Normans successfully conquered southern Italy. A faction among them led by Robert Guiscard launched an invasion of the decaying Byzantine Empire. This invasion was initially successful winning the battle of Dyrrachium despite being outnumbered. Yet it was later defeated by a coalition of Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Venetian Republic and was forced to retreat. But What if Guiscard invaded the decaying Fatimid Egypt instead of Byzantium ?
Norman Guiscard invades Fatimid Egypt instead of Byzantine Empire
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Unlikely, the distances are too great and the Norman army too small. Ifriqiya otoh which is nominally Fatimid, much closer and fairly disputed anyway.
Well it’s the d’Hauteville boys. Treachery skullduggery, dealing with the heathen, dealing with the Pope, double crossing everyone, winning against impossible odds, Bohemond Prince of Carthage is on the cards.
Also without Sicilian Norman in the first crusade different outcomes for the Buzantines.
The only way I see this even being attempted is that the byzantine empire remains strong enough and for some reason gets in war with the fatimids for Guiscard to be a mercenary because otherwise the distance is to great even then I find it far far more likely he doesn't take over Egypt rather Aleppo or Damascus
earlier complete conquest of Sicily and then the creation of the Norman kingdom of Africa would be a nice switch
Had the Byzantines remained powerful the Normans wouldn't be there since they conquered the territories they held in Southern Italy, a powerful Byzantine Empire fighting the Fatimids isn't unlikely, they could fight over Sicily or Palestine.
They won't be able to get to Egypt that easily, especially not when the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires could use the occasion to invade the Normans.
the normans were mecenaries in italy long before they started to conquer apulia
The Normans succeeded when they were able to put down roots somewhere, become integrated into the local political culture and become intermarried with the existing power brokers, and hit at a moment when the incumbent power was weak or in turmoil
The late 11th century does describe Fatimid Egypt like that on the last point. But projecting power across the Mediterranean like that - it's no easy lift. There'd have to be Byzantine or Venetian support, both of which are coming with massive strings. I suppose if they don't go to Epirus but instead to Egypt, they might be able to get the Byzantines on board, who frankly needed all the Allies they could get post Manzikert.
The issue is that unlike the various mercenaries and slave soldier groupings that formed the Praetorian basis of rule, really for most of the middle ages in one way or another, in the various Egyptian states and dynasties, the Normans are unlikely to fit into that role. They're Catholics who in Sicily have a Kingdom of their own. They're not likely to get on well with the large landholders and court officials who formed the basis of Egyptian state capacity, because the Normans wanted all the land they could get their own hands on.
Could they topple Fatimid Egypt? I think so. They won against far worse odds before, after all, and tactically speaking the Normans tended to do quite well against Arab armies. But could they hold it?
That, I am not sure of. The Seljuks could swoop in and then that would be that. They'd be far away logistically from Sicily and would have difficulties with rebellions. Their allies in the region would be likely to double cross them. They don't fit in well with the local aristocracy.
The late 11th century does describe Fatimid Egypt like that on the last point. But projecting power across the Mediterranean like that - it's no easy lift. There'd have to be Byzantine or Venetian support, both of which are coming with massive strings. I suppose if they don't go to Epirus but instead to Egypt, they might be able to get the Byzantines on board, who frankly needed all the Allies they could get post Manzikert.
The issue is that unlike the various mercenaries and slave soldier groupings that formed the Praetorian basis of rule, really for most of the middle ages in one way or another, in the various Egyptian states and dynasties, the Normans are unlikely to fit into that role. They're Catholics who in Sicily have a Kingdom of their own. They're not likely to get on well with the large landholders and court officials who formed the basis of Egyptian state capacity, because the Normans wanted all the land they could get their own hands on.
Could they topple Fatimid Egypt? I think so. They won against far worse odds before, after all, and tactically speaking the Normans tended to do quite well against Arab armies. But could they hold it?
That, I am not sure of. The Seljuks could swoop in and then that would be that. They'd be far away logistically from Sicily and would have difficulties with rebellions. Their allies in the region would be likely to double cross them. They don't fit in well with the local aristocracy.
I know that, but if the Byzantines remain strong they would be able to defeat the Normans when they try to conquer Southern Italy.
It really is especially when a warship has about 4 days water aboard and the fairly powerful Fatimid fleet has all bases from the delta to Lebanon. Also they are friendly to the Byzantines or at least unfriendly to the Seljuks.
If the Normans want to approach Egypt, and why not, it’s there, much easier to hop over to Tunisia, cooperate with the remaining Zirids, who you basically know, and who do not like the Fatimids, then hop along the Libyan coastline, free from Byzantine interference. Obviously a pincer movement on Jerusalem yer Holiness now do the blessings and step aside.
Won't happen because the Seljuks were about to have a series of civil wars that caused their collapse
yes. But pre Almorahid and giving the 'state' another generation or so to consolidate.
I doubt it. The Normans are a warrior elite sitting on top/living alongside the existing population the crusading impulse is more a crusade to get more for themselves than reconquista per se. And they tend to get along with the locals most of the time. They may be as likely to help a friendly muslim potentate resist a reconquista. That said it probably draws off Bohemond and or Tancred ( that's Bohemond Prince of Carthage and Tancred Count of Numidia) which probably helps the Byzantine Reconquista.
The other issue would be the proximity to Rome and entanglement in the Papal/imperial issue.