Madeleine Birchfield
Banned
What happens if the Umayyad Caliphate were able to invade and hold onto Italy in the early 700s in the same way they did to the Iberian peninsula OTL?
Last edited:
And losing.Early crusade. Literally all of Catholic Europe going after these Arabic invaders.
I dunno, the Umaayads were seriously overextended, especially with the new additions in italy. Add in the biggest weakness of the caliphate- flavoring arabic Sunnis who weren't recent converts- and I could see revolts causing issues that Europe could exploitAnd losing.
It might butterfly away advances in the East and the Ummayads stay in power in the Center once they have a proper enemy to coalesce against.
I dunno, the Umaayads were seriously overextended, especially with the new additions in italy. Add in the biggest weakness of the caliphate- flavoring arabic Sunnis who weren't recent converts- and I could see revolts causing issues that Europe could exploit
Early crusade. Literally all of Catholic Europe going after these Arabic invaders.
I don't think that's likely. Real life isn't Crusader Kings II, and there were Muslim invasions in Italy even OTL that did not provoke a continent-wide mobilization. The Aghlabids even managed to sack Rome and swipe the golden cross above the tomb of Peter, then came back and tried again a few years later. Muslims even spent 25 years in control of part of Apulia, while also controlling a raiding camp in Latium itself. Throughout most of the 800s, Muslim ships dominated the Mediterranean. None of these factors resulted in the Crusades. There were efforts by various powers to regain control over these areas, but the participants were always somewhat local, e.g. Pisa and Genoa teaming up to kick the Umayyads out of Sardinia in the 1000s rather than Anglo-Saxon kings coming down to do a Crusade.Early crusade. Literally all of Catholic Europe going after these Arabic invaders.
The Umaayads would probably let him remain in Rome, with his reduced power. Or he evacuates once they conquer a decent chunk of naples and it becomes clear that this problem isnt going away. As for location? Either somewhere like avignon where the papacy spent a few centuries otl, or maybe britain which once the vikings piss off might be saferThere is no Crusades without a Pope, and there's really no Papacy without Rome. At most there would be several claimants, with whomever has Frankish backing being the most likely.
The Umaayads would probably let him remain in Rome, with his reduced power. Or he evacuates once they conquer a decent chunk of naples and it becomes clear that this problem isnt going away. As for location? Either somewhere like avignon where the papacy spent a few centuries otl, or maybe britain which once the vikings piss off might be safer
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.
At the same time the abassids did what they did because of arab Sunnis being prioritized. No way they wouldn't be problematic overlords to the popeWhat 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.
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.
As to the Pope, I think at this point he was still primarily the Bishop of Rome; to abandon the See would probably be ill-regarded. If he did flee, I'd imagine he'd prefer the comforts of Constantinople to the still developing and mildly pagan north. At this point there was no Schism so no reason to fear mistreatment. Only an obvious loss of rank.
If the Pontiff stayed, he'd probably be treated well and serve as a decent subject of the Caliph, just like plenty of other religious figureheads did. The early Caliphate was the opposite of militant in regards to conversion. Islam was still primarily an Arab faith.
Which makes me wonder what would happen should the Abbasid Revolution go forward - could the Umayyad move to Italy as they did to Spain? It depends on the local political conditions, but it's not out of question certainly. Then we could have first an Emirate and then a Caliphate of Rome. This could actually play out to be a rather interesting scenario...
Perhaps I should have made it clearer in my OP, but the time frame is in the early 700s, around the same time as the OTL invasion of the Spanish peninsula.
At the same time the abassids did what they did because of arab Sunnis being prioritized. No way they wouldn't be problematic overlords to the pope
OK so my timeline fits! Great
The Umayyad weren't particularly awful to their Christian subjects; they were very racist towards their Persian subjects however, the reason for which the Abbasids were able to topple.
Papal power would decrease and the Pope would be controlled by Islamic lieutenants, of course, and it would eventually lose every vestige of supremacy over other Bishops, but I don't see the Umayyad making life worse for themselves by mistreating the Christian communities in Italy when they didn't do it anywhere else.
Especially because their empire was turning somewhat feudal and it would be local rulers dealing with those matters. They wouldn't want to upset a tax-paying population on a whim
so what would likely follow is Italy being a second base of the Abbasid House, essentially?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 cans trike 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.