) is too ludicrous to be taken into consideration.
 
LordKalvan said:
The idea of an Arab invasion post-crusades (say, around 1350 or so) is too ludicrous to be taken into consideration.

I wouldn't be too sure on that count (though it wopuld obviously require a diofferent development in Ottoman history). At that point, the Arab world had developed large and efficiently organised states, and one of them might take an interest in Italy that exactly at this point - with the pope away and the great powers of the continent increasingly not interested in the Clash of Religions - might not meet too much resistance. OTL, the rise of the Ottoman Empire preoccupied the east, but if we butterfly it away and instead leave Syria and Asia Minor to become Mamluk successor states, the more navally-minded Mamluks might orient themselves westwards. Big change, but I think it might be possible, actually.
 
LordKalvan said:
Quite right. I would add that the Crusades are the most visible result of Europe getting out of the dark centuries, at least in France, Italy and Southern Germany. There is a sharp population increase, and a surplus of foodstuff, and of tradable merchandise.

Wouldn't that be due to the new agriculture invented at that time?
 
Max Sinister said:
Wouldn't that be due to the new agriculture invented at that time?

Among other things. The development of the village complex with crop rotation and joint fields must have played a big role. Not sure we can quanitify it, though.
 
carlton_bach said:
I wouldn't be too sure on that count (though it wopuld obviously require a diofferent development in Ottoman history). At that point, the Arab world had developed large and efficiently organised states, and one of them might take an interest in Italy that exactly at this point - with the pope away and the great powers of the continent increasingly not interested in the Clash of Religions - might not meet too much resistance. OTL, the rise of the Ottoman Empire preoccupied the east, but if we butterfly it away and instead leave Syria and Asia Minor to become Mamluk successor states, the more navally-minded Mamluks might orient themselves westwards. Big change, but I think it might be possible, actually.

The Ottomans are still in Anatolia in 1350.
An Islamic invasion of Italy at this stage is highly unlikely, the area is far too developed and prosperous with substantial naval power.
and as for this:
If the Muslims had determined to attack the west after the Crusades were going strong, the west would be in the same situation America is now. It doesn't have the resources to fight on yet another front, or even to defend itself if attacked. Had the Muslims retraced the path the Crusaders took to the Middle East, after the Crusaders were pinned-down by the conflict before them, and recruited those whom the Crusaders had given a reason for revenge (a large number of folks) they may well have overun the overstretched westerners.
This same tactic was employed by Scipio the Younger, who defeated Hannibal's army, by invading Carthage, after it engaged all of Italy, just when Italy was thinking itself invincible - for all the reason posted above.


No, no, no.
The vagueness of the term "when the Crusades were going strong" tells you all the need to know about the depth of though behind this idea. This is all fantasy land.

"Had the Muslims retraced the path" - you mean the Constantinople they had spent four centuries trying to capture?
You might also note that Islam was on the defensive on a number of fronts - Sicily and Spain as well as in the Levant.
Also you seem unaware of the scale/demographics of the crusades and medieval warfare - mostly those knights who went on the First Crusade were younger sons with limited economic prospects, whole families of warriors were left behind, and the response from different regions varied enormously.

Also medieval warfare did not involve the degree of demographic mobilisation we witnessed in 20th C warfare, field armies were limited to 30-40,000 ABSOLUTE MAMXIMUM due to the difficulties of feeding more (a lot of calculation has been done on this) Therefore vast number of armed men remained behind after an militaey expedition.

The comparison with modern America is, I am afraid, ridiculous, to compare densely militarised societies led by a militarised elite to a country with a relatively tiny very specialised professional military is absurd. Despite this of course America could still defeat a capable hypothetical enemy through is navy and National Guard.

As for Hannibal, even though he left his army in Italy he had no problems raising a new one when he got back to Carthage.
 

Faeelin

Banned
carlton_bach said:
Among other things. The development of the village complex with crop rotation and joint fields must have played a big role. Not sure we can quanitify it, though.

Didn't the Romans have crop rotation, though?
 
Faeelin said:
Didn't the Romans have crop rotation, though?

Yes, but not suitable for northern climates. Roman agriculture was well adapted to Mediterranean conditions, but didsn't export all that well. The typical two-field, then three-field winter grain/summer grain patterns are a medieval north European innovation.
 
Wozza said:
The Ottomans are still in Anatolia in 1350.
An Islamic invasion of Italy at this stage is highly unlikely, the area is far too developed and prosperous with substantial naval power.

THat is what I mean - we would have to butterfly away the Ottomans as the Islamic superpower and replace them with an Arab, more Mediterranean power that has an interest in projecting into Italian and Spanish areas rather than the Balkans and Russia. Imagine that kind of striking power aimed not at Constantinople and Bekgrade, but at Naples and Toledo
 
carlton_bach said:
THat is what I mean - we would have to butterfly away the Ottomans as the Islamic superpower and replace them with an Arab, more Mediterranean power that has an interest in projecting into Italian and Spanish areas rather than the Balkans and Russia. Imagine that kind of striking power aimed not at Constantinople and Bekgrade, but at Naples and Toledo

In 1350 they are not though - this is why they are confused. The Ottomans take Constantinople before they take Syria

Hmm, that involves fighting the Italians on home ground, and support can come from the rest of Christendom - see the crusade of Nicopolis.
 
Top