Norman Sicilians Take Constantinople

During the Regin of William the 'Good' his forces attacked and invaded the Byzantine Balkans, with over 80,000 troops and 200 ships his forces amrched from Eprius to Thessaloniki successfully putting to flight any Byzantine Army that attacked them. In 1185 it was only with the defeat of William's forces by Alexios Branas on behalf of the Soon-To-Be Emperor Issac II Angelos that the Norman-Sicilians were defeated and allowed to leave giving up all gains in the Balkans.

What if instead of this fateful battle on the Struma river, William's forces defeats the Byzantines?

I think it largely depends on if William's commander in charge is able to absolutely defeat Alexios Brenas, then more then likely the Byzantine Empire may just start to crumble with rivals, the Bulgarians may still establish their Second Empire, and no alliance bewteen the Byzantines and Conrad of Montferrat may not end up (therefore he may not take rule as King of Jeruselum).
 
It isn't likely that Constantinople will fall - the two times it has in history, the besieger had either a) gunpowder or b) a claimant to the throne. Since the Notmans have neither of these, the Theodosian walls and Greek fire will likely keep the city inviolate.

That said, a victory where you proposed is entirely plausible. Should the Normans win there, I would expect a long war to subdue the Balkans - hardly an easy task. If they were able to, however, it would probably end in a larger and more powerful Norman Sicily. This would butterfly away the fourth crusade attack on Constantinple, and would raise some interesting tensions between Venice and Palermo. However, the Normans would almost inevitably fall to the Ottomans and the Spanish, and Constantinople would probably fall earlier than OTL.
 
It isn't likely that Constantinople will fall - the two times it has in history, the besieger had either a) gunpowder or b) a claimant to the throne. Since the Notmans have neither of these, the Theodosian walls and Greek fire will likely keep the city inviolate.

That said, a victory where you proposed is entirely plausible. Should the Normans win there, I would expect a long war to subdue the Balkans - hardly an easy task. If they were able to, however, it would probably end in a larger and more powerful Norman Sicily. This would butterfly away the fourth crusade attack on Constantinple, and would raise some interesting tensions between Venice and Palermo. However, the Normans would almost inevitably fall to the Ottomans and the Spanish, and Constantinople would probably fall earlier than OTL.
Well dont forget ineptitude and holes in the walls ala fourth crusade. However 4th crusade conditions are virtually impossible for Normans to achieve.
 
This would butterfly away the fourth crusade attack on Constantinple, and would raise some interesting tensions between Venice and Palermo. However, the Normans would almost inevitably fall to the Ottomans and the Spanish, and Constantinople would probably fall earlier than OTL.

Hmmm not sure about the Spanish really, given that the only reason why Sicily fell to the Aragonese was due to a confusing affair Post-Norman Kingdom that dealt with the Pope. Which could very well be butterflied.
 
Hmmm not sure about the Spanish really, given that the only reason why Sicily fell to the Aragonese was due to a confusing affair Post-Norman Kingdom that dealt with the Pope. Which could very well be butterflied.
Actually Sicily fell because of the sicilian vespers. I believe what happened was that Charles Anjou seized the kingdom of Sicily from Manfried but then John VII Paleologos incited the Sicilian vespers who overthrew Manfried which lead to Aragorn taking advantage of the turmoil and conquering Sicily. This is what I believe happened.
 
Top