Best PoD for surviving Norman/independent Sicily?

Zioneer

Banned
I suppose the most relevant question for the Kingdom of Africa in this prospective TL is whether there is a "moderate" outcome possible in which an Almohad or other Berber rebellion happens, but doesn't result in the unification of all the Maghreb and Andalusia as in OTL; and, if so, whether that outcome can be achieved without so much disruption to events in Spain that the TL becomes more about Spain than Sicily.

Getting back to the main topic, since you seem to want a Norman-held Sardinia, have you given any thought to what that might look like? The societies are wildly different - Norman Sicily is in a sense one of the purest forms of Frankish feudalism in Europe (though less so on the island than the mainland), while Sardinia is one of the few places in the Latin world that was basically untouched by it, preserving a sort of distorted Late Roman structure for some time. Norman invasions in general seem to be adept at "wiping the slate clean" politically, but considering how difficult the Romans found it to pacify the rugged Sardinian interior I'm not sure how plausible that is for Sicily.

Well, my main purpose with Sardinia and the Kingdom of Africa (even the Baleares) is both make Sicily territorially (and resource) stronger, as well as focusing them on the West rather than the East. I don't want them to conquer the Byzantines, because then it becomes either a Byzantine or Latin Empire TL. I want the TL to focus on Sicily, it's relation to neighbors, and it's independence. I don't need the D'Hautville family to remain in power, or even the Normans to remain in power. All I want for this TL, is basically to have an independent Sicily that doesn't morph into Byzantium or whatever.

As for Sardinia itself, I was thinking that the Normans do what they did in Muslim Sicily; find an overthrown ruler (in this case, one of the jiudicates), use the pretense of restoring said ruler to slowly establish control over the island. I'm envisioning most of the traditional customs and rights kept in place, but slowly being eroded by feudalization. Basically, overthrown ruler becomes a Norman puppet, and with their help, pushes out the other Jiudicates.

It would be hard to achieve. At this point Andalusia's fate was directly tied to what happened in Maghrib and it would remain so up to the very end : a Berber power in Maghrib would at least try to swallow up the Muslim part of the peninsula, would it be only because Arabo-Andalusian elites would call them against Christians.

And giving that Maghreb at this point was "open" to any challenger...Even if Ifriqiya remains outside the general political changes as during Almoravid takeover, it would mean a stronger Ifriqiya without a real threat in West (or, inversely, in a case of a Norman deeper conquest, a good motivation for any Maghrib/Andalusian power to say hello, without that Normans being crushed as the sole conclusion, of course)


If I may disagree a bit : we're more about an "idealised" feudality, not unlike in Norman England or Yerosolemite kingdom, with a more important royal power and a more clear "feudal pyramid". You didn't have the whole lot of political/seniorial patchwork that existed in France or Burgundy at this time, with an important (numerically) nobility and vassalage, but thanks to more limited noble numbers and "rationalised" political share trough conquest (that was attempted in the Latin Empire, for exemple, but failed), and maybe as well mental changes since the Xth, didn't went the way of a feudal desintegration (as in Southern France).

A takeover of Sardinian jiudicates may be made the same way Fatimids or Italian states did in their time : making them entering the sphere of influence, with Normans eventually copy/pasting feudal and/or vassalage relationship on them (something mixed, not unlike management of Muslims entities in Latin States).

So it'd be quite difficult to keep Ifriqiya around, even if the Siculio-Normans are more successful in Africa? That any Andalusian power would pick a fight with the Normans as soon as possible, or the Maghrebi Berbers would convince them to? Hmm...

As for the feudal structure of Sicily, I was under the impression that until William II, the barons and other vassals were overly powerful, judging from the strength of the rebellions they fought. Almost every time, they managed to control the mainland and reduce the Sicilian monarch to a few outposts and Sicily. They had help from the HRE, the Byzantines, and the Pope, but the fact that they consistently managed to nearly win seems to show their strength and loose treatment.

And as for Sardinia, yeah, I think we're on the same page.

Overall though, I'm thinking of the "Norman Sicily survival" PoD to be all of the sons of Roger II to survive, so that not only are there a bunch of potential heirs (rather than relying on William I and II's ability to produce kids), but also that Sicily will have the combined experience of all of their princes (all of whom except for William were experience in governance and warfare). Perhaps quick thinking by one of them could temporarily keep the Kingdom of Africa from completely imploding, or the rebellion from being as dangerous as it was; as it was, William I could only be in one place at a time.

Hmm... perhaps the rebellion after William's coronation is butterflied away since the rebels have to deal with three very experienced sons of Roger (and most specifically Roger's original heir), rather than a neglected and passive son?
 
As for Sardinia itself, I was thinking that the Normans do what they did in Muslim Sicily; find an overthrown ruler (in this case, one of the jiudicates), use the pretense of restoring said ruler to slowly establish control over the island. I'm envisioning most of the traditional customs and rights kept in place, but slowly being eroded by feudalization. Basically, overthrown ruler becomes a Norman puppet, and with their help, pushes out the other Jiudicates.

Client rulership is probably the most reasonable and likely approach. I still say Barisone II of Arborea, the guy who was king-in-name-only in 1164, is a good candidate for this because it lines up perfectly with the "failed HRE invasion" POD, but if you had a different time period in mind other candidates could work too (like Barisone's father Comita II).

A single judge/count of Sardinia seems like a rather outsize position for a Norman vassal. Nobody had accomplished that previously and it seems likely that anyone who did, even with Norman help, would start thinking of himself in royal terms. The sense of the state as an independent entity, as opposed to the state as the property of whichever ruler happened to hold it, was a lot stronger in Sardinia than elsewhere, and the Normans might find that simply turning the judgeships into counties is the path of least resistance. Whether the sub-judgeship structure or other non-feudal aspects of Sardinian culture survive in any capacity is another question.

Hmm... perhaps the rebellion after William's coronation is butterflied away since the rebels have to deal with three very experienced sons of Roger (and most specifically Roger's original heir), rather than a neglected and passive son?

Assuming, of course, they don't immediately join a similar rebellion against the newly crowned Roger III. After all, experienced and competent royal brothers are a great blessing when they're loyal, but horrible curse when they're not. :D
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Personally, I'd agree that going to Africa is probably a better way for a Sicilian Kingdom to survive, combined with the survival of the Hautevilles.

I'd personally love to see a timeline in which the Byzantines offer to appoint/recognise the Normans as the rightful Western Roman Emperors - on the condition that they invade Africa.

Not sure how plausible or practical it is, but a Catholic Norman Roman Empire claimant is a fun idea.
 

Zioneer

Banned
(bumping the thread because I have a few more questions).

First, I'll definitely keep in mind everyone's ideas, and will probably incorporate some of them.

Second, which outcome would be more interesting; Roger III being king, the other brothers being (relatively) loyal to him, and his colorful descendants (who I've partially planned out) succeeding, or Roger being succeeded by his brothers (by legitimate means or more shady, like assassination or civil war)? While I want to keep Norman Sicily around, I also want to make the TL an interesting story.

Or should I have Roger III's kids rule for a while, then have the descendants of the other brothers eventually take power?

I'm also thinking of having another dynasty take power after a while of D'Hautville rule, though keeping Sicily as an independent nation. But that's not for a while, and the dynasty that eventually takes over might not even exist before the PoD.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Also, unrelated question, but I know that modern popes generally choose papal names as a way to symbolize that their papacy will be modeled after a previous Pope or saint that also had the name, but did they do that in the Middle Ages as well? Generally, what were common papal names.

Similarly, I imagine most popes were Italian, but what other nations had decent possibilities of popes from their area? Lastly, how did the papal government work, who led the armies, and etc?
 
Also, unrelated question, but I know that modern popes generally choose papal names as a way to symbolize that their papacy will be modeled after a previous Pope or saint that also had the name, but did they do that in the Middle Ages as well? Generally, what were common papal names.

The tradition only really starts with John XII in the 10th century, who was born "Octavian." He wasn't the first pope to change his name, but there had only been two before him to do so (IIRC) and it was only after John that it became common.

For common papal names, I'd honestly just take a look at the actual popes of that century/era.

Similarly, I imagine most popes were Italian, but what other nations had decent possibilities of popes from their area? Lastly, how did the papal government work, who led the armies, and etc?

Most popes were indeed Italian, but there were some French popes in the 11th/12th centuries (like the famous Crusade-instigating Urban II). There were a handful of German popes in the 11th century but they vanished thereafter - after 1058, the next German pope to reign was Benedict XVI in 2005 (!). Finally, there was the single 12th century English pope, Adrian IV, who remains the only English pope to date.

Basically, after the mid-10th century, the only likely source of a non-Italian pope in the High Middle Ages is from France - barring an anomaly like Adrian IV, who had the good fortune to return to Rome from a successful mission as a Papal Legate in Scandinavia only for the reigning Pope to drop dead shortly after his return.

As far as the Papal government goes, it was not at this time very dissimilar from that of a secular monarchy. Kings of the time often had a chancery full of ecclesiastics and used important bishops as great councilors; the Pope did likewise. Perhaps the high prelates like the cardinal-bishops were better-represented in his government than in some other monarchies, but it wasn't a radically different system of government. Noble-born popes did not cease to be noblemen - Innocent III was the son of the Count of Segni, a prominent Latin knight, and while he was pope he tried to arrange marriage alliances between rulers and his own immediate family. Papal armies would likely be led by Latin noblemen who were closely tied by blood and family ties to the Church government itself.
 
Last edited:

Zioneer

Banned
Thanks for the info on the papal stuff; amusingly for my chosen area, Adrian IV was antagonistic towards the Italo-Normans, despite being likely a Norman himself.

Anyway, I've begun outlining the beginning of the TL itself, so it should be up in less than a week.
 
Thanks for the info on the papal stuff; amusingly for my chosen area, Adrian IV was antagonistic towards the Italo-Normans, despite being likely a Norman himself.

Well, only until the Treaty of Benevento. As he became alienated from Frederick, the Normans of Sicily became his allies, and shortly before his death he was seeking to create a Papal-Lombard-Sicilian front against Frederick.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Well, only until the Treaty of Benevento. As he became alienated from Frederick, the Normans of Sicily became his allies, and shortly before his death he was seeking to create a Papal-Lombard-Sicilian front against Frederick.

True, and I'll use that in my TL.

Also, one last question. What are some good Norman names that aren't Robert, Roger, Richard, William, Henry, and etc? I know the Italo-Normans had Bohemond and Tancred, but apart from that, what were other Norman names? I really don't want to write names that are ridiculously common in OTL history. :p
 
True, and I'll use that in my TL.

Also, one last question. What are some good Norman names that aren't Robert, Roger, Richard, William, Henry, and etc? I know the Italo-Normans had Bohemond and Tancred, but apart from that, what were other Norman names? I really don't want to write names that are ridiculously common in OTL history. :p

The only one that comes to my mind is Simon.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zioneer View Post
True, and I'll use that in my TL.

Also, one last question. What are some good Norman names that aren't Robert, Roger, Richard, William, Henry, and etc? I know the Italo-Normans had Bohemond and Tancred, but apart from that, what were other Norman names? I really don't want to write names that are ridiculously common in OTL history.
The only one that comes to my mind is Simon.

Enguérand, Bertrand, Denis are probably more French but would still work. Tancrede de Hauteville had a lot of kids, that should give you a good start! Drogo is one of them by the way, always fun!
 
Also, one last question. What are some good Norman names that aren't Robert, Roger, Richard, William, Henry, and etc? I know the Italo-Normans had Bohemond and Tancred, but apart from that, what were other Norman names? I really don't want to write names that are ridiculously common in OTL history. :p

Fairly unusual Italo-Norman ones I remember from the 11th/12th century: Asclettin, Flameng, Drogo, Rainulf.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Bumping this to let everyone know that I'm working on the TL, but also that I'm a bit stuck on the initial part of the post-Roger II bit of the TL. Specifically, I'm still having Frederick Barbarossa invade, Pope Adrian IV supporting him, and Emperor Manuel I invade a bit later.

The problem is that I don't really want to write that part since I can't really differentiate it much from the OTL invasions, but I still want to indicate to readers that it happened (as I'm not sure that most readers know about it).

Any advice on this?
 
Top