Luscombe D., Riley-Smith J. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4: c. 1024-c. 1198, Part 2
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Northern and central Italy in the twelfth century 441
failed to organize themselves, but rather a perpetual state of conflict, social and
regional, around the centres of greatest economic initiative or military capacity,
with a tendency to arrange themselves into a kind of fluid hierarchy of power,
as a result of constant bargaining. Each of these innumerable entities saw
the progressive strengthening of the institutional order, which was intimately
linked to the fluctuations of the various social groups and was accompanied
both in the dominant cities and the courts of the noble houses and of the
prelates who had survived at a high political level, with cultural and urban
development of incomparable intensity.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
chapter 15(b)
NORMAN SICILY IN THE TWELFTH
CENTURY
G. A. Loud
the settlement and, eventually, conquest of southern Italy by the Normans
during the eleventh century had greatly altered both its society and its polit-
ical structures, above all by the conquest of Muslim Sicily. What it had not
done was to unite the region. Indeed by c. 1100 the new principalities which
the conquerors had created were already fragmenting, and the maintenance of
authority, and law and order, was becoming increasingly difficult. This frag-
mentation was to be abruptly reversed by the unification of southern Italy and
Sicily under the rule of Count Roger II of Sicily in the years 1127–30, and the
creation of the new kingdom of Sicily in the latter year. This process was by no
means painless; indeed the coronation of 1130 was to usher in nearly a decade of
civil war on the south Italian mainland, but it did in the end lead to the unifica-
tion of the whole area for the first time since the age of Justinian. The kingdom
created in 1130 was to last, albeit with many vicissitudes, until 1860. The impo-
sition of strong central government, and the challenges that this government
faced, form the central theme of south Italian history in the twelfth century.
authority and challenge before 1127
Roger II’s contemporary biographer, Abbot Alexander of Telese, claimed that,
in 1127,‘If God had not preserved a scion of the Guiscard’s lineage through
whom the ducal power might quickly be revived, almost the whole coun-
try...would have rushed headlong to destruction.’
1
Given that Alexander was
writing a work of propaganda, justifying Roger’s takeover of the mainland and
the often drastic methods which his hero used to reduce his new dominions to
obedience, such an opinion on his part was hardly surprising. The problem is to
1
‘Nisi Deus guiscardine pertinens prosapie reliquisset semen, per quod cito ducatus recuperaretur
monarchia, omnis pene siquidem terra . . . precipituim riutura periret’, Alexander Telesinus, Ystoria
Rogerii regis Siciliae lib. i c.1,p.6.
442
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Norman Sicily in the twelfth century 443
estimate how far the disintegration of authority in southern Italy had actually
gone by 1127.Anobjective assessment is not helped by the paucity of source
material for this period, which was extremely ill-served by contemporary histo-
rians. For much of the time before 1127 one must rely on charter evidence and
very sketchy local annals, whose authors’ interests rarely extended very far from
the town in which they were writing. But enough evidence survives to suggest
that, while Alexander of Telese’s opinion was undoubtedly exaggerated, the
problems of central authority were serious enough.
Both in the duchy of Apulia and the principality of Capua the ruler’s effective
command became confined to part only of his nominal dominions. After 1090
the authority of the prince of Capua was, except for rare moments, exercised
only in the southern part of his principality, in the plain surrounding Capua it-
self. The nobles of the northern and eastern parts of the principality (the dukes
of Gaeta, the counts of Aquino, Fondi, Boiano and Caiazzo) were to all intents
and purposes independent of princely authority. Their charters ceased to be
dated by the regnal years of the prince. Indeed the latter’s cousin Count Robert
of Caiazzo (d. c. 1116)vaunted his status by having his diplomas drawn up in
imitation of the style of the princely scriptorium, using the same formulae indi-
cating divine favour as did the prince.
2
When the prince intervened in the north
of the principality, as he did for example in what was a virtual civil war raging in
and around Gaeta in 1105,hedid so rather as one among a number of contend-
ing parties than as the ruler. Even in the heartland of his power the prince faced
problems, for the city of Capua itself was intermittently in revolt in the 1090s.
Much the same situation prevailed in the duchy of Apulia. Dukes Roger
Borsa (1085–1111) and William (1111–27) lost control of the coastal regions
of Apulia, and found it increasingly difficult to exercise authority in inland
Apulia and northern Calabria. In this last region Duke Roger’s authority had
only been maintained in the 1080s and 1090sthanks to military assistance
from his uncle, Count Roger I of Sicily. In return for this aid he had had
to make territorial concessions, including giving his uncle a half-share in the
city of Palermo, which Robert Guiscard had kept in his own hands after its
capture in 1072. Amalfi was apparently in rebellion against the duke in 1088,
and again from 1096 to 1100.
3
HoweverRoger Borsa was no cipher, and did his
best to maintain ducal power and authority. He retained his control over the
principality of Salerno on the west coast, and never abandoned his claims in
Apulia. He even succeeded, in return for his and Count Roger’s aid to Prince
Richard II in the recovery of his capital in 1098,insecuring the fealty of the
prince of Capua, something which his father had never achieved. How far
this gained him anything more than prestige is a good question, but at least
2
Loud (1981), pp. 200–4.
3
For the dating, Schwarz (1978), pp. 250–3.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
444 g. a. loud
relations between duke and prince ran a great deal more smoothly than they
had in the 1070s and 1080s. Robert I of Capua (1106–20) was to be found at
Salerno in 1116, attending what was probably a meeting of the ducal court, and
in 1119 a charter of Duke William referred to the prince as ‘our most beloved
relative and baron’.
4
Duke Roger was also able to recover control over Amalfi
in 1100, and that important port henceforth acknowledged ducal rule without,
seemingly, further problems. In 1101 Roger furnished an army which enabled
Paschal II to regain Benevento which had thrown off papal overlordship.
Duke Roger was thus, to some extent anyway, an effective ruler. The par-
ticipation by his half-brother Bohemond in the First Crusade, and the latter’s
continued absence thereafter in Syria and on campaign against Byzantium,
removed probably the most dangerous single threat to his power. But he and
his son were unable to enforce their rule, or indeed even overlordship, over
the nobility and cities of coastal Apulia. The counts of Conversano, Canne
and Monte Sant’Angelo, and further north in the Capitanata/Abruzzi bor-
derland the counts of Loritello, remained independent. Robert of Loritello
marked his status by use of the proud title ‘count of counts’ (comes comitum).
Documents issued by the counts of the Apulian coast frequently recognized
the overlordship of the Byzantine emperor; not through any attachment to
Byzantine interests but because he was sufficiently far away to be powerless to
affect their de facto independence.
5
Duke Roger was not necessarily disposed
to accept this state of affairs, and did on occasion intervene in Apulia. He
besieged and captured Canosa in 1100 and Monte Sant’Angelo in 1104, and at
some point in his last years established his illegitimate son William as lord of
Lucera, which had previously belonged to the counts of Monte Sant’Angelo.
His influence in southern Apulia was also assisted by the continued loyalty and
alliance of his cousin, Richard the Seneschal, lord of Mottola (to the west of
Taranto).
6
But, while the authority of Duke Roger may have been enhanced
in the later part of his reign, he was at best able to intervene in Apulia, and
was never able to enforce his rule effectively. The centre of his activities, and
his effective capital, was Salerno on the west coast. When he died in 1111 he
was buried in Salerno Cathedral, as was his son sixteen years later, whereas the
mausoleum of his father and uncles had been at Venosa in Apulia. This change
was a symptom of the geographical shift of ducal interests.
Ducal authority was further undermined by the minority of Duke William,
as was the lordship of Bohemond by that of his son (also Bohemond), who was
4
Loud (1987), pp. 166–7, 176–7. Normannische Herzogs- und K
¨
onigsurkunden aus Unteritalien und
Sizilien,pp.28–9 no. 16.
5
Chalandon (1907), i,p.208; Cahen (1940), p. 98.
6
For his continued acknowledgement of ducal rule see Codice diplomatico Barese,pp.102–3 no. 57
(1110), and Cava dei Tirreni, Archivio dell’abbazia di S. Trinit
`
a, Arm. Mag. E.39 (1115).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Norman Sicily in the twelfth century 445
only three when his father died a few weeks after Duke Roger. Furthermore
central authority was also undermined by the rise of independence movements
in a number of important south Italian towns. Allusion has already been made
to the revolts in Capua, Gaeta, Amalfi and Benevento in the 1090s. From 1115
Bari was convulsed by strife between pro- and anti-Norman factions in the city,
and from c. 1118 the rule of Bohemond’s widow Constance (in the name of her
son) was no longer recognized there. The new ruler of Bari was one of the city’s
urban patriciate, Grimoald Alferanites, who by 1123 was describing himself as
‘prince by the grace of God and St Nicholas’ (the city’s patron).
7
Duke William’s
death in 1127 was to be followed by revolts at Salerno itself, Troia and a number
of other Apulian towns, and in 1128 the inhabitants of Benevento, who had
been growing increasingly restive under papal rule, murdered the pope’s rector
of the city and founded a commune.
The growing instability in southern Italy can be graphically illustrated by
the problems of the Benevento region in the second decade of the twelfth
century. Not only was the city itself riven by faction, and under threat from
the Norman nobles round about, but from 1118 onwards its environs were the
scene of a bitter conflict between Count Jordan of Ariano and Count Rainulf
of Caiazzo, both ambitious nobles seeking to extend their lands and power,
and to dominate the Terra Beneventana. The duke of Apulia was conspicuous
by his absence.
With lay authority weak, the papacy attempted to step into the breach.
Following the example of Urban II, Pope Paschal proclaimed the Truce of God
at Troia in 1115, and Calixtus II, again at Troia, in 1120,atacouncil where
Duke William was also present. But the papacy clearly recognized the realities
of the situation, that power in southern Italy had decentralized. When in 1118
Gelasius II received the fealty of Duke William (and probably that of the prince
of Capua as well) he also received that of a number of other barons (though
exactly whom is unknown). In 1120 Calixtus did the same, receiving fealty
and homage (the latter apparently an innovation) from the duke, and Counts
Robert of Loritello, Jordan of Ariano and Rainulf of Caiazzo. This was an
unprecedented step, for hitherto the territorial rulers, the dukes of Apulia and
princes of Capua, had alone been papal vassals.
8
What the papacy was trying to
do was not to undermine the latter’s rule, but to recognize that it was no longer
effective. In the autumn of 1121 Calixtus was forced to intervene in southern
Italy once again, to try to protect Duke William’s lands in northern Calabria
from attack by Count Roger of Sicily.
7
‘Grimoaldus Alfaranites gratia dei et beati Nicolai princeps’, Codice diplomatico Barese,pp.121–2
no. 69.
8
D’Alessandro (1978), pp. 169–73; Loud (1985), pp. 106–7.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
446 g. a. loud
The county of Sicily was very much the exception to the fragmentation
affecting the rest of southern Italy. Despite two successive minorities after the
death of Roger I in 1101 (his younger son Roger II did not come of age until
1112), strong and effective government was preserved under the regency of his
widow, Countess Adelaide. We have no detailed knowledge of the years of the
minority, and one tantalizing reference in a later charter suggests that there
may have been some problems with Sicilian and Calabrian nobles.
9
But if
so, these were overcome. On coming of age Roger II pursued a vigorous and
effective policy, not least with regard to the church in his dominions, taking
advantage of the privilege granted to his father by Pope Urban II in 1098 in
which the pope promised not to appoint a legate for the island of Sicily without
the count’s agreement, and in the absence of such legate allowed the count to
act in his place. Indeed so high-handed were his actions in ecclesiastical matters
that Paschal II was moved to a vigorous protest in 1117.Atthe same time Roger
launched a series of naval raids against the North African coast, and from 1121
attempted to consolidate his rule over Calabria, at the expense of his cousin
Duke William. He succeeded fairly rapidly in this, though by more indirect
means than those he had originally chosen. In return for substantial military
assistance and a financial subsidy, which enabled the duke to dispossess the rebel
count of Ariano of most of his lands, the duke ceded Count Roger the half-
shares he and his father had retained in Palermo and Messina, and the half-share
of Calabria (seemingly the northern part) inherited from Robert Guiscard. By
1127 therefore Roger of Sicily was the undisputed ruler of the whole of Calabria
as well as Sicily, was possessed of powerful military and naval forces, substantial
financial reserves, and was undoubtedly the most powerful, indeed the only
effective, ruler in southern Italy.
the unification of southern italy under roger ii
Duke William of Apulia died childless in July 1127, and Roger II promptly
claimed the duchy as his nearest heir. It was to take a year for him to make his
claim to the ducal title a reality, and it took a further eleven before his rule over
the whole of southern Italy was uncontested. The political fragmentation of
the region over the previous forty years largely explains this long and fraught
process, although from 1130 onwards the fortunes of southern Italy became in-
creasingly involved in wider political and ecclesiastical rivalries in Christendom
as a whole.
9
Diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia,pp.532–5.Matthew (1992), pp. 20–1,isdisposed to doubt how
effective comital rule in Sicily was after 1101, but his argument is at best speculative. The subject
does, however, need fuller investigation.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Norman Sicily in the twelfth century 447
In 1127–8 Roger faced opposition from four different sources. First, there
were the more powerful among Apulian nobles, afraid that Roger’s rule would
curtail the effective independence they had hitherto enjoyed from ducal au-
thority. Secondly, a number of towns were equally anxious to preserve or secure
the right of self-government – these included the important city of Troia in
the Capitanata, and even Salerno, whose inhabitants were only prepared to
acknowledge Roger’s rule if he left the citadel above the town in their hands.
Thirdly, there was Prince Robert II of Capua who clearly did not relish the
potential threat the new duke posed to the independence of his principality.
He was supported by his cousin and nominal vassal Count Rainulf of Caiazzo,
despite the fact that the latter was married to Roger of Sicily’s sister.
10
Finally,
there was Pope Honorius II.
The pope was the unifying, if not the motivating, force behind the south
Italian coalition against Roger II in 1127–8.His involvement stemmed in part
from the increasing intervention of the papacy in south Italian affairs in the
years immediately preceding, especially after the conclusion of peace with the
western empire in 1122.With their position at Rome no longer under threat,
the popes no longer needed military assistance from southern Italy, and could
therefore afford to take a much tougher line with its rulers. It has also been
suggested that the pope’s opposition to Roger’s claims in 1127–8 resulted from
the curia’s refusal to treat the duchy, a papal fief, as in any way a hereditary
possession. Hence Roger’s claim to be Duke William’s heir both by blood and
by designation infringed papal rights of overlordship.
11
Such a theory is not
entirely convincing, and there were other and more immediate reasons why
the pope did not wish to see Apulia and Sicily united. The papacy’s growing
influence in southern Italy would undoubtedly be seriously affected, and the
principality of Capua could no longer be considered an effective counter-
weight to the new duke, as it had been, at least to some extent, in the time of
Robert Guiscard. In addition, Roger II’s high-handed control over the church
within his dominions had already vexed the papacy, and raised fears as to the
sort of rule he would impose in the duchy. Paschal II had voiced his disapproval
of the count’s interference with the church in 1117. The ‘Romuald’ chronicle
(here incorporating contemporary annalistic material, even if itself compiled
nearly fifty years later) recorded that Honorius had already excommunicated
the count for refusing to allow Sicilian bishops to go to Rome, before the clash
over the Apulian succession.
12
10
Modern scholars habitually refer to him as ‘count of Alife’, but his few surviving charters call him
‘count of the Caiazzans and of many others’, Le Pergamene dell’ archivio vescovile di Caiazzo,pp.
46–8 no. 7,pp.57–9 no. 13,pp.463–8 nos. i–iii.
11
De
´
er (1972), pp. 175–202.
12
Romuald of Salerno, Chronicon sive Annales,pp.214–15.For this work, Matthew (1981).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
448 g. a. loud
The opposition to Roger II was, however, both in 1127–8 and later, merely
a loose coalition, and was fatally weakened by the disunity and self-interest of
its members. When a major military clash threatened in 1128, first the Capuan
forces, whose pay had run out, and then many of the Apulian barons deserted
the pope. Deprived of his allies, he was forced to come to an agreement with
Roger. In August 1128, outside Benevento, Honorius invested him as duke of
Apulia. In the summer of 1129 the new duke crushed any vestiges of resistance
in Apulia. In September, at an assembly of Apulian nobles at Melfi, Roger
promulgated a comprehensive land peace, forbidding private warfare, which
all those present swore to observe, ‘that from this time and henceforth they
would keep the peace and maintain justice, and assist in its maintenance’.
13
Soon afterwards the prince of Capua agreed to become Roger’s vassal (despite
the express protection of Capuan independence in Roger’s agreement with the
pope the previous year).
From the autumn of 1129 therefore southern Italy was at least technically
united. That in practice this took a further ten years of warfare to consolidate
is testimony to how deep-rooted the opposition to centralized authority on
the south Italian mainland was. The creation of the Sicilian monarchy in 1130
had no real effect on this process, except to embroil the domestic disputes of
southern Italy in wider conflicts involving the whole of Christendom. Whether
without the papal schism of 1130 Duke Roger would have sought a royal crown
cannot be known. But the schism did not create domestic conflict in southern
Italy, it only exacerbated it.
Roger was granted a royal crown as king of Sicily in a bull of Anacletus
II in September 1130 –inreturn (though this was not expressly stated) for
his recognition of Anacletus as the rightful pope and support for his cause
against his rival Innocent II – both popes having been elected after a split in
the college of cardinals in February of that year. At the same time a carefully
stage-managed assembly of magnates and churchmen at Salerno endorsed this
proposal, on the ostensible (and historically erroneous) grounds that Sicily had
once been ruled by kings and should be so again.
14
Roger was duly crowned
king in Palermo Cathedral on Christmas Day 1130.
The coronation not only involved Roger in the schism, which was eventually
to be resolved in Innocent’s favour after the death of Anacletus in 1138; but by
infringing in the most provocative way the claims of the western emperor to
rule, or at least to be the overlord, of southern Italy, he incurred the hostility of
13
‘ab ipsa hora, et in antea, justitiam et pacem tenerent, et adiuvarent tenere’, Alexander Telesinus,
Ystoria Rogerii regis Siciliae i.21,p.18.Roger II may have been following the example of his father,
who imposed a land peace in Sicily in the 1090s, Jamison (1913), p. 239; Cahen (1940), p. 107.
14
For this, Alexander Telesinus, Ystoria Rogerii regis Siciliae ii.1–2,pp.32–5, who very pointedly ignored
all papal involvement.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Norman Sicily in the twelfth century 449
the German monarch Lothar III, and as it turned out of Lothar’s successors up
to the conclusion of the treaty of Venice in 1177. Kingly status also helped to
develop the absolutist ideology, derived from Roman Law, which characterized
Sicilian government in the twelfth century. But it provided little or no material
advantage for the suppression of the revolt on the south Italian mainland which
broke out in 1132, and which was to take seven years to stamp out. Here the
financial and military strength of the king, derived from his existing dominions
in Calabria and Sicily (and including the use of Muslim troops from Sicily),
and the disunity of his opponents, were paramount.
If the campaigns of 1127–9 can be seen as the first stage of the process which
consolidated the unified kingdom of Sicily, three further phases followed. First,
in 1132–4 the king and his generals eliminated resistance in Apulia – in two
campaigns in the summers of 1132 and 1133 – and, despite the setback of a
serious defeat at Nocera in July 1132, forced the submission of the principality
of Capua, which was achieved by the autumn of 1134. The prince himself, who
was then in Pisa seeking external assistance, did not surrender, but his chief ally
within the principality, Rainulf of Caiazzo, and his neighbour Duke Sergius
VII of Naples, did. Of the leaders of the Apulian resistance, Grimoald of Bari
and Counts Godfrey of Andria and Tancred of Conversano were captured and
imprisoned in Sicily; Tancred’s brother, Alexander of Gravina, fled into exile
in Byzantium.
The king was seriously ill in the winter of 1134–5, and a false rumour of
his death led to renewed revolt in the principality of Capua early in 1135,
headed once again by Count Rainulf. But prompt action by the king’s mainland
commanders very swiftly recovered almost all the principality, and confined
the rebels to Naples, where they remained blockaded for the next eighteen
months. That this was not the end of internal conflict within southern Italy
was due to the external assistance the rebels secured, first in the resupply of
Naples by the Pisan fleet, whose assistance had been secured by Robert of
Capua, and secondly by the invasion of southern Italy by the Emperor Lothar
in 1137, which ushered in the final phase of the conflict.
Lothar’s army marched down into Apulia as far as Bari, which was captured
in May 1137, and then into Lucania. For a time this incursion might have
seemed to have doomed King Roger’s mainland rule, particularly since a second
German force under the emperor’s son-in-law Duke Henry of Bavaria overran
the principality of Capua and restored Prince Robert. In fact the impact of
the invaders was purely transient. Key fortresses remained in the hands of
garrisons loyal to King Roger, and by September the German troops were
withdrawing, leaving their local allies to face a royalist counter-attack. Lothar
and Pope Innocent had installed Count Rainulf as their duke of Apulia, and
a number of Apulian towns, under royal control since 1133,werepreparedto
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
450 g. a. loud
support him even after the German withdrawal. But, despite a further defeat
at Rignano in October 1137, the king held the advantage, and in 1137–8 the
rebel forces steadily lost ground. Rainulf ’s death in April 1139 removed the
principal opposition leader, and the capture of Pope Innocent in July led to
the recognition of Roger as king by the now-undisputed pope. The remaining
rebels, including Robert of Capua, fled into exile, and the surrender of Naples,
Tr oia and Bari (the last after a short siege) ended the last vestiges of resistance.
During this long and bitter conflict the king’s treatment of those who op-
posed him changed dramatically. To begin with he had often been merciful,
even to outright rebels, and had been prepared to negotiate with both hostile
nobles and towns to secure their submission, if need be on terms favorable to
them. An example of this was his agreement with the city of Bari in June 1132.
The king’s representatives swore to respect the city’s churches and the rights of
its archiepiscopal see, not to take revenge on its inhabitants for their previous
opposition, to respect their property and existing judicial and fiscal immuni-
ties, not to impose fresh military obligations upon them, nor to take hostages
or to build a citadel within the town.
15
In the end renewed revolt led to much
heavier terms being imposed, and when the city surrendered for a fourth and
final time in October 1139 the king had Prince Jacquintus (who had replaced
the imprisoned Grimoald) and a dozen other notables hanged, and others mu-
tilated or imprisoned. But to begin with at least the king was prepared to act
leniently, not least to avoid stirring up unnecessary resistance. In Apulia the
watershed was the campaign of 1133. The king made deliberate examples of
towns still in revolt, which were brutally sacked by his troops, and of rebel
leaders, a number of whom were hanged. He was, said Alexander of Telese,
‘sogreatly angered that he was hardly willing to spare any count, magnate
or even knight who had raised his head in perjury against him’.
16
But inthe
principality of Capua the king was still prepared to compromise in 1134 when
he accepted the surrender of Rainulf of Caiazzo and Count Hugh of Boiano,
and also that of Sergius of Naples. He was too ready to come to terms with
Prince Robert, and it was the prince who refused them. However, faced with
renewed revolt in 1135 he was uncompromising. Aversa, the most important
town in the principality after Capua itself, was quite deliberately destroyed
and its inhabitants dispersed. Roger’s third son, Anfusus, was appointed as the
new prince. At the same time royal officials were installed to administer the
principality, although two of these, Aymo of Argentia, who was appointed one
of the two justiciars of the principality, and the chamberlain Joscelin, were in
15
Rogerii II regis diplomata Latina,pp.54–6 no. 20.Martin (1980), pp. 88–93.
16
‘tantoque mentis erupit furore, ut non comiti, non magnati, non etiam militi, qui ita periurantes in
eum colla erexerant, penitus parceret’, Alexander Telesinus, Ystoria Rogerii regis Siciliae ii.37,p.41.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008