A Sicilian Empire?

Zioneer

Zioneer

Banned
So I'm thinking about writing a Norman Sicily TL (though until I straighten things out in my life, I can't say for sure), and I was wondering whether the Sicilo-Normans could declare an Empire rather than remaining a kingdom. As I understand, the only "emperors" that were treated seriously were those that claimed to be Roman Emperors. So if the the Normans claimed to be Roman Emperors, would their claim be treated seriously? What if they declares their own sort of empire (perhaps based on Sicilian history)?

EDIT: Or declaring themselves successors to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines?
 
Huehuecoyotl

Huehuecoyotl

As an irrelevant quibble, I note that the adjective is Siculo. But to actually answer your question in a constructive manner, I don't think a lack of Roman-ness would really dissuade the adoption of an imperial title, provided a state was powerful enough. That being said, the rise of Sicilian power, at least in my opinion, would have to precede the adoption of imperial terminology and not the other way around. There's not much good reason for them to declare themselves an empire unless they're already astride the Mediterranean. :)
 

Thoresby

Like Gruekiller says if you are in charge of a polity powerful enough that anyone takes your claim to be Emperor seriously no one is going to question you on exactly what rights you have to the title. Equally if you are small enough that you need to care what people think proclaiming yourself an Emperor just looks stupid.
 
Zioneer

Zioneer

Banned
A second set of questions:

1) What would be appropriate ranks in this part Italian, part Roman-inspired, and part Norman empire? Obviously the Byzantine ranks wouldn't be appropriate, and the Normans had more of an independent streak (so less court titles maybe), so I'm wondering what titles they would take up.

2) What sort of army did the OTL Siculo-Normans have? Assuming they had at least parts of Croatia and North Africa, how would that change the composition of their army?

3) Would it be more feasible to just have a centralized Kingdom, rather than an Empire?

4) Would the Normans be friendly to heresies? Specifically anti-clerical power heresies?
 
Huehuecoyotl

Huehuecoyotl

Well, I'm not an expert by any means, but I'd hazard a guess that the Norman army was similar in composition and tactics to French armies at the time, given their point of origin and cultural influences. I suppose they'd levy North African horsemen and the like if they controlled those areas too.
 

Thoresby

The Normans themselves were fond of the heavily armoured Knights back by spearmen and archers, just like most other Western Europeans. However in the Norman Crusader Principality of Antioch they adapted to local conditions and built up forces of light horsemen and might even have experimented with Horse Archers so there is definite scope to include other military traditions. Just make sure you make the pace of change appropriately slow (generational timescale) and probably keep Knights as the centrepiece of the force. Militaries tend to reflect the society that raises them and Frankish feudalism=Knights.
 

Blackfox5

In Medieval tradition, the only empire that existed was the Roman Empire. Constantinople was the Roman Empire of the East with unbroken descent to the time of the caesars. Charlemagne resurrected the Roman Empire of the West (supported by the Pope) of which the Holy Roman Emperors were the leader.

The Sicilians can't claim to be Emperors unless they are the heads of one of these two states. The Germans will never accept a Sicilian as head of the Holy Roman Empire. The Greeks will never accept a Latin Emperor even if the Sicilian Kings conquer Constantinople.

Nowadays, people use the title of emperor very loosely because of how degraded its become after Napoleon crowned himself. Prior to that, the title was very, very limited.
 

Falecius

Blackfox5 said:
The Germans will never accept a Sicilian as head of the Holy Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

*Cough* Frederick II Hohenstaufen *Cough*

However, while in general "Emperor" meant "Roman Emperor", either Western (Germanic) or Eastern (Byzantine), there were exceptions. Some Iberian kings (Alfonso X of Castile IIRC) claimed a title like "Emperor of Spain" to mark their prominence over other kings of the peninsula.
And I think some English rulers did the same thing for similar reasons though I am not sure about it.
 

Bee

This was the age when the Donation of Constantine was believed to be authentic. If a West European state wanted to become a kingdom, it needed the pope's blessing. An example was the Norman kingdom of Sicily, which originally obtained a crown from the Antipope Anacletus II (Duke Roger II of Sicily was his only significant ally; he owed Roger a major favor), which was later confirmed by the regular pope after that schism ended.

There weren't many new empires created, so there are fewer precedents to go by. Certainly the Holy Roman Empire was officially created by papal action, and popes regularly (usually unsuccessfully) tried to proclaim that a Holy Roman Emperor was deposed and somebody else appointed in his stead.
 

Falecius

I forgot to mention that in the case of Norman Sicily, an attempt to claim an Imperial title is going to be especially because their kingdom was officially a vassal of the Holy See. I doubt that the Pope will take this kindly, though a scenario where he tries to put a Norman Emperor against the usually obnoxious German holder of the title can be probably imagined.
Unlikely to end well though, I think.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

We have the somewhat earlier title of 'imperator totius hispaniae', but that wasnt precisely mediaeval. I think 'sicily' would have to include a whole lot of territory before anyone would swallow their claims to being any sort of emperor.


Otoh, they might try the greek 'basileus'. A) theyre ruling over semigreek territory, and b) the title was used more loosely. Iirc anglo saxon kings used 'basileus', but not 'imperator'. Alfred, maybe, i dont remember who.

Or Avtokrat or Kaisar. If Bulgaria can have a tsar/kaisar sicioy should be able to.
 

Blackfox5

Falecius said:
*Cough* Frederick II Hohenstaufen *Cough*.
Click to expand...

Frederick II Hohenstaufen was King of Sicily, but he was also a German with all the Hohenstaufen German lands. Please refer to the page in the encyclopedia when his German father, Henry VI invaded and overthrew the native Norman Dynasty in Sicily in 1194. Germans ruling Sicily was OK to the Germans. A native Sicilian ruling Germany was not.

You may want to have that cough looked at.
 

Malta

Hmm. Well, a certain Constans of the Heraclius Dynasty did want to move his capital to Syracuse...then he was assassinated. Perhaps if he did and even if it moves back to Constantinople then the Normans come in and claim to have captured a former capital of the Romans.
 

Velasco

Perhaps a POD in the 1060s prevents William the Bastard from conquering England, freeing up however many thousands of Norman knights who would otherwise have furnished the English countryside with a new nobility, who can then proceed to Italy, swell the Hauteville army's ranks and assist in the conquest of Byzantium. Would need to be properly developed in a TL but it wouldn't be impossible for one of the Hautevilles to be adlected into the Byzantine fold: perhaps as part of a peace treaty after numerous Hauteville conquests, the Hauteville recognizes nominal Byzantine overlordship of his conquests (Albania, Hellas, Greek islands, North Africa, etc) and becomes the Byzantine strong man in the West with the titles of Dux and Caesar. Maria of Bulgaria or one of her daughters marry the Hauteville heir, with the Hauteville Caesar following (or even joining) Michael VII on the throne.
 

Falecius

Blackfox5 said:
Frederick II Hohenstaufen was King of Sicily, but he was also a German with all the Hohenstaufen German lands. Please refer to the page in the encyclopedia when his German father, Henry VI invaded and overthrew the native Norman Dynasty in Sicily in 1194. Germans ruling Sicily was OK to the Germans. A native Sicilian ruling Germany was not.

You may want to have that cough looked at.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he was raised as a Sicilian, held court in Palermo more often than not, and overall there was not that much German about him culturally speaking.
Of course, his father was clearly as German as one can be.
 

Tocomocho

In Spain and Britain the king that claimed the title of emperor did because he considered himself superior/overseer to other kings and their kingdoms in Iberia and the British Isles. Therefore he needed a title that ranked above that of other kings.

So, if there is no other king or kingdom in Sicily, no matter how big this Sicilian kingdom gets, it will be a kingdom and not an empire. Unless the Sicilian King wants to get in a pointless dick-waving contest with the HRE, the Byzantines and the Pope for no reason whatsoever.

Size is irrelevant. Lithuania was the biggest country in Europe at some point and it never ranked above Grand Duchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top