Arab conquest of Italy: realistic?

The conquest of southern Italy, or at least a good part of it, seems plausible. The encampment at the Garigliano was, like Fraxinetum, a mere forward raiding base, but for a time the Muslims made some regionally impressive conquests, taking Taranto, Matera, Oria, and Amantea. This came about only though the weakness and violent disunion of the Lombard south, for just like the Turks coming into Anatolia the Arabs did not merely raid southern Italy but were invited in as mercenaries (a mistake which the Lombard princes would repeat many years later with the Normans). If the Arabs had been more unified (Taranto, for instance, was a major Muslim raiding base for decades but was not apparently under Bari's control) and enjoyed more support from other Muslim polities abroad, they could have done better. That said, the Muslims were by this point operating rather far afield from their centers of power and their manpower was thin, the same fundamental strategic problem they had faced when operating in southern France. Having more Carolingian disunion would also help, insofar as the expedition of Louis II which finally crushed Bari might be avoided.

Ultimately I think that Muslim dominion in southern Italy would not last long. Even if the emirates in southern Italy do quite well, I suspect their relative isolation from the rest of the Muslim world and their proximity to powerful Christian neighbors is going to result in a "Reconquista" in the High Middle Ages which sees the roll-back of Muslim control over the south of the peninsula.

A (lasting) conquest of Rome, or anything north of Latium, is difficult for me to imagine.

Good post.

I just had a thought: what if the Banu Hilal, instead of being sent to North Africa, were sent to Siciliy and Southern Italy instead? The timeline is a bit late - late 900s/1000. But it could solve the manpower issue...
 
I just had a thought: what if the Banu Hilal, instead of being sent to North Africa, were sent to Siciliy and Southern Italy instead? The timeline is a bit late - late 900s/1000. But it could solve the manpower issue...

From what I remember, the Banu Hilal were sent west to punish the Zirids, who had renounced Fatimid suzerainty and transferred their political and religious allegiance from the Fatimid Caliph to the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad. I’m not sure why they would go to Sicily instead, let alone southern Italy.

The problem I see is one of priorities. States which ruled the whole Maghreb, like the Almoravids and Almohads, tended to prioritize Andalusia over Italy/Sicily, so it seems as if you really need a strong Ifriqiyan state that doesn’t rule the western Maghreb. The Fatimids fit the bill - they were possibly the greatest Muslim power to originate in Ifriqiya, and early on they did indeed encourage raids against Italy. But what happened? Once they became sufficiently powerful, they invaded Egypt and relocated there, leaving Ifriqiya and Sicily to their less effective vassals. It seems rather difficult to imagine an Ifriqiyan state which both controls sufficient manpower in Africa to conquer southern Italy and sees Italy, rather than Morocco, Andalusia, or Egypt, as its primary focus for expansion.
 
I just had a thought: what if the Banu Hilal, instead of being sent to North Africa, were sent to Siciliy and Southern Italy instead? The timeline is a bit late - late 900s/1000. But it could solve the manpower issue...
From what I remember, the Banu Hilal were sent west to punish the Zirids, who had renounced Fatimid suzerainty and transferred their political and religious allegiance from the Fatimid Caliph to the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad. I’m not sure why they would go to Sicily instead, let alone southern Italy.
The story about the Banu Hilal going to punish the Zirids is potentially a later extrapolation rather than the entire germ of what happened. In fact, Egypt suffered a massive drought in the 1050s on to 1060 that destabilized the Fatimid regime. The Banu Hilal was huge - some writers described it as the size of a nation in and of itself - saying nothing of the Banu Sulaym also migrating to Cyrenaica around the same time. The Banu Hilal were also Bedouins - that is, nomads. In a major drought situation, they were almost certain to leave in search of water and food. Not that the Banu Hilal is inevitable - but they are highly likely to leave Egypt for somewhere they can actually live.

I do not think Italy will be the place they go. The Banu Hilal have the same problem a lot of wandering nomadic groups have: No matter how hard you try, you cannot take a fleet of galleys with you. They seemed to prefer to be inland and to not settle; trying their luck on the Med would be a bit of a stretch for them.
 
Top