alternatehistory.com

OTL, the Norman kingdom of Sicily made a decent attempt at expanding into Africa. It made sense: the region was in some disarry politically, and it was a logical expansion of their conquest of Muslim Sicily a couple of generations earlier.

They started in the early 12th century, picking off one petty emirate after another. By the 1140s they controlled the whole Tunisian coast south of Tunis proper, including Al-Mahdia, terminus of the trans-Saharan gold caravans, and Tripoli. King Roger started a colonization program, bringing settlers down from Italy; the long term goal was, as on Sicily, to gradually Christianize and Latinize the new frontier...

...and then the Almohads swept out of the desert. Fanatic and furious, they rolled up Norman Africa in less than a decade. Mahdia fell in 1160, with the colonists all fled, dead or enslaved. It didn't help that the energetic and brilliant Roger II of Sicily died in 1154, just as the Almohad storm was breaking; his successor, William the Bad, was lazy, dull, and not very interested in defending Sicily's half-grown colony.

So, the obvious POD: Norman Tunisia manages to hold off the Almohads. We can either posit some energetic commander who died young in OTL, or give King Roger a couple more years of life. Whatever: the Norman kings of Sicily hang on to their African territory then and thereafter.

Now what?

The Almohads won't be a threat for long; by the 1170s they'd already shifted their focus to Iberia, where they'd be defeated at Las Navas de Tolosas in 1212. So, the Norman Shore should enjoy a few generations of peace. I think Sicilian history goes much the same as iOTL for a while, with Frederick II still marching north to become Holy Roman Emperor, and all.

In the longer term... well, it's not clear to me whether this ends up being a net gain or loss to the kings of Sicily. On one hand, controlling Tunis means plenty of gold, a chokehold on trade along the north coast of Africa, and control of the central Mediterranean -- no more worrying about pirates. On the minus, Christianization would be protracted, violent and expensive; it took 200 years to finish reconverting Sicily, and Muslim peasant revolts were a recurring headache for the kings in Palermo. Worse yet, the March of Tunis is surrounded on three sides by hostile Islamic states, and will have to be fortified and defended at considerable expense.

So what with one thing and another, I have trouble seeing this Christian outpost lasting into the modern era. It looks rather like the Crusader states in the 12th century, or the Spanish outposts in North Africa in the 16th: sustainable for a little while, but just too strategically vulnerable.

But I could see it hanging on for a century, or maybe two.

In which case... what?

Anyone?


Doug M.
Top