I both agree and disagree the Visigoth was pretty much Romanized, they looked at Rome as everything they wanted to be, but the Langobards was different, they had little contact with Rome at it height, they didn’t admire Rome or wanted to be Romans, and they didn’t really assimilated into Italy, they adopted the Vulgar Latin languages, but they fundamental kept their culture and the Italians was assimilated into their culture.
Umayyad Italy
- Thread starter Madeleine Birchfield
- Start date
I both agree and disagree the Visigoth was pretty much Romanized, they looked at Rome as everything they wanted to be, but the Langobards was different, they had little contact with Rome at it height, they didn’t admire Rome or wanted to be Romans, and they didn’t really assimilated into Italy, they adopted the Vulgar Latin languages, but they fundamental kept their culture and the Italians was assimilated into their culture.
As for the POD, I like John7755’s model of what would happen, I also find a aggressive counterreaction from Franks or few other Catholic states unlikely, at least in the short term. But in the longer term Islamic Italy won’t last. Gauls and Germanias population was rising and their economies was growing in complexity, at the same time their new population centers lay well defended from attacks from the south. At some point the riches of the Italian peninsula will convince them of the necessarity of reconquer Rome.
But it will be transform Europe that it enter the High Middle Ages without the Southern parts. I also suspect that Catholicism will not exist in TTL instead all of Europe will likely be Orthodox with Germanic kingdoms having their own patriarchies.
But it will be transform Europe that it enter the High Middle Ages without the Southern parts. I also suspect that Catholicism will not exist in TTL instead all of Europe will likely be Orthodox with Germanic kingdoms having their own patriarchies.
This is even less likely.
After the fall of the Exarchate of Africa (698), most of the Byzantine navy and part of the armies located in the former Exarchate moved to Sicily. It would be logistically impossible for the Umayyads (they already tried) to attack Sicily from the sea with such amount of Byzantine military deployed there.
Since then, the Umayyads raided the area many times with little success. Sicily only started to become unprotected after the Isaurians relocated most of the Byzantine military force in the western Mediterranean to the East in the second half of the 8th century, when the Umayyads had just fallen.
You are precisely mixing different eras here. The pre-Charlemagne Franks were not content at all, and they already held a long and exhausting campaign (725-760) against the Arab presence in southern Gaul.
The 'peace' with the Arabs did not come until the death of Charlemagne and the consolidation of the Spanish March during the early 9th century. Louis the Pious scrapped the Spanish issues from his agenda and was happy with keeping them at bay, while dealing with the long list of other issues he had to face in other parts of the Empire.
This consideration do not match with the most usual political and religious perception during that time. When the Arabs conquered the Levant (including Jerusalem) and Egypt, these regions had been dominated by non-Nicene Christian factions (= heretical) for decades and early Islam was perceived as a sort of (maybe extreme) Christian heresy. For many Nicene Christians the fact of Jerusalem being controlled by Miaphysites or Muslims did not make a big difference from a religious point of view. At least in the 640s.
Even if some European princes would have been outraged by the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem (it seems it was not the case) they could have been done nothing for stopping it, as it would be very difficult for Franks or Visigoths to send troops there. Apart that this was widely considered a matter to be dealt by the Byzantines alone, still the main Christian powerhouse.
And regarding the fact of the Papacy still being under the Byzantine umbrella it was considered something natural as the Byzantine Empire was indeed the Roman Empire, and it was logical that Rome and the Pope belonged to it. However, this did not prevent the fact that Franks considered the Pope as the maximum authority of the Catholic Church, politically tied or not to Constantinople.
Couldn't local allies withhin Lombardy provide the ships, similarly to what happened in Hispania? There was also a Byzantine presence in the area, that was probably the very faction that helped the Islamic forces get into the country in the first place.
Overall, I fail to see what Italy has that makes it impossible to conquer that Hispania lacked, beyond that Crusading argument that's simply anachronistic. Just like the European Princes didn't do anything in regards to the fall of Jerusalem, the mentality simply wouldn't be there to defend Rome over themselves. If Hispania could fall, so could Italy.
Lombards were not 'men of the sea' (they already came from Central Europe) and they even failed to assert an effective rule over the underpopulated and undefended Corsica (which was nominally part of the Lombard Kingdom for some decades), being expelled by the Franks before the reign of Charlemagne. Do you think they could help the Umayyad navy in such poor situation?
And no, the Byzantines in Italy (out of Sicily) were too reliant on extern help from the core of the Empire to do so. And Sicily was occupied by loyal Byzantine troops from Africa which had just fought the Arabs for a couple of decades and hated them to death. No way.
No, it's not the same in any way.
First of all you are missing some important fact: the priority number one for the Umayyads by the late 7th-early 8th century was to defeat the Byzantine Empire. If the Umayyads would have had the chance to invade Italy after the fall of Africa, they would have done it for sure, because it was still considered an important part of Byzantium (Sicily was still a powerful naval base for them) despite being half-occupied by the Lombards. Not to say that, if controlling southern Italy, they could plan to attack Greece from there.
The Umayyads tried but failed, because by the year 700 the Byzantines were still strong enough in Sicily-southern Italy. The Umayyads they chased them at minor bases in the western Mediterranean and this boosted their expansion up to the Gibraltar strait. The invasion of Spain popped up as a good opportunity because of the civil war in the Kingdom, this was not a part of a strategic plan against Byzantium.
I find it implausible that no circumstance in local politics of Lombardy could be found that would allow the Umayyad to find an ally available to let them in. History as so many similar accidents that to say so broadly it can't happen seems to be removing agency from humans.
What naval powers were there to allow them to cross to Hispania? Could a similar environment be found here? From what I've read the western Mediterranean had to deal with piracy from North Africa. Where were those pirates getting their ships? Could they be used for this operation?
Nothing is impossible, but certainly this scenario was quite unlikely to happen.
For sure you could find people in the Lombard Kingdom or Benevento ready for helping the Umayyads to invade Italy. The problem is: what they could really offer to the Umayyads? The Lombards could not offer them ships before they could have hardly any suitable for the Umayyad requirements.
If the Umayyads would have been able to land in the Italian peninsula then yes, Lombards might help them if wanted. The problem is that they were not able to assist the Arabs in crossing from Africa to southern Italy or Sicily, they simply lacked the logistics for such purpose.
Please, do not compare the cross of the strait of Gibraltar with the cross from Africa to Sicily.
The Berbers helped Tariq and his troops in the cross of the strait, and it seems that the former Byzantine count of Septa (today Ceuta) also assisted them after accepting some kind of bribery.
The main difference (apart of the lesser distance) is that Tariq could land in the Spanish side without problems and kept on grouping the crossing troops in a specific area without disturbance. When Roderic finally attacked them, they were well prepared for the battle.
Unlike in the strait, the southern coasts of Sicily were plenty of Byzantine ships ready for intercepting any Arab ship which tried to reach the island or southern Italy. The Byzantines had also dispatched a lot of troops retrieved from Africa to Sicily in order to prevent an Arab raid like in 652. So it would have been very complicated for the Umayyads to transfer a significant army by sea without being intercepted by the skilled Byzantine navy (the Arabs were not that good at sea warfare yet) or without a 'welcome reception' once landing in Sicily.
Would you doubt the Umayyad ability to gain a victory over the Byzantines in the sea? They had defeated the Byzantines before and had performed fairly well otherwise, even in defeats.
My view though, is similar to yours regarding the Lombard situation.
Of course they could in other kind of situation, but at that specific moment the Byzantines were well defended in the area of Sicily against the Umayyad forces somehow exhausted of the long campaign in Africa.
Just remind that the Arabs were able to land in Sicily before (652) after breaking the Byzantine maritime wall, but at that moment the major bulk of the Byzantine navy was fighting in the East and Sicily was not that 'fortified' as after the fall of Carthage in 698. Even this, the Arabs had to depart from Sicily and could not consolidate any conquest.
Surely, though this timeline we are proposing is an Umayyad-short term wank of sorts. The Umayyads will need to perform phenomenally in short term goals to achieve this AHC. This should mean a temporary defeat of the Byzantines in the Aegean, Adriatic and the zones of sea between Egypt and Sicily. As you mention, it might be plausible to have the Umayyad capture Sicily prior to a conquest of Africa. If done in rapid succession, perhaps this is enough to see the Umayyad push into Naples, gaining massive victories of monumental skill along each pathway. Their luck would eventually run short, but I do not see it as impossible for the Umayyad to totally warp Italy below the Po into their realm.
Considering this, could we see a Visigothic-Byzantine alliance? I would not rule it out... The Visigoths also have to some degree a claim to the Kingdom of Italy, they may wish to enforce this claim now that the situation has been muddied by the Umayyad.
Planet of Hats
Donor
I tend to think there are pitfalls to overestimating the Byzantine Empire or applying the word "impossible" to a scenario when what is really meant is "challenging" or "unexpected." The Umayyad navy was nothing to scoff at. Indeed, after taking Ifriqiya, they imported a thousand Copts to lay down new ships for them and set up a naval base in Tunis. It may be challenging for them to attack Sicily and thump the Byzantine navy there, sure, but by no means is it impossible for them to win. If anything, the Umayyads may have a better shot here due to the fact that the Byzantines are in a period of internal and external turmoil around the beginning of the 700s, with disputes over Christology and succession floating around and the Bulgars adding another external menace. The Byzantines of AD 711, in other words, have some hurdles to overcome, while the Umayyads have a great deal of momentum at their backs.
@John7755 يوحنا is quite right in noting that the Umayyads performed very well at sea in previous engagements. What we know about their navy suggests they were actually quite good at naval warfare, in part because they had access to ex-Byzantine naval technologies, tactical manuals and crew. They presented a credible naval threat that could deal defeats to the Byzantines. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Umayyads could score a win in Sicily and continue up the Boot a ways. To me it's "plausible but unexpected."
My general thought is still that it's unlikely for the Umayyads to get ahold of the north of Italy, but south-central Italy is far from out of the question in a timeline where their advance does better than expected and chooses to swing at the boot rather than Iberia.
It is quite plausible. And the Visigothic claim on Italy could play out significantly in the cultural worldview of Europe, in particular if they are successful in pushing such claims. Could we see a "Ostrogoth" identity arising in Visigothic Italy? (not with language or customs, mind you, but as a sense of ancestry, like later France and the Gauls)
The Visigoths already helped the Byzantines against the Umayyads during the Arab campaign of conquest of Africa, but mostly because of fear of the Arab expansion towards Mauretania (the Visigoths tried to set the current area of the Rif as a buffer area under their influence) rather than a genuine gesture of assistance against the unfaithful.
But regarding the scenario you propose...the Visigoths were reluctant to be involved in European affairs and by the 700s they cared little about what could happen in Italy. Despite some exceptions like the African campaign, they always followed a quite isolationist international policy.
I can't see any Visigothic claim over Italy as late as the 8th century, the Visigoths followed an isolationist policy since the fall of the Kingdom of Toulouse and if their interactions with the Franks were little (there are very little findings of old Frankish coins even in Septimania), imagine with the Lombards. Moreover they never had a good relation with the Papacy after the conversion to Catholicism because the Visigothic monarchs tried repeatedly to have a control over the appointment of the local clergy, and this obviously led to constant clashes with the Popes.
But that will need to change no? The Umayyad and their successors, will press them. Those who hide behind walls will always find themselves lacking whence the time of confrontation approaches. The Visigoths have much to gain in my opinion by assisting weaker Germanic and Roman powers against the rising Umayyad hegemonic force. As Machiavelli opined, a rising hegemony inspires coalition or submission. The Visigoths will choose the prior.
If you need this to change, then first you have to change the political culture of the Visigoths after Vouillé, as they almost always avoided to get involved in the affairs of their neighbouring kingdoms, for good or bad. I.e. they could have the chance to recover their former realm of Aquitaine during the multiple Frankish civil wars, and barely tried to do so.
I think one of the reasons of this isolationism was the relocation of the Visigothic capital from Toulouse to Toledo after the lose of Aquitaine. The main bulk of the Gothic elites resettled in the innermost Castilian plains between Toledo, Mérida and Valladolid and this make them to gradually disconnect from the affairs in the 'far distant' rest of Europe. If you check the civil wars between the Gothic elites, almost all scenarios happened there; there is also no surprise that the peripheral duchies in the Mediterranean or the North often rebelled alleging neglection from Toledo.
That's interesting. You're right that the Visigoths were largely isolated by that point. Do you think it would continue to be so? What developments do you think would come to the Visigothic state?
Considering that the Umayyad invasion of 711 is skipped?
Well, hard to predict. By one side the Visigoths had managed to finally unify, more or less, all the Iberian peninsula under their rule and additionally controlled peripheral lands like Septimania and some outposts in Mauretania, so their territorial powerbase seemed promising if undisturbed; but in the other hand they failed to establish a clear rule of succession, triggering recurrent civil wars for the accession to the royal throne.
In my opinion, there are two main 'alternate' futures for a surviving Visigothic Kingdom:
1) They find the way to solve their issues with the succession to the throne and become a politically stable kingdom: then they could prosper and the prosperity might trigger an abandon of the isolationism and getting involved in more ambitious projects at international level. However, this would lead to a permanent conflict with the Franks for the western European hegemony.
2) They succumb to the internal anarchy and eventually split up in different entities: then, it is possible that the northeast or even most of the Mediterranean coast might fall under Frankish rule or influence while the other states could follow a path of mutual destruction (a Christian analogue of what happened with taifas after the fall of the Cordovan Caliphate) or maybe some of them is able to impose some local hegemony to the rest.
Both could be possible IMO.
I think this was discussed in anothe thread.
If the Umayyads would have defeated the Byzantines at an early stage (i.e. the siege of Constantinople in 674) they would have probably focused in the control of Anatolia and maybe some part of the Balkans, and this could butterfly away even the expansion into Africa: the remaining Byzantine elites would have tried to form a new stronghold in the axis Carthage-Sicily-Italy and, in this case, maybe the Franks and Visigoths would have helped them to stop an eventual Umayyad advance to the west, as an eventual fall of Constantinople would have had a big impact in the international policies of the Germanic-Roman kingdoms.
In fact it would be a good opportunity for the recreation of a true western Empire (comanded by post-Byzantine elites in Roma and Carthage allied with Franks and Goths) opposed to a former eastern Rome transformed into a Caliphate.
This is a cliche, the conquest of rome was pararell both constantinople so the exarch of africa would have collapse too