If moors sacked rome during the dark ages

The Moors will hold the site and rebuild the city. Colonists will come from Africa to repopulate it. The new city will be probably be called Rum or something like that. A remote jerkwater no longer, Rum will return to its days of glory. It'll be cleaner than other European cities, and probably a much healthier place to live, despite the swamps.

What incentive is there to do this?
 
The Moors will hold the site and rebuild the city. Colonists will come from Africa to repopulate it. The new city will be probably be called Rum or something like that. A remote jerkwater no longer, Rum will return to its days of glory. It'll be cleaner than other European cities, and probably a much healthier place to live, despite the swamps.

If the caliphate rebuilts rome,there will be no reconquista.....
 
If the caliphate rebuilts rome,there will be no reconquista.....

But Caliphate won't going to rebuilt Rome. Besides, the correct and most effective way to prevent reconquista or any equivalent of it is by denying Christians any suitable for projecting the process of such.
 
Last edited:
What incentive is there to do this?

For the prestige, of course. Washed-up, has-been Hollywood actress or not, crow's feet or not, STDs or not, there's still that glorious name, and all the history attached to it. Sure, the old girl isn't what she once was. But it's still nice to be able to name-drop.
 
Again, there were only like four inhabitants, so it wouldn't have made much difference. Rome is far away from the bases of Islamic power, it has Southern Italy separating it from anything else Muslim, and to the North are populous Christian regions that can just swoop in and get rid of the Muslim presence.

I think maybe there's a tendency to think that Rome was a significant place throughout all of history. It's actually a terrible place for a city, as it requires a lot of infrastructure to keep it drained and habitable - otherwise it reverts to malarial marshland. After the fall of the empire, it was largely abandoned and remained a backwater until the early modern period. The North really held the significant cities, like Milan.

Essentially, the presence of the Papacy was the element which saved the city from oblivion. No Papacy would mean a Rome *now* seen a haunting ruin, visited by awe-stricken tourists in silence at the sight of escavated monuments long gone OTL.
 
In what way?

Any suitable base, I mean, and by having the muslims unite all of the peninsula and substantial naval presence around the seas south east of Pyrenees, or making the Christian parts of the Peninsula uncomfortably disunited for any Crusade volunteers and thus eventually resulted in the previous option.
 
Any suitable base, I mean, and by having the muslims unite all of the peninsula and substantial naval presence around the seas south east of Pyrenees, or making the Christian parts of the Peninsula uncomfortably disunited for any Crusade volunteers and thus eventually resulted in the previous option.

Well, it worked, but I doubt it is feasible to keep that kind of military stance up over the course of centuries.
 
Well, it worked, but I doubt it is feasible to keep that kind of military stance up over the course of centuries.

Well yeah, indeed I forgot to mention the need to prevent ANY presence of of potential Christian power to exploit the weakened muslims whenever the muslims are at it. That was basically the main problem for all occasions IOTL. Screw your "it won't guarantee muslim survival anyway" argument because people die when their killed anyway. It will certainly give the chance for maintaining muslim presence in Iberia until present day, just doesn't mean the survival's inevitable. I swear to God whoever responsible for the firm position of "mosl!!m suxxorz thell be kickd out from Yoohrop no mettah wut" memes in this message board are going to pay for making me Mister Obvious ! :mad:

I think that the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa will be pretty potential to at least give the Muslim presence in Iberia a decent extension time for a couple of centuries at the worst among worst. Besides it was also during the time when England, which was at personal union with Aquitaine/Gascony at the time, was in a rather crisis of faith due to excommunication and did actually offered the Almohads vassalage and conversion to Islam, under the circumstances that the regime was heading the already nominally Chrisitian populace and support from the majority of nobles. This could do a lot of help for the Almohad's position in Spain, in the form of a useful distraction for the nearby Christian foes around Pyrenees at worst, and after that basically we will have about 6 centuries of free time to ensure muslim iberias' survival if desired to.

Besides it's a freaking thread for discussing Rome in Italy. See you in no reconquista thread next door.

EDIT : I may have to apologize to carlton bach now for I may have unnecessary hurt him with my current temper. Sorry, I didn't meant anything like that....
 
Last edited:
Any suitable base, I mean, and by having the muslims unite all of the peninsula and substantial naval presence around the seas south east of Pyrenees, or making the Christian parts of the Peninsula uncomfortably disunited for any Crusade volunteers and thus eventually resulted in the previous option.

I think by sacking byzantine earlier along with rome there will be no reconquista...
 
I think by sacking byzantine earlier along with rome there will be no reconquista...
Do you not know western European history at all? The Reconquista was largely unconnected with events happening in the Byzantine Empire. The fall of Constantinople does not ensure the survival of Al-Andalus. In fact, it would probably make it weaker - the Umayyads would never establish themselves in the west (in all probability) and thus Al-Andalus would fracture and decline with no central authority.
 
Do you not know western European history at all? The Reconquista was largely unconnected with events happening in the Byzantine Empire. The fall of Constantinople does not ensure the survival of Al-Andalus. In fact, it would probably make it weaker - the Umayyads would never establish themselves in the west (in all probability) and thus Al-Andalus would fracture and decline with no central authority.
Based on posting history, I think this poster just wants to stir something up.

Anyhow, is it possible that the buffer states the Franks set up south in the Pyrenees would begin a Reconquista or are they too small to exploit Muslim devisions?
 
The kingdom of Italy was pretty feudal. It just based its feudal system on a more developed economy.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here - I was agreeing with an amplifying your previous comments. Large centralized empires with bureaucracies, like the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires had greater impetus to urbanization than feudal states, where power is very decentralized and fragmented.
 
Anyhow, is it possible that the buffer states the Franks set up south in the Pyrenees would begin a Reconquista or are they too small to exploit Muslim devisions?
I'd say it's within the realm of possibility: Aragon, as as successor of the Frankish County of Barcelona, was able to reconquer a significant amount of territory. Without major West Frankish / French support, of course. So it's not entirely unreasonable to assume that some territory will be taken from Al-Andalus. But there is also Asturias, the more powerful state (founded IIRC by Visigothic rebels in the 700s). It would be unaffected by the POD, which occurs in the 840s. Rome had basically nothing to do with the Reconquista from 800 onwards. So even if it was sacked, the history of Al-Andalus would be very similar to OTL.
 
Top