PC: Tancred of Lecce, Latin Emperor in Constantinople

[Halagaz]

I'm writing a TL based on a more successful Sicilian invasion of the Byzantine Empire in 1185, where the Sicilians manage to take Constantinople and start off an earlier Latin Empire of sorts.

I'm fairly certain that the conquest itself is plausible enough; the question is, is it plausible that Tancred of Lecce (one of the invasion's leaders and a relative of the King) would crown himself the new Emperor after the conquest? I see no real obstacle to that, but there may be some aspect of XII Century western European politics - or Tancred's own personal politics - that I'm missing, so I thought I'd ask for a Plausibility Check.

If Tancred couldn't or wouldn't plausibly become Emperor, who (among the Sicilians/"Latins") would be a possible candidate?

 

[Marc]

In 1185 it would be William II of Sicily as he would be still alive, therefore, it would be him.
After his death, with no children... well, if you want to really have have some fanciful fun, what about his brother-in-law; Richard, King of England?
In fact, the timing is excellent and I could see it as very tempting for him - not to mention creating a truly wild swerve in history.
Richard the First, Basilius of the Roman Empire, King of England, Duke of Normandy, etc, etc. by the Grace of God...

 

[Parzival]

In 1185 it would be William II of Sicily as he would be still alive, therefore, it would be him.
After his death, with no children... well, if you want to really have have some fanciful fun, what about his brother-in-law; Richard, King of England?
In fact, the timing is excellent and I could see it as very tempting for him - not to mention creating a truly wild swerve in history.
Richard the First, Basilius of the Roman Empire, King of England, Duke of Normandy, etc, etc. by the Grace of God...

Why do you think the title would default to William? After the First Crusade, Geofrey of Bouillon took the Kingship of Jerusalem (though he didn't call it that) despite merely being the Duke of Lower Lorraine and Baldwin I of Constantinople was merely Count of Flanders before taking the throne of the Latin Empire, so to me it doesn't seem a foregone conclusion that Tancred rather than William would get the title.

But, like the OP, I could be missing some medieval subtlety that would make this impossible. Please explain!

 

[Marc]

"Why do you think the title would default to William?"

Well, William II was the King of Sicily. the Norman state that ruled all of Southern Italy, until 1189. If the Byzantine empire is conquered on or about 1185 CE, it would be due to his army and navy, and his ambition. He is the one that launches an almost successful invasion in that year. Ergo, if it could have succeeded at all, William becomes the first Latin Emperor.
(And Joan Plantagenet, his wife, Augusta of the empire - hence my amused speculation about her brother ending up ruling the Byzantines, or parts thereof.)

By the way, such a counter-factual: the taking of Constantinople by the Normans, would arguably have far more dramatic effect on the history on Europe and the Mediterranean than the historical 4th Crusade rape.

 

[Halagaz]

It seems possible, even likely, that William II was hoping to gain the Byzantine throne for himself (though he claimed to be acting on behalf of an imposter Alexios II). The thing is, William II was the mastermind behind the Sicilian invasion, but he didn't actually accompany his army to the Balkans. The forces were led by one Count Baldwin, Tancred, and Richard of Acerra.

Like Parzival already said, OTL gives us Godfrey in Jerusalem and Baldwin in Constantinople - several precedents where it was commanders of an army, and not their Kings, which took a throne.

So I guess my question would amount to this: William II would probably expect the crown, but would Tancred be willing to hand it over? Of the three commanders, Baldwin seems to be reliably loyal to the King, but Tancred may or may not have his own ambitions, and Richard of Acerra is Tancred's man through and through.

I guess the most likely outcome is William II being crowned the first Latin Emperor, while Tancred may be his regent and possible successor in Byzantine territories. Though I have to admit the idea of Richard of England taking over does have a certain appeal...

 

[Draeger]

Tancred could have earned himself a duchy or something, but not the throne outright.

I'd be interested in reading a TL with Guillaume II de Sicilia becoming Emperor Guillaume I de Rhomaion.

 

[Kome]

When in doubt, you ask the Pope for a blessing!

Well kind of a general rule for 'administrative' matters anyways.

Though its not like the conquered would just sit around while the conquerors squabble over their position.

 

[Halagaz]

Tancred could have earned himself a duchy or something, but not the throne outright.

I'd be interested in reading a TL with Guillaume II de Sicilia becoming Emperor Guillaume I de Rhomaion.

Well, right now I'm leaning toward the viewpoint that William II should be the first Latin Emperor in the TL. (it's not the only plausible outcome, but it does seem to be quite realistic). In any case Tancred is pretty much guaranteed to be his first successor, though sooner or later that branch of the Hauteville dynasty might be replaced with someone else. Maybe a Plantagenet in Constantinople.

The TL should start in a new thread in one or two weeks.

Though its not like the conquered would just sit around while the conquerors squabble over their position.

The conquered will, unfortunately, be doing a lot of squabbling themselves. The Byzantine Empire is that kind of a place (to be fair, in the XII century almost every place is that kind of a place).

 

[Marc]

Keep in mind, Venice is going to be fighting for its life against the Norman Mediterranean empire. A very correct assessment on their part - look at the map, they would be bottled up in the northern Adriatic; the Normans could strangle their trade (and would, no love lost, etc), and therefore their society.

Genoa and Pisa wouldn't be happy as well, if not as immediately threatened. The whole political-economic dynamics of the era are upended, and not in favor of any of the Maritime Italian powers.

 

[Halagaz]

Keep in mind, Venice is going to be fighting for its life against the Norman Mediterranean empire. A very correct assessment on their part - look at the map, they would be bottled up in the northern Adriatic; the Normans could strangle their trade (and would, no love lost, etc), and therefore their society.

Genoa and Pisa wouldn't be happy as well, if not as immediately threatened. The whole political-economic dynamics of the era are upended, and not in favor of any of the Maritime Italian powers.

Genoa and Pisa will not be as strongly displeased as Venice, in light of their troubled relations with the Byzantine Empire and especially post-1182 hostility. And the mutual hostility of the maritime republics will continue to some degree as well.

The Norman Empire in Constantinople should be able to survive for a relatively long time, but I'm not certain it will be able to "save" Sicily itself from Hohenstaufen takeover. Heinrich VI's family will be able to threaten both halves of William II's domains in the critical time around his death.