The Norman rulers of the 11th and 12th centuries were able to achieve and maintain prominence in the areas of Italy and Sicily through military prowess, exceptional political manoeuvring and intermarriage. This is shown through the sources from this time period which allow historians to examine the narrative the sources present, the character of the rulers and the interactions they have with other peoples at the time.
Southern Italy and Sicily served as the intersection of Greek, Latin, Jewish and Muslim cultures. According to Emily Albu, this created a rich mixture of intellectual sophistication and material wealth which first attracted Norman soldiers and arrived in what is described as a ‘piecemeal’ fashion. They are recorded as having …show more content…
Due to the small numbers arriving, they could not do a full-scale ‘Normanisation’ as William the Conqueror had done in England between 1066 and 1086. In contrast to the twenty year ‘Normanisation’ of England, Italy and Sicily took 91 years (1000ish to 1091). Before Normans began to migrate to Italy, conflict existed between the local peoples of Southern Italy. These clashes were between local princes over boundaries and principals, against native Italian tribes and threats from the Byzantine and German empires. These warring factions use Normans as mercenaries in their battles. Normans first cemented their involvement and supremacy in warfare in the Italian peninsula by being involved in clashes between the Lombards and the Byzantine Empire. The Normans fought on both sides of the conflict, with their loyalties with whoever paid more. Emily Albu says that the Normans were the only ones who won from this arrangement. It is in this conflict and the others like it that the Norman people earned their reputation for military might, with Geoffrey Malterra describing them as the quintessential warriors. Norman identity in Normandy was entrenched in military success, …show more content…
Charter evidence shows that Lombards and Normans were clearly defined as separate races or ethnicities. Charles Homer Haskins suggests the Normans lost their identity ‘in the general mass’. Rather than asserting their distinct Norman identity, they enforced their likenesses and connections with local populations to secure a stable ruler-ship over the land. However, this adaptation to their environment is characteristic to the Norman identity. It has already been established by the writers of the time that the Normans, and especially the sons of Tancred, had the ‘inborn trait’ of domination and the cunning to do whatever was needed to achieve this. Political manoeuvring and intermarriage was another extreme that Guiscard and Roger used to achieve their goals. While it may have seemed like they were succumbing to a new culture - Roger II’s reign shows a large impact of Arab-Muslim culture: his mantle had Arab inscriptions - they were continuing their quest for total
Southern Italy and Sicily served as the intersection of Greek, Latin, Jewish and Muslim cultures. According to Emily Albu, this created a rich mixture of intellectual sophistication and material wealth which first attracted Norman soldiers and arrived in what is described as a ‘piecemeal’ fashion. They are recorded as having …show more content…
Due to the small numbers arriving, they could not do a full-scale ‘Normanisation’ as William the Conqueror had done in England between 1066 and 1086. In contrast to the twenty year ‘Normanisation’ of England, Italy and Sicily took 91 years (1000ish to 1091). Before Normans began to migrate to Italy, conflict existed between the local peoples of Southern Italy. These clashes were between local princes over boundaries and principals, against native Italian tribes and threats from the Byzantine and German empires. These warring factions use Normans as mercenaries in their battles. Normans first cemented their involvement and supremacy in warfare in the Italian peninsula by being involved in clashes between the Lombards and the Byzantine Empire. The Normans fought on both sides of the conflict, with their loyalties with whoever paid more. Emily Albu says that the Normans were the only ones who won from this arrangement. It is in this conflict and the others like it that the Norman people earned their reputation for military might, with Geoffrey Malterra describing them as the quintessential warriors. Norman identity in Normandy was entrenched in military success, …show more content…
Charter evidence shows that Lombards and Normans were clearly defined as separate races or ethnicities. Charles Homer Haskins suggests the Normans lost their identity ‘in the general mass’. Rather than asserting their distinct Norman identity, they enforced their likenesses and connections with local populations to secure a stable ruler-ship over the land. However, this adaptation to their environment is characteristic to the Norman identity. It has already been established by the writers of the time that the Normans, and especially the sons of Tancred, had the ‘inborn trait’ of domination and the cunning to do whatever was needed to achieve this. Political manoeuvring and intermarriage was another extreme that Guiscard and Roger used to achieve their goals. While it may have seemed like they were succumbing to a new culture - Roger II’s reign shows a large impact of Arab-Muslim culture: his mantle had Arab inscriptions - they were continuing their quest for total