What if the Normans don't conquer Sicily?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Here's a WI which goes outside of my usual 19th/20th century speculations and is a medieval POD. Presume that the normans get much less competent leadership and instead of OTL's one successful attempt they do multiple, smaller failed attempts. This would mean that Sicily continues on the path towards becoming a semi-italian, island part of the Magreb. However, due to its closer position to Europe, Sicily probably has multiple periods of foreign christian rule. This would mean that Sicily retains a sizeable christian minority but is solidly muslim. Which part of the world does Sicily get lumped in with: Africa or Europe(IMO I'm leaning towards africa since the 'normal' definition of Europe is a white christian nation in Europe and Sicily would be muslim and semitic)? Also do the french in the 19th century decide to try occupying Sicily like they did Algeria? I somehow don't see Sicily being brought into the process of Italian unification for cultural/ethnic reasons. Also given the US's now allowing much if any (free) african americans the US lacks its sicilian population(either a slightly better economic situation for blacks(less labor competiton) or more immigrants from elsewhere replace the italisns).

[minionofmidas]

The history of the Crusades would read very differently without Norman control of Sicily. And the whole cultural and economical history of Europe would read very different without the Crusades. There might not even be a white man's country in the present-day US without the Norman conquest of Sicily.

Of course, all this makes it much more likely that, if the Normans hadn't conquered Sicily when they did, they would have done it thirty years later with Crusader help...

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?

[Verily]

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?

The ramifications would be too far reaching to even talk about the colonization of North America. The odds of a nation resembling the US appearing are slim to none.

The biggest winners from the Normans not conquering Sicily would be the Byzantines. The Byzantine Empire retains its hold on southern Italy, and, even if they're defeated at Manzikert in 1071, Bari is still safe and secure, so the massive upheaval seen after the Double Disasters doesn't happen. The Byzantines refocus themselves as a trading nation in the central Mediterranean, meaning a weaker Venice, Genoa and Pisa, all of whom are unable to exploit a dying Byzantium to their advantage.

Meanwhile, the Normans still have to go somewhere. They might invade North Africa instead of Sicily and be defeated, but this would still weaken the Muslim emirates in the region. Though the Byzantines aren't suffering as badly as real history, they still ask for papal aid, and Urban II still siezes the excuse to seek power for himself. However, the first target of the crusaders is Muslim Sicily, a direct threat to the papacy in Rome.

The crusaders conquer Sicily, but at great cost. They do eventually reach the Levant but are defeated at Antioch and again at Acre and retreat to Cyprus, which is made into a crusader state. Sicily is re-Christianized and really not that different from real history.

From Cyprus, the crusaders essentially become pirates, weakening the Muslim states of the eastern Mediterranean and crippling trans-Mediterranean trade. The Ayyubids under Saladin decide to put an end to their privateering, but his fleet is destroyed by the crusaders while attacking Paphos. Saladin himself is killed and the Ayyubids fall apart.

I could go on, but I won't.

[minionofmidas]

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?

Without the crusades, I'm presuming European/Christian/Caucasian/whatever domination of the world to never happen.

[Verily]

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?

Without the crusades, I'm presuming European/Christian/Caucasian/whatever domination of the world to never happen.

To the contrary, European domination was pretty much ensured from the beginning due to geography. While East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East all have basically everything they might want in pre-modern society close at hand and therefore have little reason to launch amssive explorations and to conquer other parts of the world, both Europe's production capacity and production diversity are exceptionally low. This means that Europe had far more pressure to both explore and conquer than East Asia, South Asia or the Middle East.

I spent quite a bit of college researching the topic. My conclusion was that Europe's strength in the 16th and 17th centuries and dominance in the 18th and 19th centuries was due precisely to its inherent disadvantages, not advantages. Nowhere else had any compelling reason to establish world-spanning trade empires since they already had enormous production capacities and diverse native goods.

[bullmoose88]

Hmm...I have to say this is an interesting thread. Until reading this, I had no idea how important Sicily was (Sicilians=ick, [mainland italian snobbery has infected me]) to the events of history.

I should dig out my "what if books," they always had good premises.

[minionofmidas]

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?

Without the crusades, I'm presuming European/Christian/Caucasian/whatever domination of the world to never happen.

To the contrary, European domination was pretty much ensured from the beginning due to geography. While East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East all have basically everything they might want in pre-modern society close at hand and therefore have little reason to launch amssive explorations and to conquer other parts of the world, both Europe's production capacity and production diversity are exceptionally low. This means that Europe had far more pressure to both explore and conquer than East Asia, South Asia or the Middle East.

I spent quite a bit of college researching the topic. My conclusion was that Europe's strength in the 16th and 17th centuries and dominance in the 18th and 19th centuries was due precisely to its inherent disadvantages, not advantages. Nowhere else had any compelling reason to establish world-spanning trade empires since they already had enormous production capacities and diverse native goods.

There are other parts of the world with massive disadvantages as well. It is the combination of disadvantages and advantages that matters.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bump.

Fun topic.

[ilikeverin]

Bump.

Fun topic.

Yes!