The Norman Sicily Project

I. The Normans’ First Encounters in Southern Italy

by Gary Rodriguez

The Normans were a hardy people who were descended from Scandinavians.¹ They settled in the area known as Normandy, which is located in modern day northern France. The Normans who came to Southern Italy and Sicily were led there for several reasons. The first was severe overcrowding in Normandy, which made it hard to leave a proper inheritance of land if one had multiple children, like Tancred de Hauteville,² who was the father of 12 sons, most notably Roger and Robert. The promise of work, land, and wealth brought many to Normandy. One of the first notable Normans who came from Normandy was Richard, also known as Rodulf. He had an opportunity to meet with Pope Benedict VIII, who was looking to get rid of the Byzantine influence in Southern Italy. Richard and his forces would attack Byzantine Apulia, and word of his campaign spread and brought Normans to southern Italy. This story was recorded by two historians close to the time, one being Burgundian monk Radulf Glaber and French chronicler, Adehemar of Chabannes.³

In addition to mercenary work and the promise of wealth, another thing that brought Normans to southern Italy were religious pilgrimages to either Rome or the Holy Land itself. One such tale, documented by primary sources, details the story of 40 Norman pilgrims who were returning from Jerusalem. On their return to Normandy, they stopped at the Italian city of Salerno, where there were ongoing hostilities between the town and Muslim forces who demanded tribute. The Normans simply asked for weapons and horses and turned the tide of battle. defeating the Muslim forces in a forceful and skilled manner. Those in Salerno even asked if the Normans would stay to protect them, but the reluctant Normans wanted to return home, having been well-compensated for their efforts.⁴

The older Hauteville brothers started making a name for themselves in the mid 1030s as mercenaries for the Prince of Capua; however, they did not find their pay adequate. This led them to lend their services to Guaimar of Salerno.⁵ This was just the beginning. The Hauteville family would ultimately play an important role in the conquest of Southern Italy.

II. Norman Warfare

by Brian Schnell

The Normans have a very interesting history in Sicily. Beginning their career as an army for hire, they ultimately came to dominate the region, including the critically important trade routes in the Mediterranean Sea. Gradually, they made great strides in advancing their interests in the region. How did they do this? According to Warfare in The Norman Mediterranean by Giorgio Theotokis, they did this by employing three strategies. The first was by using numerous techniques at their disposal. The second was by using Muslim troops from Sicily, men who had likely gained important experience by serving the Byzantines. And the third was by using their ever-evolving fleet of ships.

In the early days, the Normans who campaigned in Sicily were at a severe disadvantage. The biggest obstacle they faced was not having a main base of operations. Another problem they faced was their numbers; they had few troops. Originally, these were not significant concerns as the Normans were mercenaries for hire, pledging allegiance to whomever would pay them the most. Initially joining the Byzantines in their conquest for Sicily in the early eleventh century, their lodgings were likely taken care of and their small numbers were balanced out by the rest of the Byzantine army. This allowed them a place in the Byzantine’s Varangian Guard.

Although the sources do not give us a clear picture of the hostilities, they do suggest that the Normans were formidable warriors. In the period between the Battle of Cannae in 1018 and the full Byzantine Expedition of Sicily in 1038, the Normans launched and won two sieges against Capua in 1024 and Naples in 1027. Interestingly, despite these victories earning them a permanent base, they still continued working as for-hire mercenaries for anyone who could pay.⁶⁷

Once the Normans made the switch from mercenaries to conquerors, they created a territorial base through their advanced and modular battle techniques. According to William of Apulia, the Normans set up a base of operations in the fortressed town of Melfi, Basilicata and in the regions of Apulia and Campania in 1041. William of Apulia does not give us event by event recollection of the battle for the town, but what is relayed to us is the approximate count of soldiers on each side. For the Normans, they were “some five hundred strong” and their enemies, local Italian troops, approximately sixty-thousand in number. Yet despite these incredible odds, the Normans were able to accomplish a victory and take control of the town.⁸

This is the first of many examples of how the Normans would win battles despite being severely outnumbered. This can be attributed to the advanced military ability and techniques that had originally placed the Normans into the Byzantine army’s Varangian Guard. The battle of Castrogiovanni in 1061 is perhaps one of the best examples of this. Robert Guiscard had been leading approximately one thousand soldiers (the precise number is disputed given the unreliability of medieval figures), while the Muslims numbered approximately fifteen thousand cavalry and a likely exaggerated one hundred thousand infantry. Through techniques that will be discussed later, the Normans were able to launch an attack that, despite not being a definite victory, pushed the Muslim army back to the Castle of Castrogiovanni. This left them with approximately ten thousand overall casualties that provided a huge morale boost for the small band of Normans.⁹

There were, oddly enough, benefits to having smaller numbers of soldiers. For example, it reduced the amount of resources needed – such as food. It also made it easy to replace the soldiers who were no longer with the battalion. It also made movement faster and more efficient. If you have a small number of soldiers, it makes it much easier to feed them. This means that the number of resources needed was significantly decreased and whatever they had could be stretched further. The small numbers also made it quite easy to replace those who died from disease or in battle, who were left to guard captured towns or who deserted.¹⁰ This was easy to accomplish when the Normans would take anyone who was willing to join them.¹¹ Lastly, moving three hundred men into enemy territory could happen faster than moving thousands or tens of thousands into the same territory.

Perhaps the most important technique that the Normans brought to Sicily as they slowly conquered the island was the incorporation of cavalry into their battle formations. The implementation of cavalry allowed the Normans to create more effective formations and distinguish themselves from other rag tag bands of soldiers.

The first notable use of the cavalry techniques was at the Battle of Olivento. This was in the Apulia region of Italy in 1041. Facing a battle where they would be outnumbered by perhaps as much as nine to one by the Byzantine army, numerous bands of Normans came to a decision. They would unite under the control of Humphrey of Hauteville, who was joined by his brother Drogo of Hauteville, and the Beneventan Normans. Serving under Humphrey was Gerald of Buonalbergo, Richard of Aversa, and Robert Guiscard. This uniting of the differing groups of Normans boosted their numbers to between eleven hundred and two thousand soldiers and knights.¹²

Having cavalry made it very easy to divide the army into three divisions. Two cavalries projecting forward on the flanks and a row of interspaced spearmen and dismounted knights in between. The left cavalry division was commanded by Robert Guiscard and the right by Richard of Aversa. The center division was commanded by Humphrey of Hauteville. This created a wider formation that likely gave the Byzantines the impression that there were many more Normans on the field than there actually was.¹³

Once the battle began, the cavalry units crossed as they began encircling and attacking the Byzantine army. This led to an important victory and a demonstration of how effective a heavy mounted charge can be combined with the effectiveness of a Norman battalion. According to Theotokis:

…The key to victory lay in the use of their traditional heavy cavalry charge against a heterogenous infantry army…which proves that even a heavily armed, well-trained and disciplined unit of infantry cannot withstand/repel a sustained heavy cavalry attack unless it is itself supported by units of archers and cavalry.¹⁴

Based on this, it can be said that the Normans’ heavy cavalry attacks were so effective and powerful that it would take cavalry, archers, and infantry to stop the charge. The sheer power of a cavalry charge was one of the key pieces in the puzzle of Norman dominance.

The next key piece to the Normans’ conquest of Sicily was their modular techniques. The Normans were not limited to simple cavalry cross charges but were always open to new techniques or adjustments to increase their efficacy. One of the most notable times that this can be seen is during the Battle of Castrogiovanni in the summer of 1061. As mentioned previously, the Normans were significantly outnumbered but somehow accomplished a victory that boosted their morale. This victory was earned through the use of modular techniques. Instead of lining the soldiers up in divisions, Robert Guiscard decided instead to divide the cavalry and soldiers into waves, the first of which was led by Roger of Sicily and the second by himself. Again, this led the Muslims to sustain ten thousand casualties and retreat.¹⁵

Another example of this approach can be seen in the pitched battle at Misilmeri in 1068. This battle started as a plundering mission in the Palermo area. During the plundering, Roger’s cavalry forces came upon a large mixed army of Africans and Sicilians waiting for them. They were already lined up in battle formations. Roger saw this before his forces got close and, realizing that his forces were significantly outnumbered, took his time to reposition his men. This allowed him the benefit of a surprise attack that had been coordinated according to prior knowledge. The Muslim force sustained a huge loss and hardly any of the survived so that they could take news back to Palermo.¹⁶

Interestingly, the Normans also, at times, employed Muslim soldiers who had served under the Byzantines. It is said that the Normans made significantly effective use of this. They were able to use these soldiers as archers, in light cavalry and in various forms of infantry. By using the Byzantines’ own tactics against them in combination with the pre-existing Norman techniques and weaponry, it made it much more difficult for the Byzantines to fight back since the Normans were familiar with their military tactics.¹⁷

One other development that helped solidify the Normans’ control over Sicily was their inclusion of a naval fleet. The Normans, having ancestry in the ocean-faring Vikings, already had sailing and naval skill in their blood. Even though it took them some time to get up to speed, they knew that they would need an effective navy if they were to maintain their hold over Sicily.

In the beginning, the Normans had to commandeer merchant vessels to ferry their armies across the Strait of Messina. After they arrived, they began to slowly deploy their fleet. This enabled them to sail into ports and to attack or to control merchant vessels. At its peak, the Normans had a fleet numbering nearly four hundred ships carrying eighty thousand soldiers for numerous purposes.¹⁸

In the early days of the state, the Normans in Sicily would have had to make use of merchant ships called dromons. Essentially these large ships were powered by two decks of oars and a pair of large sails. This was the most common ship in the Mediterranean at the time and, as such, was what the Normans had to use.¹⁹ As time went on, though, the dromon evolved into the bireme, which is what Robert Guiscard and Roger of Sicily would have seen. The bireme was very similar to the dromon except that it was significantly larger (approximately 31.25 meters long and 4.4 meters wide), had more sailors who could also serve as soldiers, and drew on technological advancements such as the pairing of steering oars. Another advancement the Normans benefitted from was the inclusion of weapons onboard. Examples of these weapons often included a chain wrapped spur for ramming other ships and Greek fire siphons for throwing flames that were mounted on fortified platforms on the forecastle of the ship.²⁰

During their reign, the Normans later modified the bireme into their signature ship, the galea. At 39.5 meters long and 4.6 meters wide, this type of ship was even longer than the bireme. In place of the double deck oaring system, the galea only had a single deck. The rowers would sit two to a bench in twenty-five rows on either side of the ship, in the newly invented oaring system called “alla sensile”. However, when they modified the bireme, they left behind the siphons for Greek fire, replacing them with more efficient projectile launchers such as the ballista.

There were several benefits to these modified ships. The lack of a lower deck allowed the ships to carry more supplies and a larger quantity of plunder. They also had increased speed and range. Therefore, the Normans were able to complete long range quick striking attacks that they needed in order to keep their enemies at bay.²¹ This capability was necessary to keep their enemies from launching attacks against them. As the power of this ship became better known, the Normans were perceived as more formidable enemies by many in the region.

At the end of the day, it can be said that the Normans were destined to take over Sicily. From early on, they had advanced battle skills and were able to create an elite unit under the Byzantines. Their tactics were quite advanced and effective, from modifying their battlefield layouts to using mounted cavalry charges against the Byzantines and others. It can also be said that their fleet of ships provided effective control of Sicily. They were in control of both Sicily and its sea.

III. A Brief Chronology of the Conquest, ca. 1060-1091

by Gary Rodriguez

The Normans were a thorn in the side of the Italian princes and Byzantine forces on the Italian mainland. The Hauteville family played a major role in the conflict as Drogo, Humphrey, Roger, and Robert were leaders of the Norman forces at different times. Their success was not easy as it had been during their pacification of Italy; they faced off against Italians, Byzantines, and, by 1053, the Pope Leo IX and his German allies. But this opposition would ultimately be a catalyst that would unify the fractured Norman forces.²² They decimated the combined forces against them and the Hauteville family was victorious. “Geoffrey Malaterra claimed that in the aftermath of the battle Leo invested them with their present lands, and what in the future they could conquer in Calabria and Sicily, to be held ‘as an hereditary fief from St Peter.’”²³ This made them the legitimate rulers of these lands in Southern Italy and it meant they could continue their conquests without papal interference and they could focus on the task at hand, which was conquering Calabria from the Byzantine holdouts.

After the Normans continued to pacify Southern Italy, Pope Nicholas II proclaimed Robert Guiscard as ‘future Duke of Sicily’ in 1059. This set the stage and basically gave the Normans God’s blessing to take back Sicily from the Kalbite Muslim forces who ruled it. The Normans at this point were not experienced naval combatants but they were able to rely on their conquered subjects who had experience in naval engagements in various cultural settings.²⁴ The invasion began in 1061 when Roger took “270 knights in 13 ships across the straits in the first wave and then 166 knights in the second wave, in an attempt to capture Messina and secure the transportation of the rest of the army from the opposite Calabrian coast.”²⁵ This provided the Normans a foothold in Sicily and enabled reinforcements and supplies to be delivered if needed. Roger and his forces moved to their target city of Messina; it was near the landing site and was an important strategic location. Roger and his forces would take the city and this would ensure safe travel for troops traveling between the mainland and Sicily.²⁶

After this, the main invasion force was able to land. It is estimated that the force contained about 1000 knights and 1000 infantry. Roger would march with the forces across Sicily, heading west towards the city of Castrogiovanni, which would give them control of the center of the island.²⁷ The Arab Muslim forces were safely hiding in their strongholds. So, as a result, Roger and his forces worked to draw them out of hiding by conducting raids along the way to Castrogiovanni. The strategy was successful and they inflicted heavy losses on them. With that said, the timing was poor because the campaigning season was almost over and they had to retreat and fortify. ²⁸ The conquest was on pause until 1063 when Muslim forces reinforced their numbers and planned a counterattack to expel the invaders. They clashed at the Battle of Cerami, where the Norman forces were victorious after they claimed to have seen St. Martin of Tours, a fourth-century saint and former soldier himself, who inspired them on the battlefield.²⁹ About the next few years, the sources are relatively silent. According to Theotokis,

We have very little information on what was taking place in Sicily during the next four years following the events at Cerami, which suggests either that Roger had only a few troops at his disposal, because of civil strife in Apulia and Calabria, or that the Muslims were putting up vigorous resistance to the Norman expansion. Nonetheless, we are told that Roger maintained pressure on the Muslims, mostly along the north coast towards the ‘Capital.’³⁰

The next battle fought against the Muslims that is mentioned in the sources is the pitched battle at Misilmeri in 1068. This was an ambush battle and was a huge win for the Normans; although outnumbered, they were able to defeat the Muslim forces by leveraging the element of surprise.³¹ After the important siege of Bari, the last Byzantine fortress on the mainland, between 1068 and 1071, the next major battle was arguably the most important of the entire conquest - the siege of Palermo. Using both ships and experience they had gained during the campaign on the mainland, the Normans besieged the city by land and sea for 5 months until they city’s inhabitants surrendered in January 1072. Roger and his forces entered Palermo by climbing the walls and forcing the surrender of the Muslim forces, under the condition they be allowed to practice their religion without interference. ³²

According to Theotokis, after Palermo’s fall, “Muslims stopped offering the Normans a chance to give pitched battle and locked themselves up in their heavily fortified cities and castles, in 1072, the Norman expansion dragged on for 20 more years.”³³ Graham Loud also says there were several reasons for the prolonged conflict. This included that once Duke Robert had made arrangements with his brother for the plans for Sicily, he left with a majority of his forces, leaving his brother, Roger, severely undermanned. Compounding the issue was that Robert would call on his brother for military support, distracting the count from the Sicilian campaign.³⁴ After returning from the Italian mainland, Roger made good progress in taking new areas of the island, including the fortresses of Trapani in 1077, Castronuovo in 1078, and Taormina in 1079, helping to give him control of key areas of the island. ³⁵ The Norman offensive really picked up again in 1086 as Roger began to finish off the last of the Muslim forces on the island, culminating in the surrender of Noto, Sicily’s last Muslim settlement.³⁶ Though it took 31 years of his life, Roger had finally conquered the last of the Muslim holdout on the island.

IV. The Loss of North Africa

by Bobby Ammiano

The loss of North Africa under King William I of Sicily in 1160 was a major blow to the Normans and it began a slow decline of Norman control within the central Mediterranean. However, the problem started in North Africa years before even William I was ruler of the Normans. Roger II quelled a revolt in North Africa by taking the sheik Abu I-Hasan al-Furrayani hostage in 1148 and put his son Umar ibn Abi I-Hasan al-Furrayani in power as a way to keep him in check. However, this tactic worked only for so long. al-Furrayani started a revolt in Sfax and began killing Christians in the city on February 25, 1156.³⁷ Unfortunately, William I inherited this problem from his father and was not responsible for what had happened previously in the region. However, this did not stop William from responding to this threat. His response was to kill al-Furrayani, which didn’t stop the Muslim rebellion. In fact, it did the exact opposite. It added fuel to a fire that was already burning. al-Furrayani was seen as a martyr after being killed by William and uprisings against Norman rule began to occur all over the region. Clashes between Muslims and Normans began. Abd al-Mu’min, an Almohad lord of the western Maghrib, began to lay siege to the city of Tunis on July 13^th^, 1159. He initiated with 100,000 troops and a fleet of 70 ships, compelling the Normans to quickly surrender. Abd al-Mu’min’s next target was Mahdiyah, where he landed on August 5th. Mahdiyah had a Norman force of 3,000 knights.³⁸ Both of these numbers, according to Stanton, are most likely inflated, so the exact number is still unknown. However, the Normans were completely cut off and surrounded on all sides, both land and sea. The Norman fleet sent to reinforce the ground troops was defeated, unbeknownst to the Norman garrison. The garrison held out for another four long months, exhausting all their supplies and surrendered to Abd al-Mu’min. According to reports, Normans began eating their horses once they ran out of their rations. Abd al-Mu’min entered the city of Mahdiyah on January 2^nd^, 1160.³⁹ Officially the Kingdom of Sicily’s reign over North Africa was officially over. The Normans lost control over the southern shore of the Central Mediterranean. This was the beginning of the end of the Hauteville Dynasty of Sicily and Southern Italy. By losing control of the Mediterranean, they soon begin losing other territories for the future to come.

V. William II’s Wars against Egypt and the Byzantine Empire

by Bobby Ammiano

William I died of dysentery and tertian fever in May 1166. He bequeathed to his heir, William II, an empire that was both weaker and poorer than he himself had inherited.⁴⁰ Historians consider Willian I a terrible leader, calling him “William the Bad.” However, according to Stanton, one could easily say the same for his son William II, or as he calls him “William the Worse.” Even though he is more highly regarded than his father, both of their policies led to the eventual collapse of the Norman Empire in Sicily. William II was only 13 when his father died, leaving his mother, Queen Margaret, in charge of the state until he was old enough. This, however, did come with both internal and external problems. The internal problems included Margaret attempting to centralize the administrative state, but unfortunately that just led to fraud and corruption committed by the people she appointed. The external problems involved Frederick Barbarossa of Germany attempting to invade Italy once hearing that William I had died. However, he never managed to invade due to his army getting dysentery before the invasion, forcing him to retreat.⁴¹ However, once William II officially began to rule, he went on the offensive, attempting to gain territory for the Normans. His first target was Egypt. North Africa was officially lost under William I in 1160. However, this new planned invasion began in 1174, which apparently took 5 years to amass a big enough fighting force. The invasion force had 200 ships (36 transports, 40 with provisions and 6 with war supplies), as well as 50,000 infantry and 1,500 knights. The objective was Alexandria, at which they arrived on July 28^th^, 1174.⁴² However, the citizens of Alexandria knew of the forthcoming invasion and managed to hold out until Saladin, famed Sultan of Egypt, came to defend the city. The invasion was a complete and utter failure. Tancred of Lecce did a terrible job organizing the troops and the Normans were pushed by Saladin and his forces into the sea. William II, not actually going on these conquests, did not know the full reports on them and launched another attempt in 1177. This time, they were successful. They also made an attempt to raid Alexandria, but left for unknown reasons.⁴³

The next series of conquests that William embarked on was the attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire. This effort helped bring an end to the Norman naval power in the Mediterranean. The plans started in 1185, following internal strife within Byzantium itself. As they prepared for the invasion, the Normans were composed of approximately 300-400 ships, 80,000 soldiers, along with 5,000 knights. This armada landed in the city of Durazzo on June 24^th^, 1185, where the city immediately surrendered.⁴⁴ The Normans then arrived at the walled city of the Macedonian capital; the city managed to hold off for a short while, before, being overwhelmed by the force. The civilians within the city were slaughtered with around seven thousand being killed.⁴⁵ However, the Byzantines began fighting back. The Byzantines fought the Sicilian force in Strymon, near Amphipolis, and successfully defeated the Normans, killing and or capturing almost all of them. The next Norman defeat was near the capital. When Tancred of Lecce tried to attack Constantinople, the Bosporus strait was blocked by a Byzantine fleet of 100 galleys. They never managed to break the blockade, so they just set sail for home.⁴⁶ Overall, despite the Normans having some successful battles against both Egypt and Byzantium, they they failed to conquer any new territory. The campaigns came at significant cost, too, as they wasted manpower and military resources on efforts that resulted in no gain. William II eventually died, and without a named heir, Tancred of Lecce seized the throne and was crowned king. Like his father before him, William II left to his successor a state that was poorer and weaker than the one he had received.

VI. The End of the Dynasty and the Accession of Henry VI of Germany

by Bobby Ammiano

By the year 1194, the Hauteville Dynasty of Southern Italy and Sicily was officially over. It was conquered and seized by the German House of Hohenstaufen. Henry VI crowned himself King of Sicily on Christmas Day 1194. So, what led to the downfall of the Normans? According to Stanton, it was their inability to maintain the naval supremacy that had been established under Roger II. Roger II’s heirs had strayed from the formula that worked for him.⁴⁷ After William II of Sicily died, Tancred of Lecce, who was Duke Roger of Apulia’s illegitimate son, was crowned King of Sicily in 1189. Due to the losses of territory over time from his predecessors, Tancred could not rely on traditional feudal obligations to provide his military with equipment and manpower. He had to dip into the royal treasury, which was increasingly diminished over time due to his predecessors’ reckless spending.⁴⁸ Tancred’s July 1191 privilege to Gaeta reduced the ship quota from two to one. Buying loyalty in the end is one of the reasons why the navy was so compromised. He could not sustain the fleet.⁴⁹ Henry VI of Germany began conquering territory in Italy with little or no Norman resistance. They were powerless to prevent the Germans from invading. Emperor Henry VI was eventually crowned King of Sicily Christmas 1194 in the Cathedral in Palermo, Sicily. The Normans were powerless to prevent this due to their previous concessions and loss of territory.⁵⁰ Even though the Hauteville Dynasty was officially over, the successes were repeated under the new house of Hohenstaufen. Henry VI died in 1197, only a couple years of declaring himself king of Sicily. His successor, Frederick II, was the grandson of Roger II. Frederick II brought Hauteville blood back to the Kingdom of Sicily. Unlike the successors of Roger II, Frederick II began implementing naval supremacy over the Mediterranean once again, following Norman traditions that brought power and wealth to the Normans.⁵¹