Lars Brownsworth's podcast series The Norman Centuries is pretty good, as are John Julius Norwich's books on the subject.
Would like help with an Independent Sicily TL.
- Thread starter Zioneer
- Start date
Lars Brownsworth's podcast series The Norman Centuries is pretty good, as are John Julius Norwich's books on the subject.
Zioneer
Banned
Ah, I've actually been using both of those (though I don't have Norwich's second book on the Normans). Anything else that works?
All the very best to you. Mattruvinteress, where are you going?
As a middle aged convert I myself never did one, but my impression is that it's a good experience for the great majority of those who do it.
Regarding the PoD, WI Constance of Sicily is never born or dies in infancy? That way there's presumably no heiress to marry a Hohenstaufen, and the throne has to go to someone else. In theory, if there's no obvious heir, the Kingdom reverts to the Pope as feudal overlord, and he should be asked to name the new ruler, but there's no guarantee that this will happen in practice.
Technically the Empire didn't have a claim, but the Emperor had a dynastic claim on Sicily. Sure having the resources of the HRE helped a lot in eventually acquiring their inheritance of Sicily. After all HRE Henry VI claimed Sicily in right of his wife, Constance of Sicily. Which given that she was an heiress was legal and being the HRE he had the means to back his claim up.
William having more children would help. Constance marrying to someone else, IMHO much less. One have to look, what William gained by marrying Constance to Henry. It gained an alliance with their only real rival in the Italian peninsula and at time, there was a low chance of Constance becoming the Hauteville heiress.
Zioneer
Banned
I'm going on a service mission to temple square; helping little old ladies with the microfilm machines at the Family History center and etc.
But as for the PoD, I like the idea of William II having kids, but I feel like that doesn't solve the problem of the two Williams being kind of terrible rulers, even when not comparing them to Roger II. I realize that not everything was their fault, but it seems like either William could've taken advantage of opportunities, but were instead lethargic and unwilling to do much.
So what was it about the two Williams that made them lazy rulers? Is there anything that could fix that?
This caught my attention for some reason. To me, it suggests a possible focus on the 1150s, where you have two things going on: a powerful administrator and a Greek invasion.
Maio of Bari was the royal chancellor by 1152 and the “emir of emirs,” the apex of administrative positions at the Sicilian court, following the accession of William I in 1154. Although he was a Lombard rather than a Greek, if anyone would be interested in and capable of creating a “centralized administration” it would be him. If he avoids assassination in 1160 and the barons’ plots are unraveled subsequently, young prince Roger probably isn’t killed, and thus in 1166 when William I dies you have a fourteen year old Roger III instead of an eleven year old William II. Maio, having been the most powerful official in Palermo for more than a decade, is likely to obtain or control the regency. Roger, having died young in OTL, is a blank slate who could go in any direction you please.
Alternately you could use Maio to abandon the Normans altogether and effect a Lombard restoration. The Greek invasion in 1155 is initially very successful in seizing the coast of Apulia. If Michael Palaiologos didn’t drop out of the picture in 1156 and leave the command to his incompetent lieutenant, the campaign might well have been a success. The Greeks arguably were not trying to overturn Sicily, just secure an Apulian buffer zone to prevent Sicilian attacks on Greece. Maio's enemies accused him of wanting the crown for himself; if he's as much of a snake as they described him, he could turn traitor following a major Greek victory and either negotiate a peace that aggrandizes his own position or seize the crown himself with Greek connivance.
This is rather fanciful, given that Maio had no real local base of support, no claim, and was widely hated by the barons. If you did want to go that way, however, it’s worth remembering that Pope Adrian IV was solidly on the Greek side during the invasion, as Sicily had been perceived by the Curia as their greatest threat until Frederick Barbarossa arrived on the scene. Maio seems to have favored strengthening the role of the Church in Sicily, possibly as a counterbalance to the barons. If he switches sides, he might well receive Papal support; the crisis with Barbarossa is looming and the Curia will soon desperately need Sicily as an ally. Pope Adrian refused to recognize William’s kingship until the loss of the war forced his hand, but he could provide Maio with the legitimacy he needs if he does take the crown as his own.
So, at the “moderate” end of a Maio/1150s PoD you get a strong centralizing statesman and a Norman king who’s not William II; at the extreme end you get a Lombard restoration with Papal and/or Greek support. It’s earlier than most of your PoDs but it’s probably one of the best moments for centralizing the Norman kingdom (and deals with your "William problem" by keeping the second one from ever becoming king).
Zioneer
Banned
By Byzantine-esque administration, I meant a centralized monarchy with a strong bureaucracy, a well-documented military system (like the theme system and the classification of soldiers that made up the themes), and other such qualities of the OTL Byzantines.
Your other points are good, though Maio obviously prized his influence and power; would he really allow either a strong William I or a hypothetically strong Roger III? And who would serve as a suitable mentor and ally to a would-be centralizing king?
As for a Lombard restoration, that's a fun idea, but I think it's too late. I think by William I's reign, Lombards were seeing themselves less as Lombards and more as Sicilians. Perhaps a rump state, but nothing more.
I do like the idea of Barbarossa forcing the Pope and the Sicilians to be allies, and I also like the idea of a Roger III driven to be a strong, independent-minded king by the death/dethronement of his father. I think I like the idea of the Roger III PoD better, as I don't immediately have to write a large war involving Sicily.
By the way, you seem to know the sources better than I do, so do you have any thoughts on (for instance) the reaction of other Mediterranean powers to a Roger III regency, such as Venice, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantines, Hungary, France, and so forth?
Your other points are good, though Maio obviously prized his influence and power; would he really allow either a strong William I or a hypothetically strong Roger III? And who would serve as a suitable mentor and ally to a would-be centralizing king?
As for a Lombard restoration, that's a fun idea, but I think it's too late. I think by William I's reign, Lombards were seeing themselves less as Lombards and more as Sicilians. Perhaps a rump state, but nothing more.
I do like the idea of Barbarossa forcing the Pope and the Sicilians to be allies, and I also like the idea of a Roger III driven to be a strong, independent-minded king by the death/dethronement of his father. I think I like the idea of the Roger III PoD better, as I don't immediately have to write a large war involving Sicily.
By the way, you seem to know the sources better than I do, so do you have any thoughts on (for instance) the reaction of other Mediterranean powers to a Roger III regency, such as Venice, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantines, Hungary, France, and so forth?
You could do it the other way, as William II had an elder brother who iirc was killed during a revolt against their father. If he lives and has a son of his own that could take care of the matter.
Alternatively, iirc Tancred was holding his own until he and his elder son died suddenly, and things collapsed. Keep them alive and they have a fair chance to hang on. Alternatively have Henry VI himself die three years earlier.
The Norwich book - The Kingdom in the Sun - is excellent. He thinks that William I wasn't as bad as all that, though William II was awful. It's probably a bit late now, but I should make a note to get it from Amazon when you've done your Mission.
Personally my feelings are mixed. Henry VI was certainly a right bastard, but Frederick II was a remarkable guy and I'd be unhappy about any change that deleted him.
Maio was a powerful man, but his power came entirely from the monarchy. The Norman nobles despised him and eventually had him killed, he does not seem to have had any special connection to the Greek or Muslim populations, and the Lombards - as you say - were mostly irrelevant as a cultural and political force. He acted in the name of the king, and the only reason he wasn't dead or deposed earlier is because William I stood up for him against his barons.
Certainly Maio would want a king that was pliable enough to allow him to keep his position (and his life), but it's hard to imagine Maio wanting a weak king - the throne was all that stood between him and obscurity or murder. Maio clearly knew this in 1155 when, with a Greek army in Apulia and William apparently on his deathbed, he stood by him anyway. There may have been personal loyalty there, but at the very least it was the loyalty of desperation. If there was to be a baronial revolution he must have known he was going to be the first against the wall, so to speak.
Maio was close to Queen Margaret (interpret "close" how you choose; writers hostile to them alleged an affair), who was the actual regent of her son William II and would have presumably played a similar role in a shorter Roger III regency. Margaret, who wasn't any more loved by the Normans, brought in Frenchmen, Englishmen, and other foreigners to do Maio's job, but chose and managed them poorly and ended up with a team of backbiting rivals instead of a competent administration.
In a Maio-Margaret regency for Roger III, you probably still get the importing of foreigners to staff the administration thanks to Margaret's foreign contacts, but with Maio in charge, the series of unstable familiares regis triumvirates that succeeds him in OTL doesn't come about. Perhaps you get a cosmopolitan administration that’s actually functional, and officials who interest young Roger in the exploits of foreign monarchs.
Without Palmer as part of the ruling council after Maio, you might also not get the marriage of the next king (Roger III in our case) to Joan of England, which opens your scenario up to any other marriage alliance you can finagle.
The weirdest potential result of this is also one that allegedly almost happened. Romuald, the Archbishop of Salerno, claimed that following the death of William I, Emperor Manuel proposed marrying Maria Komnena, his daughter by Empress Bertha (aka Irene), to the young William II. Keep in mind that in 1166 the future Alexios II was not yet born – if Romuald told the truth, he offered to marry his only child and heir to the 11-year old king of Sicily.
If this seems extreme, consider that Manuel was desperate to parry what he believed was Barbarossa’s attempt to take Sicily for himself. A Hohenstaufen Sicily was something Manuel anticipated as possible and desperately wanted to avoid, which might account for his sudden shift from invading Sicily to marrying his presumed heir to its new king. Consider also that Maria was already betrothed to Bela of Hungary, a match that was repudiated only after Manuel’s own son Alexios was born in 1169 - clearly marrying his heir to a foreign prince was something he was demonstrably willing to consider.
Manuel was a man of grand gestures who had offered to unite the churches in the hopes that the Pope would recognize him as Western Roman Emperor instead of Frederick, thus uniting the imperial dignity and ending the schism in one fell swoop. That was doomed to failure from the start, but the offer to William was part of that grand strategy and demonstrates just how far he was willing to go.
Ultimately the Sicilians failed to move on the offer. The Sicilian court at the time was so schizophrenic it's hard to say why, though the lack of any effective royal authority because of the regency couldn't have helped their decision-making process. If you had Maio still in charge and/or a different (and older) king, who knows, they might have said “yes.” Assuming Alexios II is born as normal in 1169, you end up with a King Roger III and Emperor Alexios II being half-brothers-in-law
Maria and her OTL husband, Renier of Montferrat, are part of the chaos during the regency of Alexios II, and it cost them their lives. As Manuel's daughter, Maria was a threat to Andronikos, the usurper of Alexios II, as long as she lived. Andronikos presides over the massacre of the Latins and starts in earnest the slide towards the Angeloi period, the Fourth Crusade, and the beginning of the Byzantine twilight. Changing Maria’s husband from Renier to King Roger III presumably changes something in that whole chain of events, though it's too convoluted for me to guess at. You could go a little nuts with that angle if you wanted to, up to and including a Sicilian war for the imperial throne.
I tend to agree, and it doesn't really fit Maio's character (rather, it fits the character described by his enemies). It's a fun little notion though.
Sicily ends up never really having to fight that war because of Adrian’s death in 1159 (prior to this there were apparently plans to excommunicate Frederick and possibly drag Sicily into a war while the Siege of Crema was still ongoing) and the destruction of Barbarossa’s army by malaria later on. Everyone, however – Barbarossa and Manuel included – believed it was coming. If you keep things the same as OTL regarding Barbarossa and the Papacy, Sicily probably still doesn’t have to do much, as the Lombard League and Pope Alexander prove sufficiently effective foils to the German Emperor.
As far as the personality of Roger III goes, he was 9 years old when he died in OTL in a baronial revolt. The barons had already considered putting him on the throne once before, years earlier. If Roger lives, whether Maio lives or not, by 1166 he has lived through multiple attempts by the barons to seize control of him, and when he gains the crown he may decide that enough is enough. If you are looking for motivation to centralize the government and crush the barons you might not need to look any further. I think Maio helps that but he may not be strictly necessary.
Venice still had its shaky alliance with the Byzantines until the 1170s, though it had been damaged by the Greek invasion of Sicily, because no Venetian leader in his right mind wanted to see both sides of the Adriatic in Greek hands. Roger III instead of William II changes little, but if you go with the Greek marriage/alliance angle, you probably break the Greek-Venetian alliance even before Andronikos. Whether that leads to war or to Venice being less successful than OTL because of Greek domination to the Adriatic is uncertain.
The HRE is so bogged down in Lombardy and against the Pope that, assuming nothing changes there, there’s no obvious effect from a Roger III and Maio PoD. Change things like Adrian’s death or Roman malaria and you may end up with something else.
The marriage of Maria to Bela is broken off even in OTL, so little changes there if you go with the Greek marriage angle, though the future King Bela III might be a little miffed to have his promised bride and his ticket to the imperial throne being stripped from him and given to a Sicilian. If he’s a grudge-carrying sort of person, that might have consequences. Bela invaded Croatia after Manuel’s death; if a marriage (or Maio’s diplomacy, or something else) meant that the Sicilians were Greek allies, they might have taken steps to oppose this. Sicily’s fleet was quite powerful and they could have done a lot of damage to or tried to retain Greek (or their own) control of Dalmatia. That would be so obnoxious to Venice that they might well end up teaming up with Hungary.
I’m not much for French history but considering that France was basically at its nadir corresponding to the height of the “Angevin Empire,” it’s hard to see them doing much of anything. Louis had his hands full just trying to hold on to Toulouse, Sicily is a bit out of his wheelhouse.
There might be repercussions for the Almohads if Roger III decides to try and rebuild the Kingdom of Africa, though that’s entirely lost by 1160 or so and he’d have to basically start from scratch. Maio obviously preferred shoring up his power in Palermo to trying to retain control of the African possessions and may not have thought much of that venture. Roger will also be quite old by the time the Almohad decline occurs. He'd be 60 at the time of Las Navas de Tolosa, and 77 when the Hafsids break Africa away from the collapsing Almohad state. That might be a little too old for re-establishing a kingdom, though it could be a project for an heir if something like the Sicilian-Byzantine marriage alliance leads to peaceful relations to the east, forcing Sicily to turn its gaze elsewhere.
Last edited:
Tbh I tend to take Frederick II rule in the HRE or lack thereof into account, and thus I also tend to be critical towards him, especially the amount of concessions he made to the feudal and ecclesiastical princes. In hindsight another important step in the gradual disintegration of the HRE.
Of course this TL is more Sicily centered.
Zioneer
Banned
Thanks for the information!
In regards to Maio, wasn't he assassinated directly before the attempted coup against William I? Perhaps a coup that ends in the death of William but the survival of Maio would work for this PoD? Good point about his loyalty though. With that info, I imagine that he and a vengeful Roger III would work together to crush the barons.
I like the idea of a Byzantine-Sicilian alliance, though I'm sure Manuel would attempt to have a male heir as quickly as possible to stave off accusations that he was signing away the empire to the descendants of the Normans that savaged Greece. And I like the idea of the Hungarians and the Venetians keeping a cautious eye on the Byzantines and Normans.
Thanks for all the other information, I'll be sure to use it.
One further question on the Almohads; what were their areas of interest/influence? Would they go farther then just seizing the Sicilian "Kingdom of Africa"? Could they play a part in fighting the Normans?
Oh, and in regards to Aragon, I know they were interested in Sicily; what were they doing around the 1160s?
In regards to Maio, wasn't he assassinated directly before the attempted coup against William I? Perhaps a coup that ends in the death of William but the survival of Maio would work for this PoD? Good point about his loyalty though. With that info, I imagine that he and a vengeful Roger III would work together to crush the barons.
I like the idea of a Byzantine-Sicilian alliance, though I'm sure Manuel would attempt to have a male heir as quickly as possible to stave off accusations that he was signing away the empire to the descendants of the Normans that savaged Greece. And I like the idea of the Hungarians and the Venetians keeping a cautious eye on the Byzantines and Normans.
Thanks for all the other information, I'll be sure to use it.
One further question on the Almohads; what were their areas of interest/influence? Would they go farther then just seizing the Sicilian "Kingdom of Africa"? Could they play a part in fighting the Normans?
Oh, and in regards to Aragon, I know they were interested in Sicily; what were they doing around the 1160s?
Possibly, though if you kill off William then, Roger III becomes king at around 9 years old, so there's a longer regency. That may mean more influence for Maio (and Margaret) given that he survives.
Manuel was apparently sort of obsessed with the AIMA prophecy that his successor would have a name starting with A, going so far as to ask Bela to take the name Alexios (and then naming his new son Alexios in 1169). Before 1169, I wonder if he would have put pressure on William to change his name to something compatible.
Manuel was always more progressive than his people in terms of the relationship with the west, though he was strong enough in life to tamp that sort of sentiment down - it exploded only after his death. If Bela being engaged to Maria for several years didn't cause a general revolt, I'm not sure Roger and Maria would. The Normans had indeed ravaged Greece, but the Hungarians were involved in almost constant war with the Greeks at that time too - they weren't friends either.
The Greek invasion does seem to have come pretty close to shattering relations with Venice. I can see Hungary and Venice becoming allies if Sicily falls firmly into an alliance with the Greeks. That would certainly make Genoa happy, though at that moment they're a little more concerned with Pisa than Venice.
What's now Tunisia was sort of peripheral for the Almohads; their core was in Morocco, and as soon as Africa fell they were on to Andalusia. "Saracen piracy" was big in the 10th century, but the advent of the maritime republics and Sicily essentially quashed it until the late medieval period. The Almohads actually ended up signing trade treaties with Genoa in the 1150s; they weren't really interested in overseas expansion into Sicily/Sardinia, nor do they seem to have considered making a move east on the Fatimids or later Ayyubids (in contrast to what the Fatimids themselves had done - their original power base before invading Egypt was Tunisia). I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which the Almohads decide to prioritize Italy over Spain. If they do, though, there's a rump Almoravid state in the Balears in the form of the Banu Ghaniya that hates the Almohads with a passion and might be more than happy to ally with anyone that presents them with a chance at an Almoravid restoration (or at the very least, a chance to humble their hated foes).
Well, their interests in Sardinia begin in the 1150s when the House of Barcelona links itself in marriage one of the Giudici (Barisone II of Arborea). That's the first trace of Aragonese interest in that region, but for the time being Aragon was still looking southward at the Reconquista, and their Sardinian interests wouldn't bear fruit for some decades.
Zioneer
Banned
Could Roger be betrothed to a female relative of Bela's and conclude an alliance with the Hungarians instead? It looks like Bela had a sister named Elisabeth who married Duke Frederick of Bohemia in OTL, and was similar in age to Roger. If Sicily and Hungary become allies, what happens then?
Also, I thought Venice was annoyed by Palermo being a trading center and wanting to cut it down? Wouldn't they be happy at the Sicilians being invaded by the Greeks?
But thanks for the Manuel info. A little clarification; how bad were relations towards the Latins during Manuel's reign, and could Alexios II be strong enough to weaken the anti-Latin sentiment. Heck, would the Greeks accept Bela III/"Alexios" as Emperor if Manuel hadn't had a male heir?
Additionally, in regards to the other maritime republics, how would they probably react to Sicily allying with Byzantium or Hungary? Would their reaction be based on the opposite of Venice's reaction?
Additionally, thanks for the info on the Banu Ghaniya; seems like they would be a natural ally for a Roger that wanted to raid Iberia rather than Greece.
Also, I thought Venice was annoyed by Palermo being a trading center and wanting to cut it down? Wouldn't they be happy at the Sicilians being invaded by the Greeks?
But thanks for the Manuel info. A little clarification; how bad were relations towards the Latins during Manuel's reign, and could Alexios II be strong enough to weaken the anti-Latin sentiment. Heck, would the Greeks accept Bela III/"Alexios" as Emperor if Manuel hadn't had a male heir?
Additionally, in regards to the other maritime republics, how would they probably react to Sicily allying with Byzantium or Hungary? Would their reaction be based on the opposite of Venice's reaction?
Additionally, thanks for the info on the Banu Ghaniya; seems like they would be a natural ally for a Roger that wanted to raid Iberia rather than Greece.
Zioneer
Banned
From what I've been reading, the Norman-Muslim relationship was decent under Roger II, but later rulers never bothered to stop their people from killing Muslims. I'm not sure how correct my info is, what does your book say?
Also, which Carlos?
Zioneer
Banned
By Carlos the First do you mean Charles of Anjou? Because he seems kind of a crap ruler.
Anyway, I think I'll stick with the PoD of William I being murdered in the palace coup and his adviser Maio (or perhaps one of Maio's proteges) surviving.
Carlos the First of Parma, Carlos the Seventh of Naples, Carlos the Fifth of Sicily, and Carlos the Third of Spain.
All the same guy. Carlos of Bourbon.
I suppose; I know little about Hungarian politics at the time. That would suit a more anti-Byzantine Sicily, though since Bela III was on generally good terms with Barbarossa it might not be a particularly helpful alliance to Roger III. You might get the Sicilians attacking Greece at Manuel's death at the moment the Hungarians are lifting Croatia.
Genoa and Pisa had a much bigger presence at Palermo than Venice, which was mostly eastward-looking. Maybe Venice disliked that, but they were hardly in a position to do anything about it. Venice's problem was geographic - the Tyrrhenian Sea has a number of outlets, but the Adriatic has only one, the Strait of Otranto. Having anyone, even a loose "ally," control both sides of this strait was problematic, because it meant it would be easy for them to bottle up Venice in the Adriatic. Venice probably would have been reluctant to go to war over the matter in the 1160s, because they derived much of their wealth from their trade with Constantinople, but it was clearly something that bothered them. A re-establishment of the Catapanate in Apulia would have been an unqualified evil to them.
Manuel was popular. He didn't always win - he had plenty of failures - but he extended the borders, greatly expanded imperial prestige, presented himself in the spectacular manner expected of his office, and presided over a considerable economic boom.
His policy with Venice, Pisa, and Genoa was confused, alternating between trying to reduce Venice's power and expelling the Pisans and Genoese, and he seems to never really realized the resentment the common people had for the foreigners who had a stranglehold on the export economy.
Alexios was a child on his accession; there's not much he could have done. The massacre coincided with Andronikos's arrival, but as far as we can tell he didn't actually order it - the dam just broke in the excitement of his arrival and out came the knives. To be fair to Manuel, extricating the empire from this mess would have been hard - the economy had become dependent on the Italians and the navy had degenerated too. Kicking them out would have caused severe problems and probably would have led to a war that the Greeks were ill-prepared to fight.
Manuel was a great man, but not a wise one, and he was not a statesman up to the challenge of reclaiming economic independence and rebuilding a naval power capable of defending the empire from Venice and others. I'm not sure who would have been up to that task. I wouldn't want that job.
It's possible that a Siculo-Greek alliance would actually make this slightly easier. Not only does the empire have one fewer enemy to worry about, but maybe Venice thinks twice about plundering Greece in retaliation for losing its privileged position if it would mean war with Sicily, which had an excellent fleet. Even so, it would still be a considerable task to reverse the empire's ever-growing dependence on the Italians.
If Alexios II is never born, at least there isn't the instability of a regency. Bela might well have been resented alongside all the other foreigners, and probably would have faced a challenge by Andronikos, plots by Komnenid marriage relations and ambitious generals, and possibly a full civil war. Bela doesn't actually become King of Hungary until 1172, though, whereas William II was actually a king when the marriage offer was made. It's one thing for the Empress to be married to a foreign nobleman; it's quite another for the Empress to be married to a foreign monarch of an often hostile nation. I can't even begin to say what happens then.
Pisa and Genoa were more concerned with each other than with Venice at this moment in time, but they're going to do what they need to do to maximize their presence in important markets and minimize the presence of the other cities. If a Byzantine-Sicilian alliance threatens to favor the Venetians too much, they're going to take steps to oppose that, possibly even if it means the two of them joining forces. Military action is probably not out of the question. Barbarossa loathed the idea of a Greek presence in Sicily and may well have supported them in that effort, insofar as he was able to while caught up in the Lombard wars.
In OTL Sicily didn't care that much about the Banu Ghaniya; at one point in 1159 a Sicilian fleet raided the Balears and then sailed straight to Mahdia to try and lift an Almohad siege, demonstrating just how uninterested they were in trying to play the two enemies off one another. That may have been more to do with that particular admiral's desire for loot, however (the convert Peter, aka Ahmed es-Sikeli, who eventually re-converted and defected to the Almohads) than a deliberate decision of state.
The Balearic Isles don't seem like much of a power base, but it was apparently enough of a base from which to conquer numerous cities in Africa during the 1180s. The problem with an alliance is that the Sicilians and Ghaniyids both wanted the same thing - Africa - and unless one or the other of them changes their minds, they are going to be rivals, not friends.
Last edited: