alternatehistory.com

WI: Roger II inherits Jerusalem?

Adelaide del Vasto, the widow of Count Roger I of Sicily, mother of its future king, Roger II, was once married to Baldwin I of Jerusalem between 1112-1117. The marriage was beneficial in most ways to Baldwin. The then-County of Sicily was wealthy, and first-class archers and a thousand other troops were sent with Adelaide. However, both Baldwin and Adelaide were quite past their respective primes at this point. Plus, Baldwin's previous wife, the Armenian noblewoman Arda, whom he married as the Count of Edessa, was still alive. Having no further use to him as a wife in Jerusalem, Baldwin had her locked away in a convent. In the eyes of the Church, Baldwin's marriage to Adelaide was bigamy.

The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Arnulf of Chocques, was briefly deposed by a Papal Legate, but Pope Paschal II permitted him to return to his old role if he agreed to annul the royal marriage. In 1117, Adelaide returned to Sicily after her annulment, and died the following year. Roger II was greatly offended by the treatment of his mother in Jerusalem, and perhaps also pissed off that he lost his claim to Baldwin's throne.

Had Arda kicked the bucket before the annulment, or had either Baldwin or someone in his inner-circle took it upon themselves to arrange an "accident" for his Armenian wife, then Roger II of Sicily becoming the King of Jerusalem could have greatly improved chances of the Crusader States surviving in the Levant. His reign in Jerusalem would have meant more frequent military aid.

As well as possessing a formidable navy, Roger could bring a number of Norman and Lombard knights, along with Sicilian Muslim archers to the Levant. Having a large professional army would secure Roger's standing among the Crusader princes. And perhaps even enforce his authority over them.

He held the Apostolic Legateship of Sicily, so he may have some indirect influence over the appointment of Patriarchs and Bishops in the Outremer.

Roger's employment of Muslim advisors and bureaucrats could give him a diplomatic edge over his Christian peers.

His familial relation with Roger of Salerno, the Regent of Antioch during the minority of Bohemond II might make him a better choice as overlord than the Byzantine Emperors.

In short, a man of Roger II of Sicily's background and credentials could bring political stability to the Outremer Crusader States.

What does anyone else think?
Top