WI Roger II of Sicily becomes King of Jerusalem?

In our timeline Baldwin I of Jerusalem married an Armenian princess, Arda, but then repudiated her and forced her into a convent. He then married Adelaide del Vasto, mother of Roger II of Sicily, with the provision that Roger woukd inherit tge Kingdom if the marriage remained without offspring.
The marriage was however soon declared void, and Adelaide came back to Sicily, where she died.
Her son, Roger II, didn't forgive his mother's ill-treatment in Jerusalem, and never really supported the crusader state.

Now, what if Arda suffers a convenient accident, so that there is no excuse for voiding the marriage, and in time Roger inherits the KoJ.
Could the Latin Kingdom last longer under a Norman dinasty that has the military and financial resources of Sicily at its back?
The Notmans had also a slightly more stable feudal model and were capable in dealing with Muslim subjects: both are good assets for a King of Jerusalem.

It would be a rather unwieldy Kingdom though, maybe too disparate to be effectively ruled in medieval times. On the other hand, if they manage to control Cyprus too and avoid getting involved too much in Italian affairs, a sort of "maritime Empire" could develop in the E. Mediterranean. Venice and Genoa will definitely not be happy about it, but they could be played one against the other (with the Norman's probably siding with Genoa).

Discuss! :)
 
IF they can get Cyprus.Chances are pretty low.It's pretty much guaranteed that the King would have to spend nearly 100% of his time in Levant.The Norman nobles will definitely take advantage of the King's absence to to ignore Royal authority.Definitely unwieldy.The HRE will definitely take advantage of this and deal with the pope.The King would have to give one of his kingdoms to a relative.And about a maritime kingdom,do you mean one similar to England post the 1600s?
 
Last edited:
I simply doubt it's possible then.An England type maritime power would be a financial giant.Aragon,not quite.

I was thinking of something similar to Aragon and concur that iit is very likely that they would not control the peninsular part of their Kingdom very well, if at all, probably going to lose it to Papal/Imperial interests.
But Sicily itself was I think easier to control, and its navy could lessen the Latin states' dependence on costly Genoese or Venetian transports.

The problem would be controlling the Levantine feudality and playing a diplomatic game so that no unified Muslim power arises. Then there is the historical antagonism with the Romans...
It's not easy, but I wouldn't rule out it lasting a couple of centuries.
 
I was thinking of something similar to Aragon and concur that iit is very likely that they would not control the peninsular part of their Kingdom very well, if at all, probably going to lose it to Papal/Imperial interests.
But Sicily itself was I think easier to control, and its navy could lessen the Latin states' dependence on costly Genoese or Venetian transports.

The problem would be controlling the Levantine feudality and playing a diplomatic game so that no unified Muslim power arises. Then there is the historical antagonism with the Romans...
It's not easy, but I wouldn't rule out it lasting a couple of centuries.
I really doubt it.Feudal entities do not sit well without the constant presence of their rulers.Absentee rule simply isn't recommended.A regent ruling on behalf of you is generally lacks the authority to restrain the nobles.If the regent is successful however,this generally means that the regent has accumulated so much power that he/she can potentially usurp the throne.This means that once the King is in Jerusalem,a lot of Sicilian nobles may just stop paying taxes or even seize the crown's lands or attack one another.With the amount of chaos in Sicily itself,the benefits of the union is completely meaningless.I'm looking at the OTL union of the HRE,Sicily and the KoJ for example--in the end,the union was a catastrophe for the Kingdom of Jerusalem--the King simply wasn't in the kingdom and the kingdom fell to civil wars like the War of Saint-Sabas.Even though Jerusalem was the more vulnerable part of the ruler's land,the King might not even be in Jerusalem as he might see it as the least important kingdoms in his disposal.
 
Baldwin dies in 1118. IOTL, Roger II doesn't become King of Sicily until 1130 when the Pope issued a papal bull recognizing the kingdom. ITTL, Roger likely leaves Sicily to be king of Jerusalem, and his possessions in Sicily and Italy remain as Count of Sicily and Capua, but are governed at a distance.

IOTL, in 1127 his cousin William II, Duke of Apulia died without an heir, and Roger claimed his lands. This lead to a dispute with the Pope who eventually capitulated and recognized him as king over all southern Italy.

ITTL, I don't know what will happen. Roger could very well support his inheritance claims and be opposed by the Pope, but I don't think he'll push for another crown since he is already a king. However, if he wants to win in Italy, he will need to leave Jerusalem. He can't defeat the Norman barons unless he leads the army himself.

A lot depends on how busy Roger is in the Outremer. IOTL, the actual king during this period, Baldwin II, fought constantly from 1118-1128. Roger's attention is going to be almost completely absorbed in the Levant where the young Crusader states are extremely vulnerable. He may end up "selling" his rights to the southern Italian mainland to avoid the distraction and get currency to cement his rule in the Levant.

If Roger does push his claims and wins, he'll likely need to appoint someone to run Italy in his absence. He can't afford to spend much time there while Jerusalem requires strong leadership.

I doubt Roger will conquer Cyprus. Its incorporation into the Crusading states was due to a lot of unique circumstances surrounding King Richard during the Third Crusade.
 
Roger of Sicily

It's possible that with Sicilian naval strength, the Latins in Jerusalem may have been able to conquer or make to Fatimids in Egypt some sort of protectorate.
 
It's possible that with Sicilian naval strength, the Latins in Jerusalem may have been able to conquer or make to Fatimids in Egypt some sort of protectorate.

Seems a bit far fetched honestly, but militarily it is not impossible, although it would probably require a crusade. Holding the place would only be possible through collaboration with the Copts though, and the Latins were not very open towards other Christian denominations, to say the least.
Control of lower Egypt would make a great contribution towards the long-term Survival of the Latin kingdoms: a powerful eny would be removed, strategic depth would be added, as well as a very fertile land. There is also the opportunity of controlling the red sea trade, which Venice or Genoa (or even a trade oriented Sicily) would probably try to exploit.

But it is a not so likely scenario imho.
 
I really doubt it.Feudal entities do not sit well without the constant presence of their rulers.Absentee rule simply isn't recommended.A regent ruling on behalf of you is generally lacks the authority to restrain the nobles.If the regent is successful however,this generally means that the regent has accumulated so much power that he/she can potentially usurp the throne.This means that once the King is in Jerusalem,a lot of Sicilian nobles may just stop paying taxes or even seize the crown's lands or attack one another.With the amount of chaos in Sicily itself,the benefits of the union is completely meaningless.I'm looking at the OTL union of the HRE,Sicily and the KoJ for example--in the end,the union was a catastrophe for the Kingdom of Jerusalem--the King simply wasn't in the kingdom and the kingdom fell to civil wars like the War of Saint-Sabas.Even though Jerusalem was the more vulnerable part of the ruler's land,the King might not even be in Jerusalem as he might see it as the least important kingdoms in his disposal.

What? Then why is it that even before Roger II took the throne, Baldwin agreed to marry his mom specifically because he wanted the military aid Sicily could provide? He also got it! More than a thousand archers and other troops.

If Baldwin could get that before the expansion and further centralization of Roger II's domain in Southern Italy, then I don't see why Jerusalem couldn't get it during Roger II's reign. Of course, his primary focus would be in Southern Italy but frequent and beneficial aid is not "completely meaningless". In additition, there are also even more important benefits. His formidable navy would both allow the ferrying of Crusaders directly to Outremer, undermines the trade monopoly of the naval Italian cities over the Crusader States, and also allows for a steady stream of colonists-thus fixing one of Outremers biggest problems.

I don't think the HRE union is a good comparison. Aside from being less stretched out, Roger II's Southern Italy is also a lot more culturally compatible, has a common foe in the Byzantines-plus the mentioned huge benefits which the barons of Outremer could easily see.

Now, his attension would focus on stablizing Southern Italy-that's where his center of power is- but why couldn't the guy give the KoJ to someone he trusts and provide aid? Would you say there's no one who could work? Having one of the richest and most centralized places in Christendom as one of it's backers is a pretty big advantage in Outremer. Not to mention Rogers various claims to some of the rest of the States.

I think this PoD is one of the best for a surviving Crusader State TL. Perhaps even a "wank".

Seems a bit far fetched honestly, but militarily it is not impossible, although it would probably require a crusade. Holding the place would only be possible through collaboration with the Copts though, and the Latins were not very open towards other Christian denominations, to say the least.
Control of lower Egypt would make a great contribution towards the long-term Survival of the Latin kingdoms: a powerful eny would be removed, strategic depth would be added, as well as a very fertile land. There is also the opportunity of controlling the red sea trade, which Venice or Genoa (or even a trade oriented Sicily) would probably try to exploit.

But it is a not so likely scenario imho.

From Wikipedia:

An intense Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture developed, exemplified by rulers such as Roger II of Sicily, who had Islamic soldiers, poets and scientists at his court.[12] Roger II himself spoke Arabic perfectly and was fond of Arab culture.[13] He used Arab troops and siege engines in his campaigns in southern Italy, and mobilized Arab architects to help his Normans build monuments in the Norman-Arab-Byzantine style. The various agricultural and industrial techniques which had been introduced by Arabs into Sicily over the two preceding centuries were kept and further developed, allowing for the remarkable prosperity of the Island.[14] For the following two centuries, Sicily under the Norman's rule became a model and an example that was universally admired throughout Europe and Arabia.[15]
The English historian John Julius Norwich remarked of the Kingdom of Sicily:
"Norman Sicily stood forth in Europe --and indeed in the whole bigoted medieval world-- as an example of tolerance and enlightenment, a lesson in the respect that every man should feel for those whose blood and beliefs happen to differ from his own."
John Julius Norwich[16]
During Roger II's reign, the Kingdom of Sicily became increasingly characterized by its multi-ethnic composition and unusual religious tolerance.[17] Normans, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Longobards and "native" Sicilians uniquely existed in harmony,[18][19] and Roger II was known to have planned for the establishment of an Empire that would have encompassed Fatimid Egypt and the Crusader states in the Levant up until his death in 1154.[20] One of the greatest geographical treatises of the Middle Ages was written for Roger II by the Andalusian scholar Muhammad al-Idrisi, and entitled Kitab Rudjdjar ("The book of Roger").[21]
Although the language of the court was French (Langue d'oïl), all royal edicts were written in the language of the people they were addressed to: Latin, Greek, Arabic, or Hebrew.[22] Roger's royal mantel, used for his coronation (and also used for the coronation of Frederick II), bore an inscription in Arabic with the Hijri date of 528 (1133–1134).
Islamic authors would marvel at the forbearance of the Norman kings:
"They [the Muslims] were treated kindly, and they were protected, even against the Franks. Because of that, they had great love for king Roger."
Ibn al-Athir[23]
Interactions continued with the succeeding Norman kings, for example under William II of Sicily, as attested by the Spanish-Arab geographer Ibn Jubair who landed in the island after returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1184. To his surprise, Ibn Jubair enjoyed a very warm reception by the Norman Christians. He was further surprised to find that even the Christians spoke Arabic, that the government officials were still largely Muslim, and that the heritage of some 130 previous years of Muslim rule of Sicily was still intact:[21]
"The attitude of the king is really extraordinary. His attitude towards the Muslims is perfect: he gives them employment, he choses his officers among them, and all, or almost all, keep their faith secret and can remain faithful to the faith of Islam. The king has full confidence in the Muslims and relies on them to handle many of his affairs, including the most important ones, to the point that the Great Intendant for cooking is a Muslim (...) His viziers and chamberlains are eunuchs, of which there are many, who are the members of his government and on whom he relies for his private affairs."
Ibn Jubair, Rihla.[24]
Ibn Jubair also mentioned that many Christians in Palermo wore the Muslim dress, and many spoke Arabic. The Norman kings also continued to strike coins in Arabic with Hegira dates. The registers at the Royal court were written in Arabic.[21] At one point, William II of Sicily is recorded to have said: “Everyone of you should invoke the one he adores and of whom he follows the faith”.[25]

Now, Wikipedia is obviously not the most reliable source but what I've read elsewhere corroborates this. The Hauteville's were a very tolerant dynasty.

There's also how while the initial Latins were very intolerant, their grandchildren swiftly adapted and merged into the environment. Can't really be killing all the non-Catholics and Muslims when you're on the edge of disaster yourself.

Furthermore, the Fatamids were a declining dynasty. That's partly why the Crusaders were able to succeed in the first place. Roger II made Sicily one the richest and most centralized places in Christendom. In partnership with Outremer and maybe the Byzantines, I think it's quite plausible Eygpt could be taken.
 
Top