What's with the Normans?

>Hellenized Norman ERE Emperors

Oh god, all of my money.

I'm also rather surprised we never had a timeline like that. The Normans based in Sicily and southern Italy were relatively successful in their invasions of Eastern Roman lands in the Balkans. If Robert d'Hauteville hadn't been distracted by Pope Gregory VII's plea for military assistance against Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, in Castel Sant'Angelo, I imagine he would continue on with his campaign against the Byzantines until he would be within reach of Constantinople. If he's lucky enough to capture it, things become rather interesting in the Chinese sense.

Though Guiscard was instrumental in introducting Latin Christianity onto the conquered areas of Calabria and Sicily, he had a rather rocky relationship with the Pope. The Pope himself was fearful of the growing power of the Normans, much more so if Guiscard is successful in overthrowing Alexios Komnenos and makes himself Emperor.
 
I'd like to add that the actual Scandinavian ancestry of the Norman Dukes was pretty watered down by the time William came into power. His great-grandfather, Richard I, married a woman of at least partial Danish heritage, but the overwhelming majority of his ancestors were Bretons and local people. The other Vikings who accompanied Rollo got swallowed into the sea of local people, too, to the extent that the Normans spoke only French by William's generation (peppered with a few Norse-inspired words).
 
I'm also rather surprised we never had a timeline like that. The Normans based in Sicily and southern Italy were relatively successful in their invasions of Eastern Roman lands in the Balkans. If Robert d'Hauteville hadn't been distracted by Pope Gregory VII's plea for military assistance against Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, in Castel Sant'Angelo, I imagine he would continue on with his campaign against the Byzantines until he would be within reach of Constantinople. If he's lucky enough to capture it, things become rather interesting in the Chinese sense.

Though Guiscard was instrumental in introducting Latin Christianity onto the conquered areas of Calabria and Sicily, he had a rather rocky relationship with the Pope. The Pope himself was fearful of the growing power of the Normans, much more so if Guiscard is successful in overthrowing Alexios Komnenos and makes himself Emperor.

What would you say is the greatest extent of territory Normans and their descendants could end up controlling?

Also, unrelated to the previous question, how hard would it be for a group of Normans to take and hold Jerusalem and form a state around that? Or something like Alexandria, maybe?
 
I'm also rather surprised we never had a timeline like that. The Normans based in Sicily and southern Italy were relatively successful in their invasions of Eastern Roman lands in the Balkans. If Robert d'Hauteville hadn't been distracted by Pope Gregory VII's plea for military assistance against Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, in Castel Sant'Angelo, I imagine he would continue on with his campaign against the Byzantines until he would be within reach of Constantinople. If he's lucky enough to capture it, things become rather interesting in the Chinese sense.

Though Guiscard was instrumental in introducting Latin Christianity onto the conquered areas of Calabria and Sicily, he had a rather rocky relationship with the Pope. The Pope himself was fearful of the growing power of the Normans, much more so if Guiscard is successful in overthrowing Alexios Komnenos and makes himself Emperor.

I don't think Robert Guiscard could become Emperor in Constantinople unless he conquered it at the head of a massive crusader force. The Greek Byzantines certainly wouldn't accept him willingly as he isn't of the Greek Orthodox faith. The Great Schism, formally separating the Papacy and Patriarchate of Constantinople, occurred in 1054. Although he did betroth his daughter Olympias to the son of Michael VII in 1074 until it was broken off four years later. Maybe he wanted to to install a compliant Byzantine prince on the Emperor's throne and marry his daughter in the imperial family.
 
I don't think Robert Guiscard could become Emperor in Constantinople unless he conquered it at the head of a massive crusader force. The Greek Byzantines certainly wouldn't accept him willingly as he isn't of the Greek Orthodox faith. The Great Schism, formally separating the Papacy and Patriarchate of Constantinople, occurred in 1054. Although he did betroth his daughter Olympias to the son of Michael VII in 1074 until it was broken off four years later. Maybe he wanted to to install a compliant Byzantine prince on the Emperor's throne and marry his daughter in the imperial family.

How hard would it be for him to convert to Orthodoxy?

Wasn't religion generally thrown around as a bargaining chip during these times? The conversion of Lithuania is the best example I can think of.
 
How hard would it be for him to convert to Orthodoxy?

Wasn't religion generally thrown around as a bargaining chip during these times? The conversion of Lithuania is the best example I can think of.

I was under the impression that the Pope would excommunicate him in a heartbeat if Guiscard switched over to Greek Orthodoxy. It might also put him at odds with other landless Norman and Frankish chevaliers who would seek out employment with the Duke of Apulia et Calabria. Although I could be mistaken there.
 
I was under the impression that the Pope would excommunicate him in a heartbeat if Guiscard switched over to Greek Orthodoxy. It might also put him at odds with other landless Norman and Frankish chevaliers who would seek out employment with the Duke of Apulia et Calabria. Although I could be mistaken there.

Why would an Orthodox Christian, after the Schism, be concerned about being excommunicated by the Catholic Christian Pope?
 
What would you say is the greatest extent of territory Normans and their descendants could end up controlling?

Do you mean Normans as the general group of people or the Normans in Sicily and southern Italy? If the latter, Robert Guiscard had the chance of advancing further and taking Constantinople so all of the Balkan lands are possible for Norman conquest.

Also, unrelated to the previous question, how hard would it be for a group of Normans to take and hold Jerusalem and form a state around that? Or something like Alexandria, maybe?

I can't answer that. I do believe someone who used to come here did a timeline involving a Norman Empire in the Levant.
 
Do you mean Normans as the general group of people or the Normans in Sicily and southern Italy? If the latter, Robert Guiscard had the chance of advancing further and taking Constantinople so all of the Balkan lands are possible for Norman conquest.

I mean Normans as the general group.

I'm sort of trying to see how much of Europe you can get Normans and their descendants to rule.

Obviously they won't consist of most of the population in Europe, but I want to see how many Normans we can get on thrones.
 
I mean Normans as the general group.

I'm sort of trying to see how much of Europe you can get Normans and their descendants to rule.

Obviously they won't consist of most of the population in Europe, but I want to see how many Normans we can get on thrones.

Asides from what they had in OTL? I suppose there's a small possibility in the final years of the Fatimids in Egypt and Saladin taking over that some ambitious Norman lord from Italy, England or Normandy could head up an army of Crusaders and establish a kingdom in Egypt. The Norman adventurer Roussel de Bailleul could have more success in establishing an independent Greco-Norman principality in Ankara. Richard the Lionheart was crowned King of Cyprus and ruled it for a while via the Anglo-Norman governors Richard de Camville and Robert of Thornham before selling it off to the Knights Templars who moved into the island under Armand Bouchart (yes apparently he existed beyond AC :D).

There are more options but those that I listed are the more feasible ones.
 
Norman = North-man or Norse-man. Normans are the descendants of Viking raiders who decided to stick around and carve out a permanent state for themselves rather than just looting and going home.

Not entirely accurate, I'm afraid.
Yes, a small group of Vikings did, in fact, settle in a few places in northern France. And yes, even some of that nation's rulers were of at least partial Viking descent. But in a sense, the Norman people were already there. Think of the 13 Colonies of North America if you want a comparison. ;)
 
The Normans were originally Norse Vikings who raided along the northern European coast and up rivers including the Seine. At the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte they were given land in Neustria to stop them from continually raiding France, particularly Paris, and in return for their conversion to Christianity and Rollo pledging allegiance to the king of France, and the marriage of one of the daughters of the French king to Rollo.

Its a little bit more complicated then that. The granting of Normandy to the Normans was the last in a long line of grants of lands to viking raiders by Kings of the Franks to act as a safeguard against other viking raiders in general, not the specific raider. Examples are, Harald `Klak', for instance, the Danish king baptized in 826, Rorik, the holder of a Frisian benefice in the 850s, or Godfrid, who was granted Rorik's territory in the 880s. How effective this was is open to interpretation, as there may have been too many raiders and not enough converts.

There is a good article called From poachers to gamekeepers: Scandinavians and the Carolingians that explores this.

Abstract:
This article represents the first comprehensive study of the commendation
and conversion of Viking leaders by Carolingian rulers, from
the first recorded instance under Charlemagne to the agreement with
Rollo in the early tenth century. The survey underlines how
widespread the practice was, and permits an assessment of its effectiveness
as a defensive strategy against Scandinavian incursions. The
outcome varied: some Scandinavians found themselves defending
Frankish territory against Viking attack, others acted as intermediaries
between Franks and Scandinavians, still others were granted
Frankish benefices but never trusted, and ultimately killed. Nonetheless,
the article demonstrates that in the majority of cases the practice
of commendation and conversion worked to the Carolingians' advantage,
neutralizing potential enemies or even turning them into useful
allies.
 
Its a little bit more complicated then that. The granting of Normandy to the Normans was the last in a long line of grants of lands to viking raiders by Kings of the Franks to act as a safeguard against other viking raiders in general, not the specific raider. Examples are, Harald `Klak', for instance, the Danish king baptized in 826, Rorik, the holder of a Frisian benefice in the 850s, or Godfrid, who was granted Rorik's territory in the 880s. How effective this was is open to interpretation, as there may have been too many raiders and not enough converts.

There is a good article called From poachers to gamekeepers: Scandinavians and the Carolingians that explores this.

Abstract:
This article represents the first comprehensive study of the commendation
and conversion of Viking leaders by Carolingian rulers, from
the first recorded instance under Charlemagne to the agreement with
Rollo in the early tenth century. The survey underlines how
widespread the practice was, and permits an assessment of its effectiveness
as a defensive strategy against Scandinavian incursions. The
outcome varied: some Scandinavians found themselves defending
Frankish territory against Viking attack, others acted as intermediaries
between Franks and Scandinavians, still others were granted
Frankish benefices but never trusted, and ultimately killed. Nonetheless,
the article demonstrates that in the majority of cases the practice
of commendation and conversion worked to the Carolingians' advantage,
neutralizing potential enemies or even turning them into useful
allies.

So sort of like reverse Feudalism?

"Here, I'll give you this land if you promise to protect me." rather than "Here, I'll give you this land and I promise to protect you."
 
Its a little bit more complicated then that. The granting of Normandy to the Normans was the last in a long line of grants of lands to viking raiders by Kings of the Franks to act as a safeguard against other viking raiders in general, not the specific raider. Examples are, Harald `Klak', for instance, the Danish king baptized in 826, Rorik, the holder of a Frisian benefice in the 850s, or Godfrid, who was granted Rorik's territory in the 880s. How effective this was is open to interpretation, as there may have been too many raiders and not enough converts.
Forgot about that one. :eek:
 
Top