Muslims conquer Italy

[carlton_bach]

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.

Yes, but the Ottomans are already a major power in the area. They are definitely preoccupying the Mamluks, and worrying the Persians and the Balkan states. If you just shifted that kind of power concentration south....

Yes, it's not that simle IRL, but assuming we are playing RISK...

 

[Wozza]

Yes, but the Ottomans are already a major power in the area. They are definitely preoccupying the Mamluks, and worrying the Persians and the Balkan states. If you just shifted that kind of power concentration south....

Yes, it's not that simle IRL, but assuming we are playing RISK...

Take another look at the map though, Syria to Italy is a long way

 

[carlton_bach]

Take another look at the map though, Syria to Italy is a long way

I don't want to invade Italy from Syria, I want Syria in the hand of said power so that it can not operate as the base for a rival Muslim power to threaten Egypt, which *would* make a viable jumping-off point for expansion that way. Basically, you'd have to take the threat away from the Middle Eastern region - either by fragmenting it intoclkoent states or by uniting it under the power in question - so that the invaders can actually concentrate on Italy. It's a pretty big bite, you don't want to be preoccupied there while the old enemy invades the Nile Valley or Damascus.

 

[Faeelin]

typical two-field, then three-field winter grain/summer grain patterns are a medieval north European innovation.

Humm; that seems odd to me, given that the Classical world knew that beans did something good to the soil.

 

[LordKalvan]

The problem is that even postulating a mediterranean-oriented Moslem state, the feasible invasion routes to Italy are just 2: across the straits of Otranto (lower Adriatic) or across the channel of Sicily.
Otranto has the problem that lower Adriatic is not so easy to negotiate in winter (and also spring/autumns are not really easy for the ships of this age).
OTL, Mehmet II (if I'm not wrong) sieged and took the city of Otranto, and kept it for a few years. There was never a real effort to convert this beach-head into the basis for an invasion of Italy (and the logistics would have been a nightmare, without a complete dominion of the sea). The lower Dalmatian coast is a maze of channels and islands (and was pirate heaven for thousand of years): I can imagine Venetian, Neapolitan and papal galley attacking the supply convoys from here, from Corfu and from Taranto.

The channel of Sicily is even more difficult (we are talking of late Middle Ages, and of transporting a major army, with supply train, to Sicily). Additionally, in this period Tunis cannot supply a lot of food stuff (the African bread-basket has been gone for centuries). By comparison, remember that the Arab invasion in 827 consisted of a few thousand warriors only, and they were invited by the Byzantine governor of the island, and given the town of Milazzo for their own.

I'm afraid I must stay with my opinion: if you want to invade Italy, you do it the usual way, from NW or NE, and move downward. Or you can try a naval landing in Sicily (like the Aragonese did) if you have a party on the island supporting you.

 

[LordKalvan]

in terms of agricultural revolution in Europe I would not underestimate the role of the benedectines: crop rotation, reclamation of swamps, irrigation.