Sunday, 16 September 2007

The Muslim Sack of Rome and St Peter's in 846 AD

Rome was sacked by Muslims in 846 AD during the great conquests of Islam after the time of Mohammed.

During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Muslim Arabs (then called Saracens in Europe) were rapaciously invading Christendom through Southern Italy which they succeeded in conquering by fire, murder, rapine and the sword. Sailing from newly acquired bases in North Africa which they had just stolen from the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire, the had conquered Sicily and were now bent upon seizing the rest of the peninsula.

They had earlier been rebuffed in France in 732 by King Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, but they had got as far as Tours in Nothern France. King Charles was the first to halt their seemingly inexorable advance. Thereafter they retired to Spain and parts of Southern France and settled. They retained their hold on what had once been Catholic Visigothic Spain for the next 800 years! They were not finally ejected from Christian Spain until 1491 by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.

Under Pope Paschal I (817-824), the relics of the holy martyrs were concealed in the walls of the city of Rome. When Rome was sacked, Paschal's careful precautions did not prevent the wholesale spoliation and robbery of Basilica of Saint Peter itself, nor, indeed, of San Paolo fuori le Mura (St Paul's outside the Walls), because they both lay outside the walls of the city of Rome.

Later, a second wall was constructed on the other side of the Tiber from the main city area. It was constructed by order of Pope Leo IV and so this enclosure was called the Leonine City.

The Islamic conquest and domination of Sicily, as well as parts of southern Italy began in the 7th century after the foundation of Islam and the attempt by the Muslim leaders to conquer the world.

By Koranic tradition, Islam makes its attempts to re-conquer the world in the 7th or 8th decade of every century and does not stop until it is halted by force. When stopped it generally lies low until the 7th or 8th decade of the next century when it then makes another attempt at world domination.

How, then, can it call itself a religion of peace? It does so because it means by peace the eventual peace that will, it says, be the consequence of the conquest of the world for Islam. In the meantime, however, it is war.


Islam first attacked Sicily (then part of the Eastern Roman Empire) in 652 AD when Syrian Arabs under Mu’auia ibn-Hodeig invaded.

The Eastern Roman Imperial Exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, then took ship to oust the invaders but the invading Arabs managed to escape back to Syria with a huge treasure trove of pillaged riches.

Next, in 669, the invading Muslim Arabs came in 200 ships from Alexandria (once the greatest Christian city in the Middle East) and attacked Syracuse, once again escaping with a mountain of rich booty stripped from the churches, palaces and homes of the Christian people.

The invading Muslims, when they first attacked Alexandria, coming across the library of the University of Alexandria which was one of the greatest in the world, took no heed of the great wealth of learning contained therein, including priceless collections of ancient Greek, Roman and Hebrew texts, and burnt the whole library.

Thus it was that so many ancient Greek and Roman texts were lost to the world forever. And yet Western scholars continue to peddle the lie that Islam safely preserved the Greek and Roman texts. It is true that some were later preserved but a massive corpus was permanently destroyed by the burning of the Alexandrian library.

After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (completed by about 700), Muslim fleets repeatedly attacked the coast of Sicily in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, looting, sacking and pillaging at every turn.

The Christians of Roman Christendom were taken completely by surprise by these attacks since they had no contest with Islam at that time and had done nothing to merit such unwarranted and merciless attacks by the Muslim raiders.

An expeditionary force was launched in 740 with the aim of conquering Christendom for Islam. The Muslim princes Habib and his son, Abdurrahman, set out to conquer the whole Italian peninsula, having discovered the Christians unprepared for invasion, and they would probably have succeeded in doing so but for a revolt in Tunisia by the Berbers which they had to return and deal with.

A treaty was signed between the Eastern Empire and Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, Emir of Ifriqiya in 805 but did not prevent attacks from continuing elsewhere in Italy. Ibrahim's son, Abdallah I, sent an invasion force to conquer Sicily in 812 and he, despite some reverses, managed to conquer Lampedusa.

Thereafter the conquest of Sicily by Al-Aghlab Abu Ibrahim proceeded with rapidity.

He was succeeded by Abbas ibn-Fadhl, a savage warrior who ravaged lands still under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire capturing Castrogiovanni in 859. All the Christian survivors from that fortress were executed, and women and children were sold as slaves in Palermo. The Eastern Roman Emperor tried to aid the stricken Christians but was defeated by Abbas. Further defeats followed successively for the Eastern Romans.

Syracuse finally fell in 877 AD to Jafar ibn-Muhammad who then went on to attack Greece and Malta and the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor, Basil I, in 886, was followed by attacks on Calabria and a further defeat for the imperial army. Reggio di Calabria fell in 901 and Taromina, the last Byzantine stronghold in Sicily fell in 902.

The whole of Southern Italy was now in Muslim hands and Islam was poised to invade the rest of Christendom.

...

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I haven't read about the this in some time, but I believe it was at this time that the reliquary with St. Peter's remains was moved to the place where it was eventually found in 1944. There's a volume by Fr. Kirschenbaum on the excavations under St. Peter's during WWII with all the details.

Janice

Benfan said...

Hmmm you're too good. Would you not think of writing a book. You have it all, knowledge, language, timing. History doesn't usually grip me but this is great.
My son is bringing home pseudo history books from school. They are for children and tell history as a story. The history element is anti-Catholic and the stories contain awful levels of violence (children having ropes tied round necks and nearly strangled as they gasp for breath etc. my son is 8). My son attends a Catholic school, one of the best in the county. I speak to parents and they are just happy that the children are reading, they don't seem to worry about the content in the same way as they would tv or film. What I would give for exciting reads that are proper at the same time. There is a need out there and this ex-actor Terry Deary is filling the void with bile. He is making a fortune from lies and violence and parents think the children are learning real history in a fun and exciting way. So how would a History of Roman Christendom series grab you??

Tribunus said...

Thank you both! Yes, if I can et time I shall try and write a book or two. It's finding the time.

WhiteStoneNameSeeker said...

Thank you. I'm reading these with my children as part of their home ed. It's just right as bite size history for them.

Anonymous said...

its good to see somebody telling the truth in the realm of lies.
awhitecockade.

Tribunus said...

Thank you!

Salah ud din said...

Well i have never found anything on that so called "Koranic tradition". Rape,Murder & Pillage you said? If Muslims would have done that, They'd still be in Spain but instead they let the snakes grow right under their noses, Because they couldn't murder people. We all know conduct of Muslim Conquerer as compared to a Christian one once we take a look at Catholic Conquest of Jeruselem in Crusades and then Muslim Re-Conquest afterwards. Had Ottomon Empire wiped out all the Christians in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia etc World's Map would have been different right? But instead the christians were allowed to exist and prosper while Muslims were Wiped out from Their former Realms. Difference?

Tribunus said...

Thanks, Saladin.

You need to get out of your fantasy ghetto.

Everywhere that Muslim conquerors went they burned, pillaged, murdered, destroyed and enslaved.

Even now Muslims are re-introducing slavery into Africa.

Your view of history is devoid of reality and fact.

It is a matter of simple historical fact that Muslim corsairs roamed the Mediterranean as pirates, and made regular assaults on the coast of Europe to murder and enslave.

Sultan Mehmet II send a "demand" to the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I demanding that he present himself outside his palace so that Mehmet's army could take him and cut off his head.

So - however much you may not like it - that is what Muslims did.

And Muslim terrorists are still doing it today.

But rape, murder and pillage do not pay. Eventually the marauding Muslims were thrown out of Spain, after 800 years of occupation.

When you say "we all know" you mean you "like to fantasise".

The reality is that the Muslim invasion of the Middle East, and the subsequent re-conquest, were both every bit as bloody massacres as were all Muslim invasions.

If, as you ridiculously assert, Christians had wiped out all the Muslims then there would have been none to revolt and re-conquer.

Christians, far from being allowed to "prosper" were at best second class citizens in their own country or else simply slaughtered or enslaved.

There were Muslims who were peaceful (as there are today), and there were Christians who were not (as also today), but to pretend that no Muslims were murderers, and all Christians were, is to dwell in a total fantasy of fanaticism.

Wake up and face the reality - you are living in fanatical fantasy land.

Perhaps you've never heard of Al Qaeda?

Rob Porter said...

Unfortunately, Saladin, like all Muslim supremacists is a liar and thus in keeping with the Muslim principle of 'taqiyya', namely deceit. Their's is mostly a useless history of murder, mahem and destruction - not preservation - of history. Hence their destruction of libraries in the old pre-Arab Persia, Alexandria and elsewhere. Today they are today obsessed with the Crusades, yet the fact is that it was Muslim aggression and barbarism for 460 years that led to the Crusades. Butchery of 3,000 Christians by the Seljuk Turks outside Jerusalem in 1077 is conveniently forgotten, but Richard the Lionheart's butchery of 2,700 Muslim outside Acre is 1191 - in retaliation for Muslim execution of Crusaders who surrendered to Saladin and Saladin's refusal to pay ransome, is treated as if the crime of all time. It is always the same old infantile, stupid, one-sided rubbish from Islam.