Yeah, there is no way for the European Monarchs to turn a blind eye to the whole thing. Sicily is way too close to Christian Europe to be left untouched. If they cared about islands like Malta and Cyprus, they would care about Sicily, for sure.
Development of an Ottoman Sicily?
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
Look, on the subject, there are dozens of studies in Italian relating to African slavery in Sicily: the most important are:
Notes on slavery in Sicily between the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age by Giuseppe Campagna, a researcher at the University of Messina, who tackled, starting from archival documentation, both the question of the slave trade and their agricultural use
A little older, but pioneering at the time, G. Marrone, Slavery in Sicilian society in the modern age, Caltanissetta-Rome, 1972, pp. 199-200.
Domestic slavery in Sicily after the Normans - (Legislation, Doctrine, Formulas) by Matteo Gaudioso, which addresses the issue of urban slavery
Numerous articles on Storia Mediterrana, including Schiavi in Italia (I won't put the full title, because, due to the different linguistic nuances between Italian and English, it could be rightly offensive) by Salvatore Bono
Also because let's remember, in Sicily slavery after the Byzantine period, was reintroduced after the Islamic conquest and remained until 1700, for reasons related to agricultural organization: it declined, more due to the Enlightenment, because the diffusion of life and citrus fruits required much less workforce and in more limited periods and above all skilled workers... So it was no longer economically manageable for the large Sicilian agricultural owners, both lay and ecclesiastical.
In the United States, African slavery begins its boom in the 1700s and explodes in the early 19th century...
I tried to hypothesize different scenarios on the duration of the Ottoman domination in Sicily:
1) Worst Case: 1571/1572 As a consequence of the battle of Lepanto, logistically Sicily is a quite realistic target for the Holy League. Consequently it could become a personal domain of Don Giovanni of Austria, who by marrying some local noblewoman, could give rise to an autonomous kingdom of Sicily, or be incorporated into Spain
2) 1647, with the great Sicilian revolt: the problems of Sicily at the time, from the recessive effects of the plague and climate change, demographic growth, the restructuring of agricultural property, remain unchanged whether the island is managed from Constantinople, either from Madrid, with the aggravating circumstance in this scenario of religious motivation and the interest of Spain and France in supporting the insurgents, for control of the island. Now, either Sicily becomes a dominion of Madrid or Paris, or it becomes a autonomous kingdom
3) War of Crete: for Venice and for her Italian allies, Sicily becomes an attractive target, to put diplomatic pressure on Constantinople. Obviously, it is difficult, due to structural problems, for the Serenissima to keep the island for long
4) Austrian-Ottoman Wars: as above. Now, despite the complaints of the Sicilians of the time, who were traumatized by Vienna's ahem strange demand that its subjects pay taxes, it was overall positive... A longer control would reverse the island's economic recession
5) Early nineteenth century, French and English occupation, due to the Sulfur issue
6) best case According to the nineteenth century, the process relating to the unification of Italy.
The longer the Turkish domination lasts, the more the Sicilian demography changes: a Muslim minority is created, given what is happening OTL will be concentrated in the area of Mazara and Trapani, the percentage of the population of African origin will be quite substantial and the Jews will return to Sicily very first.
However, the more I think about it, the less feasible a management of Sicily similar to that of Bosnia or Iraq seems to me, both for cultural and religious reasons.
Cultural reasons: the Ottomans find themselves faced with a strongly Catholicized society, with its taboos, rituals, particular cults, in which religion marks the calendar and social and economic relationships. A society that at the same time is highly militarized, due to the infinite local causes. If they try to put their mouth on religious issues, forbidding processions or the ringing of bells or local festivals, which also have an economic value, because they are also the exchange markets between the different provinces, they risk a revolt a day and Sicily becomes more than a source of income an expense.
Social and political reasons: the Sicilian organization is highly articulated and polycentric. For example, already in the fifteenth century the power of the brotherhoods developed, which in addition to the religious nature, act as trade unions and trade associations and mutual aid societies. An Ottoman governor will have to take this into account, unless he wants to manage indefinite general strikes (which OTl have jumped several Spanish viceroys). Or confront the great religious orders, which also have considerable economic power and which, if they are unwilling to pay taxes to their fellow countrymen, let us think of those they define as infidels. Or to the nobles who literally have their own private armies, or to the numerous autonomous citizens, given the Sicilian urbanization... Or to the question of the Sicilian Parliament or of the Palermo city administration: abolish them or put their mouth on them, as the Spaniards or the Bourbons is the best way to unleash riots to the bitter end.
Therefore, to survive in this asylum, in Constantinople they have to invent a new approach, delegating as much as possible the control of the territory to the many local power centers (also accepting their tax privileges)
1) Worst Case: 1571/1572 As a consequence of the battle of Lepanto, logistically Sicily is a quite realistic target for the Holy League. Consequently it could become a personal domain of Don Giovanni of Austria, who by marrying some local noblewoman, could give rise to an autonomous kingdom of Sicily, or be incorporated into Spain
2) 1647, with the great Sicilian revolt: the problems of Sicily at the time, from the recessive effects of the plague and climate change, demographic growth, the restructuring of agricultural property, remain unchanged whether the island is managed from Constantinople, either from Madrid, with the aggravating circumstance in this scenario of religious motivation and the interest of Spain and France in supporting the insurgents, for control of the island. Now, either Sicily becomes a dominion of Madrid or Paris, or it becomes a autonomous kingdom
3) War of Crete: for Venice and for her Italian allies, Sicily becomes an attractive target, to put diplomatic pressure on Constantinople. Obviously, it is difficult, due to structural problems, for the Serenissima to keep the island for long
4) Austrian-Ottoman Wars: as above. Now, despite the complaints of the Sicilians of the time, who were traumatized by Vienna's ahem strange demand that its subjects pay taxes, it was overall positive... A longer control would reverse the island's economic recession
5) Early nineteenth century, French and English occupation, due to the Sulfur issue
6) best case According to the nineteenth century, the process relating to the unification of Italy.
The longer the Turkish domination lasts, the more the Sicilian demography changes: a Muslim minority is created, given what is happening OTL will be concentrated in the area of Mazara and Trapani, the percentage of the population of African origin will be quite substantial and the Jews will return to Sicily very first.
However, the more I think about it, the less feasible a management of Sicily similar to that of Bosnia or Iraq seems to me, both for cultural and religious reasons.
Cultural reasons: the Ottomans find themselves faced with a strongly Catholicized society, with its taboos, rituals, particular cults, in which religion marks the calendar and social and economic relationships. A society that at the same time is highly militarized, due to the infinite local causes. If they try to put their mouth on religious issues, forbidding processions or the ringing of bells or local festivals, which also have an economic value, because they are also the exchange markets between the different provinces, they risk a revolt a day and Sicily becomes more than a source of income an expense.
Social and political reasons: the Sicilian organization is highly articulated and polycentric. For example, already in the fifteenth century the power of the brotherhoods developed, which in addition to the religious nature, act as trade unions and trade associations and mutual aid societies. An Ottoman governor will have to take this into account, unless he wants to manage indefinite general strikes (which OTl have jumped several Spanish viceroys). Or confront the great religious orders, which also have considerable economic power and which, if they are unwilling to pay taxes to their fellow countrymen, let us think of those they define as infidels. Or to the nobles who literally have their own private armies, or to the numerous autonomous citizens, given the Sicilian urbanization... Or to the question of the Sicilian Parliament or of the Palermo city administration: abolish them or put their mouth on them, as the Spaniards or the Bourbons is the best way to unleash riots to the bitter end.
Therefore, to survive in this asylum, in Constantinople they have to invent a new approach, delegating as much as possible the control of the territory to the many local power centers (also accepting their tax privileges)
Lebanon is a roughly analogous situation in that most of the locals are not the Ottomans' preferred sect, but the area is very mountainous-- it has a barrier that local revolts can use, Sicily has the sea. In Lebanon local Christians and Druze became tax-farmers (they are charged with collecting the state's share of taxes but can pay themselves and their retinue from it). They used this status and its associated financial privileges to become autonomous emirs.
If it's mostly the local Christians who get this status they may be able to maintain their society intact. But of course it can't be that simple, Albanian and Janissary migrants will come to claim their kingdoms. And they could make a serious mess of things, Janissary failure to protect Balkan populations from banditry (and their own abuses of the people) turned the bandits into viable leaders of national rebellions. But these interlopers may compete with each other, and the one that forms alliances with the locals and pledges to protect the inviolables of their society will have the advantage.
Which, unfortunately, I fear accentuates and anticipates the development and transformation of the Mafia 😞
Many of these things will be absent in an Ottoman Sicily as many nobility and said organisations would die in the war😜, Don't forget.
Have you ever read the Leopard by Tomasi di Lampedusa?
There is a phrase which historically applied to Byzantines, Arabs, Normans, Swabians, Spaniards and Italians.
"Everything must change, for everything to stay the same"
Sicily has had too many wars and conquerors: the only historical constant is the resilience of its institutions and the fact that it was its conquerors who Sicilianized themselves and not the opposite. Even the Aglabites and the Fatimids, who dominated Sicily for 4 centuries, had to surrender before the local institutions and raise the white flag before the religious orders (in this specific case, the Basilians). So I'm quite skeptical that ITL the Ottomans do better
There were only 28k slaves in 13 colonies in 1700, so basically like around 5% of Sicily's population.
Safe ? From the studies I have, a Sicilian population of 560,000 inhabitants in eighteenth-century Sicily seems to me too low. The estimates I've read at more than double
While Longhitano, more recently, cites slightly higher numbers
In recent years, Perni's demographic calculations are even more optimistic (perhaps too much) In recent years, Perni's demographic calculations are even more optimistic (perhaps too much), but they also include the inhabitants of Palermo and Messina
By the way, all the authors cited speak of 60,000-70,000 slaves in 1700 in Sicily (therefore in the waning phase) which coincides more or less with your estimate of 5%
While it is true for high nobility and Spanish administrator, i believe Ottoman will try to coop local land holder and low nobility at minimum. After all they already do the same in Albania & Bosnia.
And in Egypt, Greece, Lebanon and Tripoli. The Ottomans rarely replaced local nobility wholesale.
dcharles
Banned
Exactly. This isn't going to be a Crusade of Varna situation. This time, the "barbarians" are really at the gate. Goodness, how does a situation like this effect the Reformation?
Tomasi di Lampedusa is surname.,,, The full and exact name is Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
Tomasi di Lampedusa (famiglia) - Wikipedia
Indeed to be precise the real surname is Tomasi, while Lampedusa is the indication of the feud associated with their main noble title
Last edited:
dcharles
Banned
Tomasi di Lampedusa is surname.,,, The full and exact name is Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
Tomasi di Lampedusa (famiglia) - Wikipedia
it.wikipedia.org
Indeed to be precise the real surname is Tomasi, while Lampedusta is the indication of the feud associated with their main noble title
Ah, in the English translations, they omit the Tomasi.
This is actually quite interesting thanks for the enlightening comment
The pod is early enough to butterfly away Luther and Zwingli. If Europe is forced to unite against a common enemy the reformation could be prevented or at the very least (if you think it was inevitable) delayed for a few decades.
I think the Reformation would actually spread faster in this scenario, since the Papacy and its allies will be forced to spend more time and money fighting in the Mediterranean. "Better a Turk than a Papist" was a thing, after all:
en.m.wikipedia.org
Liever Turks dan Paaps - Wikipedia
"Better to be ruled by an infidel that will let you keep worshipping the way you want, than by a heretic that will oppress you for not worshipping the way they want." was part of the reason why Orthodox Christians preferred being under Muslim rule than Catholic rule, IIRC.I think the Reformation would actually spread faster in this scenario, since the Papacy and its allies will be forced to spend more time and money fighting in the Mediterranean. "Better a Turk than a Papist" was a thing, after all:
Liever Turks dan Paaps - Wikipedia
Of course, that stopped being a thing when there was an available Orthodox option...