Umayyad Italy

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.

In which aspects does Italy differ from Hispania in that regard that make you see such a difference in treatment between the two? Just to understand the ticking point between good treatment and mistreatment, since Hispania became the last refuge of the Umayyad, not their fiercest antagonist
 
In which aspects does Italy differ from Hispania in that regard that make you see such a difference in treatment between the two? Just to understand the ticking point between good treatment and mistreatment, since Hispania became the last refuge of the Umayyad, not their fiercest antagonist

1. Iberia was conquered in a different manner than Iran. Iran was a complex tapestry of nobles, war-torn villages, varied religions, millennial sects seeking the end of the world and possessed to its east dangerous foes to the Islamic world order. In Iberia, the Umayyad army was invited into Iberia as an arbiter of the ongoing civil strife erupting in the realm and associated themselves to sections of the Visigothic nobility and rekindling of Arianism in the region. Furthermore, Iberia was more defensible than Italy and the Basque realms formed a fairly thorough border in critical zones of transit between the Franks and Umayyad.

2. My opinion is not that Italy will become an Iran in terms of an Abbasid revolution analogue, only that the region would not be treated like Syria or other Christian communities in the Middle East. They will be subject to repressions, warfare, dismantling and strife and ultimately, the gathering of jizya int eh area will be less important than destroying possible avenues for revolt and modes by which the Franks or Byzantines could use to enter into the peninsula to undermine the Umayyad.
 
2. My opinion is not that Italy will become an Iran in terms of an Abbasid revolution analogue, only that the region would not be treated like Syria or other Christian communities in the Middle East. They will be subject to repressions, warfare, dismantling and strife and ultimately, the gathering of jizya int eh area will be less important than destroying possible avenues for revolt and modes by which the Franks or Byzantines could use to enter into the peninsula to undermine the Umayyad.

What do you think would happen to the Bishop of Rome in this situation?
 
1. Iberia was conquered in a different manner than Iran. Iran was a complex tapestry of nobles, war-torn villages, varied religions, millennial sects seeking the end of the world and possessed to its east dangerous foes to the Islamic world order. In Iberia, the Umayyad army was invited into Iberia as an arbiter of the ongoing civil strife erupting in the realm and associated themselves to sections of the Visigothic nobility and rekindling of Arianism in the region. Furthermore, Iberia was more defensible than Italy and the Basque realms formed a fairly thorough border in critical zones of transit between the Franks and Umayyad.

2. My opinion is not that Italy will become an Iran in terms of an Abbasid revolution analogue, only that the region would not be treated like Syria or other Christian communities in the Middle East. They will be subject to repressions, warfare, dismantling and strife and ultimately, the gathering of jizya int eh area will be less important than destroying possible avenues for revolt and modes by which the Franks or Byzantines could use to enter into the peninsula to undermine the Umayyad.

1. What makes you think a conquest of Italy would resemble more the conquest of Iran than that of Spain? Beyond being much closer culturally and geographically speaking, I find it a good sign that both Italy and Hispania were, at the time, dominated by an upper class that saw itself as culturally distinct from its subjects, the Lombards and the Visigoths respectively. This would further make the Italian underclass not see the invasion as a foreign usurpation but more of a "change of management", while the new rulers could go on to cut down the Lombard aristocracy or simply convert them and marry them into their kin and their ruling system, as they did with the Visigoths in Hispania.

Italy also offers good defences in the Alps. This is not the era of Charlemagne in France either; currently the country is crashing into each other so Charles Martel and his dynasty can assert dominance as Mayors. The Umayyad don't have any particular reason to fear them immediately. Although now that you mention it I can see them making sure the Lombards bow to toe, I can see the Italians faring no worse than under the Lombards, Greeks or Franks. If given a decent tax rate on the jizya they may become loyal subjects.

2. Why did Hispania remain in Umayyad hands? I actually don't know much of the context in Iran so perhaps you could explain the difference there.
 
they were very racist towards their Persian subjects however,
Hated their Zoroastrian component(as the fire worshipers were pagans in all but name) when Persia slowly become muslim, the persian culture stayed the same as the fire worshipers so despite were no more
 
1. What makes you think a conquest of Italy would resemble more the conquest of Iran than that of Spain? Beyond being much closer culturally and geographically speaking, I find it a good sign that both Italy and Hispania were, at the time, dominated by an upper class that saw itself as culturally distinct from its subjects, the Lombards and the Visigoths respectively. This would further make the Italian underclass not see the invasion as a foreign usurpation but more of a "change of management", while the new rulers could go on to cut down the Lombard aristocracy or simply convert them and marry them into their kin and their ruling system, as they did with the Visigoths in Hispania.

Italy also offers good defences in the Alps. This is not the era of Charlemagne in France either; currently the country is crashing into each other so Charles Martel and his dynasty can assert dominance as Mayors. The Umayyad don't have any particular reason to fear them immediately. Although now that you mention it I can see them making sure the Lombards bow to toe, I can see the Italians faring no worse than under the Lombards, Greeks or Franks. If given a decent tax rate on the jizya they may become loyal subjects.

2. Why did Hispania remain in Umayyad hands? I actually don't know much of the context in Iran so perhaps you could explain the difference there.

1. Hmm, the Visigoths and Lombards, I would not categorize as foreign in a real great sense. As many have argued, the Roman empire, had long become almost a Germano-Latin empire, the most usual thing for the people of the Latin world was Germanic armies, Germanic lords and Germanic cultural exchange with the Latin cultures of the Late Roman empire.

The Alps are less of a protective screen against the Franks than the Pyrenees are in Iberia. Most precisely due to the Basque presence and general instability in the Occitan that had only recently after Islamic conquest, fell into Frankish hands (these lands of the Occitan were Visigothic crownlands). Further, Italy is a patchwork of many entities that owe varied allegiances, the Umayyads will have to 'mow' over varied foes and come into conflicts with more than four or five power blocs before they have attained an alpine border. By that time, the Franks will have pushed into the lands of Savor and Liguria to assert strategic borders and concerns. If the Papacy is truly defeated, he will flee to the Franks, Eastern Empire or the Visigoths; depending on the date of conquest (we should specify) will give us word on where he may flee to if the Papacy is conquered.

2. There is no decent rate on jizya. Jizya is only part of becoming a dhimmi... It implies submission and acceptance of a new dominating class in the form of the Arabo-Umayyad rulers. It requires that the formerly strong and powerful Lombard populace renounce both its military capabilities and or submit to Islam. In the case of Iberia, a portion of the Visigothic populace actively assisted the Umayyad as, the pretext for the Umayyad invasion was as arbiters in an existing civil war. Meanwhile, the concept of the Italian conquest is an Umayyad defeat of all factors in Italy, both Byzantine, Lombard, Visigothic, Papal and Veneto-Byzantine and then asserting its rule over them top-down. This is more like Iran, which was conquered by force over several decades of grueling war, resistance, religious strife and periods of conspiracy and possible collapse.

3. Iberia remained in Umayyad hands due to the flight of the remnant Umayyad clan to Iberia after the defeat of the Umayyad clan by the Abbasid was enforced in both Iraq, Syria and Egypt. Later, the Abbasids would attempt to make some headway into Iberia and Africa, but was unable to assert Caliphal authority beyond Algeria. The Maghreb fell under varied Khawarij and Shi'a emirs, rural Libya and Algeria came under several bandit emirates of many different Islamic creeds and the Abbasid maintained rule in Tunisia, coastal Libya and Egypt. However, situations prevailing in Arabia and more pressing issues, the Abbasid satisfied themselves by labeling the Umayyad as kafir and apostates (munafiq) and ruling the Caliphate from its powerbase of Iraq.
 
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.

And if they have reached Italy, they have probably already defeated the Franks to some extent.
 
1. Hmm, the Visigoths and Lombards, I would not categorize as foreign in a real great sense. As many have argued, the Roman empire, had long become almost a Germano-Latin empire, the most usual thing for the people of the Latin world was Germanic armies, Germanic lords and Germanic cultural exchange with the Latin cultures of the Late Roman empire.

The Alps are less of a protective screen against the Franks than the Pyrenees are in Iberia. Most precisely due to the Basque presence and general instability in the Occitan that had only recently after Islamic conquest, fell into Frankish hands (these lands of the Occitan were Visigothic crownlands). Further, Italy is a patchwork of many entities that owe varied allegiances, the Umayyads will have to 'mow' over varied foes and come into conflicts with more than four or five power blocs before they have attained an alpine border. By that time, the Franks will have pushed into the lands of Savor and Liguria to assert strategic borders and concerns. If the Papacy is truly defeated, he will flee to the Franks, Eastern Empire or the Visigoths; depending on the date of conquest (we should specify) will give us word on where he may flee to if the Papacy is conquered.

2. There is no decent rate on jizya. Jizya is only part of becoming a dhimmi... It implies submission and acceptance of a new dominating class in the form of the Arabo-Umayyad rulers. It requires that the formerly strong and powerful Lombard populace renounce both its military capabilities and or submit to Islam. In the case of Iberia, a portion of the Visigothic populace actively assisted the Umayyad as, the pretext for the Umayyad invasion was as arbiters in an existing civil war. Meanwhile, the concept of the Italian conquest is an Umayyad defeat of all factors in Italy, both Byzantine, Lombard, Visigothic, Papal and Veneto-Byzantine and then asserting its rule over them top-down. This is more like Iran, which was conquered by force over several decades of grueling war, resistance, religious strife and periods of conspiracy and possible collapse.

3. Iberia remained in Umayyad hands due to the flight of the remnant Umayyad clan to Iberia after the defeat of the Umayyad clan by the Abbasid was enforced in both Iraq, Syria and Egypt. Later, the Abbasids would attempt to make some headway into Iberia and Africa, but was unable to assert Caliphal authority beyond Algeria. The Maghreb fell under varied Khawarij and Shi'a emirs, rural Libya and Algeria came under several bandit emirates of many different Islamic creeds and the Abbasid maintained rule in Tunisia, coastal Libya and Egypt. However, situations prevailing in Arabia and more pressing issues, the Abbasid satisfied themselves by labeling the Umayyad as kafir and apostates (munafiq) and ruling the Caliphate from its powerbase of Iraq.

1. Both Lombard and Visigothic identity remained, it was a matter of pride by the upper classes than any meaningful distinction, however, similar to the later stressing of Arabness by Andalusian rulers. In that regard, this sense of identity is the only necessary component for a sense of discrimination

2. I think then it would depend on how fast they manage to take over Italy. If it's in less than a few decades, as Hispania, then they'll probably not face those issues. Although there were certainly other forces, Byzantine power wasn't at its strongest in Italy and, should the Lombards fall, as my scenario proposed, then Italy is mostly in their hands already, which could lead to a swifter conquest than you envision. Iran is much more geographically large, diverse and rough than Italy

3. I know the political circumstances, I was asking about the more macrohistorical process. Was the cause of mistreatment of Iran because of how long it took to subdue its people, unlike in Hispania? Or were there other factors to take into account?
 
Was the cause of mistreatment of Iran because of how long it took to subdue its people, unlike in Hispania? Or were there other factors to take into account?
A lot others, from religious, to socio cultural, but at the end, both ummayads and rashidun did assimilated iran quick in the long term as was becoming slowly his own identity in islam too
 
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.

No, it can't be 711. Remember that the Umayyad campaign in the Visigothic Kingdom lasted until 725 (occupation of the Gothic Septimania) and this led to the later clash with the Franks in their own territory. The Franks did not tolerate the Arab presence in Gaul proper and they expelled the Arabs from all southern France by the end of the following decade. This is rather not compatible with a simultaneous campaign in southern Italy, because the Caliphate was just too overextended to allow this kind of simultaneous efforts (there were already other conflicts in the East and northern Africa), it would be too much...and also remember that the Byzantines were still present in most of southern Italy.

An eventual 'Italian campaign' should have been started not earlier than the decade of 740s, and the Umayyads were deposed just a decade later.

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

Certainly it would have been not a Crusade in the fashion of the XI century, but the Franks would have never tolerated an 'Umayyad Rome' for long time, as this would have meant a constant threat to the stability of their own realm core.
 
No, it can't be 711. Remember that the Umayyad campaign in the Visigothic Kingdom lasted until 725 (occupation of the Gothic Septimania) and this led to the later clash with the Franks in their own territory. The Franks did not tolerate the Arab presence in Gaul proper and they expelled the Arabs from all southern France by the end of the following decade. This is rather not compatible with a simultaneous campaign in southern Italy, because the Caliphate was just too overextended to allow this kind of simultaneous efforts (there were already other conflicts in the East and northern Africa), it would be too much...and also remember that the Byzantines were still present in most of southern Italy.

An eventual 'Italian campaign' should have been started not earlier than the decade of 740s, and the Umayyads were deposed just a decade later.



Certainly it would have been not a Crusade in the fashion of the XI century, but the Franks would have never tolerated an 'Umayyad Rome' for long time, as this would have meant a constant threat to the stability of their own realm core.

The scenario I'm suggesting is not Italy and Hispania, it's Italy instead of Hispania. It might have happened with different political circumstances in the dynastic politics.

The Franks seemed content with keeping the Umayyad contained in Iberia, with the Spanish Marches as a buffer. Besides, the Franks were not at their best at that point; the Mayors were still establishing themselves by weakening the royal institutions and bringing the country to civil war. There were still decades ahead until Charlemagne.
 

Kaze

Banned
The farthest they could get is Sicily - any further or farther (say into Naples) - expect the Pontiff to call a crusade.

IF they enter Naples:

The pontiff might write a letter to the Frankish state - Charles Martel would write back "I will be all too happy to fight the Muslims, as I have done at Tours. But... I have a problem, I run the army... but I am not the king, only the king can declare war." (Pepin the Short did this in IRL)
The pope writes sends a golden crown with a letter - "Congrats on your promotion, King Charles the First of Franks."
King Charles the First packs away the Merovich line into monasteries generations earlier, marches his army through the alps (the same route Hannibal, Charlemagne, and Napoleon used) into Italy, forges alliance with the Lombards to allow passage of his army (or "hey join us, we will be looting Naples - you get half the loot"), reaches Naples, loots and burns Naples to the ground, and sends them back across into Sicily. Charles sues for peace with the Muslims in Sicily - as an unfortunate accident occurs towards the former Merovich king - "it was a hunting accident, I swear!"
Carolingian Age begins early.
 
I assume they have reached Italy by land, so they control at least southern France. Although I suppose they could also invade via Sicily.

The route most sensible is by sea. At this stage, the Umayyad navy is superior in most regards to its Latin counterparts and at least on par with the Byzantines.
 
The farthest they could get is Sicily - any further or farther (say into Naples) - expect the Pontiff to call a crusade.

The First Crusade was in the 1090s. We're speaking of a campaign in the 8th century. It's anachronistic to to call an 8th century religious war a "Crusade"; a similar time difference would be like comparing 2010 justifications for warfare to 1710's justifications for warfare. Although the 8th century and 11th century are both grouped under the "Middle Ages," I think that shouldn't mislead us into assuming they had the exact same milieu. Carolingian wars against most of their neighbors definitely were justified religiously, but religious war is not the only defining factor of a crusade.

The system drawn upon for Europe-wide military recruitment was only developed by Pope Alexander II, who was pope from the 1060s into 1074. His successor Pope Gregory (I forget which number) then in 1074 first conceived of a mass military movement under the Pope to, among other things, demonstrate the might of the papacy. No one really went along with it, but it was an important precursor to Pope Urban's declaration of the First Crusade in 1095.

Not only was the infrastructure only developed in the 11th century for a Europe-wide devotional war, but the ideology was also only developed then by St. Anselm. He was related to Pope Alexander II and around the same time period was the first to advocate that through Crusade, participants would be absolved of their sins and could be considered pilgrims. This was a *huge* motivating factor for Christians to go on Crusade which did not theologically exist back in 700s religious wars.

So if the pontiff calls for foreign intervention in an Umayyad attack, which he likely would given that they called the Franks on the Lombards in the same century, it wouldn't be a Crusade. The distinction being that there's no promise of absolution for participants, there's no infrastructure to recruit participants, and there's no precedent. It could very well be as successful as the historic Frankish invasion of the Lombard Kingdom, but we wouldn't see masses of foreign Christian volunteers coming to participate and it would be no Crusade.

EDIT: There's also no guarantee the Lombards would ally with the Franks against the Umayyads. It's not really a clear-cut calculus as to which power is more dangerous, and OTL demonstrated that allowing the Franks into Italy was certainly an existential threat to them.

Also the ideology of Christian-on-Christian violence being sinful wasn't promulgated until the 9th century by some other pope, so again the ideological/theological basis for them to ally with the Franks isn't entirely there either.
 
Last edited:
Honestly the posts that say every Christian soul in Europe would rise and march to free every inch of Italy don't explain how a large chunk of Christendom and Europe (namely Hispania but also, well, Jerusalem) was taken at that time without that much uproar. This is not the High Middle Ages. If one wanted to protect the faith, there'd be many opportunities among the pagan peoples in their neighbourhoods, or even their own neighbours. How entrenched was Papal supremacy by then, considering the Pope was basically under the control of the Byzantine Empire?
 

Deleted member 67076

Given the Papacy was under the domination of the Byzantines I'm not sure if the Bishop of Rome would have the clout to call in the Franks, nor if the Franks themselves would want to intervene. The Pippinids were very fractured with multiple civil wars during the 700s and limited control over their periphery.

All that said, Ummayad Italy would be really rich. Unification, no Arabic raids and piracy, introduction of citrus, rice, and papermaking centuries earlier, and various waves of immigration from the rest of the Caliphate. Maybe an enterprising emir would be happy to restore the Roman aqueducts and other infrastructure using the additional tax revenue and cause a population boom.

To say nothing of how Ummayad Italy would cause an exodus to the Frankish lands of Lombard warrior nobles who those in Aquitaine would more than happy to absorb, much to Austrasia's displeasure.
 
Given the Papacy was under the domination of the Byzantines I'm not sure if the Bishop of Rome would have the clout to call in the Franks, nor if the Franks themselves would want to intervene. The Pippinids were very fractured with multiple civil wars during the 700s and limited control over their periphery.

Yeah, I mentioned the possibility of Frankish intervention because I saw a parallel in the Frankish invasion of the Lombards, but I checked and got my 8th century dates a little mixed up. Charlemagne didn't invade the Lombard Kingdom until 773 after continuous civil wars, whereas the Umayyads were finally defeated in 750, so the timing doesn't work if the Umayyads are falling on schedule. Granted, if the POD for this scenario involved extending Umayyad rule a bit longer then maybe you could get Frankish intervention, but that involves casting a butterfly net and assuming the Umayyad intervention didn't further destabilize the region. That's a little hard to say.

I will say though that assuming a stable Francia next to an Umayyad Italy, I think there's a reasonable chance the Franks would intervene. To me the historic invitation against the Lombards was mostly opportunistic, with the pope's invitation providing a useful casus belli to seize one of the wealthiest parts of Europe. If the pope complains about invaders on his doorstep like OTL, the Franks could still invade based on that invitation depending on how strong they perceive the Umayyads to be. If something like an ATL delayed Third Fitna or Abbasid revolution kicked off, I think it's very likely they would take the opportunity.
 
The farthest they could get is Sicily - any further or farther (say into Naples) - expect the Pontiff to call a crusade.
I said it a bit earlier, but this is an anachronistic take that projects the geopolitics of the late 11th century onto the early 8th. In fact, the Aghlabids of Ifriqiya made it further than Sicily centuries before the Crusades, and indeed actually sacked Rome itself, including pillaging Old St. Peter's and plundering the tomb of Peter himself. This did not result in a Crusade. At various times, Muslim powers controlled southern Sardinia, Apulia, a raiding base in Latium and a small colony in Provence. None of these resulted in the Crusades starting early.

As @Soverihn notes, a Umayyad force arriving in the early 8th century comes at a time when the Papacy is basically reliant on Constantinople - indeed, there is a Pope in this period named Constantine who is actually a Syrian Greek - but also at loggerheads with the Emperor over the issue of monothelitism. The Lombards are more likely to keep northern Italy out of Umayyad hands - they were successful against Muslim raids early on - but southern Italy is a prize the Umayyads could feasibly swallow with little resistance. At that point, it's all down to butterflies, and it's entirely possible that the Umayyads or their Italian successors simply become another major player in the shifting politics in Italy. At this point the read on Muslims is still, I believe, that they're a Christian heresy - this predates the stuff Christendom learned about Islam through their contacts with Mozarabic and Greek writers, who communicated largely in the form of polemics, and in fact a Umayyad invasion may even predate anyone substantially getting their hands on John of Damascus's polemic on the Prophet Muhammad. It's entirely possible that the newcomers will simply be grudgingly accepted by most common people as just the latest in a sequence of outside invaders, though I would imagine revolts would be common. There may be some elements who even consider them preferable to the Byzantines, the Lombards or the Franks.

If the Umayyads do swallow Rome, I would expect them to keep the Pope around. They can't really afford to go pissing off the dhimmi when they're far removed from their power base. That said, I'm not sure the Umayyads would hold on to Italy even if they do grab a lot of it: Even OTL, they were considering a pullout from Iberia prior to the Berber Revolt, considering the Caliphate to be overextended.

tl;dr There is no chance the Pope will call a Crusade on the Umayyads if they invade Italy because there is no Crusader mindset, the Pope is a weak Byzantine puppet, Christendom is much less established and Islam is still thought of as a relatively unknown Christian schismatic sect.
 
Top