The Normans lose the Battle of Civitate, 1053

[robertp6165]

In 1053, Pope Leo IX formed a coalition of Lombards and Byzantines against the Normans of southern Italy, who were at the time in the process of conquering Apulia. The Pope raised an army of Italians, Lombards, and Swabian Germans and lead it south from Rome, while a Byzantine army under Catapan Argyrus moved north from Apulia, with the intention of uniting with the Papal force. The Normans moved too quickly, however, and caught the Papal army at the town of Civitate (northwest of the city of Foggia, in Apulia), in June 1053, before the Papal forces could unite with the Byzantines. In the ensuing battle, the Normans, despite being outnumbered by two-to-one, were victorious. For more details of the battle and the background for it, see here.

Let's assume, however, that for some reason the Normans are delayed in their reaction, or the Byzantines move faster, and the Byzantine and Papal armies are united at the Battle of Civitate. They now have an overwhelming force and pretty much annihilate the Normans. Robert Guiscard and most of the other Norman leaders are killed, and only a few hundred of their men escape the slaughter.

So, what are the effects? I can see several.

1) No Norman Kingdom of Sicily. What ramifications from that? Possibly the Muslims remain in control there for a much longer period? Obviously Sicily does not pass to the Hohenstaufens in the next century...

2) A longer period of good relations between the Papacy and the Byzantine Emperor (Pope Leo IX had good relations with Emperor Constantine X Doucas which were pretty much broken after the Papal defeat at Civitate).

3) Possibly no Great Schism, at least not in 1054, as the Byzantines will return to rule of Apulia and Calabria, allowing the Greek Churches there to reopen and resume Greek practices (the Normans had been imposing Latin practices on the Greek churches in the area, which was the instigation which caused Patriarch Michael Celunarius to close the Latin churches in the East and set off the process which lead to the Schism).

Any other thoughts? Effects on the Crusades, for example?

 

[arctic warrior]

In 1053, Pope Leo IX formed a coalition of Lombards and Byzantines against the Normans of southern Italy, who were at the time in the process of conquering Apulia. The Pope raised an army of Italians, Lombards, and Swabian Germans and lead it south from Rome, while a Byzantine army under Catapan Argyrus moved north from Apulia, with the intention of uniting with the Papal force. The Normans moved too quickly, however, and caught the Papal army at the town of Civitate (northwest of the city of Foggia, in Apulia), in June 1053, before the Papal forces could unite with the Byzantines. In the ensuing battle, the Normans, despite being outnumbered by two-to-one, were victorious. For more details of the battle and the background for it, see here.

Let's assume, however, that for some reason the Normans are delayed in their reaction, or the Byzantines move faster, and the Byzantine and Papal armies are united at the Battle of Civitate. They now have an overwhelming force and pretty much annihilate the Normans. Robert Guiscard and most of the other Norman leaders are killed, and only a few hundred of their men escape the slaughter.

So, what are the effects? I can see several.

1) No Norman Kingdom of Sicily. What ramifications from that? Possibly the Muslims remain in control there for a much longer period? Obviously Sicily does not pass to the Hohenstaufens in the next century...

2) A longer period of good relations between the Papacy and the Byzantine Emperor (Pope Leo IX had good relations with Emperor Constantine X Doucas which were pretty much broken after the Papal defeat at Civitate).

3) Possibly no Great Schism, at least not in 1054, as the Byzantines will return to rule of Apulia and Calabria, allowing the Greek Churches there to reopen and resume Greek practices (the Normans had been imposing Latin practices on the Greek churches in the area, which was the instigation which caused Patriarch Michael Celunarius to close the Latin churches in the East and set off the process which lead to the Schism).

Any other thoughts? Effects on the Crusades, for example?

1) No norman Kingdom of Sicily, possibly no favour of Denmark at the Curia - you've killed my brothers widow was to be husband - less Danish participation in the crusades (it happened just isn't much known), no Danish siding with the Pope against the Emperor leading to less Danish conquest along the Baltic southern shore and conflict with the Empror perhaps leading to no Denmark past 1200!

Crusades: no normans from southern Italy, perhaps less quarrel during the first crusade, thus no county of Edessa created and stronger Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Just a first-off, needs polishing.

 

[Jason]

Some historians have claimed that this success gave William additional reasons for his invasion of England-partly to 'keep up with the Joneses' (as it were) and partly because this victory gave the Normans a sense of invincibility, some have even suggested that the English were scared of the Normans because of this earlier victory (not something I believe myself but..)

A defeat could lessen his willingness to undertake such a risky venture and I suppose an Imperial victory could make the English think the Normans weren't such a threat (if you believe that a Norman victory could make them scared of them)

 

[robertp6165]

1) No norman Kingdom of Sicily, possibly no favour of Denmark at the Curia - you've killed my brothers widow was to be husband - less Danish participation in the crusades (it happened just isn't much known), no Danish siding with the Pope against the Emperor leading to less Danish conquest along the Baltic southern shore and conflict with the Empror perhaps leading to no Denmark past 1200!

I must admit my knowledge of medieval Danish history is less than perfect. Can you elaborate as to why these things would happen?

Crusades: no normans from southern Italy, perhaps less quarrel during the first crusade, thus no county of Edessa created and stronger Kingdom of Jerusalem.

That is indeed possible, or even probable. Although I would think the County of Edessa might still be created, just under one of the non-Norman leaders.

 

[Tom_B]

Mothra sized butterflies

If you go with No East/West Schism (there is some ambiguity whether this or the laster one was "Great") I think your long term butterflies are going to be huge. There is still going to be a lot of tension between East and West. You will need to give some thought to filoque. If the union has lasted then I would see a weaker Papacy but with every third Pope or so trying to push the envelope. Very intricate theology shifts and if Aquinas is not butterflied completely (you seem to have a moderate position re butterflies) then Thomism would not dominate as much as historical. The other Great Schism may be avoided or maybe it creates a delayed East/ West Schism. Something vaguely like the Reformation will happen but at different dates and different cast of characters.

Do you really want a TL with no familiar names by the 15th century?

Tom

 

[Shadow Knight]

A very interesting PoD. I say take it and run with it and we'll see where you end up. I look forward to it.

 

[trajen777]

My Thoughts

• Byzantium – After the defeat at Manzikert in 1071, we still have the 10 years of chaos which brought Byzantium to the brink of disaster. However when Alexis became emperor in 1081 he was forced for the next 10 years to fight the Norman invaders and basically withdraw from Anatolia. In addition the first / second / third battles he fought resulted in the destruction of the Tagmata and many of the remainder of his Thematic troops forcing him to rely on Mercs for the rest of his reign. So instead of fighting, and losing many troops, if he spent the rest of this time fighting Turks they would have had a good chance of driving the Turks from Anatolia. The real Turkish settlements began from 1085 – 1100.
• Byzantine and Papal conquest of Sicily?
• Crusade with Friendly Pope / Alexis who cooperate (much of the distrust was from the Norman – Byzantine wars) throughout the battle. This results in the conquest of the Holy Land / Turks in Persia / later conquest of Egypt. As crusaders leave a hi-bred Byzantine – Frank – Arab population emerges which is much stronger then the Crusader states. With no schism between the churches there is a Rome Pope 1st among equals with the 5 key cities ruling the Church and the Emperor in Byzantium ruleing the reestablished Empire.

 

[M79]

No Norman kingdom in Sicily and Byzantines will try to retake Sicily if not Sardinia and the Balerics eventually. The Papacy has a stronger relationship with Constantinople, the B Empire can focus on Anatolia and driving out the Turks, it retains much more influence in the central Mediterranean for at least a century, and might have a crack at letting them avoid the 4th crusade entirely.

 

[arctic warrior]

During the early middle ages Denmark was especially vulnerable to German probing. The Saxon Emperors wanted supremacy over Denmark and later the Saxon dukes and Holstein counts would like to add Denmark to their assembly of fiefs. The taking of his Kingdom as fief of St. Peter along with support of the Pope against the Emperor during the Investitur strife, when seen to suit Danish interests, or allying with a pretender when deemed appropriate made the Danish kings of this period able to flow free and not become part of HRE. The favor obtained by going on crusade in the Baltic and its kings going to Jerusalem was other elements in gaining Papal support.
The widow of Knut the Holy, Edel/Adele of Flanders married Roger Bursa of Apulia in 1092 and after his death ruled in the name of their son William till her death in 1115. She also send gifts to Knuts proclamation of sainthood.
Her son with Knut, Carl later count of Flanders was asked to accept the crown of Jerusalem.
It is my impression that the fall of the Nomans of Southern Italy would greatly aid the Germans/Saxons in their aims at getting Denmark as part of HRE by weakening the Popes by the removal of a counter weigh to the HRE.

 

[Wendell]

Could this lead to the "return" of France to the HRE as well? That could certainly make Iberian politics interesting.

 

[robertp6165]

My Thoughts

• Byzantium – After the defeat at Manzikert in 1071, we still have the 10 years of chaos which brought Byzantium to the brink of disaster. However when Alexis became emperor in 1081 he was forced for the next 10 years to fight the Norman invaders and basically withdraw from Anatolia. In addition the first / second / third battles he fought resulted in the destruction of the Tagmata and many of the remainder of his Thematic troops forcing him to rely on Mercs for the rest of his reign. So instead of fighting, and losing many troops, if he spent the rest of this time fighting Turks they would have had a good chance of driving the Turks from Anatolia. The real Turkish settlements began from 1085 – 1100.
• Byzantine and Papal conquest of Sicily?
• Crusade with Friendly Pope / Alexis who cooperate (much of the distrust was from the Norman – Byzantine wars) throughout the battle. This results in the conquest of the Holy Land / Turks in Persia / later conquest of Egypt. As crusaders leave a hi-bred Byzantine – Frank – Arab population emerges which is much stronger then the Crusader states. With no schism between the churches there is a Rome Pope 1st among equals with the 5 key cities ruling the Church and the Emperor in Byzantium ruleing the reestablished Empire.

Assuming your first point holds...which I view as very likely...would that not remove the reason why Alexis asked for western help against the Turks in OTL, and thus, the very reason why the Crusades began in the first place? IIRC, Alexis only did this with much trepidation, because he pretty much knew that, once the westerners got their hands on lands in the east, they wouldn't just meekly turn them over to Byzantium even if that is what they agreed initially to do.

 

[robertp6165]

If you go with No East/West Schism (there is some ambiguity whether this or the laster one was "Great") I think your long term butterflies are going to be huge. There is still going to be a lot of tension between East and West. You will need to give some thought to filoque. If the union has lasted then I would see a weaker Papacy but with every third Pope or so trying to push the envelope. Very intricate theology shifts and if Aquinas is not butterflied completely (you seem to have a moderate position re butterflies) then Thomism would not dominate as much as historical. The other Great Schism may be avoided or maybe it creates a delayed East/ West Schism. Something vaguely like the Reformation will happen but at different dates and different cast of characters.

Do you really want a TL with no familiar names by the 15th century?

Tom

I agree, it would generate huge butterflies. Even a person with a very conservative approach to butterflies, as myself, could not avoid these. I do feel that the Schism probably wouldn't be avoided entirely, but I do think it would be delayed. The theological differences between the two halves of Christianity had grown too large by that time, I think, for a permanent reconciliation to occur.

 

[Quiet_Man]

I agree, it would generate huge butterflies. Even a person with a very conservative approach to butterflies, as myself, could not avoid these. I do feel that the Schism probably wouldn't be avoided entirely, but I do think it would be delayed. The theological differences between the two halves of Christianity had grown too large by that time, I think, for a permanent reconciliation to occur.

Perhaps the schism couldn't have been avoided, however instead of becoming total, perhaps it may have remained a gentleman's agreement to agree to disagree. Certainly the hostility between the two factions will not have been stoked by the Normans forcing Latin practices in orthodox churches after their victory.

 

[Tom_B]

I agree, it would generate huge butterflies. Even a person with a very conservative approach to butterflies, as myself, could not avoid these. I do feel that the Schism probably wouldn't be avoided entirely, but I do think it would be delayed. The theological differences between the two halves of Christianity had grown too large by that time, I think, for a permanent reconciliation to occur.

Hmm. I don't think an irreconcible split was inevitable at this point. Remember there were 2 attempts to reconcile preReformation (Council of Basel and something else). Also when the split did occur OTL the initial reaction was not to see it as an Event Horizon but a personality spat.

Filoque could've been presented as on ongoing debate. That is sort of what contemporary ecumenists wants to do it.

Tom

 

[LordKalvan]

Southern Italy in the 11th century is a crazy quiltwork of Byzantine possessions, Longobard fiefs, Norman fiefs, former Byzantine possessions in rebellion: finding some sense in all this mess is not easy (considering that there is also a kind of cold war between the Orthodox Patriarch and the Pope, which goes beyond the "filioque": in Puglia and Calabria it mostly concerns who is controlling the clergy). Still my 2 cents worth is:

• too late to butterfly away the schism. The popes were more interested to keep good relations with the East when the patriciate was in the hands of the Crescenzi family (keep away the HR emperor and live happy). The Tuscolans have been already changing this strategy (bad choice, but...). And in any case once the western emperor comes to Rome and cleans up a bit the sty, the illusion of a Church unity will dissolve.
• the Byzantines are not much in a condition to play a major role in Italy. Matter of fact, they have made a significant mess of their attempt to recover Sicily, Calabria is not in a nice status and even Puglia - which is the richest of the lands still under Byzantine control - has been in rebellion for 30 years. Argyros, the Byzantine Katepanos, is the son of a former rebel, Melos, btw.
• I feel it is a bit too late to get rid of the Normans: their roots are pretty deep by now, and I doubt that a defeat might upset too much the balance of power. It would not be the first defeat, in any case: in 1018 the Normans, fighting for the above mentioned Melo, were defeated by the Byzantines at Canne (not so far from Civitate). Still the Normans were not expelled from Southern Italy after this defeat.
• provided that the Normans are defeated, obviously. The papal troops were not exactly outstanding, and their coordination was non-existent. The Byzantines were probably not much better. And the Normans were tough, with 35 years of experience as mercenaries and fief-holders.
• however a significant POD might be just Robert the Guiscard being killed: doing away with him will be a major change in the trend of events. I don't know who might take his place, maybe Roger and maybe not. Quite likely the Norman possessions don't get united under a single strong man; certainly there is no adventure in Greece, and noone to "rescue" the pope when Henry comes to pay a visit.
• maybe the POD is the pope not taking the field against the Normans (which is a new thing, btw: no pope ever had taken the field in war until now), and defusing the crisis in Benevento by other means. Maybe calling an early crusade to recover Sicily? The example of Sardinia is pretty recent, 40 years before. Sicily is a rich land, and it should be easy to find "crusaders"
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[arctic warrior]

Southern Italy in the 11th century is a crazy quiltwork of Byzantine possessions, Longobard fiefs, Norman fiefs, former Byzantine possessions in rebellion: finding some sense in all this mess is not easy (considering that there is also a kind of cold war between the Orthodox Patriarch and the Pope, which goes beyond the "filioque": in Puglia and Calabria it mostly concerns who is controlling the clergy). Still my 2 cents worth is:

• too late to butterfly away the schism. The popes were more interested to keep good relations with the East when the patriciate was in the hands of the Crescenzi family (keep away the HR emperor and live happy). The Tuscolans have been already changing this strategy (bad choice, but...). And in any case once the western emperor comes to Rome and cleans up a bit the sty, the illusion of a Church unity will dissolve.
• the Byzantines are not much in a condition to play a major role in Italy. Matter of fact, they have made a significant mess of their attempt to recover Sicily, Calabria is not in a nice status and even Puglia - which is the richest of the lands still under Byzantine control - has been in rebellion for 30 years. Argyros, the Byzantine Katepanos, is the son of a former rebel, Melos, btw.
• I feel it is a bit too late to get rid of the Normans: their roots are pretty deep by now, and I doubt that a defeat might upset too much the balance of power. It would not be the first defeat, in any case: in 1018 the Normans, fighting for the above mentioned Melo, were defeated by the Byzantines at Canne (not so far from Civitate). Still the Normans were not expelled from Southern Italy after this defeat.
• provided that the Normans are defeated, obviously. The papal troops were not exactly outstanding, and their coordination was non-existent. The Byzantines were probably not much better. And the Normans were tough, with 35 years of experience as mercenaries and fief-holders.
• however a significant POD might be just Robert the Guiscard being killed: doing away with him will be a major change in the trend of events. I don't know who might take his place, maybe Roger and maybe not. Quite likely the Norman possessions don't get united under a single strong man; certainly there is no adventure in Greece, and noone to "rescue" the pope when Henry comes to pay a visit.
• maybe the POD is the pope not taking the field against the Normans (which is a new thing, btw: no pope ever had taken the field in war until now), and defusing the crisis in Benevento by other means. Maybe calling an early crusade to recover Sicily? The example of Sardinia is pretty recent, 40 years before. Sicily is a rich land, and it should be easy to find "crusaders"

Agree on this very much. I would also expect the Normans not being expelled at this time due to the timespan of their presence in the area.
A disorganized Norman area would also be bad for Denmark, lacking the counterweigh at the other end of HRE.
But the last bullet could be interesting given the Danish Royal devotion to crusading and supply a crusading area a lot closer to home. The Normans would still be a substantial part of the crusading force and give the Pope nominal possessions close to Rome. Nice for unbalancing the Emperor.

 

[trajen777]

Good points - I think the key change is the ability of the Byzantines to fight the Turks vs. 10 - 14 years of fighting the Normans, losing three armies, massive expenditure of wealth, and internal chaos:

Plus


So

A. Anatolia
- Byzantine recovery and recapture of Anatolia
- They only lost Edessa and Antioch in 1088 (Alexis took power in 1081) if the Byzantines had not had to withdraw troops form Northern Anatolia in 1081-93 to fight Normans (and lose 3 armies) he would have had the 30,000 or so troops to reinforce Antioch and Edessa and drive the Turks from central Anatolia
- The 25,000 troops defending Antioch and Edessa areas would not have been lost
- The destruction of tax lands in Eastern and North Western Anatolia would not have been lost
- Without the loss of the Eastern Tagmata (Antioch) and the Western Tagmata & Vargarians (Normans) they would not have to rely on Mercs.
B. Italy
- There is no need for the Byzantines to extend the Golden Bull to Venice whose trade concessions ended up sapping Byzantine trade for the future.
- Venice super power status is delayed or never happens
- No 4th Crusade
C. Crusade
1. If Crusade:::
Alexis was asking for additional mercs from the west not a crusade so if the crusade happens the Byzantines focus on fighting the Turks makes them very active in the capture of Jerusalem. One United empire under the Byzantines (more of a feudal arrangement in the Holy Land).

2. If no Crusade then the Byzantines capture Anatolia and then rebuild there empire