AHC: Muslim Sicily

That is not always correct. It depends on the context. Christian leaders in the field were not ignorant of these things, just as Muslim were not ignorant of heretical Christian groups in their lands.

They are indeed not ignorant. They could play the groups against each other in like North Africa. But not in Sicily. Sicily is too close to Rome and an easier pick.
 
Not much of a challenge part of the "AHC." Just have the Normans (including mercs working for the local counts!) go somewhere else and the island is safe for three more generations. And if you can't sort your problems out while you are allied to the Moors and have an island to defend in multiple generations, then what is about to come is unintentional social Darwinism.
 
Not much of a challenge part of the "AHC." Just have the Normans (including mercs working for the local counts!) go somewhere else and the island is safe for three more generations.
"Oh, conquering it would be TOO easy. We're sportsmen. Let's try to conquer Tartary or something".

Sicily in the XIth century is easy prey : a particularily wealthy region, particularily divided and certain to not recieve nearly enough reinforcements. Why would anyone just bypass that, would it be only trough sheer opportunism?

What's next? Let's Mongols just ignore the Pacifi

And if you can't sort your problems out while you are allied to the Moors
Which they weren't, and not going to unless we indulge ourselves with some "these people are holding together anyway" sorta thinking.
Not even mentioning that al-Andalus itself never managed to sort out its own problems, let alone running around like Doctor Oud to solve everyone's problems.

then what is about to come is unintentional social Darwinism.
I don't even...Is this a drunken post?
 
"Oh, conquering it would be TOO easy. We're sportsmen. Let's try to conquer Tartary or something".

Sicily in the XIth century is easy prey : a particularily wealthy region, particularily divided and certain to not recieve nearly enough reinforcements. Why would anyone just bypass that, would it be only trough sheer opportunism?

It's physically possible to ignore a nice juicy target like that. Looking at the Japan during the rise of the first Ashikaga shogun, there were plenty of juicy targets for the Imagawa clan they didn't attack despite having no marriage ties or obligation. Well sort of, the Imagawa promised to have 75% of their best guys on standby in forts in case the Ashikaga called them but honestly what was keeping them from attacking the juicy targets and then when the Ashikaga come say "uh 3,000 is all we got the rest have dysentery and are in the outhouse." ? When a summons come from the Ashikaga, there would have been no way to verify if the troops were attacking the three juicy targets (it's a terrain thing, I don't have the inclination to make a diagram to explain) nearby or if a dysentery outbreak happened and that's why the guys are not in the forts. The juicy targets had no ties with the Ashikaga either.

Which they weren't,

My mistake, I thought they were allied with the Moors.

I don't even...Is this a drunken post?

It was a bit of dark humor. When I thought they were allied with the Moors (Wikipedia fooled me) then if the Normans go somewhere else, then they have 3 generations to work it out before the next attack. This is enough time for the local Italian city states to grow in population and deal with some of their internal problems and organized enough to launch an amphibious invasion without the Normans.

Social Darwinism sometimes "justifies" wealth inequality through selection, which applies to biology. It is less often used to refer to people's deaths being blamed on dumb decisions.

Three generations is a awhile, so if the ruling dynasty can't solve its problems with no external threat, it means they were really dumb.



Of course, there isn't a particularly good reason for the Normans to ignore a nice target like that, but what makes them different than the Japanese in terms of opportunism?
 
It's physically possible to ignore a nice juicy target like that.
It's also physically possible to jump instead of walking. I don't see much people doing it, tough.
At some point there's the notion of plausibility kicking it, and let's face it : it wouldn't be plausible to have whole groups of french mercenaries popping out in the region (partially out of social advancement need, partially out of cultural justification) and taking over southern Italy and just happening to ignore the easiest prey of all.

My mistake, I thought they were allied with the Moors.
They were under the dependence (politically and militarily) of Fatimids, then Zirids. Basically whoever controlled North Africa at this point, and would serve as a naval and recruitement supplier. To say it wasn't exactly that certain of a relationship would be an understatement.

It was a bit of dark humor. When I thought they were allied with the Moors (Wikipedia fooled me) then if the Normans go somewhere else, then they have 3 generations to work it out before the next attack.
It's less they were allied with Moors (assuming, maybe wrongly) that by Moors your version of Wikipedia meant "Berbers", that an important part of their military strength came from recrruitement and mercenariship from North Africa. It was a constant of Western Islamic states at this point, and participated to the general inner strife and political destabilization (it's really obvious in the wake of Umayyad collapse).

EDIT : Maybe it's a reference to the presence of Arabo-Andalusian reinforcements during the conquest of Sicily, in the IXth century. It wasn't so much an alliance between Arabo-Andalusian and Aghlabids, than an temporary and more or less opportunistic reinforcement in the initial stages of the conquest (with a possible after-tought to gain parts of Sicily for themselves).
I don't think, so far, it's really clear cut it was an Umayyad sponsored expedition : certainly Abd al Rahman II was aware of this, but it could be as sort of equivalent to Norman mercenariship on the Islamic side, as in more or less autonomous expedition as it was customary in western Mediterranean basin (Balearic Island and Arabo-Andalusian outpost in Provence and Italy were largely autonomous as well).

Frankly if not Normans, then everyone : Byzzies, HRE, anyone would eventually attempt to take it. Normans did because they were litterally next door with a mere straight separing continental Italy from it.

This is enough time for the local Italian city states to grow in population and deal with some of their internal problems and organized enough to launch an amphibious invasion without the Normans.
I doubt they would do that : not only the historical expeditions such as in Balearic Island failed to maintain italian/provencal/barcelonese control of the archipelago even with their resources and demographies, but maritime comuni would have relatively low interests taking on Sicily (mostly because it would break down trade possibilities for a while, and because even with their capacities it would have meant sharing the conquest with someone).

Three generations is a awhile, so if the ruling dynasty can't solve its problems with no external threat, it means they were really dumb.
I agree : these people are so dumb to not figure out their own problem and to resolve it ASAP.
Imagine, if we still knew of global warming and decided to not do anything about i....Oh right.

It's extremely easy, with the insight of what happens next, to say with confidence "this is the problem". Heck, even with this insight, sometimes the problem comes from going against a whole bundle of issues, some systematically ingrained.

These issues were,for what matter the military/political part of Islamic Spain, the aformentioned dependence on Ifriqiya : it could survive without it, but not really much. IOTL it went trough the appearance of taifas' equivalent, shortly unified with a direct Zirid takeover.
The best solution, if short term, would be that the Zirid reconquest holds, and works as Berber Dynasties did for Spain. Of course, it's likely that, like these, you'd have a more and more autonomous Sicily and with the rise of another dynasty in Ifriqiya, you'd return to the political divisions.
But it could work for maintaining Islamic rule at least until the next century, especially if Zirids pull an Aghlabid and not only turns out to be efficient rulers (which they weren't much IOTL, up to the point Italian communi had little problem to raid Ifriqiyan coasts) but as well having a focus on a relatively strong navy.

Of course, there isn't a particularly good reason for the Normans to ignore a nice target like that, but what makes them different than the Japanese in terms of opportunism?
First, the situation you depicted is about clans sharing a same political background. It's a bit like why, say, the County of Toulouse didn't tried to take and plunder the County of Fois. Contrary to the relations between mercenaries forging for themselves a kingdom over foreign foes, the political and cultural frames within a same political ensemble generally prevents total chaos : if it doesn't, it does means you don't have a political coherent ensemble.
On the other hand, post-Kalbid Sicily was considered land to be taken lawfully, so to speak, especially from mercenaries and soldiers (miles) whom social justification was increasingly tied up to a Christian way-of-life since the Xth century which were prone to reconquer land both for themselves and out of an idea of social/religious duty.

You can't seriously compare the situation between Sicily (which was divided, close to a whole group of people whom war was a social justification and defense of Christiendom its cultural justification) and the inner situations of various Japanese shogunates where (just as in every decentralized political entity) you just couldn't rape and plunder around because you felt like it.

TL;DR
Post-Kalbid Sicily was an easy, divided, wealthy and legitimate target for conquest for what mattered Normans.
 
Last edited:
Top