WI William II "the good" d'Hauteville lives longer and has issue?

So, William II Hauteville died in 1189 at just 36 years of age, he had not direct male descendants, so he left his Kingdom to his aunt Costanza and, through her, to the Hohenstaufen Imperial family. (Before they could actually claim the Kingdom of Sicily they had however to beat the illegitimate Hauteville scion, Tancredi di Lecce).

He was a good ruler - hence the name :) - and this is confirmed by many contemporary chronicles, both Christian and Muslim, who praise him in the highest of terms.

Now, what if William didn't catch whatever illness killed him and lived longer (possibly even much longer, if he died at 59 years of age he would still have 23 years of rule more than in otl)?

It seems that he was preparing to participate in the III crusade, what impact would Sicily (and its strong navy) have on the crusade? Also, the IV crusade might be butterflied, but it is likely that he or his heir could support Venice in a similarly infamous adventure, considering the historical ambitions that Norman Sicily had over Greece.

The tricky part would be him producing an heir, as apparently he had been married for more than ten years without issue, although his wife Joan of England had two children with her second husband...

If the Kingdom is not united with the Empire it can avoid the worst of the conflicts with the papacy and in time become a very strong mediterranean Empire, probably taking over Aragon's role. Palermo might become a commercial center to rival Genoa, Pisa and Venice, and will likely keep its partially islamic character longer (gold coins coined there had arabic inscriptions for example).
The jewish community will probably continue to prosper and, without Frederick II the muslims of Sicily probably won't be deported to Lucera and will continue to live in more natural communities in Sicily.

Clearly it is always possible that in the course of centuries something might happen like the expulsions that happened in Iberia since 1492, but that's not a given, especially if there is some sort of dinastic continuity and a long history of relatively good intercommunal relations makes "tolerance" entrenched enough.
 

Thanks! It is not clear to me whether Bohemund really existed, but he could be the easiest way to keep the Kingdom from getting attached to the Empire. Who knows what alt-Federick II could do in Germany and N.Italy, although, without the solid basis of norman-style feudalism, it would be more difficult to create a solid powerbase.
 
Strange as it may seems, not inheriting the kingdom of Sicily might be a good thing for the Hohenstaufen too, keeping them more focused on Germany and Northern Italy and not scaring the papacy too much. After all, IOTL the benefits of a strong and rich power base in the south of Italy were not enough to succeed in the end: maybe TTL Frederick II may not be named Stupor Mundi, but the dinasty can prosper.
Whatever it may happen, it is clear that the big beneficiaries would be southern Italy and Sicily: no continuous invasions, a stable local monarchy to keep the feudatories under control, keeping Palermo as an important trading port. I've my reservations on Sicily becoming the centre of a Mediterranean empire (Norman adventures in North Africa never produced lasting benefits), or successfully competing with Venice and Genoa: however if the Hauteville house can produce a string of competent monarchs and learn to moderate their urge of becoming emperors of Constantinople, who knows?
 
I've my reservations on Sicily becoming the centre of a Mediterranean empire (Norman adventures in North Africa never produced lasting benefits), or successfully competing with Venice and Genoa:
I was thinking more about commercial penetration and establishing a sort of protectorate over the Hafsids (who were extremely dependant on Italian grain imports). About the mercantile republics: yes they are strong, but I think there is space for Palermo to keep a significant market share, especially if the Kings are shrewd enough to act as a balance in the various conflicts beween Genoa, Pisa and Venice and chose the right moment to side with one city and wipe out one of the competitors.
however if the Hauteville house can produce a string of competent monarchs and learn to moderate their urge of becoming emperors of Constantinople, who knows?

If something akin to 1204 happens, the Hauteville could carve a part of the Empire for themselves without much difficulties, if at the time the Kingdom is under the solid rule of an experienced King and not torn by civil wars or ruled by a child like in otl. Obviously, if they try to conquer the Empire time and again it can only end badly, but I think that Epirus and/or the Peloponnese/Crete could be eventually integrated in the Kingdom (Venice won't like at all to be bottled up in the Adriatic though).
 
Before the IV crusade Venice was not much into imperialism. They were mostly looking for "fondaci" where they could be free to follow their own laws and religion usage. This approach was turned upon its head after the IV crusade, but it was not exactly to the taste of Venetians proper. The same thing was true for Genoa too, or Pisa. If the Hauteville are not too greedy and adopt a policy of open doors, there is no problem. However if they try to shut out the mainland Italian traders it will become messy.
 
Before the IV crusade Venice was not much into imperialism. They were mostly looking for "fondaci" where they could be free to follow their own laws and religion usage. This approach was turned upon its head after the IV crusade, but it was not exactly to the taste of Venetians proper. The same thing was true for Genoa too, or Pisa. If the Hauteville are not too greedy and adopt a policy of open doors, there is no problem. However if they try to shut out the mainland Italian traders it will become messy.

Still, as navigation was mainly coastal at the time, Venice wouldn't like the same power controlling both sides of the Straits of Otranto and important stops like Corfu. Still, you are right that conflict with the maritime republics is not inevitable. There is also space for another "commercial empire", with Sicily taking the place that the Crown of Aragon had in otl (but possibly with a more Eastern focus).

Another possibility if the Kingdom manages to be stable and independent is to eventually look to Central and Northern Italy, but that would mean big problems with Papacy and/or Empire.

If Frederick II Hohenstaufen, with less Italian distractions, manages to subdue the German princes and put his dynasty firmly at the head of the Empire, Europe might evolve in a very different way, with Germany slowly becoming more centralised like France did and less chances of something like Charles V unwieldy empire to form.
 
Thanks! It is not clear to me whether Bohemund really existed, but he could be the easiest way to keep the Kingdom from getting attached to the Empire. Who knows what alt-Federick II could do in Germany and N.Italy, although, without the solid basis of norman-style feudalism, it would be more difficult to create a solid powerbase.

The Hohenstaufen had a substantial Hausgut (Dynastic possessions) in the Empire and at this point in time the Reichsgut (Imperial Demesne) was also still substantial. Their rise to power started with duke Friedrich I of Swabia became the first Hohenstaufen duke of Swabia and with his marriage with Agnes of Waiblingen, 2nd daughter of emperor Heinrich IV of the Salian dynasty. Later the Hohenstaufen wouldn't only succeed the Salian dynasty to the Imperial throne, but they also inherited the dynastic possessions of the Salian dynasty.
At one point the Welf dynasty, which head at the height of their power was duke of Bavaria and Saxony and also had substantial dynastic lands in Swabia, had been reduced to their Saxon possessions around Braunschweig and Lüneburg.

By 1189 Austria (1156, house of Babenberg) and Styria (1180, Otakar dynasty) were split from Bavaria and raised to duchies and a reduced duchy of Bavaria was granted to the house of Wittelsbach. The former stem duchy of Saxony was also partitioned, the western part as the duchy of Westphalia (and Angria) was granted to the archbishop of Cologne in 1180, the centre around Braunschweig and Lüneburg remained an allodial (so not a fief) Welf possession, a greatly reduced duchy of Saxony was granted to the house of Ascania in 1180 (they briefly tried to take Saxony in 1137-1142).
Point is by 1189 no other dynasty in the Empire could rival the house of Hohenstaufen individually any more, which would be strong starting point to keep the Empire more unified (albeit maybe more 'federal' than OTL France). TTL Frederick II is likely to be a better Emperor for the Empire than OTL Frederick II, who was rather focused on Sicily.
 
Last edited:
Still, as navigation was mainly coastal at the time, Venice wouldn't like the same power controlling both sides of the Straits of Otranto and important stops like Corfu. Still, you are right that conflict with the maritime republics is not inevitable. There is also space for another "commercial empire", with Sicily taking the place that the Crown of Aragon had in otl (but possibly with a more Eastern focus).

Another possibility if the Kingdom manages to be stable and independent is to eventually look to Central and Northern Italy, but that would mean big problems with Papacy and/or Empire.

If Frederick II Hohenstaufen, with less Italian distractions, manages to subdue the German princes and put his dynasty firmly at the head of the Empire, Europe might evolve in a very different way, with Germany slowly becoming more centralised like France did and less chances of something like Charles V unwieldy empire to form.
The Hauteville would certainly be interested in increasing commercial revenues, but I don't see them as a pure commercial empire like Genoa or Venice. Their interests would certainly be focused on managing their kingdom, first of all and even if they manage to gain mainland Greece they would not necessarily be willing to harass foreign traders, in particular if they are co-religionaries and fly the flag of a friendly power. Venice always managed to put trade on top of any other consideration, at least until the xv century. Note that they did not really pay a lot of attention to Corfu and the other Ionian islands until the late xiv century, and that after the IV crusade they made no claim to Corfu or any of the other islands.

A future Hauteville power play in central and northern Italy is certainly possible (in particular if they could manage to stake claims through dynastic marriages), but it would have to be predicated on a weak HRE and a weak or divided papacy happening at the same time (something like the OTL Great Schism) and a strong kingdom of Sicily. Not easy for all the pieces to fall in place at the same time, not to mention that it has always been more difficult to conquer Italy starting from the south.
 
Thanks! It is not clear to me whether Bohemund really existed, but he could be the easiest way to keep the Kingdom from getting attached to the Empire. Who knows what alt-Federick II could do in Germany and N.Italy, although, without the solid basis of norman-style feudalism, it would be more difficult to create a solid powerbase.
What I like about Bohemund existing is that being born in 1181 then if William II dies 23 years later, as you said, he would have a successor already in his 30's, with possible administrate experience in the kingdom, and probably with heirs of his own by then.
Regarding Sicilian expansion, besides taking lands from the Byzantines, what about the Western Mediterranean (Sardinian, Corsica, Balearics)?
 
What I like about Bohemund existing is that being born in 1181 then if William II dies 23 years later, as you said, he would have a successor already in his 30's, with possible administrate experience in the kingdom, and probably with heirs of his own by then.
Regarding Sicilian expansion, besides taking lands from the Byzantines, what about the Western Mediterranean (Sardinian, Corsica, Balearics)?
Sardinia and Corsica were hotspots between warring Martime Republics (chiefly Pisa and Genoa), it depends how likely the Hautevilles wants to join the mess (and with it Imperial politics).

The Balearics are in Moorish hands, so it's there for the taking, but it'll probably lead to conflict with Barcelona/Aragon, that already tried to conquer it in the 12th century.
 
I thought that, since I am the OP of this thread, it would be better to write here than in a new thread...

I think that one consequence of William II's survival hasn't been explored and that is his participation to the III crusade. William was reportedly quite shaken by the fall of Jerusalem and seemed to be preparing his participation in the crusade when he died. Now, I don't think the final outcome of the crusade would change much, given that the rifts in the leadership would still be there, but maybe the Crusaders could snatch some more territory?

Possible divergences:
1- Richard doesn't sack Messina to get back Joan's dowry since she is régnant queen. Instead the siculo English alliance is reinforced by the two kings crusading together.
2 - butterflies make it so that there is no Cyprus detour so maybe no Kingdom of Cyprus, at this stage at least.
3 - butterflies again make it very difficult that Richard would again get captured in Germany hence Henry VI doesn't get to I've the gold to invade Sicily to uphold his wife's claim and to finance his crusade.
4 - the fourth crusade could be butterflies, but on the other hand Tancredi of Taranto would go on to marry his son to Irene Angelo, meaning that when Isaacs is dethroned he could ask for Sicilian assistance and, given the Byzantine weakness in the early 1200s who knows what could happen?
 
Minor idea. If William II survives, maybe he could be the one to conquer Cyprus ITTL?
Problem with that is that Isaacs Comnenus was some sort of ally or client of the Normans since in 1186 the Sicilian fleet under amiratus Margaritus of Brindisi captured a Byzantine fleet of 70 ships that was trying to conquer back the island from its rogue governor.
On the other hand, since he seems to be a stereotypical tyrant/unstable despote, it is likely that problems with crusaders could arise and iitl it could be the Normans ending up with the kingship (although it would be quite far from their basis of power so keeping it would be difficult).

@LSCatilina what do you think of this divergence? You are very knowledgeable about the middle ages: how could be the evolition of a Norman Sicily that doesn't fall to the Emperor (and so avoids the sequence of events that lead to the separation between the island and continental south italy).
 
Problem with that is that Isaacs Comnenus was some sort of ally or client of the Normans since in 1186 the Sicilian fleet under amiratus Margaritus of Brindisi captured a Byzantine fleet of 70 ships that was trying to conquer back the island from its rogue governor.
On the other hand, since he seems to be a stereotypical tyrant/unstable despote, it is likely that problems with crusaders could arise and iitl it could be the Normans ending up with the kingship (although it would be quite far from their basis of power so keeping it would be difficult).

Ah. I'd forgotten about that.

If William does embark on the third crusade, would he have gone in person? Unlike his father and grandfather, he had never led an army in his life.
 
Problem with that is that Isaacs Comnenus was some sort of ally or client of the Normans since in 1186 the Sicilian fleet under amiratus Margaritus of Brindisi captured a Byzantine fleet of 70 ships that was trying to conquer back the island from its rogue governor.

I thought that was just the continuation of William's 1185 war against Byzantium - that they were attacked because they were a Byzantine fleet, not because they were threatening Isaac. So I think Cyprus might very well end up under Norman rule.
 
Ah. I'd forgotten about that.

If William does embark on the third crusade, would he have gone in person? Unlike his father and grandfather, he had never led an army in his life.
I think he would go personally unless he isn't physically capable of doing it because of his illness. Especially either his brother-in-law Richard encouraging him. Now what would be interesting is if he comes back from the Crusaders finding his wife with an infant. Timing doesn't necessarily point out to an indiscretion by the Queen, but the King knows that he is likely infertile.
He dies shortly after, weakened by his crusading exertions, leaving three claimants: Joan and her son, Tancredi of Lecce, Constance and Henry VI.
I thought that was just the continuation of William's 1185 war against Byzantium - that they were attacked because they were a Byzantine fleet, not because they were threatening Isaac. So I think Cyprus might very well end up under Norman rule.
It might be, probably they were just allies of convenience at best and the Normans were good opportunist conquerors, so...
 
Top