No More Learning

On the one hand the Duke of Apulia wished to punish the Greek
Emperor for the support given to the rebel Normans, whose headquarters
were now in the Byzantine territory in Illyria, and on the other hand,
consciously or unconsciously, the Norman had succumbed to the attrac-
tion which Byzantium and the Byzantine world exercised over all the
West. Already in Italy Guiscard had come to be looked on as the
legitimate successor of the Emperors, whose costume he affected, going so
far as to copy their seal. Moreover, how was it possible for Guiscard to
imagine that the conquest of Byzantium could offer any difficulties to
him, the mighty Duke of Apulia, when quite recently two poor Norman
knights, Robert Crispin and Roussel de Bailleul (of whom the former
had served under the orders of Richard of Capua and the latter with
Robert himself), had almost succeeded in mounting the throne of Con-
stantinople ? Guiscard had long felt attracted to Constantinople; and
for their part the Emperors could not ignore their powerful neighbour,
and sought his alliance. About 1075 the negotiations which had been
entered on ended in the betrothal of one of Guiscard's daughters to the
son of Michael VII. This projected marriage served as a pretext for a
declaration of war by Guiscard, when in 1080 he determined to profit by
the disturbances which had broken out in the Greek Empire, and to
attempt to seize Constantinople. At the accession of Nicephorus
Botaniates, Guiscard's daughter had been relegated to a convent; under
the pretext of defending his daughter's rights, the Duke of Apulia became
the champion of the dethroned Emperor. As his plans aroused only
moderate enthusiasm among his vassals, the Duke of Apulia determined
to carry out a fraud, and in the middle of 1080 he presented a Greek
named Rector as the real Michael VII escaped from a monastery, where
he had been imprisoned by Botaniates. By this means the wily Norman
hoped to inflame his vassals and conciliate the Greek population.
Gregory VII fell in with the views of Guiscard, who persuaded him
that the proposed expedition would realise the projected crusade which
had been near the Pope's heart for some years, and would end the schism
and bring about reunion with the Greek Church. In July 1080 the Pope
wrote to the bishops of Apulia and Calabria, exhorting them to favour
the duke's plans. În 1081, at the end of May, Guiscard took the field
and landed at Avlona. His son Bohemond had already taken Avlona,
Canina, and Hiericho. Soon Corfù fell into the hands of the Normans,
who next laid siege to Durazzo. Although they were defeated at sea by
the Venetians, whom Alexius Comnenus had summoned to his aid, the
CH. IV.


## p. 182 (#228) ############################################

182
Capture of Rome: death of Guiscard
Normans nevertheless continued the siege of the Illyrian capital. On
18 October they defeated the army which the Emperor had brought to
relieve the besieged city, and on 21 February 1082 Durazzo was taken.
In the spring of 1082 Guiscard was obliged to return. Gregory VII
had sent him urgent appeals for help, threatened as he was by Henry IV's
expedition to Italy. On the other hand, Alexius Comnenus was sub-
sidising the German king, and at the same time, by means of Abelard
and Herman, Robert's nephews, had succeeded in exciting an insur-
rection in Apulia. Leaving Bohemond to continue the war against the
Emperor, Guiscard returned to Italy, and spent some time in re-estab-
lishing his authority in Apulia (1082 and 1083). In May 1084 he
marched on Rome which was occupied by the German Emperor; Henry
did not await the coming of the Normans, but his retreat did not pre-
vent Guiscard from entering the city in force; he sacked it and freed
Gregory VII, whom the partisans of the anti-Pope, Clement III, were be-
sieging. As soon as the Pope was free, Guiscard placed him in Salerno
for safety, and immediately returned to the conquest of Constantinople.
After his father's departure, Bohemond had again defeated the Greeks
at Joannina and Arta; he had then occupied Ochrida, Veria, Servia,
Vodena, Moglena, Pelagonia, Tzibikon, and Trikala, but in 1083 he
was defeated outside Larissa by Alexius Comnenus, and was shortly
afterwards obliged to return to Italy, as his troops were clamouring for
pay. After this the Byzantines regained the advantage, and the Normans
lost all the places they had occupied, including Durazzo.
When Guiscard took the field in the autumn of 1084, he had conse-
quently no foothold on the other side of the Adriatic. While his son
Roger occupied Avlona, the duke proceeded to Butrinto, whence in
November he arrived at Corfù. Although twice defeated near Cassiope
by the Venetian fleet, Guiscard soon took his revenge when he won an
overwhelming victory near Corfù, which fell into his hands as a result of
this success. The duke sent his army into winter quarters on the banks
of the Glycys, while he went to Bundicia; during the winter an epidemic
ravaged the Norman army, but hostilities were resumed at the be-
ginning of the summer, and Roger sallied forth to attack Cephalonia.
On the way to join his son, Guiscard fell ill; he was obliged to halt at
the promontory of Ather, where he died on 17 July 1085 in the presence
of his wife Sykelgaita and his son Roger.
With Guiscard closed what may be called the heroic era of the
history of the Normans in Italy. Robert's immediate successors, being
unable to maintain their authority, abandoned his plans, which were only
resumed on the day when the Counts of Sicily became kings and consoli-
dated the work of conquest.
The reign of Guiscard's son, Roger Borsa (1085-1111), was a period
of absolute decadence in the duchy of Apulia; the prince was too weak to
make his authority respected, and he was bitterly opposed by his brother


## p. 183 (#229) ############################################

Weakness of Guiscard's son
183
Bohemond, of whom he was relieved by the First Crusade, and also by
most of his vassals, who shook off the yoke imposed by Guiscard. In
1086, however, it was again the Duke of Apulia who, assisted by the
Prince of Capua, restored Rome to the successor of Gregory VII. A few
years later, during the pontificate of Urban II (1088-1099), it was no
longer Roger who protected the Pope but the Pope who extended his
protection to the duchy of Apulia, and exerted himself to re-establish
order in the sorely troubled land. The only political success achieved by
Duke Roger was the recognition of his suzerainty by Richard, son of
Jordan of Capua, who sought his aid to enter into possession of his
paternal inheritance (1098). Then for the first time, in theory at least,
the authority of the Duke of Apulia extended throughout the Norman
possessions.
In the midst of all the difficulties surrounding him, the Duke of Apulia
found a supporter in his uncle Roger I, Count of Sicily. During the
years which followed the fall of Palermo, Guiscard's brother played only
a secondary part in Italian affairs, for he was detained by the conquest of
Sicily, a long and troublesome undertaking. Twenty years elapsed after
his establishment in Palermo before the Normans succeeded in totally
expelling the Saracens. Syracuse was not taken until 1085, Noto and
Butera, the two last places retained by the Saracens, not until 1088 and
1091. Although the Saracens were still powerful in 1072, this mere fact
is not enough to explain the slow progress of the conquest, and we must
attribute the delays of the Normans to other causes. During all this time,
and especially at first, Roger was left with only his own troops; generally
he had but a few hundred knights under his command, so that it was
with greatly reduced forces that he had to carry on the struggle. It was
because of this that the Count of Sicily was obliged to avoid great under-
takings and confine himself to guerilla warfare, which was the only
method which his weak forces permitted.
Gradually, as the conquest proceeded, the count felt that the strength
of his infant state was increasing, and the time came during his nephew's
reign when he represented the only power in the midst of general anarchy.
Called to arbitrate between the parties, Roger of Sicily was quick to
realise how to profit by the situation. In return for his services, he
successively extorted from the Duke of Apulia the abandonment of the
strongholds in Calabria which they had hitherto held in common, as
well as the half of the city of Palermo. Roger also obtained a promise
of half of Amalfi and, when Richard of Capua sought his aid, he
demanded that all rights on Naples should be abandoned to him.
Supported by a powerful military force, a considerable part of which
consisted of Saracens, Roger of Sicily thus became one of the leading
personages of Europe, and his alliance was sought by Count Raymond
IV of Saint Gilles, Philip I of France, Conrad, son of Henry IV, and
Koloman, King of Hungary, all of whom aspired to marry his daughters.
CH, P.


## p. 184 (#230) ############################################

184
Roger II of Sicily
The position of protector of the Holy See, which the Duke of Apulia
was, powerless to retain, was offered to the Count of Sicily by Urban II,
who, in 1098, had to concede the privilege of the Apostolic Legateship,
whereby for the future papal intervention in Roger's states was to be
exercised only through the count himself. When Guiscard's brother
died on 22 June 1101, he left his successor a state possessed of cohesion,
wherein the authority of the overlord was everywhere recognised. The
last survivor of the heroic age of conquest disappeared with him; his
successor was rather a politician than a soldier, and, although Roger II
succeeded in establishing his supremacy over all the Norman provinces
in Italy, it was to a great extent because his father had established his
Sicilian state on so solid a foundation.
(B)
THE NORMAN KINGDOM OF SICILY.
In 1103, after the death of young Count Simon, who had succeeded
Roger I in 1101, the county of Sicily passed to his brother, Roger II.
The new count remained under the guardianship of his mother Adelaide
until 1112, and very little is known about his early years. According to
some authorities Robert of Burgundy was Adelaide's favourite, but he be-
came so powerful that the countess-regent grew uneasy and caused him
to be poisoned; unfortunately all our information on this point lacks preci-
sion. Towards the close of her regency, Adelaide was sought in marriage
by King Baldwin of Jerusalem, who wished to repair his fortunes by a
wealthy marriage. Before leaving for the Holy Land, Roger I's widow
stipulated that if her union with the King of Jerusalem were childless,
the crown of Jerusalem should revert to the Count of Sicily. This
agreement remained a dead letter, for the deserted and betrayed queen
died miserably in Sicily, but it is of interest as revealing the dreams of
future greatness cherished even at the beginning of his reign by the
youthful Roger II.
Boundless ambition was, in fact, the ruling characteristic of the
founder of the Norman monarchy; Roger II was bold and adventurous
and always intent on extending his dominions, while his thirst for con-
quest was insatiable. Even at the beginning of his reign he conceived
the daring plan of concentrating all the commerce of the Mediterranean
in his states by obtaining command of the two most important maritime
routes. By his possession of Messina he already controlled one, and he
sought to attain the other by the conquest of the Tunisian coast. The
first Norman attempts to establish themselves in Africa were unsuccessful
(1118-1127), and Roger II was obliged to seek for allies. At the very


## p. 185 (#231) ############################################

Roger II acquires Apulia
185
moment when he had signed agreements with Raymond-Berengar III,
Count of Barcelona, and with the city of Savona, the death of his cousin
William I, Duke of Apulia, induced him to postpone for a time his
plans for an African war, because, before he undertook distant conquests,
the Count of Sicily wished to unite in his own hands all the Norman
states of South Italy.
Duke William's reign (1111-1127) had been even more disastrous
than that of his father Roger Borsa. Incapable even of preserving the
inheritance, already sadly diminished, which he had received, he died
leaving South Italy almost in the same state as it was before Guiscard's
reign. The title of duke was an empty word, for the duchy of Apulia
now existed only in name; it had in fact been dismembered and consisted
of a number of independent seigniories.
As Duke William had died childless, the most direct heir was
Bohemond, son of Bohemond I, then at Antioch. The Count of Sicily
was a degree further off in relationship to the deceased duke. As soon
as he heard of his cousin's death, Roger II determined to seize the
inheritance so as to present an accomplished fact to this possible rival.
The rapidity with which he appeared outside Salerno and induced the
inhabitants to treat with him disconcerted his opponents. The inter-
vention of Pope Honorius II, who feared above all things that the Count
of Sicily might succeed William, came too late, and he had to resign
himself to the fact that the union of the duchy of Apulia with the county
of Sicily disturbed the balance of power which the Papacy, in its own
interests, had endeavoured to maintain between the various Norman
states. Although he had sided with the Normans who refused to recognise
Roger II, Honorius II was, in 1128, obliged to invest the Count of Sicily
with the duchy of Apulia. In the following year the new duke finally
crushed the chief rebels and obliged the ducal towns to ask for terms,
while the Prince of Capua himself recognised Roger II as his suzerain.
In order to secure the submission of the rebels, the duke displayed great
leniency and granted important privileges to the towns. In particular,
several of these obtained the right of themselves defending their walls
and citadels. As soon as his authority was established, Roger revoked
a concession which rendered his authority absolutely precarious.
The new duke's conception of his authority differed entirely from
that of his two predecessors. In September 1129 he expounded it to his
vassals assembled at Melfi. After they had taken the oath of fealty to
his sons, Roger and Tancred, he instructed them in the rules of govern-
ment which he insisted all should observe; he forbade private feuds,
imposed on the nobles the obligation of handing over criminals to the
ducal courts of justice, and ordered that the property and persons not
only of ecclesiastics, but also of pilgrims, travellers, and merchants,
should be respected. It was not easy to impose such habits of discipline
on, nor to ensure respect for ducal authority from, the Norman feudatories,
C. Iv,


## p. 186 (#232) ############################################

186
Creation of the kingdom of Sicily
יר
who had hardly submitted to Guiscard's iron rule. It took Roger nearly
ten years to make his vassals obey his wishes.
In 1130 for the first time all the principalities founded by the Normans
in Italy were united in a single hand. Roger II considered that the title
of duke was therefore inadequate, and decided to make his state into a
kingdom. To attain this object, he made very skilful use of the schism
which followed the double election of Anacletus II and Innocent II in
February 1130. He promised to support the former, and received in re-
turn "the crown of the kingdom of Sicily, of Calabria, and Apulia, the
principality of Capua, the honour of Naples, and the protectorate of the
men of Benevento" (27 September 1130). As soon as the Pope's consent
was obtained, Roger II held an assembly near Salerno, where he caused
his vassals to entreat him to take the title of King. Then on Christmas
Day 1130, in the cathedral of Palermo, his coronation closed the first
chapter in the history of the descendants of Tancred of Hauteville,
whose grandson thus became King of Sicily.
“Whoever makes himself King of Sicily attacks the Emperor. ” These
words, addressed by St Bernard to the Emperor Lothar, were true not only
as applied to the Germanic Empire but also to the Greek Empire.
Neither of the two Empires had ever regarded as legitimate the Norman
occupation of territories over which both claimed rights. Therefore,
alike in Germany and in Byzantium, the establishment of the Norman
kingdom was regarded as a flagrant insult. United by an equal hatred
of the common enemy, the two Empires sought by means of an alliance
to crush their adversary. Both Roger II and his successor had to employ
almost all their energy, either in fighting the two Emperors singly or in
preventing the Germano-Byzantine alliance from producing its full
effect.
During the whole course of its existence the kingdom of Sicily had
to struggle with a third enemy. Never did the Papacy submit to the
establishment of a powerful state in South Italy, even when its re-
cognition was inevitable. As soon as the Papacy was on good terms
with the Germanic Emperor, it incited him to destroy the Norman state,
and if, on the contrary, its relations with the Empire became less cordial,
the Popes gladly fell back on the support of the Norman sovereign. This
explains the alternations of policy pursued by the Papacy throughout the
twelfth century as regards Roger II and his successors.
The organisation which Roger II insisted on establishing in his
states, and the manner in which he demanded respect for his authority
from his vassals, excited general discontent, which in 1131 caused a revolt
led by Tancred of Conversano and Grimoald of Bari. Although the
king met with some successes, the insurrection spread, Rainulf, Count of
Alife, and Robert, Prince of Capua, joining the movement at the in-
stigation of Pope Innocent II; and Roger was severely defeated on the
banks of the Sabbato (1133). The coming of the Emperor Lothar to


## p. 187 (#233) ############################################

Defeat of Pope Innocent II
187
Rome, where he established Innocent II, was certainly connected with
the revolt of Roger's vassals. They were seriously disappointed when
they realised that the Emperor did not intend to invade South Italy.
During the summer of 1133 Roger resumed the struggle, and succeeded
in restoring order in Apulia ; when he returned to Sicily the rebel party
was disorganised. The conflict was continued only by the Duke of Naples,
the Prince of Capua, and the Count of Alife, who wished to secure the
assistance of the Pisans. The year 1134 witnessed further progress by
the king, who succeeded in crushing the rebels, but all the effect of the
success attained was destroyed by a false rumour of Roger's death, which
caused a general revolt in the winter of 1135. The king had again to
fight the rebels, and had not quite subdued them when in 1136 the
Emperor Lothar at length invaded his dominions in response to the
appeal of Innocent II. At the approach of the Germans the whole
country rose in arms against the king. Lothar encountered hardly any
resistance; his two most notable successes were the taking of Bari and
Salerno. The Emperor, however, did not seek to push his advantage any
further, for most of his vassals begged him to return north. He was
obliged to consent, but before his departure he invested Count Rainulf
of Alife with the duchy of Apulia. It took the King of Sicily three years
to destroy the organisation established by the Germanic Emperor. His
task was facilitated by Rainulf's death on 30 April 1139, as well as by
the failure of Innocent II.
When the schism was ended by the abdication of Victor IV, suc-
cessor of Anacletus II, Pope Innocent II vindictively pursued all the
partisans of the anti-Pope. Amongst these Roger II was not overlooked,
as it was by his help that Anacletus had been enabled to maintain
himself in Rome. In the spring of 1139 the King of Sicily was ex-
communicated, and in the early summer the Pope, at the head of all the
forces he could muster, set out for the south to restore the condition of
affairs established by Lothar. It was an unlucky venture; on 22 July
on the banks of the Garigliano, near Galluccio, he was defeated and
taken prisoner by Duke Roger, the king's son, who also seized the
pontifical treasure. Like Leo IX in bygone days, Innocent II beheld
the Norman leader kneeling for his blessing, but to obtain his liberty he
had to grant to Roger II the investiture of his states as bestowed by
Anacletus II. This royal success led to the collapse of the rebellion; the
king shewed himself relentless in repression so as to discourage future
revolts; to escape punishment many of his vassals fled to Germany and
Byzantium, among them Robert of Capua. The rebel cities forfeited
most of their privileges.
Concord between the king and the Pope was not of long duration ;
and in 1140 a fresh rupture was caused by the conquests of the king's
sons in the Abruzzi. To bring Roger to terms, Innocent II utilised the
question of episcopal elections, which had not been settled in 1139.
CH. I.


## p. 188 (#234) ############################################

188
East and West allied against Roger
The King of Sicily, in virtue of the Apostolic Legateship, which he
claimed to exercise throughout his states, demanded the right of in-
terference in episcopal elections. Innocent II denied him this privilege,
and refused canonical investiture to the bishops of the kingdom of
Sicily.
There was no change in the position under Celestine II (1143–1144).
It was otherwise with Pope Lucius II, who, requiring the support of the
Normans to secure Rome, concluded a seven years' truce with Roger II in
October 1144. The same consideration influenced the conduct of Eugenius
III, who succeeded Lucius. On his return to Italy in 1148, he concluded
a four years' truce with Roger II ; the Pope confirmed the privilege of
the Apostolic Legateship, but seems to have reserved the question of
episcopal elections. In return Roger II supplied the Pope with men and
money; thanks to this, the Pope succeeded in entering Rome. The King
of Sicily had hoped that, in exchange for the services rendered, the Pope
would come to a final agreement; on the contrary, Eugenius III, counting
on the approaching descent into Italy of King Conrad III to settle the
question of the Norman kingdom, refused to renew the investiture of
Roger with his states. By 1151 the breach was complete, and it was
without the Pope's consent that Roger II had his son William crowned
at Palermo on 8 April. Henceforth Eugenius III definitely sought an
alliance with the King of the Romans.
As soon as he had destroyed the organisation established in South
Italy by Lothar, Roger II, realising clearly that the Germanic Empire
would not submit meekly to such a check, and anxious to prevent a
repetition of such an intervention, sought to create every possible diffi-
culty for Conrad III, Lothar's successor. It was for this reason that he
supplied Welf, brother of Henry the Proud, with subsidies, and thus
succeeded in prolonging the revolt of the German nobles against their
new king. By this means he contrived to keep the King of the Romans
busy in his own dominions, and prevented him from lending a favourable
ear to the appeals for intervention in Italy which were addressed to him
by all the Norman nobles who had taken refuge at his court.
Above all Roger II feared lest the King of the Romans and the
Greek Emperor, united by their common hatred of the kingdom of
Sicily, should enter into an alliance against him. John Comnenus had
already approached Lothar on this subject, and the negotiations were
resumed with Conrad in 1140. To prevent this alliance, Roger sent an
embassy to Constantinople to solicit the hand of a Byzantine princess
for one of his sons. This embassy coincided with the death of John
Comnenus (3 April 1143). The negotiations were continued by Manuel
Comnenus, but ended in a breach, and the Basileus about 1144 reverted
to the German alliance.
At the very moment when the alliance between the two Empires was
about to be concluded, the preaching of the Second Crusade averted the


## p. 189 (#235) ############################################

Norman conquests in Africa
189
danger. After vainly attempting to turn the Crusade to his own ad-
vantage, Roger resolved to profit by the embarrassment caused to Manuel
Comnenus by the presence of the crusaders, and to invade the Greek
Empire. While the crusaders were still outside Constantinople, the
Normans took possession of Corfù, occupied Neapolis, laid the island of
Euboea waste, and, on the homeward journey, penetrated into the Gulf
of Corinth, pillaging and destroying Thebes (end of 1147 and beginning
of 1148). The Byzantines did not recover Corfù until 1149.
On his way home from the Crusade, Conrad met Manuel Comnenus,
and the two monarchs agreed to attack the King of Sicily in the course
of 1149. In preventing the execution of this plan Roger shewed extra-
ordinary activity. He again supplied Welf with money, and induced
him to organise another league against King Conrad; at the same time
he started the idea of a league to include all the states of western Europe,
intended in the first instance to punish the Greek Emperor, to whom the
failure of the Crusade was ascribed, and subsequently to succour the
Christian communities of the Levant. Roger succeeded in converting to
his views not only King Louis VII of France and his minister Suger,
but also St Bernard, who at that time exercised great influence on
European opinion. The projected alliance failed to come into being
because of the opposition of King Conrad, but fortune again favoured
the King of Sicily, for at the very moment when, by agreement with
Manuel Comnenus, Conrad was about to invade Italy, he died (February
1152), whereby the Norman kingdom escaped the danger of a coalition
between the two Empires.
In spite of the failure of his early expeditions, Roger II never aban-
doned his intention of attacking the coast of North Africa, and his
attempts to get a foothold there constitute one of the most curious
features of his reign. Almost all his expeditions were led by the Grand
Emir (Admiral), George of Antioch, who with his father had been in the
service of Tamīm, the Zairid prince of Mahdiyah. He next entered the
service of the King of Sicily, where, by his knowledge of Arabic and his
familiarity with the Muslim world and the African coast, he was an in-
valuable auxiliary to Roger II. Taking advantage of the internal quarrels
which continually broke out between the chiefs of the petty Muslim
principalities of Africa, Roger first took under his protectorate Hasan,
prince of Mahdīyah (1134), and then occupied the island of Gerba, at the
foot of the gulf of Gabes. In 1143 he took Djidjelli, near Bugia; and
in 1145 Bresk, which lies between Cherchell and Tinnīs, was pillaged, as
also the island of Kerkinna. In 1146 Tripoli fell into the hands of the
Normans. Until then Roger II does not seem to have contemplated
establishing himself in Africa; he was content to dispatch his naval
forces each summer on a privateering expedition, to loot and burn the
towns which they surprised. After the capture of Tripoli, he established
his power in Africa on a regular basis. A garrison was placed in each
CA. IV.


## p. 190 (#236) ############################################

190
Death of Roger II
captured town, but the native population was governed by a Wāli and
judged by a Cadi, chosen from among the Muslims.
The fall of Tripoli had a great effect in Africa, and was quickly
followed by that of Gabes, Mahdiyah, and Sūs (1148). The progress of
conquest was not arrested by the death of George of Antioch, and in
1153 the Normans occupied Bona. At this moment the Norman dominion
in Africa reached its greatest extent; the authority of Roger II stretched
from Tripoli to Tunis, and in the interior from the desert of Bakka to
Qairawān. Roger appears to have proportioned his aims to the forces at
his disposal, and to have been content to occupy the most important
commercial centres without attempting to advance far inland. For some
years the King of Sicily was actually master of the communications
between the two basins of the Mediterranean. Unfortunately his work
did not endure. The results obtained by allowing the natives to enjoy
religious, judicial, and administrative liberty were lost when the con-
querors wished to interfere in religious questions, and tried to make the
people of Tripoli abandon the party of the Almohades. Under the
influence of religious prejudice, an insurrection broke out which destroyed
in one day the work of the Norman conquest. This mistake, however,
was not made by Roger II, who died at Palermo in the height of his
glory on 26 February 1154.
When the founder of the Norman monarchy died, the political horizon
of the kingdom of Sicily was heavy with ominous thunder-clouds. None
of the vital questions affecting the welfare of the new kingdom had
received any solution. Even the genius of Roger II had been unable to
find any means of settling the problems which had arisen; he had only
succeeded in postponing the moment of settlement. Internally the calm
which had reigned since the last revolt of the aristocracy and the cities
was more apparent than real. The exiled Norman nobles had not given
up hopes of regaining possession of their confiscated property and were
in communication with their partisans. The inhabitants of the cities,
kept in subjection by the royal garrisons which occupied the citadels,
still deplored their lost liberties ; fear had indeed compelled all heads to
bow before the king, but regret for the past was deeply enshrined in all
hearts. The aristocracy, systematically excluded from any share in public
affairs by Roger II, looked on jealously while the king governed with
the help of men derived from the inferior classes of the country, for
whom were reserved the highest offices at court. Here also submission
was only apparent, and the nobles impatiently awaited an opportunity
of claiming both their former independence and a share in the govern-
ment.
Abroad the Papacy remained hostile to the kingdom of Sicily; in 1153
Eugenius III and the new King of the Romans, Frederick of Swabia, had
concluded an agreement entirely to the detriment of the Norman king-
dom (Treaty of Constance). As the Greek Empire also remained


## p. 191 (#237) ############################################

King William I: his early difficulties
191
hostile, there was no change in the situation, and an alliance between
the two Empires against the Normans was always a possibility to be
feared.
Roger II was succeeded by William I, last survivor of the sons
born of his wife Elvira, daughter of Alfonso VI of Castile! . William I
has for long had a very bad reputation among historians, and by uni-
versal consent the epithet of the Bad was attached to his name. Only
in recent years has it been discovered that this reputation was scarcely
deserved, and a more critical study of documents has revealed the fact
that Roger's son has been the victim of the pamphleteer Hugo Falcandus,
a passionate opponent of the policy followed by the new king. William
was pre-eminently the inheritor of his father's political work; he made
no innovations, and only followed the course which Roger had traced
out. Brought up to distrust the nobles, he continued to deprive them of
power, and surrounded himself with his father's old servants, to whom
he gave his confidence. Less energetic than Roger II, he devolved the
exercise of power upon his ministers, and was content to live in his palace
surrounded by his harem like an oriental sovereign.
Only some very
urgent necessity for his personal intervention could induce him to emerge, ,
but when once he overcame his natural indolence the king displayed an
incredible energy in executing the measures on which he had decided.
During all the early part of the reign power was exercised by the Emir
of Emirs (Admiral), Maio of Bari, son of a judge of Bari; he also had
passed his whole life in the law-courts, and his high place in the king's
favour excited the hatred of all the nobles.
In the very year of William I's accession, Frederick Barbarossa de-
termined to descend into Italy. In order to avert the danger of an
alliance between the two Emperors, the King of Sicily offered to make
peace with Manuel Comnenus; he would even have consented to restore
all the booty taken at the sack of Thebes. Manuel refused the offers
made to him, but on the other hand the Norman king succeeded in
making peace with Venice, whereby in case of war Byzantium was de-
prived of the support of the Venetian fleet.
The negotiations which had been entered upon between Manuel and
Frederick Barbarossa proved abortive, very likely because the latter re-
fused to admit the claims of the Basileus to South Italy. When Manuel
learned of the arrival of the King of the Romans in Italy, he feared lest
Barbarossa's enterprise undertaken without him was aimed against him.
He therefore sent Michael Palaeologus to Italy with orders to approach
Frederick anew, and if he failed to take some action on his own account.
As the negotiations with Barbarossa were inconclusive, Palaeologus es-
tablished himself at Ancona, and entered into relations with William I's
1 Roger was married a second time to Sibylla, daughter of Hugh of Burgundy,
and a third time to Beatrice, daughter of the Count of Rethel, who gave birth to a
posthumous daughter, Constance.
CH. IV.


## p. 192 (#238) ############################################

192
His victory
cousin, Robert, Count of Loritello, who had just revolted. Assisted
by the exiled Norman nobles who flocked back in large numbers, and
also by those who had adhered to the Count of Loritello, the Byzan-
tines invaded William's states and were extraordinarily successful. At
first under the command of Palaeologus, and after his death under
John Ducas, the Greeks occupied most of the large towns, Bari, Trani,
Giovenazzo, and Molfetta, and advanced to Taranto and Brindisi.
Meanwhile Palaeologus came to terms with Pope Hadrian IV. The
latter had experienced grave disappointment when Barbarossa retired
directly after his imperial coronation, for he had always expected that
the German Emperor would settle the question of the Norman kingdom.
Manuel Comnenus made very skilful use of the situation, and wished to
play the part of protector of the Papacy which Barbarossa had relin-
quished. His designs very shortly became apparent, when he demanded
that the Pope should restore the unity of the Empire in his person. The
first offers of the Basileus were accepted, and it was by means of Greek
subsidies that Hadrian IV paid the troops with which he invaded the
Norman kingdom. This intervention resulted in the restoration of
Robert, Prince of Capua, to his dominions (October 1155).
The progress of the Byzantine and papal troops was greatly facili-
tated by the serious illness of William I (September-December 1155)
and by the revolt of some Sicilian vassals. The royal army assembled
by the Chancellor, Asclettin, to resist the German invasion, was dis-
organised by the revolt of the Italian vassals; and it could not be
reinforced, because the rebellion of the Sicilian vassals prevented the
withdrawal of troops from the island.
It was only at the end of the winter of 1156 that William repaired
to Butera to besiege Geoffrey, Count of Montescaglioso, the leader of the
rebels who demanded the dismissal of Maio. As soon as this insurrection
was crushed, William I prepared to attack Italy. He tried to negotiate
with the Pope, to whom he offered highly advantageous conditions in
exchange for his investiture. But Hadrian IV preferred the Byzantine
alliance. The successes of the troops led by William I, however, soon
caused the Pope to regret his decision. The Byzantines indeed lost their
conquests even more quickly than they had achieved them. After their
total defeat outside Brindisi (28 May 1156), the Greek troops were
unable to retain the towns they had taken. William I was relentless in
repression; he ordered a large number of rebels to be hanged, blinded,
or thrown into the sea. These executions inspired terror everywhere,
and when the Norman army reached Apulia no city dared to offer re-
sistance; none the less the king made an example of Bari, and destroyed
it. In the north of the kingdom resistance ceased; the Prince of Capua
fled, and the dispersal of his allies left Hadrian IV alone in opposition to
the Norman king, who besieged him in Benevento.
Forced to treat, Hadrian IV had to agree to all the demands of the


## p. 193 (#239) ############################################

Treaty of Benevento (1156) with the Papacy
193
conqueror. The treaty therefore settled all the questions pending between
the kingdom of Sicily and the Papacy. Hadrian IV granted to William I
the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Apulia, the principality of Capua
with Naples, Amalfi, Salerno, and the district of the Marsi (since the
time of Gregory VII the Papacy had refused to recognise the last-named
conquests). The King of Sicily took the oath of homage, and agreed to
pay a tribute of 600 schifati for Apulia and Calabria, and 500 for the
district of the Marsi. The questions relating to ecclesiastical discipline
which had been raised in connexion with the privilege of the royal
legateship were arranged by a compromise. The treaty made a distinction
between Apulia and Calabria on the one hand, and Sicily on the other.
In Apulia and Calabria the Pope secured the right of appeal by clerics to
Rome, the right of consecration and of visitation except in those cities
where the king was residing, and finally the right of summoning councils.
In Sicily the Pope might summon ecclesiastics to attend him, but the king
reserved the right of preventing their obedience to the Pope's command.
The Pope could only receive appeals and send legates at the king's re-
quest. The clergy nominated the bishops, but the king had the right of
refusing to accept their election. The Papacy obtained the right of
consecration and visitation, but not that of nomination, over certain
monasteries and churches, the prelates of which had to apply to Rome
only for consecration and benediction. Thus the Treaty of Benevento
confirmed in favour of the King of Sicily all the privileges granted by
Urban II to Count Roger, and Hadrian IV further had to recognise all
the Norman conquests. Moreover, the King of Sicily obtained the
erection of Palermo into a metropolitan see.
These advantages were certainly considerable, but the Treaty of
Benevento was to have far wider consequences. Possibly when he signed
the Pope did not realise that he was severing the link which had united
the Papacy and the Germanic Empire ever since the Treaty of Constance.
Barbarossa was indignant at the attitude of Hadrian IV, and notwith-
standing the efforts made by the Pope to remain on good terms both
with the Emperor and the King of Sicily, a rupture was inevitable. The
Papacy was consequently obliged to seek support and strength from the
Norman kingdom.
Barbarossa had been very ill-content at the Greeks' successes in Italy,
but the tidings of their reverses removed his uneasiness, and during the
years 1156–1157 negotiations between the two Empires were resumed.
Again they failed to reach an agreement. Meanwhile William I, having
treated with the Genoese so as to deprive the Byzantines of the possible
support of the Genoese fleet (1157), arranged a great expedition to
ravage the coasts of the Greek Empire. This took place in 1157; the
rich ports of Negropont in Euboea and Almira (Halmyrus) in Thessaly
were pillaged, and according to some chroniclers the Norman fleet even
appeared outside Constantinople. In the same year Manuel resumed
13
C. MED. H. VOL. V. OH. IV.


## p. 194 (#240) ############################################

194
Alliance with the Papacy against the Empire
hostilities, sending Alexius, son of the Grand Domestic Axuch, to
Ancona, where he raised a force and entered into relations with some
Normans, among whom was Count Andrew of Rupis Canina (Raviscanina,
near Alife). The Byzantines and their allies attacked the Norman king-
dom on its northern frontier.
In the spring of 1158 peace was signed between Manuel and William I,
thanks to the intervention of Hadrian IV (1158). After the rupture with
Barbarossa (1157), the Pope had made friends with the Greek Emperor,
and, wishing to form an alliance against the Germanic Empire, succeeded
in bringing about peace between Byzantium and Sicily. Henceforth
Manuel Comnenus designed to obtain from the Pope the restoration of
the unity of the Roman Empire; consequently, with this larger scheme
in view, the question of the Norman kingdom lost much of its importance
in his
eyes.
On the other hand, the new claims of the Basileus were dis-
liked at Palermo, where the treaty of 1158 was regarded as a truce
which left in abeyance all the questions pending between the two
states.
During the ensuing years the papal alliance was to be the pivot of
the Norman policy, for it was well known at the Norman court that
Barbarossa had not abandoned his designs on South Italy. Hencefor-
ward the Pope and the King of Sicily sought to create every possible
difficulty for Frederick, so as to keep him far from Rome and South
Italy. When the Milanese revolted in 1159 they were encouraged by
both Pope and king. As protector of the Papacy William I had great
influence at the papal Court, and his party secured a conspicuous success
in 1159 while the Pope was at Anagni; here was formed the league
between the Pope, Brescia, Piacenza, and Milan to resist the imperial
pretensions. During this same visit the partisans of William I set about
choosing a successor for Hadrian IV, who died on 1 September 1159.
The strongest proof of the importance of the Sicilian party at the
papal Court is the number of votes obtained by William's candidate,
Cardinal Roland, its leader, who actually received twenty-three votes
out of a total of twenty-seven. His election as Pope Alexander III was
therefore a personal triumph for the King of Sicily.
The disorder which prevailed in Italy during 1155 and 1156 had its
counterpart in the Norman possessions in Africa. On 25 February
1156 there was a massacre of Christians at Sfax; then the insurrection
spread to the islands of Gerba and Kerkinna, and finally to Tripoli. In
this city the military commandant had attempted to make the imāms
preach against the Almohades, whose growing power was causing un-
easiness at the court of Palermo. This order gave rise to a wide-spread
conspiracy. The conspirators made an unexpected attack on the Normans
(1158), who were driven out of Gabes and only succeeded in holding
their ground at Mahdīyah until January 1160. With the fall of this
town perished the Norman dominion of Africa. At first sight it seems


## p. 195 (#241) ############################################

Revolt of Norman nobles
195
as though William I did little to defend his African possessions. Very
probably the abandonment of Africa was dictated by political necessity.
At Palermo it was regarded as inadvisable to undertake a struggle with the
mighty Almohad Empire at the very moment when war with Barbarossa
seemed imminent; and it was preferable to keep intact the forces of the
kingdom, which might soon have to struggle for its very existence.
At the beginning of 1160 the position of the kingdom of Sicily,
which was at peace with the Greek Empire and allied with the Pope
and the Lombard towns, was unquestionably much stronger than at the
accession of William I, thanks to the policy pursued by the Grand Emir,
Maio of Bari. It was at the very moment when the latter might have
hoped to reap the harvest of his skill that he was assassinated.
Since the revolt in 1156, Maio's influence had constantly increased,
to the great dissatisfaction of the nobles, who regarded the minister as
responsible for the severe measures taken after William's victory, and
were profoundly irritated because they were not allowed a share in the
government of the State. Maio was equally unpopular with the in-
habitants of the large towns, where he was blamed for the royal decisions
which had attacked their municipal liberties, and also for the increase of
the financial burdens which weighed on the bourgeois. A plot against
the all-powerful minister was organised, in which the principal part was
assigned to the Italian vassals of the King of Sicily. Richard of Aquila,
Count of Fondi, Gilbert, Count of Gravina, and Roger, Count of Acerra,
were the leaders of the movement. They came to an understanding with
the exiled Norman nobles and with the inhabitants of certain towns.
When the revolt broke out, the leaders of the movement declared that
they desired only to deliver the king from an imprudent minister who
aspired to usurp the throne. In reality the conspirators were equally
hostile to William I, whom they wished to replace by his son Roger.
On 10 November 1161 one of the conspirators, Matthew Bonnel, as-
sassinated the Grand Emir. For some time William did not dare to
take vengeance on the guilty, but was forced to entrust the government
to Henry Aristippus, Archdeacon of Catania, who was friendly with
Maio's murderers. Emboldened by their impunity, the conspirators
succeeded in taking possession of the royal palace of Palermo, where
they seized the person of the king (9 March 1161), who only owed his
deliverance to the popular riots excited by the bishops then present at
court. Even when set at liberty, the king had still to disguise his
wrath and to treat with the rebels. But as soon as he felt himself strong
enough, William I arrested Matthew Bonnel, whose eyes were put out.
Immediately after Easter (16 April) 1161, the king marched against the
Sicilian rebels, who were forced to treat with him; they only obtained
pardon on condition that they left the kingdom. Sicily being subdued,
the king crossed to Italy, where the revolt headed by Robert of Loritello
had spread on all sides. Calabria, Apulia, and the Terra di Lavoro were
H. v.
13_2


## p. 196 (#242) ############################################

196
Death of William I
forced in turn to recognise the royal authority. Anxious to make ex-
amples, the king imposed on all the towns a supplementary tax called
redemptio; moreover he ordered Salerno to be rased to the ground, and
it was only saved by the intervention of Matthew of Ajello, one of the
principal officials at court, who was a native of the city. This successful
campaign enabled the king to punish the most highly-placed culprits;
on his return to Palermo he threw Henry Aristippus into prison, and
pursued all the supporters of Matthew Bonnel with the utmost severity.
After the arrest of Henry Aristippus, William entrusted the govern-
ment to Count Silvester of Marsico, to Richard Palmer, the Bishop-
elect of Syracuse, and to the Master Notary, Matthew of Ajello; after
Silvester's death the Grand Chamberlain Peter was associated with the
other two. Trained in the school of Maio, Matthew of Ajello was the
inheritor of his political traditions, and up to the end of William's reign
Norman policy pursued the same course.
The great aim of this policy was to prevent Barbarossa from in-
vading South Italy. Frederick indeed had not abandoned his plans
of intervention. The alliance with Sicily was one of his chief grounds
of complaint against Alexander III, and in 1160 he resumed nego-
tiations to gain the support of Manuel Comnenus. After the fall of
Milan he formed a treaty with Pisa and Genoa to conquer the Norman
kingdom (March 1162). The expedition, which was constantly postponed,
appeared at last about to start in 1164; but the league of Verona pre-
vented Barbarossa from realising his designs.
Meanwhile the King of Sicily remained obstinately faithful to the
cause of the Pope and benefited by the progress made by him. From
1159 to 1161 Alexander III, who had not been able to hold his own
in Rome, remained almost continually close to the Norman frontier
ready to apply for shelter to William in case of need. After his return
from France in 1165, the Pope landed at Messina, and it was Norman
troops who, on 23 November 1165, established him in the Lateran.
The reinstatement of the Pope in Rome was the last success achieved
by William I, who died on 7 May 1166. Even to the last the King of
Sicily was faithful to the papal alliance, and on his death-bed he be-
queathed to the Pope a considerable sum.
Judged as a whole, William's reign was not devoid of greatness, and it
is evident that he has been unfairly treated by historians. Placed in
particularly difficult circumstances, he succeeded in averting the dangers
which threatened his dominions. He undoubtedly displayed excessive
severity in repressing rebellions by his subjects, but it must not be for-
gotten that these occurred when the enemy was at the very gates of his
kingdom. There are consequently many excuses to be found for him,
and it must also be remembered that even his bitterest enemy, the
chronicler Hugo Falcandus, was forced to regret him when he con-
templated the anarchy which followed his reign.


## p. 197 (#243) ############################################

Minority of William II: Council of Regency
197
Duke Roger, the king's eldest son, had been killed by a stray arrow
on the occasion when the king was liberated by the people; the crown
consequently devolved on the second son William. On his death-bed
William I entrusted the regency to his wife Margaret, daughter of
Garcia VI Ramirez, King of Navarre, and recommended his chosen coun-
sellors as worthy of her confidence.
The accession of the new king aroused great hopes in all his subjects,
and his youth caused everyone to regard him with sympathy. It was
expected that the queen-regent would be more lenient than her husband,
and that she would be forced to make concessions to the nobles and the
cities. Margaret wished to call a new man to her assistance in governing,
and having summoned her cousin, Stephen of Perche, from France,
she bestowed on him the appointments of Chancellor and Archbishop
of Palermo. This choice was unpopular with everyone, and the new
chancellor encountered formidable opposition. The leading nobles of
the kingdom and the councillors of the queen-regent combined against
him, and were joined by all those who considered themselves injured by
the reforms which the new chancellor attempted to introduce into the
administration, or by the favours granted to the Frenchmen who had
come in his train. Stephen of Perche succeeded in foiling the first
plot; but the conspirators contrived to obtain possession of Messina,
and on receipt of these tidings an insurrection broke out at Palermo.
Stephen was besieged in the campanile of the cathedral, and was obliged
to treat with the rebels. His life was spared on condition that he left
the kingdom.
The coalition which achieved Stephen's downfall was the logical
consequence of the aristocratic attempts to reduce the royal power. A
common hatred of foreigners reconciled all the parties which had hitherto
striven with one another in rivalry. For some time the queen-regent
was entirely deprived of any exercise of authority, as the rebels estab-
lished a council consisting of ten members of the royal Curia—Richard
Palmer, Bishop of Syracuse; Gentile, Bishop of Girgenti; Romuald,
Archbishop of Salerno; John, Bishop of Malta; Roger, Count of Geraci;
Richard, Count of Molise; Henry, Count of Montescaglioso; Matthew of
Ajello; Richard the Kaid; and Walter Ophamil, Dean of Girgenti (like
Palmer, an Englishman), who was the king's tutor and was consecrated
Archbishop of Palermo in September 1169. He soon played a very
important part, and appears to have deprived the Council of Ten of the
powers which they had usurped. Supported by Matthew of Ajello,
Walter excluded the representatives of the aristocracy from the council,
and very soon reverted to the governmental tradition of Roger II and
William I. And when William II reached his majority, the Archbishop
of Palermo still retained his confidence.
Under William II Norman policy as regards the Papacy and the
Germanic Empire for many years remained identical with that of the
CA. IV.


## p. 198 (#244) ############################################

198
Marriage-alliance with the Hohenstaufen
previous reign. The King of Sicily was the more inclined to support the
papal cause, because in 1166, when Barbarossa invaded Italy, everyone
thought that the Emperor intended to attack the Norman kingdom in
the following year. But when Frederick was about to advance towards
the south, he was summoned to Rome by the victory of Christian of
Mayence at Monteporzio. In these critical circumstances Alexander III
found support from the Normans, and the Sicilian galleys penetrated the
Tiber as far as Rome. Alexander III did not take advantage of the
proffered assistance, preferring to remain in the Eternal City, but a little
later, when he took refuge at Benevento, he was again protected by
Norman troops. The formation of the Lombard League prevented
Barbarossa from interfering in South Italy, as before he could deal
with the Norman kingdom he had to conquer North Italy, the whole
of which was in arms. William II on his side did not stint his subsidies
to the League; and in 1173, when Frederick tried to detach him from
the papal alliance, the Norman king refused to fall in with the imperial
views. At the Peace of Venice the Norman envoys played a leading part
in the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of peace, and it was
owing to their support that Alexander III succeeded in overcoming the
difficulties raised by the Emperor and the Venetians. By the Peace a
truce of fifteen years was assured between the Norman kingdom and the
Germanic Empire. But henceforward William II modified his attitude
towards the Papacy. When Lucius III, who succeeded Alexander III,
was in his turn on bad terms with the Emperor (1184), William refused
to side with the Pope. Intent on distant conquests of which we shall
presently speak, the King of Sicily saw no use in risking a struggle with
the Empire. The Treaty of Constance (1183) had put an end to the
Lombard League, and William II was faced by the possibility of being
the Pope's only champion in a conflict; he preferred to come to terms
with Barbarossa, who had recently approached him to obtain the hand
of Constance, Roger II's daughter, for his son Henry. As William II
was childless, the Emperor hoped that the Norman kingdom might be
secured for his son, Constance being the legitimate heir. On 29
October 1184 the betrothal was announced at Augsburg, and on 28
August 1185 Constance was handed over to the imperial envoys at
Rieti.
His alliance with Alexander III had enabled William II to play an
important part in the great events which occupied European diplomacy
during his reign. He was brought into relations with the King of England
in connexion with Henry II's quarrel with Thomas Becket, and eventually
in 1176 he married Henry's daughter Joan. This marriage brought the
two countries closer together, and many Englishmen came to settle in
Sicily.
Norman policy towards the Greek Emperor underwent a series of
changes during William II's reign. About 1167 Manuel Comnenus


## p. 199 (#245) ############################################

Eastern schemes of William II
199
definitely demanded from Alexander III the restoration of imperial
unity, with himself as sole Emperor of East and West. As he feared
that the King of Sicily would oppose this plan, he at once approached
the court of Palermo with an offer to marry his daughter Maria, heiress
to his dominions, to the young King William II. Nothing further is
known as to the relations between the two courts until 1171, when
owing to his quarrel with the Venetians Manuel reverted to this proposed
marriage, and it was agreed that the Byzantine princess should arrive in
Taranto in the spring of 1172. But when William went to meet his
bride on the appointed day, she was not there. Probably by that time
Manuel had entered on fresh negotiations with a view to arranging the
marriage of his daughter to Barbarossa's son.
William II was deeply offended at the insult offered him, and resolved
to be avenged. He began by forming an alliance with the Venetians
(1175) and the Genoese (1174), thus depriving the Byzantines of possible
allies, and as soon as a favourable opportunity occurred he dispatched
troops to conquer Constantinople. When after Manuel's death Andro-
nicus Comnenus dethroned Alexius II (1184), the King of Sicily took
advantage of the disturbances which broke out in the Greek Empire
to declare war. As in bygone days Guiscard had used a pseudo-
Michael VII, so William now made use of a spurious Alexius to gain
partisans among the Byzantines. From the Norman kingdom an army
of, it is said, eighty thousand men was gathered under the command of a
certain Baldwin and of Richard, Count of Acerra. The fleet was com-
manded by Tancred of Lecce. In June 1185 the Normans took Durazzo
and advanced on Salonica, which was invested at the beginning of
August. After the fall of this town, they marched on Constantinople
and proceeded as far as Seres and Mosinopolis. Near the latter town
was fought the decisive battle, wherein the Normans, treacherously
attacked while negotiations were proceeding, were overwhelmed by the
Byzantines. All the conquered cities were quickly recaptured from the
invaders, only Durazzo remaining in their hands for a time. William II
indeed carried on the war by sending his fleet under the command of the
Admiral Margaritus to support Isaac Comnenus who had been pro-
claimed Emperor; but he came to terms with the Emperor Isaac Angelus
before 1189, although we do not know the exact date when the war
ended.
In sending his troops to attempt the conquest of Constantinople,
William II was reverting to the grandiose policy of expansion formerly
pursued by Robert Guiscard and Roger II. His Moorish policy was
derived from the same sources. It is, however, specially in these matters
that we can trace the personal influence of the king, for we know that
his ministers were opposed to these distant expeditions; moreover, when
he dispatched his ships to attack the Moorish possessions, William II
was not only considering the Sicilian trade, he was not only seeking to
CH. 1.


## p. 200 (#246) ############################################

200
Death of William II: disputed succession
1
assure communications between the Western world and the Holy Places,
but he was ambitious to pose as the protector of the Christian com-
munities of the Levant. This explains why in his reign the Norman
fleets specially directed their attacks against the Muslims of Egypt.
Only the Normans supported the King of Jerusalem in his proposed
campaign against Egypt, which was prevented by his death (1174). In
like manner during the ensuing years, even while William was treating
with the Almohades, he continued to send his sailors to lay waste the
coasts of Egypt and to pillage Tinnīs (1175-1177). These naval ex-
peditions were interrupted by the war with the Greeks, but were resumed
when the Christians of the Levant appealed to the West. The King of
Sicily was one of the first to assume the cross on the occasion of the
Third Crusade. He aspired to lead the expedition, and the engagements
he entered into with some of the leaders of the Crusade (aused serious
embarrassment to his successor. Death prevented William II (18 November
1189) from realising his design, but the Norman fleet had already set sail
for the East, and the exploits of its admiral Margaritus off the coast near
Laodicea (Lāțiqiyah) cast a halo of glory round the last days of his reign.
Of all the Norman sovereigns William II is the one of whose character
we know least. He seems to have been devoid of the vigorous qualities
of his race, for he never took personal command of his army and pre-
ferred a life of ease and pleasure in the seclusion of his palace to the life
of the camp. But it was precisely this contrast to his predecessors which
caused his popularity. People were weary of the despotic authority exercised
by Roger and William I; they breathed a sigh of relief at the accession
of William II, and the tranquillity of his reign was almost too much
appreciated, while deep gratitude was felt towards the sovereign who had
bestowed these benefits. Regretted by his subjects, William "the Good"
continued to be regarded in Italy as the ideal type of king,
Rex ille magnificus,
Pacificus,
Cuius vita placuit
Deo et hominibus;
and when Dante gave him a place in Paradise he was only echoing
popular sentiment?
As William left no children, Constance, daughter of Roger II, was
legitimate heiress to the crown of Sicily. Before her departure for Ger-
many, William II had made his vassals swear fealty to her, thus clearly
indicating his wishes, which were however disregarded. While one party,
led by Walter, Archbishop of Palermo, was anxious that the royal will
should be executed, two other parties, which had nothing in common save
their hatred of the Germans, wished to elect a king, one supporting
1 Cf.