What prevented Arab invasion of the Italian Peninsula?

Oct 2011
24,666
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#21
Of course they did. Not sure what some posters are talking about to be honest



If nothing else you do provide entertainment on here Latino. It was a muslim land for 300 years?!!!



Having studied it all for so long, I am firmly under the impression that the sread of the 'arab empire' across the map was at least in part due to the desperation with the brutal and hierarchical rule of the Byzantines in the Middle East and North Africa and the Visigoths in Hispania



Yes they did, see above. Normans conquered 'muslim Sicily'



Interestingly it seems that muslim settlement started a good time before muslim rule, suggesting either some sort of vacuum or at least acquiescence. I think it's another example of today's thoughts being coloured by the crusading era later.

In the 10th century tha Caliphate of Cordoba reached it's height, militarily and economically. Their next door neighbours and enemies, the Fatimids would have been much more likley to take over Sicily. But it remained an independent Emirate which, presumably, left it ripe for eventual Norman invasion

Interestingly the Normans of course held possessions in Ifriqiya, modern day Tunisia, until they were evicted by the expansion of the Almohad Empire. At one stage only Mahdia remained, a very denfensible sort of Peninsula. The Normans defended it with some brilliance for a long time, until suurender was inevitable. So much brilliance that the Caliph Abd Al Mu'min was moved to grant the remaining Normans free passage back to Sicily on their ships as a reward for their bravery.

Unfortunately a storm came off the coast of Siciliy and they all drowned.

As related by Huici Miranda in his hstory of the Almohad Empire
Two notes: you have attributed to me something I didn't say ...

"Indeed, and one wonders how objectionable Arab rule was at certain points. It was not for nothing that in the Life of Neilos of Rossano, the Byzantine governor gave orders for the cities of Calabria to prepare ships for an expedition to Sicily and they burned the ships and beheaded the captains. "

Not my words. Kirialax said that.

Second note:

you comment: "Yes they did, see above. Normans conquered 'muslim Sicily'"

Sicily is not a "good part" of Southern Italy. Normans conquered also part of continental Italy ... showing to be well more effective.
 
Oct 2015
4,690
Matosinhos Portugal
#22
Of course they did. Not sure what some posters are talking about to be honest



If nothing else you do provide entertainment on here Latino. It was a muslim land for 300 years?!!!



Having studied it all for so long, I am firmly under the impression that the sread of the 'arab empire' across the map was at least in part due to the desperation with the brutal and hierarchical rule of the Byzantines in the Middle East and North Africa and the Visigoths in Hispania



Yes they did, see above. Normans conquered 'muslim Sicily'



Interestingly it seems that muslim settlement started a good time before muslim rule, suggesting either some sort of vacuum or at least acquiescence. I think it's another example of today's thoughts being coloured by the crusading era later.

In the 10th century tha Caliphate of Cordoba reached it's height, militarily and economically. Their next door neighbours and enemies, the Fatimids would have been much more likley to take over Sicily. But it remained an independent Emirate which, presumably, left it ripe for eventual Norman invasion

Interestingly the Normans of course held possessions in Ifriqiya, modern day Tunisia, until they were evicted by the expansion of the Almohad Empire. At one stage only Mahdia remained, a very denfensible sort of Peninsula. The Normans defended it with some brilliance for a long time, until suurender was inevitable. So much brilliance that the Caliph Abd Al Mu'min was moved to grant the remaining Normans free passage back to Sicily on their ships as a reward for their bravery.

Unfortunately a storm came off the coast of Siciliy and they all drowned.

As related by Huici Miranda in his hstory of the Almohad Empire
----------------------------------------------

Yes. Since Portucalense expelled all the Muslims in 1249 How can I recognize that the entire Iberian Peninsula owes and has cultures and customs to people when they occupied the entire Iberian Peninsula beginning with people who arrived on the Peninsula before the Romans and Muslims, for example the Lusitanian Celtic Visigodes etc.
this is why all of Iberia is rich with its monuments and cultures.
 
Nov 2010
7,257
Cornwall
#23
Two notes: you have attributed to me something I didn't say ...
.
Sorry Luke I cut the quotes wrong. Complicated business! Cutting out a simple bracket will cause that

----------------------------------------------

Yes. Since Portucalense expelled all the Muslims in 1249 How can I recognize that the entire Iberian Peninsula owes and has cultures and customs to people when they occupied the entire Iberian Peninsula beginning with people who arrived on the Peninsula before the Romans and Muslims, for example the Lusitanian Celtic Visigodes etc.
this is why all of Iberia is rich with its monuments and cultures.
Your area was muslim from 711/712 until, at least the collapse of the Caliphate 300 years later. Muslim through and through. And as you keep telling us, the southern half was muslim until the decline of the Almoravds and the latter bit the collapse of the Almohad Empire.

So saying it was 'never attacked by muslims' is a bit misleading. Your people were muslim, hurtful though it may be :)
 
#25
Interestingly it seems that muslim settlement started a good time before muslim rule, suggesting either some sort of vacuum or at least acquiescence. I think it's another example of today's thoughts being coloured by the crusading era later.
Which settlements? Perhaps some merchants, but not huge population.
 
Mar 2013
1,371
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#26
I think Herrin is much too unequivocal in saying the Muslim conquests *would* have ensued or that Rome would *surely* convert.

It may be a case could be made for those eventualities, but to treat them as certainties strikes me as extremely glib, in fact rather stupid and unhistorical. The Muslim conquests would go as far as encompassing the Germanic peoples? This is a foregone conclusion?
That was somehow also my thought.

Herrin speculates that had Constantinople fallen in 717 then the Ummayad Caliphate might have spread to the Pagan Slavic area and Pagan Germany. I found that to speculative. It could happen. Or Maybe not. But even if the Umayyad Caliphate did not intended to conquer and spread into the Slavic area and Germany it is very likely the two latter (low-culture) Pagan areas would still turn into Islam… not by conquest, but by Islamic missionary. Just as it happened in Scandinavia and Russia when they went into Christianity in 1000 or so because of missionary and political pressures by Otto and Basil II without conquest.

The Byzantines crushed the Caliphate in 717, and thus an intact Christian state with high culture persisted in the Aegean Sea. The Byzantines eventually caused the East Europe and especially Russia to go into Christianity. An intact Byzantine state also meant that the Catholics in west were giving carte blanche to make the rest of Pagan Europe into (Catholic)Christian. Gradually the continental Europe, which had many underdeveloped Pagan areas turned into almost fully Christian states being, and thus became high cultures with access to writing, effective bureaucracy, cathedrals and universities and higher learning with Plato/Aristotle for example. – Continental Europe literally went from being half Pagan and primitive in 700’s into being Christian with high cultures in High Middle Ages.

1204-sack of Constantinople caused a decline, and gradually the Ottomans conquered a weak Byzantium. But at that time continental Europe was fully Christian and the Turks could not do much against them neither militarily, culturally nor technologically in the long end.

So while I think Herrin makes to much speculation in assuming a Caliphate in 717 would had reached to Germany if Constantinople was taking in 717, I think it is very likely that (Pagan) Russia and (Pagan) Germany might have turned into Islam, not by conquest as Herrin speculates, but by Islamic missionary from an Islamic Constantinople. If Constantinople had fallen in 717, would Islamic missionary had reached (Pagan) Germany before Charlemagne’s expansion in Germany in the early 800’s? Maybe.

The Byzantines without doubt secured directly that East Europe went into Christianity. And the Byzantines are also the reason that the rest of Europe went into Christianity, at least indirectly.

I hope my post and points are not confusing.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2010
7,257
Cornwall
#27
Which settlements? Perhaps some merchants, but not huge population.
Maybe so, can't find what I found yesterday to be honest :)

Johnincornwall

Correct friend, do you know Portugal history?

Correcto amigo, voçê sabe da história de Portugal
I most certainly do, especially ancient and medieval with a sprinkling of everything after!
 
Feb 2018
133
EU-Germany
#28
several attempts were made

aghlabid invasion of sicily began in 827 under asad ibn al-furat with fragment conquests until completed conquest in 965(fall of rometta), contemporary to the earliest aghlabid conquests on sicily was the independent attack and conquest on bari by the aghlabid mirwah kalfun the established emirate ending in final conquest by emperor and king of italy louis II in 871; in 902 taormina in (eastern)sicily fell to the aghlabids with subsequent invasion of calabria this came to a halt by the death of ibrahim abd allah at cosenza(oct 902) with subsequnet withdrawel back to sicily after internal strifes emerged following that death; in 915 a decsive counter occurred when the saracen(aghlabid) colony(established at least since 903) at the mouth of the garigliano river, used as a base for raids and atatcks into mainland, was destroyed by a beneventan, papal and byzantine allaince;

in 982 when affairs in sicily stabilised under the emirs(al-kalbi dynasty) of the new fatimid caliphate another attack into calabria occurred but countered after a bloody battle between benevento/HRE and the emirate sicily at stilo with many key figures on both sides killed in battle incl the duke of benevento landulf and the emir abu l-qasim; in 1015 mujahid al-amiri (taifa denia) invaded sardinia and from there invaded 1016 the lunigiana however ending in failure after a three day battle described by thietmar(of merseburg)bk7 as bloody and complete with mujahid fleeing and his wife/"queen" captured and decapitated, in aftermath the maritime republics pisa and genoa attack and conquer sardinia likewise 1016;

maritime republics become more and more powerful and in 1087 for the first time north africa itself is attacked resulting in the sack of the zirid capital mahdia by pisa and genoa;
 
Dec 2015
447
Middle East
#29
That was somehow also my thought.

Herrin speculates that had Constantinople fallen in 717 then the Ummayad Caliphate might have spread to the Pagan Slavic area and Pagan Germany. I found that to speculative. It could happen. Or Maybe not. But even if the Umayyad Caliphate did not intended to conquer and spread into the Slavic area and Germany it is very likely the two latter (low-culture) Pagan areas would still turn into Islam… not by conquest, but by Islamic missionary. Just as it happened in Scandinavia and Russia when they went into Christianity in 1000 or so because of missionary and political pressures by Otto and Basil II without conquest.

The Byzantines crushed the Caliphate in 717, and thus an intact Christian state with high culture persisted in the Aegean Sea. The Byzantines eventually caused the East Europe and especially Russia to go into Christianity. An intact Byzantine state also meant that the Catholics in west were giving carte blanche to make the rest of Pagan Europe into (Catholic)Christian. Gradually the continental Europe, which had many underdeveloped Pagan areas turned into almost fully Christian states being, and thus became high cultures with access to writing, effective bureaucracy, cathedrals and universities and higher learning with Plato/Aristotle for example. – Continental Europe literally went from being half Pagan and primitive in 700’s into being Christian with high cultures in High Middle Ages.

1204-sack of Constantinople caused a decline, and gradually the Ottomans conquered a weak Byzantium. But at that time continental Europe was fully Christian and the Turks could not do much against them neither militarily, culturally nor technologically in the long end.

So while I think Herrin makes to much speculation in assuming a Caliphate in 717 would had reached to Germany if Constantinople was taking in 717, I think it is very likely that (Pagan) Russia and (Pagan) Germany might have turned into Islam, not by conquest as Herrin speculates, but by Islamic missionary from an Islamic Constantinople. If Constantinople had fallen in 717, would Islamic missionary had reached (Pagan) Germany before Charlemagne’s expansion in Germany in the early 800’s? Maybe.

The Byzantines without doubt secured directly that East Europe went into Christianity. And the Byzantines are also the reason that the rest of Europe went into Christianity, at least indirectly.

I hope my post and points are not confusing.
That's not at all why Christianity spread to anywhere in the old world let alone Europe. Christianity spread because Iranians wanted Christianity to spread as most Europeans are the off-spring of Iranian nomads, the Scythians and Sarmatians (modern-day Slavs), Cimmarians (modern-day Northern Europeans/Germanic people) and the Alans who lived in Spain at the time of Arab invasion. These nomads were expelled from Iran because they ravaged the entire Western Asian region including Iran, Assyria, and Anatolia so I agree they had a very very very low-culture otherwise they wouldn't have been expelled from Western Asia.

Scythians - Wikipedia
Sarmatians - Wikipedia
Alans - Wikipedia
Cimmerians - Wikipedia

Now lets look at how Christianity spread to Western Asia which was also thanks to the Iranians.
Armenia and Georgia both claim to be the two most ancient Christian countries in the world, but both always had Iranian dynasties from their foundation centuries BCE to the the Russian invasion around 19th centuries. The following link is about the Parthian dynasty that ruled Armenia during the country's forced conversion to Christianity.
Arsacid dynasty of Armenia - Wikipedia
Gregory the Illuminator was a religious leader who is credited for the Armenian conversion to Christianity. He was of Iranian origin too.
Gregory the Illuminator - Wikipedia

Now concerning the spread of Christianity to the neighboring Anatolia. This region was inhabited by Iranians who pretty quickly converted to Christianity: Pontus and Cappadocia were almost exclusively inhabited by Iranians and had Iranians dynasties.

In the Levant, the modern day Maronites sometimes are associated with the ancient Mardaites who were of Iranian origin:
Mardaites - Wikipedia

Even the spread of Christianity to Central Asia and Western China is thanks to the Iranian Soghdians: Sogdia - Wikipedia

Lastly about Christianity and its birth; the first ones to ever visit Jesus were the 3 Magis (Iranian clerics) and Paul the Apostle who wrote most of the Bible was a Pharisee (also Iranian).
 
Mar 2013
1,371
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#30
I was talking about CONTINENTAL EUROPE (not Western Asia or India) and in YEAR 717 (not before) when the political-geopolitical landscape looked like this:

1920px-Byzantine-Arab_naval_struggle.svg.png

Had Byzantium been shut down in 717 the Ummayads would had faced several neighbors of low-cultured Pagan areas in Europe whole way until they reached France. It is very difficult to conceive how Christianity would have spread in Europe as it did in reality without an intact Byzantine state in the Aegean Sea as elaborated in my post 26.

The rest of your post sounds like nonsense to me as it has several howlers and weird assumptions. Just one example: how on the earth can you conclude that Paul the Apostle was a Persian based on a potential affiliation with the Pharisee which by the way has nothing to do with ethnicity?
 

Similar History Discussions