Madeleine Birchfield
Banned
What happens if the Umayyad Caliphate were able to invade and hold onto Italy in the early 700s in the same way they did to the Iberian peninsula OTL?
Last edited:
Umayyad Italy
- Thread starter Madeleine Birchfield
- Start date
All Italy is quite ASB, as the Frankish Empire would have never let them into the Po valley and control Milan and so, which would have been quite difficult for the Umayyads while the Franks controlled all the Alps in advance.
The Umayyads could have controlled Rome, but they probably knew this would have triggered the Franks into a sort of early Crusade in order to recover the 'holy city'. This would have been not a good idea in the long term.
I could see them controlling the southernmost areas along with Sicily and Sardinia, but nothing more.
The Umayyads could have controlled Rome, but they probably knew this would have triggered the Franks into a sort of early Crusade in order to recover the 'holy city'. This would have been not a good idea in the long term.
I could see them controlling the southernmost areas along with Sicily and Sardinia, but nothing more.
And losing.
It might butterfly away advances in the East and the Ummayads stay in power in the Center once they have a proper enemy to coalesce against.
I dunno, the Umaayads were seriously overextended, especially with the new additions in italy. Add in the biggest weakness of the caliphate- flavoring arabic Sunnis who weren't recent converts- and I could see revolts causing issues that Europe could exploit
What it would create the possibility for however, is an Abbasid revolt analogue with its base in Rome, that privilèges Roman culture instead of Persian, making Islam as a whole much more western.
Which if this occurs, amounts to distant Anglo-Saxon states, Frankish kingdom and the Visigoths.... who among them can challenge the Umayyads before the Umayyads weaken? There will be no more than them and the Eastern Empire, the most unreliable of allies.
In otl, the conquest of Iberia was critical, surely. The foremost of the Germanic kingdoms, the Visigoths fell to the Umayyad expeditionary army and the region fell into Islamic hands, aside from an autonomous areas in Vasconia, ruled by regional chiefs and the land of Asturias, which rallied behind remnant Catholic Visgothic nobles. The fall of the most forward thinking at the time of the Germanic kingdoms and such a foundation piece to the Germano-Latin world, surely was immense. However, it is nothing compared to the repercussions related to a fall of Italy. The Papacy was the primary means by which the Latin world was able to perpetuate itself and by way that the Crusades were launched. Without a strong Pontiff as otl, there is no crusades, only isolated ones, similar to the situation that prevailed during the Western Schism... This is assuming that the Visigoths remain rulers in Iberia, if the Umayyads have conquered this and up to Toulouse, in addition to its conquest of Italy, the Franks are left with a patchwork of Anglo lords in England and no other allies.
Even if the Umayyad begin to rupture and crack early as olt, which they will, it will be a long hard road for the Latin world without the Papacy and Italy having been integral from an early era.
Planet of Hats
Donor
I don't think that's likely. Real life isn't Crusader Kings II, and there were Muslim invasions in Italy even OTL that did not provoke a continent-wide mobilization. The Aghlabids even managed to sack Rome and swipe the golden cross above the tomb of Peter, then came back and tried again a few years later. Muslims even spent 25 years in control of part of Apulia, while also controlling a raiding camp in Latium itself. Throughout most of the 800s, Muslim ships dominated the Mediterranean. None of these factors resulted in the Crusades. There were efforts by various powers to regain control over these areas, but the participants were always somewhat local, e.g. Pisa and Genoa teaming up to kick the Umayyads out of Sardinia in the 1000s rather than Anglo-Saxon kings coming down to do a Crusade.
Regular revolts also wouldn't be unusual: Muslim Iberia was a hotbed of revolts.
There is no Crusades without a Pope, and there's really no Papacy without Rome. At most there would be several claimants, with whomever has Frankish backing being the most likely.
The Umaayads would probably let him remain in Rome, with his reduced power. Or he evacuates once they conquer a decent chunk of naples and it becomes clear that this problem isnt going away. As for location? Either somewhere like avignon where the papacy spent a few centuries otl, or maybe britain which once the vikings piss off might be safer
He would flee to the Frankish kingdom, most likely to Aachen before he decides to find another residence. Assumign he flees. If he remains under Umayyad control, he will become a dangerous entity, but he will be removed from the city of Rome and its prominent locations. He will no longer be permitted to have a luxurious residence in Rome. This could be a blessing or a curse, perhaps the Papacy becomes even more militant in its resistance.
An early schism could result from the Umayyads taking Rome, with the papal court having fled the eternal city and taking up residence somewhere in the Frankish kingdom and the Umayyads installing their own pliable puppet pope in Rome. Both popes will be significantly weaker than IOTL and the pope residing in the Frankish kingdom / empire / HRE would have a hard time winning an investiture controversy against the emperor.
What would be the time frame for this? Because if we say the invasion starts when the invasion of the Visigothic Kingdom would've, 711, then the Franks are about to get into a civil war so the Caliphate may very well be successful, especially if we weaken the Lombards with say a civil war. Those aren't particularly uncommon.
The Crusading spirit wouldn't be that much existent at this point; to go Crusading isn't an automatic Christian mindset, it came from specific circumstances in the XI century. As long as the Umayyad act decently, I don't see them be particularly hated over any other rival in the region. If they ally with a Frankish faction they may even get a sympathetic regime going there.
As to the Pope, I think at this point he was still primarily the Bishop of Rome; to abandon the See would probably be ill-regarded. If he did flee, I'd imagine he'd prefer the comforts of Constantinople to the still developing and mildly pagan north. At this point there was no Schism so no reason to fear mistreatment. Only an obvious loss of rank.
If the Pontiff stayed, he'd probably be treated well and serve as a decent subject of the Caliph, just like plenty of other religious figureheads did. The early Caliphate was the opposite of militant in regards to conversion. Islam was still primarily an Arab faith.
Which makes me wonder what would happen should the Abbasid Revolution go forward - could the Umayyad move to Italy as they did to Spain? It depends on the local political conditions, but it's not out of question certainly. Then we could have first an Emirate and then a Caliphate of Rome. This could actually play out to be a rather interesting scenario...
The Crusading spirit wouldn't be that much existent at this point; to go Crusading isn't an automatic Christian mindset, it came from specific circumstances in the XI century. As long as the Umayyad act decently, I don't see them be particularly hated over any other rival in the region. If they ally with a Frankish faction they may even get a sympathetic regime going there.
As to the Pope, I think at this point he was still primarily the Bishop of Rome; to abandon the See would probably be ill-regarded. If he did flee, I'd imagine he'd prefer the comforts of Constantinople to the still developing and mildly pagan north. At this point there was no Schism so no reason to fear mistreatment. Only an obvious loss of rank.
If the Pontiff stayed, he'd probably be treated well and serve as a decent subject of the Caliph, just like plenty of other religious figureheads did. The early Caliphate was the opposite of militant in regards to conversion. Islam was still primarily an Arab faith.
Which makes me wonder what would happen should the Abbasid Revolution go forward - could the Umayyad move to Italy as they did to Spain? It depends on the local political conditions, but it's not out of question certainly. Then we could have first an Emirate and then a Caliphate of Rome. This could actually play out to be a rather interesting scenario...
Madeleine Birchfield
Banned
Perhaps I should have made it clearer in my OP, but the time frame is in the early 700s, around the same time as the OTL invasion of the Spanish peninsula.
At the same time the abassids did what they did because of arab Sunnis being prioritized. No way they wouldn't be problematic overlords to the pope
OK so my timeline fits! Great
The Umayyad weren't particularly awful to their Christian subjects; they were very racist towards their Persian subjects however, the reason for which the Abbasids were able to topple.
Papal power would decrease and the Pope would be controlled by Islamic lieutenants, of course, and it would eventually lose every vestige of supremacy over other Bishops, but I don't see the Umayyad making life worse for themselves by mistreating the Christian communities in Italy when they didn't do it anywhere else.
Especially because their empire was turning somewhat feudal and it would be local rulers dealing with those matters. They wouldn't want to upset a tax-paying population on a whim
This depends, the Umayyad did not treat the Christian populations 'well.' There was understanding of one group being submissive, and any rejection of said submission incurred wrath. This is the understanding the Umayyad imposed upon the Christians, one of the strong preying upon the weak; the weak submit for fear of the strong and the strong are possessing of a complex system of protection agreements (Dhimmitude) that regulate relations between Muslims and the conquered peoples.
Islam also played upon the notion that they promoted freedom of discourse for some of the more eccentric Christian sects, such as Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Messalians, Paulicians, etc... Italy is a different case entirely, it will be like Iran. A land with a strong and militant population, who has faced war head on for centuries and have a close-kin neighbor in the Franks to the north and possibly the Visigoths to the west. The Umayyads will crack down upon the population and enforce rigidity in order to ensure points for which they can strike upon foes to the north, west and east. This is similar to how they interacted with Iran. Namely, destruction en masse of religious buildings, reprisals for even the most minor riots, slave-taking with deportations and so forth.
so what would likely follow is Italy being a second base of the Abbasid House, essentially?