Wi: Roger of Sicily becomes King of Jerusalem?

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

I had tried positing this scenario earlier.

In 1112, Baldwin I of Jerusalem got married to Adelaide del Vasto, the widow of Count Roger I of Sicily, and mother of Roger II, by then in his majority. Baldwin was already married to the Armenian Princess Arda, back when he was Count of Edessa, but she was of no political value in Jerusalem, and so was confined to a convent. Sicily, on the other hand was wealthy and powerful, and Adelaide brought with her some knights and Muslim archers upon arriving in Palestine.

However, both Baldwin and Adelaide were pretty old, and unlikely to produce offspring at their age, so it would look as though Roger II was a shoe-in for the throne of Jerusalem.

Unfortunately for him, the marriage between Baldwin and Arda had not been annulled, so his third marriage was bigamous. As Arnulf of Chocques, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem had suggested the marriage in the first place, and had been deposed by a Papal Legate on behalf of Paschal II in 1115 for approving the bigamous marriage, along with accusations on his own part of simony and sexual relations with a Muslim woman, he could only regain his post by agreeing to annull Baldwin and Adelaide's marriage. Adelaide returned to Sicily, and died the following year.

Roger of Sicily never forgave this humiliation of his mother, and perhaps was seriously peeved at being deprived of the kingship of Jerusalem, and for this, denied military aid to the Crusader states thirty years later.


Now what if either Arda died of natural causes, or she was killed on Baldwin's orders, or someone in his service decided to take the initiative to kill Arda when she was in confinement? What would it mean for the future of the Crusader states if the future King of Sicily were to have crown of Jerusalem?

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Oh come on, someone must be interested in this one.

Perhaps as King of Jerusalem, Roger could act as the regent of Antioch on behalf of his cousin, Bohemond II, after the death of Roger of Salerno in 1119. That could bring some coherency, along with reliable military aid in the face of the Zengids. And his employment of Muslim diplomats from Sicily might be useful in maintainig the alliance with the Emirate of Damascus.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Perhaps better treatment of the Muslim populations?

[Paladin]

Jerusalem, eh? That's actually pretty original-usually we try to set up Roger with Antioch (he had a valid claim to that too).

I think Roger would still regard Sicily as his base, and concentrate his wealth there. Jerusalem may end up as a mere appendage to the Greater Italo-Norman Empire. However, I think that might benefit the Kingdom as well, since it means a steadier source of income and military aid. Things are even more improved if Roger can get his hands on Antioch too.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by Sa'id Mohammed

Perhaps better treatment of the Muslim populations?

Look no further than 12th Century Sicily, the most cosmopolitan Latin Christian-ruled state in western Europe.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Jerusalem, eh? That's actually pretty original-usually we try to set up Roger with Antioch (he had a valid claim to that too).

I think Roger would still regard Sicily as his base, and concentrate his wealth there. Jerusalem may end up as a mere appendage to the Greater Italo-Norman Empire. However, I think that might benefit the Kingdom as well, since it means a steadier source of income and military aid. Things are even more improved if Roger can get his hands on Antioch too.

Thats just it. If Roger d'Hauteville succeeded as King of Jerusalem, he could prove himself a more appealing option as overlord than the Byzantine emperors, not to mention as regent of Antioch on behalf of the young Bohemond II. For the next 46 years between 1118-1154 not only tightening his control over the southern Italian dukedoms, but unifying the Crusader states through their dependence on him.

Plus, havng inherited the Apostolic Legateship of Sicily from his dad, he could have some pull over the appointment of Patriarchs and bishops in the Levant.

With all that in place, what would this mean for the Second Crusade, and the attempted conquest of Egypt, along with Roger's brief OTL annexation of Tunis?

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

So, in a TL where Roger II of Sicily and the I of Jerusalem succeeds in establishing both the Kingdom of Sicily, as well as re-organizing the Crusader states, where both Aleppo and Damascus are secured, and where Egypt and Tunis are under Latin rule. What will they do to tap into the wealth of the east? Will Italian emporiums be set up in the cities of Palestine, Syria and Edessa? Would they allow the emigration of Armenians and Anatolian Greeks into the Outremer states? And will there be any further need for new Crusader armies from Europe?

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Sa'id Mohammed

Perhaps better treatment of the Muslim populations?

I'm no expert, but I don't think the Muslims populations of the Crusader States were treated all that badly- they essentially had the same restrictions placed upon them that Christians had had under the Fatimids.

[Jimbrock]

So, with this we have a centralised empire of southern Italy, Sicily, and the crusader states? Thats pretty cool.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Like Paladin stated, both Jerusalem and Sicily would perhaps be appenaged among his heirs. But in any case, Roger II has the resources, political acumen, and management skills to have stabilized the Crusader states and to have established friendly ties with some of the Muslim emirates nearby.

On the subject of Antioch, the heir to the Principality at the time was Bohemond II, whose father was a first-cousin of Roger II. In OTL, Taranto, also ruled by Bohemond, was captured in 1128 by Roger, a year or so after Bohemond left for Antioch. But if he was already King of Jerusalem in 1119, and perhaps the regent-in-name of Antioch, could he have also, forced the Principality of Taranto, home of the 11 year old Bohemond, to accept him as an official guardian of Bohemond's inheritance?

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Jimbrock

So, with this we have a centralised empire of southern Italy, Sicily, and the crusader states? Thats pretty cool.

Yep, definitely.

[ByzantineCaesar]

Originally Posted by Lysandros Aikiedes

And will there be any further need for new Crusader armies from Europe?

I don't think so since, as far as I know, the Third Crusade was organized to reconquer Jerusalem after the conquest of Saladin. And that means no 4th Crusade, Sack of Constantinople neither Latin Empire.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by ByzantineCaesar

I don't think so since, as far as I know, the Third Crusade was organized to reconquer Jerusalem after the conquest of Saladin. And that means no 4th Crusade, Sack of Constantinople neither Latin Empire.

There were other crusades in the Baltic, Spain, and eastern Europe. What if, even with a relately unified and stable Outremer, other subsequent crusades were instead launched against the Sultanate of Rum, the Danishmends, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco or al-Andalus?

[Jimbrock]

So, lets say Roger manages to pocket Jerusalem as well as Antioch, giving him also overlordship of Tripoli. He might go off to the Crusader states to consolidate his power there, and then probably include his Outremer conquests in his great reforms and centralising laws, forming one big state in Southern Italy and the Levant. I assume this would ensure stability in the Levant, but could it also mean that in the long term the Outremer might not only survive, but expand and continue to increase Christian influence?

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by Jimbrock

So, lets say Roger manages to pocket Jerusalem as well as Antioch, giving him also overlordship of Tripoli. He might go off to the Crusader states to consolidate his power there, and then probably include his Outremer conquests in his great reforms and centralising laws, forming one big state in Southern Italy and the Levant. I assume this would ensure stability in the Levant, but could it also mean that in the long term the Outremer might not only survive, but expand and continue to increase Christian influence?

I'm wondering though that if Roger really needs to press his own claim on Antioch?! He already has the Dukedom of Apulia and the Pricipality of Taranto at his mercy acrossthe sea, and will inevitably persue his quest to dominate southern Italy as per OTL. So would he not have the means to become the liege-lord over the other Norman-Italian duchies, including that of the elder Bohemond's heir anyway? Or should he simply force Bohemond II to relinquish his inheritance and lock him away in a monastery someplace?

If Roger wants to micro-manage his Italian and Outremer dominions, he would have to appoint seneschals in Palermo, Jerusalem, and possibly Antioch, if he wishes to disinherit Bohemond II.

[ByzantineCaesar]

Originally Posted by Lysandros Aikiedes

There were other crusades in the Baltic, Spain, and eastern Europe. What if, even with a relately unified and stable Outremer, other subsequent crusades were instead launched against the Sultanate of Rum, the Danishmends, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco or al-Andalus?

Not in the same scale, I think. Against the Seldjuks the majority of the crusaders would be Romans and not Latins. Maybe a stronger Constantinople-Jerusalem alliance to conquer Egypt like it happened in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180). As for crusades against Mesopotamia, I don't think it really makes sense because I can't imagine interior expeditions into Asia across the Euphrates. But crusades on Africa would make sense. The Italian city-states an Sicily could finance the crusade to Tripolitania or Tunis

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by ByzantineCaesar

Not in the same scale, I think. Against the Seldjuks the majority of the crusaders would be Romans and not Latins. Maybe a stronger Constantinople-Jerusalem alliance to conquer Egypt like it happened in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180). As for crusades against Mesopotamia, I don't think it really makes sense because I can't imagine interior expeditions into Asia across the Euphrates. But crusades on Africa would make sense. The Italian city-states an Sicily could finance the crusade to Tripolitania or Tunis

I agree that a crusade against Mesopotmia in the 12th or 13th centuries seems unlikely, but if the Latin Christian hold between Antioch and Jerusalem remains strong past this period, military expeditions of some kind or another may occur against the post-Abbasid emirates.

Roger II did conquer Tripoli and Cape Bon in the 1140's IOTL. So it would be interesting if this was followed up by the establishment of Frankish/Lombard fiefdoms and Italian merchant emporiums.

[Jimbrock]

Originally Posted by Lysandros Aikiedes

I'm wondering though that if Roger really needs to press his own claim on Antioch?! He already has the Dukedom of Apulia and the Pricipality of Taranto at his mercy acrossthe sea, and will inevitably persue his quest to dominate southern Italy as per OTL. So would he not have the means to become the liege-lord over the other Norman-Italian duchies, including that of the elder Bohemond's heir anyway? Or should he simply force Bohemond II to relinquish his inheritance and lock him away in a monastery someplace?

If Roger wants to micro-manage his Italian and Outremer dominions, he would have to appoint seneschals in Palermo, Jerusalem, and possibly Antioch, if he wishes to disinherit Bohemond II.

I think he could possibly consolidate both Southern Italy and the Outremer, depending on when he does it. But my question is whether he could include all these territories into his great reforms and create a stable long term state that can establish the Levant as a stable christian base for further expansion into Asia, or as said before, Africa instead? Where would the main power base of this united state be?

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by Jimbrock

I think he could possibly consolidate both Southern Italy and the Outremer, depending on when he does it. But my question is whether he could include all these territories into his great reforms and create a stable long term state that can establish the Levant as a stable christian base for further expansion into Asia, or as said before, Africa instead? Where would the main power base of this united state be?

Naturally, Sicily would be Roger's base of operations. Jerusalem and the other Crusader states had a shortfall of Latin Christians to make up for their fighting manpower, so knights and archers from Sicily would be needed to assist them, especially the County of Edessa, the first of the Crusader states to fall. The Norman unification of southern Italy would be needed to secure Sicily, and to resist the political machinations of the Popes.

The Muslim emirates of Mosul, Damascus and Aleppo could either become targets for expansion, or perhaps it would be to Roger's benefit to maintain the friendship of at least one of them (Damascus).

I would not expect that the ATL Roger's empire would remain in one peace forever, but his administrative reforms would be inherited by all of them.

Remember, that Jerusalem would be an autonomous kingdom that was inherited, so their would be no reason for it to remain tied to the Kingdom of Sicily after Roger's death in 1154.

Best case scenario might be that Sicily, with its domains in Italy and North Africa would be inherited by Roger III (1118-48. Predeceased his father IOTL). Jerusalem-Antioch (Kingdom of Palestine? Kingdom of Syria?) may go to Tancred (1119-38. Predeceased his father IOTL). And if Egypt is conquered too, perhaps that can go to either Alphonso (1120-44) or William (1131-66).

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

With Roger II siding with the Antipope Anacletus II against Innocent II in 1130, perhaps he could convince Anacletus to give him the Apostolic Legateship of either Jerusalem or Antioch, in addition to the royal investiture as King of Sicily. This way, he might be able to personally appoint the Patriarchs of either See.