Some questions on 1100s Europe and Sicily in particular

Zioneer

Banned
(apologies if this is stream-of-thought, I wrote it at 1 AM)



So yet again, I am attempting to write a surviving Norman Sicily timeline. My preferred PoD is Roger II's sons all surviving, and instead of the lethargic and weak William I ending up king, the trained, energetic Roger III becomes king. But I could go with multiple PoDs in the 1100s, specifically after/right before Roger II's death (I don't really want to deal with William II). Any suggestions on PoD would be greatly appreciated.

Having said that, I also have a few questions. I may have asked some of them before, but I might need a fresh view on things.

1) First, what did the armies of various Mediterranean powers look like? I'm talking France, the Italian city-states, the Pope, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantines, the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its neighbors, and of course Sicily itself. What kinds of equipment did they generally have, if they had any formal divisions in their armies besides “infantry”, “archers” and “cavalry”, and if any of them had formal ranks for their commanders at this point. I know the Byzantines frequently documented their own armies, and often used that documentation in military manuals to reform the army. I'd like to have some Sicily-related military manuals in ATL.

2) Beyond having a competent/surviving monarch, what kind of reforms/changes does Sicily need to survive? Do I need multiple PoDs? Curbing the nobles seems like an obvious start, but how can the Sicilian monarchs do that?

3) I also want to keep a surviving Byzantine Empire, strong enough to keep itself alive, but weak enough that it doesn't bother Sicily too much. At the same time, I feel like the Norman obsession with conquering Constantinople or raiding Greek lands distracted them and made Sicily less focused than it could be. I feel like having strong, but Eastern-focused Byzantines, and a Sicilian king more concerned with conquering Sardinia, Corsica, and perhaps even the Balearic Isles would help in that regard. Thoughts?

4) What would be the general reaction of Sicily’s neighbors if they had an energetic Sicilian king to contend with, rather than the lackluster William I? I imagine that the initial years of a Roger III’s reign would be similar to William’s, with Byzantines, the Pope, Frederick Barbarossa, and rebel barons all trying to overthrow the D’Hautvilles, but once that is dealt with, what happens next?

5) Overall, what was going on with the various kingdoms, duchies, etc during the mid to late 1100s? What was happening in France, Hungary, the Italian republics, Germany, England, Spain, etc? By mentioning the OTL nations, I don’t mean to characterize them as united nations, as I know most were not. I just need a general picture overall of what was happening there. Wikipedia is good at mentioning rulers, but not what was going on.

6) What would be some advantageous marriages the Sicilian monarchy could have with their neighbors? If I go with the “Roger II’s sons all survive” PoD, then there are four royal princes who could have marriages with neighbors (Roger III was already married by the time of his death).

7) As I mentioned before, I’m not 100% on board with my PoD, but I still want to keep a similar PoD. Something before William II’s reign (or at least not in the 1160s or after). I’d like some suggestions on PoD. One alternative PoD I was thinking of is William I’s son Roger (also known as Roger IV, Duke of Apulia) surviving the attempted coup against William, while the king himself perishing. That kind of PoD could lead to a very vengeful Roger who makes it his life goal to crush the nobles (who led the rebellion) and reform the kingdom.

8) Not sure if I missed anything else, I tried to ask a bunch of comprehensive questions.

9) If anyone would be willing to be a beta reader for my updates (as in, read and critique them before I actually post them on the forum), that would be much appreciated.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Bumping, as I have a few more questions.

10) This is a little connected to questions 3 and 4, but who would be natural allies of Sicily in the mid 1100s? I imagine Hungary would be a good bulwark against both the Byzantines and the southeastern portion of the Holy Roman Empire, one of the Italian republics would work well against the rest, and France could be a defense against the HRE to the west. Would one of the Spanish kingdoms be another avenue for allies? What about the Muslim emirs? And while the Holy Roman Emperors will be more often than not opposed to Sicily, I'm guessing that some vassals within the Empire could be persuaded to oppose the expansion of imperial power (and therefore undermine the Emperor when he tries to go for Sicily).

11) For that matter, throughout the late 1100s, who are contenders for the title of Holy Roman Emperor/King of Germany who aren't Barbarossa's Hohenstaufen family?

12) I remember that the Papal election wasn't the same as it is now (or even as it was a few centuries ago). What were the differences in papal election in the 1100s to a more modern/Renaissance selection?

13) What was going on in the Levant in the mid to late 1100s? I know that Nuradin and Saladin was there, as were the crusader states and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but what were they doing? For that matter, what was the situation in Anatolia?
 

Zioneer

Banned
Bumping once more, as I'd like my other questions answered, and I have one more question: What exactly was the population size of cities like Palermo, Rome, Paris, whatever Barbarossa's capitol was, and Constantinople?

Specifically, how much could they probably provide in readily available soldiers?
 
1) That's...a really big question : pardon me if I answer it roughly.

General situation : Remember that this is still a period where feodality, as in small political ensemble enjoying more or less large autonomy, reigned still supreme.
Due to the existance of dizens or hundred independent military centers, for what matter strategical or tactical decisions : hence a really important number of small-scale conflicts.

There's exceptions, critically with a rather strong king or an "universalist" expedition such as Crusades, but they're exceptions.

Milites are usually a cavalry, even if we count milites peditesque, for infantry, which both imply that milites weren't stuck on horsemanship but that it was more current still : the military order is first an equestrian order.

Doesn't mean you didn't have infantry, but while it may have accounted for nearly half of the armies if not more, they didn't played an active military role, or rather, chronciles that point the role of nobles first, didn't mentioned when it was the case.

Empire (A detail, but "Holy" only appears later, during the interregnum)
The imperial role into military expeditions is clearly important, especially for the expeditio italica/expeditio ultra Alpes*, thanks to an extensive use of bannum with for exemple, the clamor patriae.

Thanks to its power, the emperor could enforce the levies of men on the empire, and it seems that it had a more important non-noble parts : even if they were despised, peasant were gathered for war. Similarily, some merchants and urban elites began to appear.

Plus this ban power, the emperor beneficied from his own Heerschild : palatini milites, privati milites, that is troops that depended directly from him, and on which troops from princes (secular or clerical) were joined.

The latter usually joined up with levies corresponding to customs : for exemple, 300 milites for Poland or Bohemia.

It's interesting to see that while service ultra Alpes is usually less burdening : one lord could be asked only half of what he should have gaven for a northern expedition.

There again, tough, the military distinction are before all things made along juridical and vassalage lines : semi-free knights (Dienstleute), knights, peasants depending on their respective lords. And then, along ethnical lines.

With the beggining of the XIIth century, and the monetarization of economy, you tend to see more and more financial compensation (up to the point it was advised to Henry IV to replace feudal service by a tax, allowing to use mercenaries).

In Italy proper, that's definitely more anarchic, even if the imperial power tends to temper that with a military service at his benefit in case of troubles.
The basic army is local, either urban (and then under episcopal control) and resorting to militiae, either rural (and then under nobiliar control) and more comparable to southern France.

*While as much political than military, it often took the role of a militarized presence.

France : by 1100, you didn't have a French (as in an army obeying directly to the King of France) but, for what matter mediterranean part of the kingdom that is, an handful of principalities themselves particularily divided politically due to many and very autonomous lords.

Not that they were unable to form large armies, as Raimond IV did with Provencals for the Ist Crusade. But it tends to be exceptionnal.

Not in small ways due to the constant warfare between these four blocks(or inner strifes with support of one or the other) : Ramnulfids of Aquitaine, Raimondins of Toulouse, Trencavel of a lot of viscounties, and the House of Barcelone.
These were the big four players in the region, all suffering from what was pointed above.

There small wars were the norm, as was the ost service and levies, while the militare obsequium (military service of vassals) became more defined and contractual, with vassals being more aware of their own interests and often able to pull conditional help.
Eventually, the tactical organisation was made beforehand : such Lord was part of the vanguard, such other part of the right aisle, etc.

Norman Italy
It was more formalized, as pointed by the "Barons' Catalogue", where military services owned by counts (more urban-centered power), barons (more stronghold-centered) and milites (either that had nothing, or had under the vassalage of someone else).

Admittedly, it was in 1130's rather than 1100's, but thanks to this source we count 3 453 fiefs, for a service of 8 620 milites and 11 090 sergeants, not counting lombard militiae (outside cens), technicians, and navies.

Roughly, Norman Italy beneficied from more ressources (a bit like Norman England feudalization was made with a stronger royal power), but keep in mind that in spite of Arabic, Lombardic and Byzantine influence, it kept at least partially the general characteristics of a feudal army.

I'm not sure you'll find clear hierarchical military ranks : at this point, what counted was the nobiliar power, who had most, had an higher rank.

2) "Curbing nobility" seems easy enough when one writes it. But we're talking of something that is at the very base of the political and cultural structures there.
Everywhere else it took a long time, an uneasy process, and I doubt it could be made just in time for the right kind of survival.

Can I give you an advice? Don't try to go against the basic structures : play with them. It's not going to be spectacular, out-of-nowhere "and now, I bring a modern state!", granted, but it have more chances to be more realistic.

Basically, for a survival of Sicily, even if it sounds boring, you really have to work your way trough dynastical survival and maybe geopolitical PoDs

3) It may collide not only with Norman interests, but as well with Italian maritime republics. On which an agreement or alliance with HRE, as it happened IOTL, could work with, but it may backfire a lot.

And for relatively meager gains : I doubt Normans would be really interesting ovethrowing Sardinian judicates, when they'll probably do as Fatimids did, and integrate them into their domination.

If they want to go for wealth, either Africa (but we discussed the problem of the Kingdom of Africa in a previous thread) or Byzantium (at least on the Adriatic part) seems less problematic on the long run.

5) That's even more hard to answer quickly than 1).
Sooo...short resume.

France : Capetians continue their traditional policy of balance between great lords, and it slowly work.
Southern France is still stuck into feudal desintegration and tensions between the aformentioned blocks.

England : War between Robert Courtheuse and Henri Beauclerc, that made a semi-coup.

Empire : Henry IV consolidates his position, against his sons and his supporters, even if things remain tense with the pope it's a welcome change from the last years.

Spain : Almoravids are uniting andalusian taifans under their rule, and would represent a general Islamic counter-offensive.

6)
At this point, marriages are less going to be with neighbours (and which ones? Byzantines? Pope?) than strengthening their dynasty with matrimonial alliances with great houses (which would allow as well to prevent consanguinity union that if by-passable, are always giving papacy some room)
 
Top