After having been under Muslim domination for a time, Sicily was, for more than a century, a Norman kingdom, original in more than one way: how could pilgrims, descendants of the fierce Vikings from the young Duchy of Normandy, become mercenaries, then conquerors, from Sicily to the Holy Land, before founding states with unprecedented characteristics, blending Latin and Eastern influences?
Before wondering how the Normans ended up in the Mediterranean, a quick return to their origins is necessary. The 9th century saw Viking bands ravaging the North of Europe (some even went as far as the Mediterranean already).
—>The Norman rulers of Sicily were descendants of the Hauteville dynasty, notably Roger I, Roger II, and William II. They conquered Sicily from Arab rulers and established Norman control over the island.
Creation of the Duchy of Normandy
In Francia, the Vikings took advantage of the Carolingians’ troubles to plunder anything worthwhile, especially abbeys and episcopal cities; they even besieged Paris in 888 but failed against Eudes. The turning point came in 911 when one of the Viking leaders, Rollo (probably from Denmark), who plundered between Auxerre and the Seine Valley, was defeated at Chartres by the Duke of Neustria and the princeps of Burgundy. He then signed the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte with King Charles the Simple: Rollo was granted the title of Count of Rouen and had to promise to convert to Catholicism along with his people.
The principality slowly and difficultly took shape, with counts or marquises (who became dukes at the beginning of the 11th century) like William Longsword (son of Rollo), or Richard the First. But it was only under William the Bastard (future “the Conqueror”) that the duchy was unified under one man.
Norman Pilgrimages to the Mediterranean
The conversion to Catholicism, on the other hand, is relatively rapid among the Normans. It is therefore logical that they were present in the great revival of pilgrimages that marked the 11th century.
The most famous of the Norman pilgrims is certainly Robert the Magnificent. Despite a contested accession to power and tensions with the Church, the father of William the Conqueror became duke at age 17 in 1027. Under the influence of Robert, archbishop of Rouen, the duke pursued an assertive religious policy, for example, by supporting monasteries. But above all, he decided to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He managed to reach the Holy City in 1035 but, ill, he died on the way back near Nicaea.
This significant example is quite symptomatic of the desire of many Normans to undertake pilgrimages to Saint-Jacques de Compostelle, Rome, and even Jerusalem, despite the dangers. The ideal was to reach the Holy Land, where Christ had walked, but the journey and the stages to get there were also important: among them, Rome, of course, but also Mount Gargano in Apulia. Thus, the pilgrimage allowed the encounter between Italy and the Normans.
According to Aimé du Mont-Cassin (who died around 1100), however, it was as early as 999 that contact was established between Italy and Norman pilgrims. These latter, returning from the Holy Land and yet (according to the chronicler) only numbering forty, turn into warriors in Salerno, which they rid of the Saracen threat! This marks the beginning of the legend of the Normans in the Mediterranean. William of Apulia, on the other hand, places the same kind of situation in the years 1015–1016; this time, a Lombard, Mélès, asks Normans on pilgrimage to Mount Gargano for help in breaking free from Byzantine tutelage. In both cases, the Normans do not stay in place but promise to return with other fighters.
A Norman Exile
Internal issues within the duchy at the end of the 10th century and the beginning of the 11th century encouraged departures during the reign of Richard II (996–1026). He resorted to the right of exile against those who refused to submit to his power, declaring them outlaws and confiscating their lands. Departures began either out of a refusal to submit or to escape judgment for certain crimes.
Additionally, the allure of a wealthy Mediterranean and Orient attracted men from the North, barely integrated into the Latin and Christian worlds. Families of lesser or middle nobility, mainly in Lower Normandy, embarked on Mediterranean adventures. Among them were the Hautevilles from Cotentin.
Others became mercenaries, serving in Italy, Constantinople (like Roussel de Bailleul), or aiding in the Reconquista in Spain (Raoul de Tosny or Robert de Crespin). Despite military successes against the Saracens or the Turks, many failed, including Roussel, who turned against the Basileus and was ultimately defeated and put to death. Finally, it’s important to note the significance of Italians arriving in the Duchy of Normandy, led by William of Volpiano. Richard II entrusted him with reforming Norman monasticism, likely contributing to the departure of some Normans for Italy.
Attractive Italy
We have observed that pilgrimages primarily facilitate the encounter between the Normans and Italy. Italy was highly divided in the 11th century, with the North under Lombard influence and embroiled in tensions between the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire, while the South was dominated by the Byzantine Empire, much to the chagrin of the population.
The threat also emanated from Sicily and North Africa, which were under Muslim domination. Raids have multiplied along the coasts since the 9th century. Rome had been plundered, Bari occupied, and cities like Salerno, Naples, or Amalfi were regularly under Saracen threat, despite existing commercial agreements that sometimes prevailed (as with Amalfi, for example).
The Normans, recognizing the opportunity to benefit from this unstable Italy coveted by major political forces, swiftly immigrated there to offer their services, which enjoyed a great reputation.
Norman Mercenaries in Italy
After the events, whether established or not, in Salerno and Apulia, it was not until 1017 that the Norman warlike epic truly began in Italy. As promised, they first assisted Mélès in Apulia against the Byzantines, but the adventure came to an abrupt end following the massacre of most Norman knights in Cannes in October 1018!
Other Normans arrived in the following years, deciding to support more legitimate princes. Thus, in 1029, a certain Rainolf became count of Aversa by the decision of the Duke of Naples. More importantly, the Byzantine general George Maniakes hired about 300 Normans in 1037 to attempt to free Sicily from Muslim rule. Although Messina was briefly recaptured, the operation ultimately failed in 1041, and, disappointed at not being paid, the Norman mercenaries returned to Italy. Among them, the presence of William, called Iron Arm, and Dreux, two of the sons of Tancred of Hauteville, was noted.
The Normans Settled Here
During this period, the immigration of Normans to Southern Italy continued to increase. The main leaders began to comprehend the complex realities of the peninsula and started to exploit them, both militarily and, above all, politically. From the year 1040 onwards, they forged alliances with Lombard cities against the Byzantine enemy. The dukes of Apulia selected Norman leaders, who were more competent than the Lombards, to oversee military operations against the Greeks. This facilitated the rise of figures like William Iron Arm to the position of prince of Apulia, appointed as such by the Lombard prince of Salerno, Guaimar IV. In 1046, his brother Dreux succeeded him, and with the title came the authority over the Normans of the entire Apulia and Calabria.
The mercenaries became firmly established: the prince of Salerno divided the territory into twelve counties, each governed by a Norman. They assumed lordship, intent on expanding their territory and securing their position. Eventually, the Lombards would lament the Byzantines, while both the pope and the Muslims would increasingly fret over this enduring Norman presence.
In just a few decades, the Normans transitioned from mere pilgrims to mercenaries, and then from mercenaries to lords in Southern Italy. This unforeseen Norman settlement, characterized as much by the political acumen of the barons as by the force they could wield, proved pivotal in the history of the medieval Mediterranean. It heralded an era that witnessed the emergence of a distinctive model with imperial aspirations, influenced by the cultures it subjugated. But first, let us delve into the topic of conquests.
Norman Presence Contested
The Lombards called upon the Normans for help against the Byzantines, but they quickly regretted it when the new lords of Apulia decided to expand their territories through war and plunder, including against their former allies. In the South, another son of Tancred of Hauteville, Robert Guiscard, settled in Calabria in 1048. The papacy was also threatened when the Normans began to eye the principality of Benevento. Pope Leo IX then assembled an army against the new invaders, composed of Lombards as well as Germans; Emperor Constantine IX himself provided support, showing that the Norman threat was taken very seriously by the powers of the region. The pope had to lead the operations himself and was determined to use the opportunity to claim his rights over the entire peninsula.
The Norman duke Dreux, who had been in Normannorum of all of Apulia and Calabria since 1046, was assassinated following a Greek plot in 1051; the following year, it was the turn of Guaimar V, the ultimate local support for the Normans. They then chose Dreux’s brother, Onfroi, as his successor to confront the papal armies. The outcome seemed highly risky for the Normans, who found themselves facing three armies (the pope and the Lombards, German contingents sent by Henry III, and the Byzantines).
The clash occurred on June 17, 1053, at Civitate, a clash also between two ways of fighting: Norman cavalry swept away the enemy infantry! Only the German cavalry resisted a little. The Normans, all united for the occasion, captured Leo IX and, by treating him well, managed to obtain what they wanted: legitimacy. The pope then agreed to confirm their possessions, and the Norman barons pledged allegiance to him.
The Norman Alliance With the Pope
Peace with the pope seems solid, and the Norman dukes take advantage of it to expand their possessions skillfully, sometimes against the Lombards and always against the Byzantines. They seized control of the principality of Capua and then completed the conquest of Calabria in 1060.
The Normans have also learned to use more than just force; thus, Count Richard of Aversa becomes the protector of the Montecassino Abbey in 1045, while Onfroi and Robert Guiscard confirm their support for the pope against the threat of the German emperor. This alliance between the Normans and the papacy was sealed at the synod of Melfi in 1059: Richard of Aversa, prince of Capua, and Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia (since Onfroi’s death), promised fidelity to Pope Nicholas II. He offers the title of Duke of Sicily to Guiscard. until the Normans take the island from the Saracens!
The new lords of the region also decide to ally themselves with the great local families to further anchor their Italian legitimacy. Since the 1030s, Rainulf of Aversa has approached the dukes of Naples, but it is mainly Robert Guiscard who stands out by separating from his first wife, a Norman, to marry the sister of the prince of Salerno, Sykelgaite.
Robert Guiscard’s Imperial Ambition
The support of the Pope puts the Duke of Apulia and Calabria in a very advantageous position, including his Norman compatriots, and soon allows him to claim himself as the successor of the Greek emperor in these lands. He then faces revolts, which will last and sporadically erupt throughout his reign.
Nevertheless, in 1062, despite their rivalry, he decides to ally with his brother Roger to share the tasks; while he continues the war in Southern Italy against the Byzantines, Roger will take charge of Sicily (which they attacked together the previous year). Guiscard first turns towards Bari, which he takes in 1071; then, with the help of Richard of Capua, he seizes Salerno in 1076, followed by Benevento and Naples the following year, causing concern for the new Pope Gregory VII. Southern Italy was entirely under Norman control by the late 1070s.
Robert Guiscard, however, has not abandoned his imperial ambitions and decides to take advantage of internal problems within the Byzantine Empire to attack it! Indeed, Michael VII was overthrown in 1081; however, the Norman duke was in negotiations with him to marry his daughter Helena. He thus opportunistically poses as the champion of the legitimate emperor to march on Constantinople. Along the way, he gains the support of the Pope.
Guiscard then recalls the maritime origins of the Normans and builds a large fleet to cross the Adriatic. He first sends his son Bohemond (whom we will encounter in the Holy Land), who takes Valona. Then he lands in Illyria, after taking Corfu in May 1081. The siege of Durazzo begins; despite the help of the Venetian fleet to the Byzantines, the Normans defeat the imperial army on October 18, 1081, and take the city in February 1082, with the help of the Amalfitans present there.
But Norman’s successes are halted due to the skillful maneuvers of the new Basileus, Alexius Komnenos: he agitates the discontented Norman barons about the omnipotence of the Hauteville and supports the Germanic Emperor Henry IV in his struggle against Gregory VII. The latter must ask for Guiscard’s help, who returns to Italy, leaving Bohemond in Greece. Emperor Alexius Komnenos takes advantage to reconquer most of the lost places.
The duke manages to calm the revolts of the barons, then he marches on Rome, frees the Pope, and punishes those who betrayed him by following the emperors. In 1084, Robert Guiscard already planned a new expedition against Byzantium, but he died of illness in July 1085, after having successfully retaken Corfu from the Byzantines. Only Roger, who has meanwhile strengthened his power by taking Sicily from the Saracens, remains of the Hauteville brothers.
Count Roger in Sicily
The conquest of Muslim Sicily began in 1061 with the capture by Roger and Robert of Messina, which became the Normans’ stronghold on the island. They received assistance from a Muslim leader, Ibn al-Thumna of Syracuse. Since the 1050s, internal rivalries have plagued Muslim Sicily, connected to the unstable situation in Ifriqiya. Various emirs vied for control of the island, and Ibn al-Thumna was one of them. Eyeing Palermo, he decided to enlist the Normans, promising them aid in conquering Sicily and even offering his son as a hostage. The Hauteville brothers succeeded in capturing Messina on their second attempt.
Complications arose in 1062: their Muslim ally was assassinated, and tensions between the two brothers increased amid challenges on the battlefield. However, they quickly reconciled, and Robert returned to Southern Italy. Roger, acting alone, seized Troina and Petrelia. In 1063, the legendary victory at Cerami occurred, where the outnumbered Normans purportedly triumphed over Muslims with the assistance of Saint George. Nevertheless, Palermo remained elusive. Roger spent the next five years patiently conquering the fortified positions in the Madonies, culminating in the capture of Misilmeri in 1068.
The advance proved challenging not only against Muslims but also against the Greeks on the island, supported by the Byzantines. The capture of Bari allowed Roger de Hauteville to focus on the Saracens. Inspired by this success, he attacked Palermo with his brother, commanding the Norman fleet. The Hauteville brothers entered the city on January 10, 1072; however, the conquest of Muslim Sicily was not yet complete.
While Robert turned towards Byzantium, Roger continued the war on the island. Catane and Mazara quickly fell, mirroring Palermo’s fate. It was not until 1085 that Syracuse also succumbed. In the same year, the Spaniards reclaimed Toledo from the Muslims. The conquest concluded in 1091 when the last two strongholds, Noto and Butera, fell in 1088.
Robert and Roger de Hauteville’s Legacy
At the beginning of the 12th century, Norman power was impressive, despite setbacks against the Byzantines. They firmly held Southern Italy and Sicily, and their influence was growing stronger. The Hauteville brothers managed to quell the criticisms of other Norman barons. The German Empire was too preoccupied with its internal problems, and Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade. Robert Guiscard’s son, Bohemond, answered this call to carry the Norman banner to the Holy Land, while his half-brother Roger Borsa succeeded their father in Apulia.
Regarding Roger’s son, he succeeded his father, who died in 1101, after the brief reign of his older brother Simon (1101–1105). He inherited wealthy Sicily and Calabria, where he would establish the second Norman kingdom, following England’s a few years earlier, but on a completely different model.
The conquest of Southern Italy and Sicily lasted for almost a century. The Normans themselves, led by the Hautevilles, could never have imagined how mere mercenaries could become full-fledged lords, powerful enough to influence even the pope and threaten the Byzantine emperor. But more than the conquest, it was through the creation of an original kingdom that the Norman adventure in the Mediterranean was illustrated.
The Rise of Roger II
The beginning of the 12th century sees the consolidation of the power of the Hauteville family, but more particularly on the side of Roger, the great count of Sicily. Upon his death in 1101, his son Simon succeeded him; previously, Robert Guiscard’s brother had settled the issue of succession in Apulia by imposing Roger Borsa, to the detriment of his half-brother Bohemond. Bohemond then left for the Holy Land with the First Crusade and established a principality around Antioch, which was captured in 1098.
Simon de Hauteville, in turn, died prematurely in 1105. Roger, also the son of Adelaide del Vasto, takes over. He inherited his father’s temperament and skill and quickly developed ambitions of his own, although his mother reigned until 1113, when she left Sicily to marry Baldwin I, the king of Jerusalem.
Upon Roger II’s decision, the capital of Sicily moves from Messina to Palermo, and the new count decides to unite all the Normans in the region under his banner. In Apulia, William succeeded Roger Borsa in 1111; as his vassal, Roger II must patiently wait for his death in 1127 to launch his grand project. William of Apulia’s liege lord is the Pope himself, making Roger II his vassal as well. However, in practice, it is the Count of Sicily who holds the power and authority. Skillfully, he manages to impose a treaty on William two years before his death, making him his heir. Thus, in 1127, Roger II added Apulia to his territory!
In the meantime, he did not hesitate to launch military campaigns against the Saracens, with the help of figures like Admiral Christodoulos and especially George of Antioch, an Eastern Christian formerly in the service of the Zirids, who joined him in 1112. In 1118, Roger II and his Normans took advantage of the Hilalian invasion of Ifriqiya to attack. This was a change in policy because, until then, the Normans had been neutral in the wars between Christians and Muslims in the region; indeed, in 1086, Roger had signed a treaty with the Zirids to have a free hand in Sicily, thus not participating in the attack on Mahdia in 1087, alongside the Pisans and Genoese, despite Pope Victor II’s call.
Norman raids on Ifriqiya continued until 1127, with the support of the counts of Barcelona and the small Italian city of Savona. This provoked the reaction of the Almoravids, and the Normans suffered a heavy defeat before Mahdia in 1123, while Sicilian cities were raided by the Saracens in turn. Roger II then decided to suspend operations to consolidate his position in Italy after nevertheless conquering the island of Malta.
Back on the peninsula, he claimed the inheritance of William of Apulia, and, faced with opposition from Pope Honorius II and the Norman barons who supported the Prince of Capua, he chose force. Faced with his heterogeneous armies, composed of Normans but also Muslims and Greeks, Roger II’s opponents had to yield in 1128; the Pope then gave him his legitimacy, somewhat reluctantly. It took another campaign to bend the Prince of Capua; Roger II then officially became Duke of Apulia, Count of Calabria, and Sicily. He had everything he needed to claim the royal throne of Italy.
Roger II: The Other Norman King
The year 1130 was decisive for the region: the death of Pope Honorius II caused a crisis in Rome. Two contenders confront each other: Innocent II, supported by the Germanic Emperor Lothair III, and Anaclet II. The latter is the favorite of Roger II, but it is Innocent II who prevails thanks to the support of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Kingdom of France and Bernard of Clairvaux.
This does not discourage Roger II, who wants the pope he has chosen to legitimize his kingship. He already has the support of the lords of Sicily in the spring, and he eventually meets Anaclet II in September. An agreement is reached to make Roger II the king of Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia; however, he must accept the suzerainty of the antipope. The coronation is celebrated on December 25, 1130, in the cathedral of Palermo, sixty-four years after that of William the Conqueror in England.
Obviously, this situation does not sit well with the supporters of Innocent II! Emperor Lothair III marched into Italy under pressure from Saint Bernard, with the assistance of Byzantium and Venice as well as rebellious Normans under the command of Rainulf of Alife, Roger II’s own brother-in-law. While Anaclet II barricaded himself at Saint Peter’s in June 1133, Lothair III received the throne of Italy from Innocent II at Saint John Lateran. The year 1136–1137 is even more difficult for Roger II: he loses Bari and Salerno, succumbing to Rainulf’s attacks.
Once again, fortune smiles upon the Normans, especially the Hautevilles: in the same year, Roger II sees two of his main rivals, Lothair III and Rainulf, die. Despite Saint Bernard’s advice, this time indicating negotiation with the Norman king, Pope Innocent II took advantage of the death of his rival Anaclet in 1138 to march on Southern Italy, not forgetting to excommunicate Roger II. But as with Leo IX in 1053, the pope was defeated and captured on the Garigliano on July 22, 1139! He must then yield to the demands of the King of Sicily, and peace is sealed in 1140, the same year Roger II organized the Assizes of his kingdom.
Roger II Assaults Ifriqiya and Byzantium
With the situation clarified on the Italian peninsula, the king could once again turn towards Africa. As early as 1135, he seized Djerba with the support of the Hammadids’ revolt against the Zirids, but most of the attacks occurred after the peace in Italy. They were led by George of Antioch and saw Norman victories in Sfax, Gabès, Sousse, Tripoli, and even Mahdia (where an archbishopric was established) between 1146 and 1148. The Normans obtained tribute payments from Muslim cities and almost succeeded in establishing their dream of a Norman kingdom in Africa. Roger II had “Rex Africe” struck on his sword.
But the king’s ambitions far exceeded those of the neighboring coasts of Africa. Like his uncle, Robert Guiscard, he fully intended to seize Constantinople! The Second Crusade gave him the perfect opportunity: Basileus Manuel I was too preoccupied with the crusader threat, while Conrad III and Louis VII were en route to the Holy Land. Roger II seized the opportunity to take Corfu again in 1147 and then to plunder the Greek coasts, especially around Thebes and even further inland, at Delphi. The king took advantage of this to bring back Greek artists who specialized in silk and settled in Palermo.
The Normans then turned to the island of Euboea and plundered Corinth. Manuel I Komnenos had to call on Venice, to which he granted new advantages, to confront the Norman fleet off the coast of Corfu. The Greeks and their allies prevailed this time and regained the island in 1149. However, this did not prevent a fleet of around forty Norman ships from plundering the surroundings of Constantinople before returning to Sicily.
The Norman offensives finally ended with the deaths of George of Antioch in 1151 and, above all, of Roger II himself in 1154. In the meantime, the Norman king had managed to establish a remarkable regime in many respects.
An Original Norman Kingdom: The Pearl of the Century
The reign of Roger II is not only marked by wars but also (especially?) by the creation of a kingdom that is quite original. Like his predecessors, he understood that his minority position (the Normans did not emigrate en masse to Italy, despite their successes) required a certain tolerance towards the local populations, which were very diverse, especially in Sicily. The numerous revolts were ultimately due only to the jealousy of other Norman barons, not of the locals (except in 1161, in Palermo).
The Norman king initially used mercenaries, especially in his campaigns against the pope and in Southern Italy. As seen, he hired Muslims, Greeks, and Christians from the East, like Christodoulos (who became protovestiarios, then emir in 1123!) or George of Antioch (archon of archons in 1132), which undoubtedly explains several of his victories against the Byzantines, but also in Ifriqiya, where the Norman cavalry was not necessarily comfortable. This also allowed the construction of an efficient Sicilian fleet, a distant echo of the maritime origins of the ancient Vikings.
At the level of organization and administration, the Normans did not completely overhaul everything; on the contrary, they relied on previous Muslim and Greek foundations. Moreover, Roger II entrusted none of the major positions to the Normans! The administration of Palermo was divided into two offices: the dohana (diwan in Arabic) of the secretariat for finances and the dohana baronum for local administration, especially justice. A mixed justice system also existed because a qadi would occasionally settle disputes between Muslim peasants and ecclesiastical lords. The languages spoken in these government bodies were much more often Arabic and Greek than Latin!
The Norman kings thus maintained the same organization of space as their predecessors: they strengthened fortresses, making them the capitals of iqlims (which could be translated as districts), and the qarya (open village for land exploitation and tax collection) also persisted, along with a certain ethnic, religious, and social segregation. However, to slow the flight of Muslim peasants, the Normans still granted them relatively advantageous agreements, including exemption from serfdom.
The Norman city also followed the Greco-Muslim model, as seen in Palermo; the king settled in a qasr, the New Castle, in the city center, and power relied on this political center as well as on the religious center, represented by the cathedral built in place of the mosque at the site of the old Byzantine cathedral. Like in Muslim cities, the main artery of Palermo was intended for merchants and the celebration of the sovereign, while gardens and orchards were installed in vacant areas.
This blend of different cultures is naturally present in the representation of royal majesty. Roger II’s court was sumptuous, and he presented himself dressed like the Byzantine emperor, wearing a magnificent cape of red silk embroidered with gold, depicting a lion overcoming a camel. This cape bears a Kufic inscription, revealing that it was woven in the tiraz (silk workshop) of Palermo between 1133 and 1134.
He also surrounded himself with scholars, both Greek and Muslim, including the author of the “Treatise on the Five Patriarchates,” Nilos Doxopater, and especially the geographer al-Idrisi, to whom we owe “The Book of Roger,” which contains the famous world map, “Tabula Rogeriana,” made for the Norman king. This same Idrisi saw the Sicily of his time as “the pearl of the century for its abundance and beauty.” Ibn Jubayr would reiterate this vision during the rule of William II (1166-1189). He even used the services of Philip of Mahdiya, an eunuch, to guard his harem.
Obviously, this combination also has an impact on the field of art. The first example is the New Castle, built in Palermo even before Roger II became king; it was modeled after Arab palaces, with an exterior resembling a fortress and an interior made of patios and splendid gardens. Then there is the Palatine Chapel, begun in 1132 and consecrated in 1140. While its plan is Latin (with three naves), its decoration is both Arabic and Byzantine (mosaics, Christ Pantocrator, Arabic inscriptions on the ceiling of the central nave, muqarnas, etc.).
Other buildings should also be mentioned, such as La Cuba, built by Muslim artists under William II (in 1180), or the Ziza, begun under William I and finished under his successor. The Cathedral of Monreale (consecrated in 1182), finally, is considered the most typical example of Norman art, blending Latin, Greek, and Arab influences.
Norman Sicily: A Fragile Kingdom
One must not idealize the Norman kingdom of Sicily, especially after the death of Roger II. It is, it must be emphasized, first and foremost a Christian kingdom. The king is a vassal of the pope, and he controls his archbishops and bishops and is generous with the monks, especially the Cistercians. Furthermore, despite his harem (Ibn Jubayr tells us that it is composed only of Muslim women), the Norman king only marries Latin princesses.
The balance is therefore precarious, both with the Muslim populations (influenced by the Almoravids and then the Almohads) and with the Greeks (with the constant risk of them joining the Byzantine camp), but also with the Italians, Normans, or Lombards. The kingdom holds as long as the king is strong, and with the death of Roger II, the first difficulties will begin.
The Normans established their dominance over Southern Italy and then over Sicily. They even threatened the Byzantine Empire itself, plundering Greece and raiding as far as Constantinople. But the Normans’ history with the East, and the Holy Land in particular, has deep roots, even before the Crusade or the raids of Guiscard and Roger II.
It is important to note and emphasize first that we are indeed talking here about the Normans, not the Vikings; indeed, the latter experienced great adventures in the East, in the 10th and 11th centuries, with Swedish raids (or Varangians) in Russia and up to the gates of Miklagard (Constantinople), in 907. In 1040, it was Ingvar the Great Voyager who set out for Syria, where he disappeared; but that is another story.
From Robert the Magnificent to Roussel de Bailleul
The history that connects the Normans to the East and the Holy Land begins in the first half of the 11th century. The descendants of the Vikings, under Rollon’s leadership, quickly embraced Catholicism and became its defenders not only in their own countries but also in Italy, Spain, and the East.
Before the warrior pilgrimages or Reconquista endeavors, the Normans took part in the significant wave of pilgrimages to Jerusalem that gained momentum in the early 11th century, reaching a peak in the 1030s–1040s, according to Raoul Glaber. Among the notable Norman pilgrims to the Holy Land was the Duke of Normandy himself, Robert, also known as “the Magnificent.” Assuming the ducal title at the age of 17 in tumultuous circumstances, he initially engaged in conflicts with Norman rivals before openly clashing with the Church. He changed his attitude toward religious organizations, however, under the influence of the Archbishop of Rouen, and he made sizable donations to abbeys like Fécamp and the Rouen Cathedral. In 1035, he also refounded Montivilliers Abbey.
The early 1030s marked a period of prosperity and peace in Normandy, but it was short-lived. The plague struck, prompting the Duke to join the major pilgrimage movements to the Holy Land in 1035. Before departing, he acknowledged his son William as his successor, embarking on a journey that took him to Rome, Constantinople, and finally Jerusalem in the spring. While completing his pilgrimage, he met an unfortunate end, succumbing to illness and the heat on his return journey near Nicaea on July 2, 1035.
Not all Normans who ventured to the Holy Land in the first half of the 11th century shared the same motivations as Robert the Magnificent. Many, like their Varangian cousins, were mercenaries in the service of the Byzantine emperor. Among them were the Stigand brothers. While their father Odo chose to follow Duke Robert before returning to Normandy to aid his young son, William, the Stigands opted to serve the Byzantine emperor. Odo II, the elder brother, served as chamberlain to Isaac Komnenos and later Constantin Doukas before returning to Normandy, succeeding his father alongside William. Robert, the less renowned brother, returned wealthy and with relics of Saint Barbara.
However, the most famous Norman mercenary in the East was Roussel de Bailleul. Although his origins are somewhat obscure, it is known that he fled the Duchy of Normandy due to murky circumstances. In the early 1060s, he was in Southern Italy with Count Roger, fighting in Sicily at the renowned Battle of Cerami in 1063. Subsequently, he chose to journey to the East, aligning with the Byzantines. Initially facing misfortune, he was present at the famous defeat of Manzikert in 1071 (Battle of Manzikert), where the Turks crushed the Greeks under Roman IV Diogenes. Despite this setback, Roussel felt at home in the East and decided to carve out his own principality near Ankara in 1073, exploiting the weakness of the new emperor, Michael VII Doukas. Although Michael sent his uncle John to punish the rebels, John was captured. Roussel, realizing he couldn’t be emperor, intended to use John Doukas as his puppet, offering him the imperial title before marching to Constantinople.
The legitimate emperor, panicked at the prospect of the Normans threatening the capital, sought the aid of the Turks. Roussel was defeated, captured, and ransomed himself, continuing his exploits by raiding the Black Sea region. He faced another defeat, this time by the general (and future emperor) Alexios Komnenos, with the support of the Turks. Despite his defeat, his captor recognized his value and released him to use against various rebels, including Nicephorus Botaniates, who posed a threat to the power of Michael Doukas. Unyielding, the Normans switched sides again; this time, Basileus, wanting to end the matter, had him captured by the Turks in 1077. Delivered to the Byzantines, he was executed shortly thereafter.
The journey of the Normans in the East and the Holy Land was diverse throughout the 11th century. However, a new chapter in the shared history between the Norman people and the Eastern Mediterranean unfolded with the call of Urban II on November 27, 1095.
The Hautevilles and the First Crusade
The Hautevilles, who led the Normans of Southern Italy at the end of the 11th century, established their dominance and expanded it to Sicily. Despite Robert Guiscard’s death in 1085, his brother Roger completed the conquest of the large island in 1091 and organized Guiscard’s succession. He chose Guiscard’s son, Roger Borsa, over his half-brother, Bohemond. However, Bohemond strengthened his territory by seizing the region of Tarentum, henceforth known as Bohemond of Tarentum, which would make him famous.
In 1096, he assisted his uncle Roger in besieging Amalfi, which had rebelled against Hauteville rule. It was there that he received Urban II’s call to liberate Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher. Bohemond saw this as a sign from God, an opportunity to fulfill his Christian duty and to carve out an independent principality, as hopes for the same in Italy were slim. He decided to depart immediately, forcing Roger to lift the siege of Amalfi. He was not alone; accompanying him were his nephew Tancred, his cousin Richard of Salerno (son of Drogo of Hauteville), his son Roger, and many others. Estimates speak of ten thousand knights and twenty thousand infantry, figures probably exaggerated but still indicative of the Normans of Italy’s significant commitment to the crusade. Normans from Normandy were also present, including Robert Curthose, the duke himself! It should be noted that this massive departure, despite the abandonment of the siege of Amalfi, greatly benefited Roger of Hauteville, allowing him to increase his power on the peninsula.
Bohemond of Tarentum led the Norman army in Italy. He crossed into Illyria swiftly, causing increasing concern for the emperor as he advanced toward Constantinople, the meeting place of the Crusaders. The ruins left by Guiscard’s raids were still fresh, and furthermore, Bohemond couldn’t always prevent his troops from plundering the Greeks along their way. Nonetheless, he reached Constantinople after other Frankish lords like Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Boulogne.
His significance became apparent when Alexius Komnenos received him personally, which allowed his daughter Anna to give a description of the Norman both flattering and tinged with awe, becoming famous (memories of Guiscard and Roussel de Bailleul made the Byzantines very wary of the Normans): “This man, so superior, was second only to my father in terms of fortune, eloquence, and other gifts of nature,” wrote the Greek princess. Yet, relations seemed to go well between the basileus and the Norman prince, and the latter even agreed to pledge allegiance to him like the other Crusader barons (except Raymond of Saint-Gilles).
The Normans crossed the Bosphorus, while Tancred and Richard did not wait and were already in Bithynia. The first battle between the Normans and the Turks erupted on July 1, 1097, at Dorylaeum, where the heavy Norman cavalry wreaked havoc. The Crusader advance into Anatolia continued in the following weeks. The army split in two, with Tancred choosing to follow Baldwin of Boulogne into Cilicia, but the two men quarreled, and Tancred rejoined the other Crusaders, while Baldwin founded the County of Edessa in March 1098.
The rest of the army, including Bohemond, continued and found itself before Antioch in October 1097. The siege was long and difficult; tensions between barons heightened, and Bohemond felt the situation slipping away from him against great lords like Raymond of Saint-Gilles or Godfrey of Bouillon. But being a Hauteville, he resorted to cunning, enabling the city’s capture by corrupting an Armenian convert to Islam. He entered Antioch on June 2, 1098. However, it took three more weeks for the Turkish garrison to fall and for the reinforcements led by the Seljuk Sultan to be repelled. The Norman emerged as the great victor, to the detriment of the Count of Toulouse, but especially of Emperor Alexius Komnenos, who understood well that the Crusaders would not honor their commitments.
Bohémond and Tancrède: Two Destinies
The capture of Antioch did not signify the end of tensions among the barons; on the contrary, Bohemond of Taranto managed to carve out his own position after several months, remaining in place to organize a principality while the other crusaders finally departed for their primary destination, Jerusalem.
Tancred of Hauteville and Richard of Salerno led the other Normans in the siege of the Holy City, which started in June 1099. Alongside their Norman cousins, they settled west of Jerusalem’s walls after Tancred himself liberated Bethlehem. Charged by the Count of Toulouse, who took command, with sourcing wood for siege engines, the Normans made new conquests, extending into Samaria in the weeks leading up to the assault. The attack occurred on July 13, with Jerusalem falling on the 15th. Tancred was among the first to enter the city, though he seemed to have little taste for the massacres that followed the city’s capture.
While not decisive in the election of Godfrey of Bouillon as an advocate of the Holy Sepulchre, Tancred actively participated in the battles to consolidate the crusader positions in the weeks that followed. After obtaining Nablus, he victoriously fought against the Fatimids at Ascalon and became prince of Galilee after the conquest of Haifa. Upon Godfrey of Bouillon’s death, Tancred opposed Baldwin’s decision to be elected King of Jerusalem. However, while dealing with this dispute, Tancred learned of his uncle Bohemond’s troubles.
Bohemond had organized the Principality of Antioch and, somewhat following the model of Roussel of Bailleul, extended his holdings in the region. The problem arose when the Byzantine Emperor Alexios Komnenos became furious with him for not returning to Antioch as agreed, launching attacks against Bohemond and reclaiming several places. The Norman faced misfortune when he was captured, alongside Richard of Salerno, by a Turkish emir in August 1100.
It was then that his nephew Tancred was called to serve as regent of the principality until his release. Immediately, the young Norman took on his new role, inflicting reversals on the Greeks by reclaiming Cilician cities and striking commercial agreements with the Genoese. He even managed to settle the dispute with Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who went to carve out his territory in the Tripoli region. These successes earned him favor with the King of Jerusalem, whom he even aided against the Fatimids in 1102 before Bohemond was finally released the following year.
Tancred’s uncle then attempted to regain control but met with less success. Even though he, along with his nephew, aided the Count of Edessa in 1104, he had to yield again to the Byzantines, then the Turks of Aleppo. The Prince of Antioch decided to return to the West for support. However, he failed in Durazzo against the Greeks and in his attempted “crusade” in 1107–1108. Bohemond couldn’t even return to Antioch and had to sign a humiliating treaty in Deabolis in 1108, favoring Alexios Komnenos, who had his revenge: the Normans became the vassals of the Greeks and relinquished most of his territories. Disheartened, he died in Apulia without seeing the Holy Land again, in 1111.
Tancred, on the other hand, did not meet the same fate: he seized the regency of the County of Edessa in 1104 due to Count Baldwin’s difficulties. As his uncle departed for Europe in 1107, Tancred once again took the reins of the Principality of Antioch. Richard of Salerno (or of Hauteville) replaced him in Edessa, following insistence from the King of Jerusalem due to Tancred’s increasingly ambitious claims. The Norman prince continued to fight in the following years against both the Greeks (rejecting Alexios Komnenos’s treaty) and the Turks, while attempting to expand his territory through political means. He died in 1112, a year after his uncle Bohemond. His legacy surpassed even that of his uncle, lasting into the paintings of Tasso in the 16th century.
The Agony of the Normans in the Holy Land
The successors of Bohemond and Tancred did not achieve the same feat. Upon Tancred’s death, Roger of Salerno (son of Richard of Hauteville) took the lead of the Principality of Antioch until Bohemond’s son reached adulthood. However, the new regent was killed in 1119 at the terrible Battle of Ager Sanguinis, and King Baldwin II of Jerusalem succeeded him. Young Bohemond II only received his father’s principality in 1126, and his death four years later in combat marked the beginning of the end of Norman dominance in the Holy Land, especially in Antioch.
Indeed, it was Fulk of Anjou who took regency over Bohemond II’s daughter, Constance. Therefore, the subsequent princes were not Norman princes, particularly Constance’s husband, Raymond of Poitiers. Like other Latin States, the Principality of Antioch underwent a slow decline, enduring the blows of Zengî and then Nûr al-Dîn before Constance married the notorious Renaud de Châtillon after Raymond of Poitiers’ death. Before the Turks captured Renaud, Antioch again came under Byzantine rule in 1159. The principality declined in the late 12th century, playing a minor role in the Third Crusade. In the early 13th century, due to conflicts among crusader barons, the Principality of Antioch was annexed to the County of Tripoli and then fell under the control of the Armenians of Cilicia, allies of the Mongols. The Norman founders, Bohemond and Tancred, became distant memories.
If the Norman adventure in the Holy Land came to naught despite great military deeds, attention must turn again to Sicily and Africa. What became of Roger II’s successors?
In Southern Italy and Sicily, far from the turmoil of Bohemond and Tancred in the Holy Land, Roger II became king with the support of the Pope. He extended his influence beyond the peninsula and the large island, even to the shores of Ifriqiya. Moreover, Norman established an original regime, influenced both by his personal background and by the local Greek and Muslim cultures. Were his successors up to the task?
A Legacy to Live Up To
The Norman king passed away in 1154, at the height of his power, despite initial difficulties in the East and Africa. William, his fourth son and almost thirty years old at the time, succeeded him. William would later be remembered unfavorably, particularly due to the writings of Hugh Falcand, earning him the nickname William “the Bad” (partly due to his excessive fondness for women). Nevertheless, he skillfully took over his father’s power, maintaining control over unruly vassals with the support of locals, constructing new buildings that became jewels of Sicilian-Norman art (such as the Ziza, begun during his reign), and adopting a court lifestyle akin to that of an emir (including a harem). However, he displayed less ambition in foreign policy, halting Norman expansion in Africa and temporarily ceasing offensives against Byzantium.
Yet, his decisions proved risky; like his father, he relied on Maion of Bari, the “emir of emirs” (similar to George of Antioch before him), further fueling the jealousy of Norman barons. They found support from the Byzantine Basileus Manuel Comnenus: Bari fell under Byzantine control, and William I’s Italian vassals rebelled. Meanwhile, the Norman king had already broken ties with Pope Adrian IV, who had crowned Frederick I Barbarossa and supported him. Despite his isolated position, William I managed to turn the situation in his favor by 1156.
He crushed the Sicilian rebels, razed Bari, and laid siege to Benevento, where he subjugated the pope, compelling him to reaffirm William’s legitimacy over Apulia and Calabria while stripping the principality of Capua from another Norman, Robert II! Adding to the pope’s misfortune, Emperor Frederick I attacked him in Northern Italy… Nonetheless, William the Bad sought vengeance against the Byzantines; he attacked in 1157 and forced Manuel Comnenus to sign a thirty-year peace treaty the following year, permanently abandoning the idea of the Greek reconquest of the peninsula.
The Norman kingdom then entered a brief period of calm, with improved relations with the pope following the election of Alexander III. The Normans supported Alexander III against Frederick Barbarossa, repelling Christian of Mainz’s attack in Campania in 1165 and restoring Alexander III at the expense of Antipope Paschal III.
In the meantime, William I had to deal with a serious internal crisis following Maion of Bari’s assassination in 1160. The conspiracy involved several important Norman barons and even the Archbishop of Palermo! The king himself narrowly escaped death in 1161, initiating a bloody campaign of punishment throughout Southern Italy and Sicily. Although William I restored his power, the kingdom was weakened when he died in 1166, leaving the throne to his son.
The End of Norman Imperialism in the Mediterranean
It is Marguerite of Sicily, the mother of the young king (he is twelve years old), who ensures the regency. She is assisted in her task by Etienne de Perche, close to the Plantagenets. He became known during the troubles of the 1160s when the king narrowly escaped death; he is accused of having incited anti-Muslim “pogroms” and is very unpopular with the locals, even in the highest administration. Still appointed Archbishop of Palermo in 1167, he had to flee the following year under the threat of a revolt in Palermo.
When Guillaume II reaches his majority, the Norman kingdom is relatively calm, and he manages it as best he can, which earns him the nickname “the Good” in contrast to his father. The sovereign then decides to resume the imperial policy of his grandfather, Roger II. Indeed, under the reign of Guillaume I, the Normans lost their possessions in Africa at the hands of the Almohads; the new king decided to ally with them and signed a relatively advantageous treaty: it seems that in 1180, he obtained the maintenance of a Norman presence in Mahdiya and Zawîla, but above all the payment of the tribute decided under the reign of Roger II (for protection against pirates and advantages in cereal supply) and peace with the Almohads for ten years.
With the problem of Ifriqiya settled, Guillaume II can turn to the East. After a failed attempt on Alexandria in 1174 and then on the Balearic Islands in the early 1180s, he turned to the perpetual enemy of the Normans: the Byzantine Empire. In 1185, he responds to a call from opponents of the basileus Andronicus Comnenus and marches on Durazzo. His troops ravage Greece a century after those of his ancestor, Robert Guiscard, and Thessaloniki is once again plundered! But as his fleet heads towards Constantinople, his army is defeated on the Strymon on November 7, 1185. The Norman imperial ambition is definitively shattered, despite Guillaume II’s dispatch of a fleet off the coast of Syria to respond to Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem in 1187.
The Suffering of Norman Sicily
Guillaume the Good (“esteemed and loved sovereign of his subjects,” according to Dante) died prematurely in 1189, while he had planned to participate in the crusade to reconquer the Holy City. He had been closely associated with the Plantagenet family (also heirs of the Normans, but… of Normandy) for several years by marrying Joan, daughter of Henry II (and thus sister of Richard the Lionheart), in 1177, and simultaneously opposed the ambitions of Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.
The Germanic emperor attacked the peninsula several times, without success. At the Congress of Venice, also in 1177, the Norman king played an important role: peace was signed between Alexander III and Frederick Barbarossa, but also between the latter and William II’s Norman Sicily. But following this truce, the sovereigns arranged the marriage of Constance, the posthumous daughter of Roger II, with Henry, the son of Frederick I. The consequences were catastrophic for the Norman heritage.
Indeed, William II died at only 36 years old, especially without an heir! Constance is thus the legitimate heir, while the following year her husband becomes Henry VI and ascends to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire; thus, Norman Sicily falls under the rule of the Empire. The Norman barons do not want to become the vassals of a country they have always fought against, whether they agree with the Norman kings who kept them away from power or not.
They therefore elect one of their own, Tancred of Lecce, bastard son of Roger, one of the sons of Roger II, who died prematurely (in 1148). Conflict erupts with Constance, who still has supporters on the island, just as Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus stop in Sicily on their way to the Holy Land. In 1194, Henry VI’s troops defeat the person who can be considered the final Norman king, and he passes away in Palermo. On December 25 of the same year, the Germanic emperor is crowned king of Sicily in the cathedral of Palermo and ends the Norman dynasty.
Frederick II: A Norman Heritage?
The emperor is known for his cruelty, and he is not finished with the Normans. He takes advantage of the ceremony and the pretext of a plot against him to imprison the entire Norman aristocracy, as well as the family of Tancred of Lecce, including young William III, who had nevertheless renounced the throne. They are deported to Germany with an immense booty, including the insignia of Norman royalty and the famous cape of Roger II. The last Norman barons still on the island revolted in 1197, but they were crushed. The emperor then ordered the eyes of the prisoners in Germany to be gouged out, including William III, who died in captivity.
However, the emperor died in front of Palermo on September 28, 1197, under obscure circumstances (poisoning, illness?). His son Frederick II Hohenstaufen succeeded him; he was Norman through his mother and would in part prolong this heritage through his way of governing. Indeed, after experiencing difficulties ascending to the throne, he established a regime that, in many ways, resembled that of Roger II and his successors. He was multilingual, very interested in Greek culture, and even more so in Arab and Islamic culture, and some have accused him of maintaining a harem and acting like an oriental sovereign. The same grievances were levied against the deceased Norman kings of Sicily.
