The Norman Sicily Project

When people think of Sicily, rarely do they ever think of it as the heartland of a kingdom. Sicily is often seen merely as a part of Italy, leading its rich, unique, and multicultural history to fall by the wayside. Sicily was indeed the center for the formation of a Norman kingdom and a multicultural heartland during the late 1000s into the 1100s. This kingdom would have a major role to play in the Crusades and the many battles that took place within that time period. Most importantly though, this kingdom would, through the works of its many great rulers, go down as a state (avoid repetition of “kingdom”) that would change the course of Mediterranean and European history for centuries to come. The rulers of the Norman kingdom of Sicily such as Roger I, Roger II, King Tancred, and more all had an important role to play in the politics of the world going on at that time. Beginning with Tancred of Hauteville and his twelve sons, we will see how every decision, every action, every step made by these figures led them to create a kingdom that would rival that of France and the Byzantine Empire. Also, the dynasty the great figures of Norman Sicily such as Roger II created defined the direction of Sicilian history for years and because of this it should be known that Sicily is not just a simple footnote to history. At the end of this essay it is our hope that the historical value of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily will be brought to light and that its readers will have a new appreciation for the history of Sicily and history in general.

Tancred and His Sons

by Richard DeVivo

The conquests of Sicily at the hands of the Norman House of Hauteville came to be through both scarcity and personal ambition. It was a family of humble beginnings. According to tradition, the once minor House of Hauteville traced back from the line of the Norseman Hiallt, who founded the settlement of Hauteville on the Cotentin peninsula in Normandy. They controlled very little land and held very little influence. When Tancred de Hauteville came to power, he was but a petty lord. Due to this, very little is known about him. What is known is that Tancred sired twelve sons and many daughters between two wives.¹ Tancred possessed little else other than his meager territory and a large family hungry for more. It was a situation bound to disappoint his many children looking to inherit their father’s holdings. Yet humble beginnings would propel the House of Hauteville to greatness. Tancred’s many younger sons knew that they would receive little to nothing when it came to inheritance and instead traveled to southern Italy to gain their fortune, lest they be penniless and without glory. In accordance with Norman military tradition and heritage, the sons of Tancred would make their way in the world as soldiers of fortune for great powers and eventually become conquerors of their own lands.² The children of the House of Hauteville ventured, fought, and struggled for their “inheritance.” Thus, Tancred’s legacy is tied to the triumphs of his many ambitious descendants.

Robert Guiscard

by Taelor Myrie

In 1046, Robert Guiscard departed France, beginning his journey to Southern Italy. The son of Tancred of Hauteville embarked on a journey to Italy to seek what his father was unable to give to him: land, glory, and riches. When mounting his horse in Normandy and setting his sights on the Italian peninsula, Robert had no way of knowing that he would later become the Duke of Apulia and Calabria, controlling the South of Italy and eventually, Sicily. Prior to his arrival, his elder brother William was named the first ever leader of Normans collectively in the south of Italy, succeeded as Count of Apulia by his brother Drogo on the event of his death.³ Drogo was prepared to treat his younger brother, Robert, as a knight, but was unwilling to give him his own territory.⁴ Guiscard became count of Apulia and Calabria in 1057 upon the death of his younger brother Humphrey.⁵ His rule was marked by many military battles, but the most notorious of his spats were the frequent ones between him and the pope. In 1059, the Treaty of Melfi was signed, with the Normans pledging their financial and military support to the papacy and swearing an oath to not invade papal land in return for recognition from the pope and Robert Guiscard being elevated from the Count of Apulia and Calabria to the Duke of Apulia, Calabria, and yet-to-be-conquered Sicily.⁶ There never came a moment when Robert simply basked in the glory of his success; he was constantly entangled in efforts to preserve his gains as well as to expand into new territories. It is evident that while he took great pride in his accomplishments, he was never fully satisfied. In May 1061, after his spring campaign in Apulia, Melfi, and with the recapture of Brindisi and Oria, he was able to send a large number of men to Sicily to aid his brothers already ongoing battle against the Muslim population that predated their arrival.⁷ Plagued by the Greek influence in a land he tried so hard to eradicate, he didn't see his vision of a “Norman” society come true. Greek settlements existed throughout Southern Italy and Calabria. Their resistance to the duke’s rule and leadership sparked battles with droves of men besieging these areas until their rebellions were crushed. Undertaking the pope’s wishes to reclaim Sicily and spending countless years squashing Lombard and Byzantine rebellions, his rule remained strong. But he as an individual was spread thin. Guiscard left the shores of Sicily in 1072 for the last time; he never returned due to obligations and the challenges that he faced in mainland Italy.⁸ The Duke of Apulia and Calabria was motivated and success driven and had a thirst for territorial acquisition and power. His legacy is that of a man who did what he pleased in the interest of power consolidation and growth. He relied heavily on his brother and those he trusted, and although a devout Catholic, he was not afraid to take on the human representative of his God.

Roger I

by Taelor Myrie

Roger I rose to prominence under Robert’s wing and is best remembered for the role he played in the expansion of his brother’s duchy, his ability to formulate and execute strategic plans, and his policy of tolerance of people in conquered areas. Following in the footsteps of his successful brothers William and Robert, a young Roger I began his journey to Southern Italy in search of riches and power. Robert trusted his younger brother and enlisted him to serve in military conquests, waging war for the expansion and prosperity of the duchy. While his early accomplishments are many, the most significant and documented struggle he undertook was the thirty-year campaign to rid the island of Sicily of its three Muslim leaders. While conflict between the Church and the Normans was present throughout their longstanding history, it was in the best interest for both of these entities to end Muslim rule of the island. The Saracens and the Lombards assisted Roger in a conquest that was brutal in execution, despite suffering numerous setbacks.⁹ Their strategy included cornering the Muslims and burning crops and buildings while they made their advancement on land. They were playing the long game, waiting to attack in moments of vulnerability. While overall successful, there would have been no need for efforts to conquer Sicily to last 30 years had sufficient manpower been available to Roger. His focus remained on Sicily whilst battles were erupting on the mainland, drawing his focus to assist his brother for extended periods of time. With his full attention, his cunning strategies, and a larger force to execute his plans, the Muslim leaders likely would have been defeated much sooner.

As count of Sicily, a title given to him by Robert Guiscard for his involvement in reclaiming Sicily, Roger I understood the necessity for order amongst his new subjects. Waging an expensive, deadly, and time-consuming war for 30 years meant that substantial freedoms had to be granted, knowing the Arabs, Berbers, and Byzantines could have organized a revolt to reclaim power. Under his rule, Sicily needed constant protection to keep newly-defeated enemies from rebelling. A continuous presence necessary to protect the island effectively was paid for by residents in the form of taxes. To mitigate thoughts of resentment and keep the peace, Roger I allowed for the practice of Easter Orthodoxy and Islam.¹⁰ Places of worship were maintained and Roger I made his quest for knowledge and his fascination with cultures evident. He allowed for the continuation of Muslim influence in law. Arabic was an official language of the state (alongside Norman French and Greek) and he kept regional emirs in their posts, maintaining the presence of Islam in courts and preserving the practice/execution of Islamic ideals and its customs in government.¹¹ His rule of Sicily can be characterized as accepting, tolerant, and it was evident he wanted to foster an environment where people of all backgrounds could exist comfortably. His intention was to create a society that was blended, with people benefiting from each other. Whether these ideals were upheld solely for the maintenance of a peaceful blended society and were motivated by a love and admiration for other cultures is open to debate. What is certain, though, is that Roger I left his mark on Sicily and the duchy of which it was part, setting a precedent for an integrated Southern Italian society.

Roger II

Introduction

by Alicya Garrido

In order to understand all that Roger II had accomplished under his reign, one must understand how sources portray his effectiveness as a ruler. From the decision to align himself with the anti-pope, to his callousness for repressing those who opposed his authority, it is clear that Roger II could be calculating and cruel. Nonetheless, many sources present a different side by recording his ability to be magnanimous towards those who submitted to his rule and offered him their loyalty.

To begin to understand the complexity of Roger II, it's imperative to explore the land in which he established his authority. The new kingdom that emerged was a polyglot one, embodying a mixture of different peoples, cultures, and even religions.¹² The southern mainland of Italy was composed mostly of ‘Lombards,’ descendants of the German invaders from the late sixth century. The Lombards of the southern region were different from their northern counterparts, as they lived in accordance with the traditional law codes of the early medieval kings and established their own identity. Nonetheless, it was loyalty to the Roman Church that cemented the two regions together. On the island of Sicily, conquered by the Arabs in the ninth century, much of the population had in the next two centuries converted to Islam, but there remained a substantial Christian minority, especially in the north-east of the island, which was for the most part graecophone and observed rites of the Orthodox Church based in Constantinople, as did their Greek counterparts on the mainland.¹³ Religious tolerance was also a political strategy and Roger was tolerant of his non-Christian subjects.

The relationship between Roger II and the Church was often a difficult one. Roger I had secured the important ability to appoint high-ranking churchmen in Sicily. This was a power that would be disputed during Roger II’s reign. His relationship with the papacy became even more complicated as the latter supported some of the king’s enemies during a period of papal schism. After the death of Pope Honorius II a split within the college of cardinals led to a disputed papal election during which two rival popes were chosen: Innocent II (the favorite of some of the younger or more recently-appointed cardinals – the majority of whom were from outside of the Italian peninsula - led by the papal chancellor Hamimeric) and Anacletus II (who was supported by the older cardinals from the area around Rome as well as the south of the peninsula, many of whom believed that Haimeric was attempting to hijack the election, including most of the older and more experienced members of the college as well as those from Lazio and southern Italy.¹⁴ Roger aligned himself, and his state, with Anacletus. His decision helped foster a volatile political context, creating two opposing camps in Europe.

[Continued by Robert Macaluso]

Throughout his reign, Roger worked to foster authority and legitimacy in the eyes of his subjects as well as of those around him. One of the ways he did this early on was through the selection of his first wife. He decided to marry himself into Spain’s Jiménez dynasty since the family already had an established family line that was both influential and powerful. Tying himself to the Alfonso VI’s legacy would help give Roger II the political legitimacy he needed in order to establish himself as a prominent figure in both Mediterranean and western European politics. Alfonso VI of León-Castile was a very powerful ruler and commanded respect throughout Europe. Roger knew a marriage alliance with his family could help give him the respect he needed in order for his kingdom to be considered a serious player in European politics. This is likely the prime motivation behind his marriage to Alfonso’s daughter, Elvira. Although the Hautevilles in Sicily appear to have no tangible interest in Spain, they could benefit from aligning themselves with the prestige of Alfonso and his predecessors.¹⁵ Another aspect of Alfonso’s rule that enticed Roger II to tie himself to Alfonso, besides quelling those who Roger was an illegitimate ruler, was his dominance over the Muslim rulers that were a threat to his reign. Since Roger had been having tensions brewing with Muslim rulers himself, this provided him with another reason to respect Alfonso, and it made Alfonso’s legacy all the more attractive to the Normans overall. Roger married Elvira because her father had successfully subjected numerous Muslim rulers to his rule while expanding his political reach across an entire region of Europe.¹⁶ Roger II knew that he and his father wished for their kingdom to be taken seriously throughout the known world. They also wished for the opposition to their reign to be silenced one way or another. But rather than violence, Roger II knew the less bloody and more effective way to solve this problem was through tying the kingdom to an established dynasty, which for him proved to be the Jiménez dynasty.

[Continued by Richard DeVivo]

Roger II is described by scholars as a ruler between East and West, likely because of how eclectic his court and administration was. There is more to the man than just the multicultural court he kept. As the first Norman ruler of Sicily born in Italy and not on the cold shores of Normandy, he was brought up differently thanks to the efforts of his mother. With the help of Greek, Arabic, and Latin tutors alike, Roger II was well-versed in the various cultures of his kingdom and drew strength from them. While still remaining a Norman at heart, he was able to become a man between East and West. Situated between the Latin West, the Byzantine East, and the Islamic South, Sicily was the crossroads of the medieval world. Aware of this advantageous position, Roger II and his administrators were able to use this to their benefit. Realizing he was at a crossroads, he sought to adapt, or at the very least accommodate, elements of all three cultures. Roger’s hunger for power intertwined with his awareness of the diversity of his new kingdom, allowing him and his court to pilot the realm towards a brief yet prosperous age of multiculturalism.¹⁷ By inheriting the land administration of the Arabs of Sicily, importing bureaucrats and courtiers from the Byzantine Empire, and bringing experts of various trades from Europe, Roger II was able to assemble a court that promoted art, peace between Peoples of the Book, a strong economy, and efficient bureaucracy all while still retaining Norman military tradition.

Roger II filled his court with prominent figures like the famed statesmen George of Antioch, a Syrian-born minister who aided Roger II in both his court and in his conquests of northern Africa, eventually holding the esteemed title Emir of Emirs. While he did give out Muslim-inspired titles, he also kept prominent Muslim intellectuals at court to help enhance his reign and run his kingdom. For a while, Roger’s inner bureaucracy was superficially Byzantine in nature and the meat and bones of the administration was based on the ruling systems of Islamic Fatimid Egypt.¹⁸ One such Muslim noble of note among the many poets, scholars, architects, and even scientists within Roger’s court was Muhammad al-Idrisi, famed geographer and cartographer of the time. He is credited with creating one of the most advanced medieval world maps and descriptions of the world in his Book of Roger, which was completed in 1154.¹⁹ Thanks to his multilingual and diverse upbringing under both Greek and Arabic tutors, Roger II had an appreciation for the fine arts and high culture his kingdom was now able to produce in droves. The harmony of Arabic intellectualism, Byzantine splendour and administration, and Latin piety is seen in the unique cathedrals Roger ordered built as they are testaments to the cultural mixing at work in Sicily. Each combined Arabic, Greek, and Norman architectural design.²⁰ While Roger II was described as being avaricious when it came to money, he is rarely described as looking down on the fine creations of his courtiers and subjects, regardless of their background. Truly, Roger II presided over and helped foster a multicultural golden age in the kingdom he and his ancestors built.

A kingdom's golden age often only lasts as long as the reign of its strongest king, and Norman-controlled Sicily is no exception. While the rulers after Roger II were able to uphold aspects of their progenitor’s reign, none were able to fully balance and pilot the diverse kingdom through both peace and crisis as Roger II did. The rulers following him were not able to maintain the string of successes, consolidation, and territorial gain that Roger II did, with each of their reigns being marked by some form of crisis or instability. While the reign of House of Hauteville did not crash and burn quickly after Roger’s death, the kingdom was at its peak during his life. After reaching its cultural, economic, and military high point, the kingdom and its rulers could only decline in quality from Roger II, even if it was gradual and nonlinear.

[Continued by Alicya Garrido]

While Roger II did his best to establish a firm political foundation, the kingdom’s security was not assured. Roger II’s son, William I, also suppressed rebellions by his enemies and faced opposition from the papacy. In the very beginning of his political life, William I met with resistance as his father coronated him as Sicily’s next king in 1151. The action was taken without papal permission and was interpreted by some to have infringed on the pope’s authority.²¹ The papacy aligned itself with German leaders and sought military support from them. In exchange for military favors, German leaders fostered more favorable alliances with the papacy even though Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa has no interest in going to war against the Sicilian kingdom.

Due to the many enemies his father exiled during his reign, William I faced numerous threats. Exiled noblemen posed a significant problem and in 1155-6 they – along with the papacy, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Byzantine Emperor - came close to removing the king from his throne.²² Although the Byzantines proved worthy opponents, William I demonstrated his military prowess and defeated Byzantine naval forces at Brindisi in 1156. Perhaps the most noteworthy rebellion during his rule, however, was led a few years later by Matthew Bonnello, a Sicilian noble. Indeed, Matthew encouraged many of the barons of Sicily to reject William I’s authority and he assassinated Maio of Bari, the king’s chief minister, in 1160. Matthew was relentless in his efforts, but the conspiracy to overthrow William ultimately failed.

[Continued by Richard DeVivo]

The reign of William II, posthumously known as William “The Good,” was characterized by seclusion, lackluster military ventures, diplomacy, and a peace within Sicily after the chaotic reign of his father, William I. Scholars believe that William II’s nickname is not attributed to the “good” he did as king, but rather to the fact that the troubles and rebellion that plagued the Sicilian court during the reign of his father ceased under his rule.²³ The people were satisfied to have a kingdom at peace, even if their king was not exceptional in character and lacking in military triumphs. Had he been crowned at a more tumultuous time, he may have made for a poor ruler. Instead, William the Good was able to guide Sicily through a period of peace, a period that would not last upon the accession of his successor, Tancred, due to a defining mistake in his reign.

Characterized as a pleasure-loving recluse who rarely left his court in Palermo, it is a surprise that William’s reign was marked by both ambitious and far reaching foreign policy. He and his court were able to secure papal favor, leading to closer relations with the papacy. The kingdom of Sicily was also secretly working with the Lombard league at the time. All these powerful connections enabled William and his allies to resist the military encroachment of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.²⁴ William II also engaged in marriage alliances and pacts with various European powers. William’s courtiers attempted to secure a Byzantine alliance through marriage to a princess, but this failed, leading to further breakdown of foreign relations. William eventually married Joan of England, the daughter of King Henry II. This cemented William’s high political standing. When the time came to end conflict with the Germans and sign the Treaty of Venice in 1177, he sent a delegation in his stead, once again not leaving the palace in Palermo.²⁵ Thanks to what could be described as overindulgence in delegation, he was able to help secure peace with the Germans and accrue prestige in the eyes of other powers. Unfortunately, however, it would be a fruitless marriage that would define his historical legacy.

The military career of William II could be described as ambitious in intent, but lackluster in its gains. William held on to the vestiges of Norman ambition and military tradition and attempted to revive Norman triumph, but he could not regain the African territories that his father had lost. When the retaking of Africa failed, he redirected his energies to Ayyubid Egypt, seeking to raid, pillage, and attack the supply lines of Saladin, the powerful Sultan of Egypt and a major threat to the Latin crusader states. This also did not end in success. When William’s men landed in Ayyubid-controlled Alexandria, Saladin’s forces wheeled around and arrived to meet them. Facing a severe disadvantage in both numbers and positioning, the Normans fell back to the sea in disorder.²⁶ But the Norman led troops would not return home just yet.

Looking to salvage the voyage, William turned his force to the Byzantine Empire, which was in a state of disarray. William saw initial success amidst the confusion the empire was experiencing, taking Dyrrachium and Thessalonika by siege, along with capturing several of the Ionian islands. Sources suggest that the Sicilians conducted combined attacks by utilizing their army and navy in joint operations to effectively defeat and sack the towns and cities they assaulted. Using this initial success to march on the capital of Constantinople, William’s success was swept away when his army was beset upon by the Byzantine imperial army while on the march and smashed against the Strymon River. William sued for peace and gave up all recently taken territories, leaving empty handed. William planned to continue the fight against Saladin with the crusaders but would be overshadowed by the actions of his genius naval commander Margarito.²⁷ Overall, William II had a lackluster military career marked by defeat, but the spark of Norman ambition was present as evidenced by his daring attacks on the Byzantines.

Despite being seen as a golden age of relative peace, William’s reign is marred by the succession crisis that he left in the wake of his death. Despite establishing a strong political marriage with princess Joan of England, their union produced no children. The only eligible male heir to the throne was Henry, Prince of Capua, the youngest surviving son of William I and brother to the king.²⁸ When he died in 1172 there was a clear succession crisis. There was another Hauteville who possessed a legitimate claim to the throne, but she was tangled in both ominous prophecy and political strings. This was Constance, posthumous daughter of Roger II and his third wife. Despite becoming William the Good’s designated heir, she was confined to a monastery for most of her life as it was predicted her marriage would destroy Sicily. This negative reputation and superstition surrounding Constance was likely the result of a combination of religious fervour, a male court, and the fear of German rule in Sicily. While her marriage would not “destroy” Sicily, her union with a German emperor would subsequently contribute to civil war, the loss of Norman control over Sicily, and the absorption of the House of Hauteville into the House of Hohenstaufen.²⁹ William II showed a lack of interest in annulling his fruitless marriage to Joan of England, and showed even less interest in securing a stable passage of power to a well-liked heir when he passed on. While his reign may have been peaceful, the actions, or perhaps lack of steps he took to secure a peaceful transition of power forever tarnish his mostly adequate rule.

[Continued by Robert Macaluso]

After the death of William II, who passed without producing an heir, the kingdom experienced a period of great unrest. William’s only surviving legitimate relation was his aunt Constance, the daughter of Roger II, and wife of Henry VI, the emperor of Germany at that time. However, the idea of Constance succeeding after William II's death was not acceptable to many Sicilians as they feared her husband’s empire would compromise the independent kingdom. The popular solution seemed to be allowing Tancred, count of Lecce, son of Roger II’s eldest son, to claim the throne. Though born illegitimate, his military capability to suppress those who opposed him only strengthened his political standing and claim to the throne.

Tancred was the illegitimate son of Roger III, duke of Apulia, and grandson of Roger II, king of Sicily. Years earlier, during the reign of William II’s father, William I, Tancred had joined an insurrection in 1155 in an attempt to seize the throne from his uncle; the attempt failed and Tancred was imprisoned for five years. He was then released, participated in another failed coup in 1161, and then went into exile. Thirteen years later, William II forgave Tancred for his disloyalty and put him in command of a Sicilian expedition fleet against Alexandria. Near the end of his reign, William II, having no heirs, released his aunt Constance from a monastery and approved her marriage to King Henry VI of the Romans in order to prevent his cousin Tancred from becoming King of Sicily after his death. Constance had the backing of the feudal barons but the people and papacy supported Tancred’s claim to the throne of Sicily. Since Constance was unacceptable to many, the people of Sicily asked themselves “who could be king?” Tancred, count of Lecce and magister justiciarius, was the chief official of the mainland, known both as a soldier and administrator. His one significant flaw was his illegitimacy.³⁰ Despite having sworn fealty to Constance, as soon as William II died, Tancred rebelled and seized control of Sicily. Constance and Henry VI were forced to retreat back to Germany where they launched several attacks upon Sicily throughout Tancred’s reign.

Tancred became the illegitimate king of Sicily and was crowned by Archbishop Walter of Palermo in January 1190. Roger, count of Andria, opposed Tancred’s coronation and called upon the Germans who were still in Sicily to help him oppose Tancred’s kingship. Roger’s call for support fell upon deaf ears mostly and Tancred’s ally, Richard, count of Acerra, was rapidly able to shore up Tancred’s authority in Apulia, tracking down Roger of Andria and killing him. Eventually, the nobles of Sicily began to realize that it was time to rally behind Tancred so that they could be united against a German invasion. A German force which invaded the kingdom from Rieti in May accomplished very little against Tancred’s forces. By June 1190, the commune of Naples was already willing to accept Tancred’s kingship. Other comparable groups may have also realized that it was in their favor to unify behind the monarchy rather than to continue to pursue their own specific agendas, a strategy which would play into the Germans’ hands.³¹ Tancred’s reign was mired by the ongoing conflict between him and his aunt, as well as Richard I (the Lionheart) of England and Philip Augustus of France who traveled through Sicily on their way to the Third Crusade, since William II had planned to be a part of it. While passing through Sicily, Richard demanded the release of his sister, William II’s widow, Joan. Tancred had Joan imprisoned after taking the throne and also had her dowry stripped from her. Richard also demanded that Tancred stand by the financial commitments his cousin William had made to the crusade. When Tancred refused, Richard seized a monastery and the castle of La Bagnara. Once King Philip II arrived in Sicily, civil unrest began to grow to the point of a revolt against the foreign rulers in Messina to which Richard responded by attacking Messina, capturing it and wintering there. Due to this, Tancred was forced to sign a treaty with Richard in March 1191 which included Richard’s sister and her dowry being released as well as Richard and Philip being required to recognize Tancred as the rightful king of Sicily. Along with these two agreements, Tancred also promised his daughter to Richard’s nephew, Arthur of Brittany (Richard’s heir) when he became old enough to marry.
After Richard and Philip left Sicily for the Holy Land, attention soon reverted back to the conflict between Tancred and Constance, who in April 1191 was crowned empress in Rome, as she was now married to Henry VI. After being crowned emperor and empress by Pope Celestine III, Henry and Constance quickly looked to reclaim the kingdom of Sicily. Their first attempt proved somewhat successful until the imperial army succumbed to malaria and disease, forcing Henry VI to withdraw from the island. However, Henry VI had Constance stay in Salerno with a small garrison which was intended as a message that he would return. After the emperor fully withdrew, the towns he took over quickly redeclared their allegiance to Tancred for fear of his retribution and Salerno delivered Constance to Tancred in order to win his favor. Tancred had his aunt locked up in Castel dell’Ovo in Naples and hoped to force Henry to negotiate a peace for her safe return. However, Tancred gave her up in exchange for Pope Celestine III legitimizing him as king of Sicily. During Constance’s trip to the papal states, Henry’s soldiers were able to rescue her and she was safely returned to her husband. After this setback, Tancred regained the towns Henry had taken from him, quelled rebellious Apulian barons in 1192 and 1193, and named his eldest son Roger III, identifying him as the co-king of Sicily. Unfortunately, both would not survive for long. Two months after the death of Roger III, Tancred died on February 20, 1194 in Palermo. Tancred’s only surviving son, William III, was then crowned king.

William, however, was a mere child at this time. Therefore, his mother, Sibylla of Acerra, established a regency until William III was old enough to rule. It did not last long as Henry VI, who had been planning his return to Sicily long before Tancred had died, was finally able to reconquer the kingdom. Sibylla, fearing for her family’s fate, accepted Henry’s offer that allowed William to retain the county of Lecce, the home territory of his father, and he would also retain the principality of Taranto. However, four days after Henry had been crowned king of Sicily, he heard news of an alleged conspiracy, and so he arrested anyone who could oppose his rule and sent them to Germany - William and his family included. Though his mother and sisters were eventually released and lived the rest of their days out in obscurity in France, not much is known of William III’s final fate. It is said that he had been either blinded or castrated, or both. Other theories suggest he died in captivity, he was released and became a monk or that he later returned to Sicily under the alias of Tancredi Palamara who was executed by Henry’s son, Emperor Frederick II, in 1232. Despite all of these theories, however, most historians refer to several letters by Pope Celestine III that states William III died in the year 1198, which is the generally accepted date.

[Continued by Richard DeVivo]

Norman conquest and eventual rule in southern Italy was defined through cunning ambition, struggle, and adaptation. It was the ambition of Tancred of Hauteville’s many sons combined with the Norman spirit of adventure that propelled the House of Hauteville from their modest beginnings as wayward mercenaries to conquerors and, eventually, to kings. Every generation and ruler contributed greatly to the cultivation of power in the area in different ways. From the cold shores of Normandy, the warriors Roger I and Robert Guiscard brought their military cunning and desire for more prosperous lands. Born in Italy, Roger II and his progeny represented a new breed of Norman rulers, focused on the consolidation of power and wealth, whH embraced the multicultural realm they presided over. Though Norman rule in Sicily ended in turmoil, their cultural impact, advancement of the region, and historical contribution can be felt till this day.