Can This Norman Scenario Work?

Kindly excuse me if this is ASB, or my logic/scenario is off; I openly admit I have very little knowledge of this subject, which is why I request your assistance in critiquing and advising!

I’ve become quite interested in the Normans in the last few months. After researching them, I’ve been wondering about possible further Norman expansion. Below is a rough outline of what I’ve come up with, minus some specifics incase this outline becomes something more in future…

Basically a Norman people intent on fighting European wars in order to achieve glory for themselves, and forging many dynastic Norman kingdoms in the process, similar to OTL but with a couple of differences, among others: Speeding up the process of Norman conquest in Italy by making it more planned, effective, and organized , then having a Norman entry into Spain.

I would start by having the Salerno tradition of Norman entry into the peninsula happen as it did IOTL (if this is the likely/commonly agreed upon entry of Normans into Italy). Guaimar’s pleading of the Normans to stay is met with agreement, and emissaries are sent to Normandy to recruit more willing fighters, which is also a met with success. With these developments, victory is achieved at either the first Lombard uprising by Melus with Norman assistance against Byzantine rule in southern Italy (as the Byzantines were not expecting the overwhelming extra punch given by the Normans), or the second, again led by Melus, which seems more likely. From here the Normans can realize their might and continue fighting, ultimately conquering Capua, Benevento, and Naples, eventually leading to the title Duke of Calabria and Apulia far quicker than IOTL.

The fortunes of the Normans can continue to spill over in the Byzantine campaign on Muslim Sicily, where instead of just 300 Normans sent by Guiscard to aid in the fighting, contingents of them can be sent into battle by the rulers of the Norman ‘Kingdom (?)’ in southern Italy. Saracen loot is distributed favoring the Normans thanks to their large numbers and political clout on the island, only heightening tensions between the Normans and Byzantines. With quarrels between the two in Italy over Bari at some point forcing the Byzantines to withdraw from their Sicilian campaign, the Normans can capitalize on the weakness of the Arabs and capture Sicilia bella for themselves.

Eventually the powerful, well-governed Normans unite the Mezzogiorno and Sicily, becoming the rulers of Southern Italy.

From here, the ongoing conflict in Spain between Christians and Muslims provides the perfect opportunity for the Normans to expand their power. Norman Mercenaries are contracted to fight the Christian war against the Muslims in southern Iberia, eventually resulting in Normans taking areas like Lisbon, Barcelona, Valencia, and other coastal areas.

From this point Norman presence in Iberia, Italy, France, and England grows, culminating in a different history, as per the site’s norm.

Just in passing: I’m not looking to see a Byzanto-Norman empire, but instead something more purely Norman. Also, as an adherent to the Great Man Theory, I'd be curious if this can be centralized under the command of one person.

So?
 
Basically a Norman people intent on fighting European wars in order to achieve glory for themselves, and forging many dynastic Norman kingdoms in the process, similar to OTL but with a couple of differences, among others: Speeding up the process of Norman conquest in Italy by making it more planned, effective, and organized , then having a Norman entry into Spain.

The structure of Normans in Southern Italy, aka few numbers, divided and searching to gain lands (rather then forging dynasties, what they wanted was what they were deprived in Normandy by being from too weak families), is a big obstacle to unification and planification.

They gained titles over lands because Papacy was seriously threatened by the chaotic situation in Southern Italy : with a more organised and obvious "we're here to eat all the cake" pannel put on their armours, I'm not really sure Rome would be so comprehensive to Normans, and Lombardo-Greek nobles would certainly refrain a lot more to use Normans as mercenaries.

For their might, it depends on what you define : they were a specialized force (as western nobility in general) and more useful compared to local levies. They certainly didn't were far more than some hundreds on the other hand.

I suppose a Lombardo-Norman victory at Cannae against Byzantines would greatly help, that said I don't know enough about the battle to know if it is plausible or even possible (let's admit they have a Montemaggiore-like victory) More unified under Gilbert Buatère, you could see the rise of a Lombardo-Norman ensemble in southern Italy, with Melus and neighbours being still the rulers of southern Italy, with an important Norman force.

But they would most likely been divided among Lombard lines, at least at first. At this point butterflies would be huge : Papal and Imperial interests on Southern italy (varying to support from hostility) could really change by a Norman presence earlier by 20 years.
That said, pontifical support in a first time, against byzantines is still likely for Lombardo-Normans.
A more "smoother" and at least earlier transmission from Lombards to Normans (with interesting cultural consequences) wouldn't lead to an unification but could be of interest for other norman petty nobles.

From here, the ongoing conflict in Spain between Christians and Muslims provides the perfect opportunity for the Normans to expand their power.
With which fleet? Byzantines and Arabs still master the sea, and Normans even with a favourable PoD wouldn't have access to something making them able to rival efficiently.

Pisan and Genoese do, on the other hand, and could use some Normans forces that could eventually take control of Balearic (while independent from their southern Italian counterparts, at least at first).

For the "contracted" part, I don't think it's plausible for the era. Mercenaries in western Europe weren't contracted to such and such goal but searched for lands and/or being maintained by a local ruler. What they gained, they took it from loot.
Of course, they're not going to weight that much, with some hundreds at best, against Arabo-Berber forces.

What's possible, to resume is an earlier stronger Norman presence in Southern Italy, turning the southern principalities in some sort of Lombardo-Norman ensemble that could eventually (if it survives the butterflies) began to unify partially in the 1050's thanks to earlier and more important Norman migration from Francia.

What they lack, and I don't see it being changed greatly by such a PoD, is a fleet. At least in a first time, they would be used as mercenaries by Italian powers (Maritime Republic, Papacy) in Mediterranean coast (Balearic, *maybe* Denia or Africa).
 
How good were Norman soldiers on avarage?
And can they get enough numbers to stop being overwhelmed?

Its one thing the expand and another to over expand
 
Apparently good enough to have taken over southern Italy, with a fair use of opportunist diplomacy.

Western nobility at this time was a warring elite, that trained up themselves on this as they can (even if they couldn't afford the full equipment). They were certainly better than a regular local levy on peasants, while Byzantine army (more discplined, more used to strategical moves and more equipped) was certainly an important opponent.

For the numbers, where these could come from? It's not like Normandy was a breeding factory for adventurers. Some hundreds, is really what was possible then in a period where feudal world began to set up in place.
 
I believe at the time western knightly cavalry had a technological and strategic advantage over the Byzantine heavy cavalry.

Byzantine cavalry was heavily armoured and slow moving, and relied on massed formations to break infantry.

Western cavalry of the period were faster, and used the couched lance charge.

I can't remember the source, but I remember a contemporary account of a small force of normans routing numerically superior byzantine cavalry with a charge.
 
The structure of Normans in Southern Italy, aka few numbers, divided and searching to gain lands (rather then forging dynasties...

Maybe my suggestion of dynastic ambitions was over the top, but I think the intent to gain lands works just the same.

...what they wanted was what they were deprived in Normandy by being from too weak families), is a big obstacle to unification and planification.

I agree. I'm curious as to whether this can be exploited to ensure Normans flock to Italy in with greater numbers.

They gained titles over lands because Papacy was seriously threatened by the chaotic situation in Southern Italy : with a more organised and obvious "we're here to eat all the cake" pannel put on their armours, I'm not really sure Rome would be so comprehensive to Normans, and Lombardo-Greek nobles would certainly refrain a lot more to use Normans as mercenaries.

Good point.

For their might, it depends on what you define : they were a specialized force (as western nobility in general) and more useful compared to local levies. They certainly didn't were far more than some hundreds on the other hand.

Understood, they were not there in vast numbers. Seeing as this seems to be the most influential factor (for obvious reasons), it seems imperative that making any scenario like the one in the IP or similar depends on driving the Normans to southern Italy in greater numbers.

I suppose a Lombardo-Norman victory at Cannae against Byzantines would greatly help, that said I don't know enough about the battle to know if it is plausible or even possible (let's admit they have a Montemaggiore-like victory) More unified under Gilbert Buatère, you could see the rise of a Lombardo-Norman ensemble in southern Italy, with Melus and neighbours being still the rulers of southern Italy, with an important Norman force.

But they would most likely been divided among Lombard lines, at least at first. At this point butterflies would be huge : Papal and Imperial interests on Southern italy (varying to support from hostility) could really change by a Norman presence earlier by 20 years.

That said, pontifical support in a first time, against byzantines is still likely for Lombardo-Normans.
A more "smoother" and at least earlier transmission from Lombards to Normans (with interesting cultural consequences) wouldn't lead to an unification but could be of interest for other norman petty nobles.

Very cool. It seems the conventional OTL method of gaining titles/land from the papacy could be replaced my military conquest right from the beginning, with the Lombardo-Normans continuing their momentum from the victory over the Byzantines.

Would the Pope not be more inclined to support a Lombardo-Norman presence sympathetic to his cause over the rival Byzantines in Italy? If this is the case, I can see him (though probably begrudgingly) aiding the Lombardo-Norman effort for more than just the very beginning... Again, I'm not well versed in this period; I'm not sure if the Pope was anti-Byzantine, viewing them as invaders, or indifferent. How long would Papal "support" last? At what point would the Lombardo-Norman push turn the Pope against it? I'm sure that at whatever point that may be the military strength of the movement would be enough to be considered a threat/ great enough to not need the Pope's handing out of titles, no?


With which fleet? Byzantines and Arabs still master the sea, and Normans even with a favourable PoD wouldn't have access to something making them able to rival efficiently.

Absolutely, I was never thinking that they'd become a naval threat, or even moderately close. But would a dire situation in Spain not prompt the Christian kingdoms there to invite Norman warriors over for help, in a similar way as Guaimar did? The motivation for lower ranking Normans that didn't reap much reward in their Italian campaign to go over would be present. Pretty much a repeat of what happened in Italy.


What's possible, to resume is an earlier stronger Norman presence in Southern Italy, turning the southern principalities in some sort of Lombardo-Norman ensemble that could eventually (if it survives the butterflies) began to unify partially in the 1050's thanks to earlier and more important Norman migration from Francia.

What they lack, and I don't see it being changed greatly by such a PoD, is a fleet. At least in a first time, they would be used as mercenaries by Italian powers (Maritime Republic, Papacy) in Mediterranean coast (Balearic, *maybe* Denia or Africa).

Good summary. I agree that the first part is possible; with enough military might and planning it seems totally achievable. The second part I also agree with; I see little chance of a Norman fleet being created. However, I don't see why alternate ways wouldn't be just as effective in getting the Normans to partake in the war effort in Spain.

For the numbers, where these could come from? It's not like Normandy was a breeding factory for adventurers. Some hundreds, is really what was possible then in a period where feudal world began to set up in place.

This is why I would think that a "Great Man Theory" approach would be the way to go here. Surely the majority in Normandy were in the position of weakness discussed above, leaving a great figure to make the Salerno tradition far more successful in bringing disenfranchised Normans over.

I believe at the time western knightly cavalry had a technological and strategic advantage over the Byzantine heavy cavalry.

Byzantine cavalry was heavily armoured and slow moving, and relied on massed formations to break infantry.

Western cavalry of the period were faster, and used the couched lance charge.

I can't remember the source, but I remember a contemporary account of a small force of normans routing numerically superior byzantine cavalry with a charge.

I've read similar accounts. Again, my knowledge is limited, but it seems that the smaller numbers of Normans were far more effective at dealing damage to the Byzantines.
 
Maybe my suggestion of dynastic ambitions was over the top, but I think the intent to gain lands works just the same.
The comparison with Spanish conquistadors is quite fitting there : you have sveral unlanded and relativly poor nobles that while had a military experiance, wanted to gain lands.

The part with "share with other that want the same" never was (or is) really enforced, unless you count "force someone to share with you".

So, no it doesn't work the same : they were divided and few from the beggining, something that doesn't help, at all.

I agree. I'm curious as to whether this can be exploited to ensure Normans flock to Italy in with greater numbers.
Apart a catastrophic defeat for the Duchy of Normandy in the early XI century...I don't really see what could. And that is unlikely, the troubles were more due to succession crisis than a shattering of duchy and Franco-Norman power.
Even in this case, I doubt you could easily reach the thousand.

it seems imperative that making any scenario like the one in the IP or similar depends on driving the Normans to southern Italy in greater numbers.
My two cents : if you want to do it plausibly, change your scenario. You're simply not going to have much more forces at this point. You had more opportunities at home or in continent, or so it seemed at first.

Very cool. It seems the conventional OTL method of gaining titles/land from the papacy could be replaced my military conquest right from the beginning, with the Lombardo-Normans continuing their momentum from the victory over the Byzantines.
I was thinking more of a gradual replacement of Lombards nobles by their Norman forces rather than a "right of conquest" from the beggining.

Would the Pope not be more inclined to support a Lombardo-Norman presence sympathetic to his cause over the rival Byzantines in Italy? If this is the case, I can see him (though probably begrudgingly) aiding the Lombardo-Norman effort for more than just the very beginning...
OTL, the Norman presence make the popes revert their support, as they didn't exactly enjoyed a strong and conquering presence at their doors. I suppose that, just like OTL, they would try to play the HRE against Normans.

I'm not sure if the Pope was anti-Byzantine, viewing them as invaders, or indifferent. How long would Papal "support" last?
Papacy saw them more as political rivals in Italy. The religious dissenssions with Constantinople certainly didn't helped.

Absolutely, I was never thinking that they'd become a naval threat, or even moderately close. But would a dire situation in Spain not prompt the Christian kingdoms there to invite Norman warriors over for help, in a similar way as Guaimar did?
No. Because Norman presence in Italy is earlier than XI century (they were already known by Lombards if you prefer), while they didn't have such an history with Spain (that usually revieved Franco-Aquitain help on the other hand).
And...which "dire" situation? Up to Almoravid conquest, the Taifa were really bullied by Leonese and not really in any situation to threaten the christian kingdoms and counties. If they didn't had fall into civil war, Castillo-Leonese would have began earlier their conquests.

And kings as Alfonso VI pretty well showed with El Cid what he tought about adventurers grabbing land for themselves.

However, I don't see why alternate ways wouldn't be just as effective in getting the Normans to partake in the war effort in Spain.
Not having a fleet or the means to build one that wouldn't be destroyed by byzantines as soon they go out of harbours, means that they would have been tributary from Italian maritime cities needs and possibilities.

This is why I would think that a "Great Man Theory" approach would be the way to go here. Surely the majority in Normandy were in the position of weakness discussed above, leaving a great figure to make the Salerno tradition far more successful in bringing disenfranchised Normans over.
1) Great Man Theory isn't plausible. Period.
That doesn't mean important peoples can't have an incidence on history, of course, but it's always limited by historical context.

2) "Surely"? No. To be sure, we would need a precise account of Norman nobility forces. From what we know, the early XI Normandy was still wealthy enough for nobility to see several castles appearing and the weakening of ducal authority allows for many opportunities there.

3) Finally, the Normans conquerors of Italy came from same dynastic groups, more or less unified by common links. Adding more would eventually make these links more weakened.
 
Top