Stable Sicilian Norman Hegemony in Mediterranean?

it has been postulated that the policies of William "The Good" of Sicily lead to the downfall of not only Norman Sicily but also any attempt at blocking the cities of the western-Italian city states like Genoa and Pisa from interfering in Med. Politics. Had Sicily managed to keep itself untangled from HRE affairs/dominion it could have stayed at the premier sea power in the west and central Mediterranean Sea, if not potentially the entire sea.

So, what if Roger IV, Duke of Apulia is not killed and does become William "the Bad"'s heir and continues the naval policies laid out by Roger II? Becoming the tollgate for the Crusades and retaking North Africa?
 
Perhaps iif it does not try to get head on with Byzantium in Greece?

Just taking Sicily, and maybe expanding south instead? They did already have Muslim subjects after all
 
Perhaps iif it does not try to get head on with Byzantium in Greece?

Just taking Sicily, and maybe expanding south instead? They did already have Muslim subjects after all

They did do that in OTL. Roger II conquering a good swath of North Africa in the Tunisia area, but those territories were somewhat lost while his son William the Bad was dealing with an Anti-Norman alliance and further with ill lead expeditions against the Byzantines and Ayyubids in Alexandra.
 
Keeping Sicily out of the HRE shenanigans in any ways will be impossible, the Normans were the protectors of the Pope against the Emperor, the marriage of Constance to Henry was part of a peace deal after Barbarossa's embarrassing defeat at Legnano.

Also, a sincere and non-malicious question, can you explain how William the Good destroyed Sicily? To my knowledge his only failures were the invasion of Greece and not siring a son.
 
In short no.

They were the premier naval force in the central region of the Mediterranean Sea, not the entire sea. I don't think at the time frame they could have beaten Venice (look what happened to Genoa), but given time perhaps the situation could have developed but at the least they could have beaten Genoa -or- Pisa (Roger II never let it come to the point where both were against him and at least had one of the major Italian-City states on his side).

They were certainly no slouches when it came to their naval expeditions whether defending against Anti-Norman Popes and Emperors (more than once they simply waited on Sicily for the coalitions arrayed against them to fall apart before retaking their mainland holdings) or invading North Africa, Alexandria and Byzantium.

Keeping Sicily out of the HRE shenanigans in any ways will be impossible, the Normans were the protectors of the Pope against the Emperor, the marriage of Constance to Henry was part of a peace deal after Barbarossa's embarrassing defeat at Legnano.

Also, a sincere and non-malicious question, can you explain how William the Good destroyed Sicily? To my knowledge his only failures were the invasion of Greece and not siring a son.

1. The failures of the Reclaim-North Africa, Byzantine and Egyptian Campaigns severely weakened the Norman military might. Of which can be laid at his feet by appointing non-military commanders to either campaign.

2. Making it so Sicily fell into the inheritance of the HRE by designating Constance, the wife of the Emperor inherited it upon his death.

3. I would also say preventing Genoa and Pisia from joining the Anti-Norman coalition that went against Tancred but it's hard to say how much of the root of the involvement could be blamed on William and Tancred.
 
Last edited:
They were the premier naval force in the central region of the Mediterranean Sea, not the entire sea. I don't think at the time frame they could have beaten Venice (look what happened to Genoa), but given time perhaps the situation could have developed but at the least they could have beaten Genoa -or- Pisa (Roger II never let it come to the point where both were against him and at least had one of the major Italian-City states on his side).

They were certainly no slouches when it came to their naval expeditions whether defending against Anti-Norman Popes and Emperors (more than once they simply waited on Sicily for the coalitions arrayed against them to fall apart before retaking their mainland holdings) or invading North Africa, Alexandria and Byzantium.

They had a reasonably powerful navy granted. Which could hardly match Venice and Genoa. And was for that matter weaker than the Byzantines once the latter got their act together by the second part of Alexius reign. Which leaves them favorably compared to whom? The smaller of the Italian maritime republics like Pisa and Amalfi possibly. Aragon very questionably and counting whether we are talking 12th or 13th century...
 
They had a reasonably powerful navy granted. Which could hardly match Venice and Genoa. And was for that matter weaker than the Byzantines once the latter got their act together by the second part of Alexius reign. Which leaves them favorably compared to whom? The smaller of the Italian maritime republics like Pisa and Amalfi possibly. Aragon very questionably and counting whether we are talking 12th or 13th century...

Regardless, the end of Norman Sicily rather made this all moot. Given time they may have eclipsed the Genoans and Byzantines. The Venetians were an entirely different beast themselves and there are very logistical reasons why Genoa lost to Venice that Norman Sicily may never be able to overcome.

In the interim by preventing William the Good's reign or another successor the immediate aims for the Hauteville's will be:

1. Preventing the dynastic inheritance disaster of having the HRE inherit Sicily

Something avoided by a more stable line of inheritance in Sicily. Constance's marriage to Henry primarily was just to ally with the HRE and end decades of conflict between the two. Through William's own childlessness and cases of unfortunate/untimely deaths of persons who were ahead of her in line for the throne she actually became a viable candidate.

2. Reclaiming North Africa from the Almohads.

Something which will take more possible military and leadership divergences. Or may at least take some patience considering the gradual downward spiral of the Almohads. The Ayyubids were also considered a threat, as to why William made peace with the Almohads and invaded Alexandria. Though patience here could work out as they declined within a century.
 
Last edited:
Take away the adventurous foreign policy, substitute it with internally consolidating the power of the Crown on Sicily and spending more time with Joan of England with the goal of having a few children. (There's no reason to think Joan couldn't have children...her mother managed a "few".) Hegemony can come later, but with no Sicilian royal house, there's just no chance.
 
Take away the adventurous foreign policy, substitute it with internally consolidating the power of the Crown on Sicily and spending more time with Joan of England with the goal of having a few children. (There's no reason to think Joan couldn't have children...her mother managed a "few".) Hegemony can come later, but with no Sicilian royal house, there's just no chance.

The Hautevilles were something of an adventurous lot. I don't think foreign adventure was out of the question just better foreign adventures that could help build power rather than rash power grabs in Greece and Egypt.

See off the Majorcan Emirate and attacks against the Almohads and Ayyubids that lead to a favorable situation for the Normans. Maybe goad the Almohads into a failed invasion of Sicily and follow up with an invasion of the Mahdia. Support the Crusaders in the Holy Lands and reap the diplomatic and economic benefits.
 
Top