The Norman Kingdom of Sicily is somewhat one of my most favorite states of history, and for good reason: it was rich, advanced, and tolerant of Muslims. In particular I have been fascinated by the Kingdom’s attempts to expand into Tunisia and North Africa, and how it governed its territories; contrary to what you might expect, they actually tolerated Muslims and allowed them to worship. So here is my question: how large could the Norman Kingdom of Sicily get in the Mediterranean, how long could it hold onto that territory, and what effects would this have in the long term?
What is the maximum amount of territory that a longer lived Norman Kingdom of Sicily could hold onto and how long could it hold onto that territory?
- Thread starter HyperMuscularDemon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- norman north africa sicily
Get rid of the Almohads and they could keep hold of Tunisia at the very least. Ibn Tumart was almost executed in Marakesh for blasphemy before the emir took mercy on him, so just change that around and the Almohads never exist.
Last edited:
I feel like most of sardinia, the pelloponessus, epirus/albania, tunisia, and malta is probably the realistic limit before you start getting into latin empire stuff.
Probably parts of the rest of the Italian peninsula as well, but there's a lot of "depending on the circumstances" for something like that - it's not so much "if it had lasted it could have done X" as "if it had lasted, it's possible it might have managed X in certain conditions."
But broadly, imagining the empire of Charles of Anjou at its height, including people paying tribute, and you're probably not going to be wrong about its possibilities - and well, duration really does depend on circumstances there. The Normans are going to have multiple parties interested in knocking their empire apart, even if only to further their own interests in the region as opposed to "stop the Normans because enmity to them specifically".
But broadly, imagining the empire of Charles of Anjou at its height, including people paying tribute, and you're probably not going to be wrong about its possibilities - and well, duration really does depend on circumstances there. The Normans are going to have multiple parties interested in knocking their empire apart, even if only to further their own interests in the region as opposed to "stop the Normans because enmity to them specifically".
Last edited:
Yeah, what about expansion northward on the peninsula instead of just across straits to Africa or the Balkans?
How long could/would the rest of Europe tolerate any former Papal territory in Norman hands? I imagine that Umbria and the Marches, and Romagna would be a little bit less controversial in Norman hands to other Europeans than Latium and Rome itself., but it would always be contentious.
Not sure how much Europeans in general would care about Umbria and the Marches or Romanga. Though as far as Italy, I was thinking more Tuscany than fighting the Pope (as opposed to places that don't take Papal authority seriously) - sure, the HRE would care, but successful Norman-Sicilian expansion is going to be in a situation neither the HRE or Constantinople are trying to take southern Italy anyway.
Last edited:
Tuscany is a nice territory to add, it is just non-contiguous if you are entirely respectful of Papal States' sovereignty.
Better diplomacy with the Popes probably would have eased domestic problems, and staying out of the depths of the Balkans would be salubrious. The Mezzogiorno south of the Papal States including Malta, Sicily, and Sardinia should be holdable.
The further into the Balkans the Normans moved the more costly it became, nor did they have the strength to contest Constantinople, and even if they were given it the treacherous city would have been their tomb. Being bogged down in an unprofitable campaign exposed weaknesses that were exploited by intrigue. Staying on the coast or returning to Italy should let the Normans grow their strength. Negotiating a peace after the Norman victory at the Battle of Dyrrachium, and then formalizing inheritance in Italy would have great stabilizing affects. They could have focused on building a stronger navy, or even have begun strategizing the Crusades at this time. The Normans could have contested Corsica, or if they had better diplomacy could have extracted Corsica from the Papacy in exchange for a defense treaty.
A more stable Norman Italy could have led to a stronger Norman position in Antioch after the First Crusade, one that never submitted to the Byzantine Empire, and that could have helped sustain the County of Edessa. Without the Normans having to maintain a facade of Byzantine overlordship of Antioch then the separate states of Antioch, Edessa, and Tripoli may have become fully integrated into the Kingdom of Jerusalem. If the Normans are able to maintain the friendship of the Sicilians, the Sardinians, and the Corsicans then the Normans should be able to maintain port colonies in Tunisia despite the Almohads.
Without another war with the Byzantines the Normans could expand their territory in Tunisia, and possibly the Crusaders could have taken Egypt. And I agree with previous commenters in this and other threads that with the Almohads aborted then the Normans could have taken Tunisia, parts of coastal Algeria, and northwestern Libya.
The further into the Balkans the Normans moved the more costly it became, nor did they have the strength to contest Constantinople, and even if they were given it the treacherous city would have been their tomb. Being bogged down in an unprofitable campaign exposed weaknesses that were exploited by intrigue. Staying on the coast or returning to Italy should let the Normans grow their strength. Negotiating a peace after the Norman victory at the Battle of Dyrrachium, and then formalizing inheritance in Italy would have great stabilizing affects. They could have focused on building a stronger navy, or even have begun strategizing the Crusades at this time. The Normans could have contested Corsica, or if they had better diplomacy could have extracted Corsica from the Papacy in exchange for a defense treaty.
A more stable Norman Italy could have led to a stronger Norman position in Antioch after the First Crusade, one that never submitted to the Byzantine Empire, and that could have helped sustain the County of Edessa. Without the Normans having to maintain a facade of Byzantine overlordship of Antioch then the separate states of Antioch, Edessa, and Tripoli may have become fully integrated into the Kingdom of Jerusalem. If the Normans are able to maintain the friendship of the Sicilians, the Sardinians, and the Corsicans then the Normans should be able to maintain port colonies in Tunisia despite the Almohads.
Without another war with the Byzantines the Normans could expand their territory in Tunisia, and possibly the Crusaders could have taken Egypt. And I agree with previous commenters in this and other threads that with the Almohads aborted then the Normans could have taken Tunisia, parts of coastal Algeria, and northwestern Libya.
Looking westwards as well- had Norman Tunisia/Corsica become a more stable thing, contesting the balearics or trying to beat out the aragonese in the reconquista seems plausible as well.
I think Norman Sicily could have established an earlier (and slightly less dysfunctional) version of the Latin Empire in 1185/86. And I'll use this opportunity to plug my upcoming TL which has the Hauteville Empire at these borders around 1200 
...having said that, I don't think these territorial expansions are sustainable for more than a decade or two. They would soon be forced to shrink under pressure and outright abandon certain avenues (Anatolia), and that's if they're lucky.
...having said that, I don't think these territorial expansions are sustainable for more than a decade or two. They would soon be forced to shrink under pressure and outright abandon certain avenues (Anatolia), and that's if they're lucky.
Do you think that could be too much on their plate though? They couldn't even keep Southern Italy.
Last edited:
Norman Roman Empire 🤠I think Norman Sicily could have established an earlier (and slightly less dysfunctional) version of the Latin Empire in 1185/86. And I'll use this opportunity to plug my upcoming TL which has the Hauteville Empire at these borders around 1200
...having said that, I don't think these territorial expansions are sustainable for more than a decade or two. They would soon be forced to shrink under pressure and outright abandon certain avenues (Anatolia), and that's if they're lucky.
View attachment 886612
Yeah, given Norman tolerance, holding onto Tunisia is very easy in this alternate scenario. Say could North African Romance survive as a distinct language in this scenario? Also I can easily see the Normans establishing a distinct Archbishopric of Carthage and a Imamate of Carthage to provide religious services.
How will that affect politics in the later Mediterranean? Also, do you think Norman Italy and North Africa will get its economy boosted by the visits of the Malian emperor Mansa Musa?
Here are two interesting thoughts: what if the Norman Kingdom of Sicily allied with either Venice or Genoa? Or if the Malian emperor Mansa Musa boosted the Norman Sicilian economy?
I'm not sure how far any such alliance would go in practice, or how you see the latter working?
Interesting thoughts, just not sure of the answers.
Expansion north of the Papal States seems like a bad idea. The subjugation of Northern Italy was something even the Holy Roman Emperors were never able to accomplish despite devoting many years and a good deal of treasure to the project. Moreover, it makes Norman Sicily a permanent and existential threat to the Papacy, which helps nobody; far better to cultivate solid relationships with Rome and look elsewhere for one's conquests. No doubt Sardinia and Corsica could be taken by the Normans, but again, this risks blowing up relations with the Pope (who is the notional sovereign of these islands) as well as creating conflicts with Genoa and Pisa, although if Sicily is massively expanding in the Balkans some confrontation with Genoa may be inevitable given their interests there. Much depends on Papal politics; if Northern Italy is being threatened by the Empire, one could imagine the Sicilian kings graciously accepting further grants (say, to Sardinia) as a reward for supporting the Papal faction. For the moment, Sicily's best option for expansion is probably eastwards, as they attempted historically. Ruling former Byzantine lands may have been challenging - they seem to have been more adept at raiding them - but Roger II was able to create a functional and vibrant "multinational" court that included the Greeks and Muslims, and if further Sicilian kings are able to follow his example it could make for an interesting state.
The prospects for any sort of alliance with Venice are rather grim. It was not in Venice's interest for any power to control both sides of the mouth of the Adriatic. Even if the Sicilians and Venetians manage to find some arrangement against the Byzantines early on, this will break down as Sicily establishes itself in Greece and Epirus.
There does not seem to have been any significant power in Tunisia capable of opposing Sicilian dominance until the rise of the Almohads, but even if the Almohads were somehow averted I'm not sure how permanent the Sicilian presence in Tunisia can be. The "Kingdom of Africa" was always rather thin on the ground, and seems to have been a loose hegemony over local Muslim rulers rather than any sort of attempt at direct rule. This is by nature a fragile state of affairs, and eventually some local power or tribal confederacy will seek to challenge it. The track record of Christian European states maintaining large, permanent footholds in North Africa prior to the 19th century is rather dismal, and with their interests elsewhere (primarily the Balkans) the Normans will never be able to devote themselves fully to maintaining their African holdings against African states which can devote their whole attention to the project of rolling back the Sicilian presence.
The prospects for any sort of alliance with Venice are rather grim. It was not in Venice's interest for any power to control both sides of the mouth of the Adriatic. Even if the Sicilians and Venetians manage to find some arrangement against the Byzantines early on, this will break down as Sicily establishes itself in Greece and Epirus.
There does not seem to have been any significant power in Tunisia capable of opposing Sicilian dominance until the rise of the Almohads, but even if the Almohads were somehow averted I'm not sure how permanent the Sicilian presence in Tunisia can be. The "Kingdom of Africa" was always rather thin on the ground, and seems to have been a loose hegemony over local Muslim rulers rather than any sort of attempt at direct rule. This is by nature a fragile state of affairs, and eventually some local power or tribal confederacy will seek to challenge it. The track record of Christian European states maintaining large, permanent footholds in North Africa prior to the 19th century is rather dismal, and with their interests elsewhere (primarily the Balkans) the Normans will never be able to devote themselves fully to maintaining their African holdings against African states which can devote their whole attention to the project of rolling back the Sicilian presence.
To be honest, I suspect the best course (though not necessarily the most dramatic expansion) for the 12th-century Kingdom of Sicily is to recognise that Constantinople is a pipe dream and African adventures are likely to cost more than they can hope to pay off. Better to put things in order at home (break the power of the endlessly-rebellious Calabrian barons, for instance) and look for opportunities. Also remember that OTL Naples ended up as the second city in Europe despite being separated from Sicily and ruled as a Hapsburg appendage. There's no reason that all that Eastern trade has to go all the way to Venice or Genoa...
If you're looking for allies, the Empire has no quarrel with Sicily (the Imperial claim on the Lombard duchies is a dead letter by this point) and they have a shared interest in cutting the Pope and the North Italian cities down to size. Wait for the Guelphs and the Ghibellines to go into the next round and see what's on offer. Tuscany is ambitious (let the the Emperor tackle that), but the Popes didn't really control Romagna until the Renaissance. Ancona, Rimini and Ravenna would be a nice addition to the Kingdom, with Bologna the big prize beyond them. Likewise Sardinia should be winnable - it will need naval strength, and may lead to conflict with Genoa, but Sicily had a pretty good navy in this period.
If you have a crystal ball, wait until the 4th Crusade kicks off, then move to secure Durazzo and the Ionian Islands. Expansion in Epirus and/or the Peloponnese should be possible (if handled right, the Greeks might be less hostile to Sicilian rule than they were to the other Latins). Just remember that every nail you hammer into the Byzantines accelerates the day you have to deal with the Turks.
If you're looking for allies, the Empire has no quarrel with Sicily (the Imperial claim on the Lombard duchies is a dead letter by this point) and they have a shared interest in cutting the Pope and the North Italian cities down to size. Wait for the Guelphs and the Ghibellines to go into the next round and see what's on offer. Tuscany is ambitious (let the the Emperor tackle that), but the Popes didn't really control Romagna until the Renaissance. Ancona, Rimini and Ravenna would be a nice addition to the Kingdom, with Bologna the big prize beyond them. Likewise Sardinia should be winnable - it will need naval strength, and may lead to conflict with Genoa, but Sicily had a pretty good navy in this period.
If you have a crystal ball, wait until the 4th Crusade kicks off, then move to secure Durazzo and the Ionian Islands. Expansion in Epirus and/or the Peloponnese should be possible (if handled right, the Greeks might be less hostile to Sicilian rule than they were to the other Latins). Just remember that every nail you hammer into the Byzantines accelerates the day you have to deal with the Turks.
This. If Sicily wants to expand overseas - to Greece, Africa, Sardinia or anywhere else, it needs a navy. Venice is never going to accept another naval power playing gatekeeper of the Adriatic, so some sort of showdown with the Serene Republic is pretty much inevitable.
Thing is, the Norman Kingdom of Sicily could decide to ignore the Adriatic entirely and focus on North Africa and the western Mediterranean.