One Son's Father - Retrospective of My Father's Service in World War 1 - PART 1

This is a personal history of my father's time spent in World War 1. My father was an Italian who served in the Brigata Macerata from 1915 until 1919. He was in the 121st Infantry Regiment (Reggimento di Fanteria). He fought in the Isonzo (1915-1916), the White War (1916-1918), the Piave (1918) and in the ultimate Battle of Vittorio Veneto (1918) against the army of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Americans (and indeed the British, French, and others) probably do not know this war in Italy so much. Well, here is a little history lesson (in several parts) to remedy that ignorance. The story begins in Teramo Province in Abruzzo. The story starts out slowly with typical rural Italian life

Clouds of War

The Old Life

On June 28, 1914, the assassination of Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince, Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was to affect the lives of millions of young men throughout the world. One of those young men was my father. He was a 19 year old son of a contadino (farmer who either owned some land or worked for others not owning the land, like a sharecropper). His mother had died in approximately 1900, leaving my grandfather to fend for three young children – my uncle age 7, my father age 5, and my aunt, age 2. 

By 1909 my grandfather had remarried and had two additional sons born in 1909 and in 1913. Later two other children would be born – a daughter in 1916 and a final son in 1919 - to complete the family.

My father would have likely been working with his father helping him farm and take care of this family. The story passed down is that my grandfather was a type of sharecropper, a system known as the mezzadria. Large landowners (padroni) would divide their land into sections and allow other families to live on it and grow crops. Half (or some other percentage) of the produce (or the revenue from the sales of such) would go to the landowner. My family by the accounts of my aunt did well enough. A typical farmer in Abruzzo would have produced all the food needed to feed his family. Four or five people could survive on the produce of one ettaro (hectare - about two and a half acres) of land. The family took care of everything, like a small family-run farm. Generally, everyone knew how to do everything, but everyone had their specific tasks. Their plot would have grown a large variety of vegetables the same as are seen in farmers’ markets today, including carrots, potatoes, beets, garlic, onions, radishes, turnips, artichokes, tomatoes, eggplant, asparagus, fennel, chard, spinach, broccoli, cabbages, cauliflower, peppers, beans, lentils, chickpeas, zucchini and other types of squash, and peppers. Years later in America my father would grow many of the same vegetables in his backyard plot. Whereas our “American” neighbors would have a yard of flowers and grass, our backyard was filled with vegetables (every square foot).  In addition to the vegetables, wheat and corn was probably grown.  Then they would have had fruit trees: apples, pears, apricots, peaches, figs. Every family had its own livestock - chickens, pigs, rabbits, sheep and cows (for both milk and meat). Extra eggs, vegetables and fruit would have been sold at the markets in old Atri or in new and growing Pineto. 

Sharecropping spread from the late Middle Ages in various parts of Europe, as a productive relationship framed by the feudal system. In Lombard feudal society it was the "manente": an agricultural worker who resided on land that he did not own, which he cultivated and whose profits he shared with the owner. [See Treccani.it - ​​Online encyclopedias , Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, 15 March 2011.] Since then, November 11 was the expiration date of all agricultural contracts, including mezzadria contracts, when all the activities related to the previous ended & to which a new year would begin. "Fare San Martino" literally meant moving, if the sharecropping contract was not renewed; vice versa, if it was. This became a feast day; people began to sample the new wine, oil & chestnuts etc.

Every farming family also had its vines to grow Montepulciano or Trebbiano grapes for making wine and olive trees to produce oil. Wheat, corn and olives were brought to local water mills for grinding. Chestnuts were also used to make flour, especially important for farms that were not suitable for growing grain. Much of the grain had to be dried and stored on the upper floor of the houses and barns to keep the animals fed during the winter months.

Life Changing Events

It would seem that the family would, in rural Abruzzo, have had little reason to much notice world events ongoing in 1914, with one exception.  The older brother was already serving in the Italian Army.

 

On July 28, a month after the assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.  This set in motion a series of war declarations driven by alliances between major European countries:

•  Austria-Hungary had sought German (its ally) support for a war against Serbia in case of Russian “militarism”. Russia had close relations - almost as a protector - but no formal treaty with Serbia (both countries tied together by their large Slavic populations. Germany gave assurances of support. (July 5) This was weeks before the Austrian declaration of war;
•  Germany declared war against Russia (August 1);
•  Italy, a member of the Triple Alliance (with Austria and Germany) declares neutrality (August 3), claimed that its pact only applies to defensive actions. Italy’s actions seemed (to its citizens) that war would be avoided by Italy; 
•  France mobilized (August 1) in response to the declaration of war on Russia.  France had a military alliance with Russia:
•  Germany declared war on France. (August 3);
•  Germany invaded France through neutral Belgium. (August 4) In response the United Kingdom declared war on Germany (August 3) as a violation of the Treaty of London (1839) – guaranteeing Belgian neutrality;
•  Austria declared war on Russia. (August 6);
•  Serbia declared war on Germany. (August 6);
•  France declared war on Austria. (August 11);
•  the United Kingdom declared war on Austria. (August 12)

Despite war now raging in Belgium and France in the west of Europe and Russia in the east and Serbia in the southeast, everyday Italians seemed reasonably assured that war was not going to directly affect them. However, the Italian state was taking steps to defend against war. Luigi Cadorna, the Italian chief of staff, began to move troops to the Austrian border on August 21. It appears, however, that no formal mobilization order was issued. 

By September and October, an Italian interventionist (pro-war) movement was underway fueled by “Italia irredentia”. The elected government of Prime Minister Salandra (the majority of socialists and Giolittiani (followers of opposition party head Giolotti) were still neutralist, as well as a large share of Catholics) began to secretly probe which side would grant the best reward for Italy's entrance in the war and to fulfill Italy’s “Irredentia” claims. The government does not do anything but let the pro-war movement happen and take note of the situation. “Italia Irredentia” was keen to annex Italian-speaking portions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire such as Trentino (the South Tyrol), Trieste and Dalmatia (Istria), on the east coast of the Adriatic.

Diagram from the London Telegraph May 25, 1915 showing the areas of Trentino and Trieste Istria significant to Italy’s entry into the war. Most knew about Italy's general intentions despite the specific negotiations being secret.

Farmers and rural citizens such as my family could probably not have cared less about this, but eventually the interventionists succeeded and secret government negotiations ensued with the western allies as well as the Triple Entente, in a version of let’s make a best (for Italy) deal after a new Foreign Minister (Sidney Sonnino) is named in November.

On December 14, 1914, my father registered for the Liste di Leva (Draft) and was given a physical and other tests.  He was put into the 1st category, conscripted soldier, class of 1895, Teramo military district and left on “unlimited leave” (i.e., not inducted at this time). 

Less than a month later, on January 13, 1915, my father was left in provisional “unlimited leave” pending the discharge of brother to the matriculation under the terms of art. 6, of the law December 15, 1907. He was to report for presentations to arms with his class eight days after his brother's discharge. 

The Liste di Leva contain the names of all those young residents in an Italian province who were twenty years old and in phusical condition to go to the military service.   Conscription of all males at the age of eighteen was instituted in Italy in 1862, shortly after Italy became a nation. Every Italian male was and still is required to report to the draft board for a physical exam. Within the recruitment plan of 1907, all able-bodied men were chargeable for call-up in 3 classes between the ages of nineteen and thirty-eight years. The first class spent 2 years on active duty, 6 in the reserve, 4 in the Mobile Militia, and 7 in the Territorial Militia. The 2nd class spent 6 months on active duty, 7 and 1 / 2 years in the reserve, and the same periods in the militia as class one. The 3rd class spent all 19 years in the Territorial Militia, however having received no training.

It is unknown when my Uncle was ultimately (if ever) discharged (or his class 1 or 2) – given the imminent war.  It is also unknown if either brother would have any idea that Italy would soon be at war.  Life went on for the average rural Italian - good and bad. For example, on this same day in January (13th), a violent earthquake shook the Abruzzi, Lazio and Campania, with the main center in Marsica, about 125 km away from where my family lived, Mutignano, which felt the tremors. Over 370 municipalities were damaged and 50 thousand people perished. 

On March 22, my father turned 20 and became eligible for military service under the 1907 law but for his brother’s on-going service.  By this time it is inevitable to the government that Italy will enter the war.  However, the average citizens do not know this.  The government conducted all negotiations in secret. In fact on March 28, an Italian royal decree prohibits the publication of military news until June 30.  Recognizing the seemingly inevitable, Austria established new fortifications around the capital, Vienna, and the forts near Trentino and the Isonzo (Italian border areas) were armed.

On April 26, at a secret meeting held in England, representatives of the Italian government agreed to enter the war in return for financial help and the granting of land currently under the control of Austria-Hungary. This Treaty of London resulted in Britain granting an immediate loan of £50 million and a promise to support Italian territorial demands after the war. The negotiations with the Allies have been long and secret. In political Italy there are only three people in the know: Prime Minister Salandra, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sonnino and King Vittorio Emanuele III. Even the Parliament is kept in the dark. Then on May 3, Italy officially revoked the Triple Alliance.

Interventionist demonstration at the Spanish Steps in Rome (May 1915)

Intervention demonstrations in Italy keep increasing in number, size and location - impressive interventionist demonstrations were everywhere. In Rome Giolitti deputies are insulted and beaten up; in other places, as in Milan, there are physical conflicts with the neutralists. On May 13, knowing that the consensus of the elected parties is lacking Salandra presents his office’s resignation of the government to the King, who reserves the right to decide, and which is ultimately rejected on May 16.  These acts appeared to put the government over the top for intervention. Five days later, the Italian Senate unanimously approved the bill granting full war powers to the Government. The news causes the closure of the border between Italy and Austria-Hungary (including rail and telegraph). In Italian speaking Trieste (then in Austria), military law was proclaimed.  This vote is followed by the Parliament, under pressure from the interventionist demonstrations, for approval, with 407 votes in favor, 74 against and 1 abstention, for the bill conferring to the Government the extraordinary war powers. 

The Customs House at Trivignano Udine on the border with Austria, near the Torre River.

On May 22, Italy instituted a general military mobilization to increase the size of the military - R.D. May 22, 1915 Circular of the G.M., under which the King has decreed the general mobilization of the army and navy and the requisition of equipment. The mobilization was set for the next day.  With this communiqué King Vittorio Emanuele III prepares the country for the conflict.  In the provinces of Sondrio, Brescia, Verona, Vicenza, Belluno, Udine, Venice, Treviso, Padua, Mantua, Ferrara and in those of the Adriatic, a state of war is proclaimed.  On May 23 Italy declares war on Austria-Hungary, although not on the Germany (which will occur until 15 months later, August 28, 1916).

La Stampa, Turin: Headline of May 23, 1915 announcing the General Mobilization (War Declaration Not Yet Announced Until Later that Same Day)

Now my father’s life is about to change.  On June 1 he is called for active duty into the Italian Army, under mobilization by the R.D. May 22, 1915 Circular of the G.M. and arrived in the 14th Infantry Regiment (Pinerolo Brigade). The 14th Regiment is normally stationed in Foggia (Puglia), while the 13th (its brother regiment) is stationed in L’Aquila (Abruzzo). The history of Pinerolo indicates that between May – December this unit was at the front yet my father’s record does not show this. In some regard there would have to have been some basic training going on. It would appear therefore that he underwent several months of infantry training (addestramento di fanteria) with the 14th Regiment (at L'Aquila or Foggia).  Six months later on December 2, Angelo arrived in the War Zone, territory “declared in a state of war assigned to the 121st Infantry Regiment (RF). This unit was located at the front line at the Castelnuovo del Carso Sector.

Part of my father's Italian Military Record, the Ruolo Matricolare which records all the developments in a military career, from promotions to changes in status.

Under Italian conscription, a fraction of those suitable actually served in the army, e.g. in 1911 under 25 per cent of those eligible (each year) for military service were in fact called up. Consequently the active army consisted of regular officers – always in lower numbers than needed – in addition to class 1 recruits. To make situations even worse, the recruits were expected to review in each November, annually. On the other hand real military service was postponed until the subsequent March. Because the difference wasn’t, in reality, filled up with by class 2 soldiers under training, there was simply no army in being throughout the winter season. Even in summer several units had below 10% of their nominal strength.

Difficulties were worsened by a severe lack of non-commissioned officers (NCOs), who were typically drawn from Italy’s tiny literate lower middle class. Moreover, the Italian Army was still affected by the “mopping up” of Italo-Turkish War in Libya in 1911-12. There was a lack of equipment to replace that lost in this prior war.

In spite of this, the army did accomplish significant improvements during the prelude to World War One. By May 1915, General Cadorna, had mobilized 23,039 officers, 852,217 other ranks and 9,163 civilians. Italy joined the war with twelve army corps (constituting four armies) inside Italy, each with 2 active infantry divisions. The First and Fourth Armies were sent to the Trentino Front and the Second and Third Armies to the Isonzo Front.

New Life

Many of the five million Italians who served in the First World War received their basic training before the war, during their compulsory military service. The inadequacy of infantry training in this period had already been highlighted by the war against the Turks for Libya in 1911-12. Italian conscripts trained in simplistic and rigid tactics found themselves facing small, mobile bands of motivated Turkish and Arab forces, which repeatedly inflicted tactical defeats on the Italians. The Italians were pressured into using cautious, hesitant tactics which were ill-suited to their ambitious strategic goals, and their ultimate victory was more due to the weakness of the Ottoman Empire than to Italian military prowess.  Even reform-minded critics such as Captain E. Bottini saw the Libyan war as “comforting proof of the success of our patiently developed educational work”.

In regards to the new troops who would eventually begin to comprise the bulk of the Italian Army as time passed, army authorities relied on a relatively decentralized system. The design and implementation of most training exercises was handled at brigade level or below. In 1915 officers responsible for training were given manuals of doctrine but little advice on how the desired outcomes were to be achieved or what were the best methods for informing and preparing the troops. Not until early 1917 were more specific instructions on how to train regularly issued from Supreme Command or Army.

  

Basic training was already somewhat flawed before 1915, but wartime bought new pressures: time, money, experienced instructors and equipment were all in short supply. Insufficient time was especially critical, since training, like rest and recreation, was rarely a priority for the army authorities in 1915-6. The need to get new men into the lines quickly often overrode other considerations.  Lt-Col. Francesco Rossi, of the 224° regiment (Etna Brigade), reported in June 1916 that:

“The unit is composed almost entirely of the class of 1896 whose hasty instruction (little more than three months) has not been sufficient to ensure an adequate preparation for the campaign, either with regard to technical training or with respect to physical endurance.”

Rossi concluded that after a necessary period of rest, to help overcome minor health problems and fitness-related injuries, his men required a week of intensive tactical training before returning to any kind of active service. Training was not just brief but it was often ineffective in tactical terms, rarely corresponding to the realities of trench warfare. Conscripted into an infantry regiment in August 1914, Gino Frontali described his experiences of basic training:

“We received our first lesson in ‘open order’ and ‘tactics.’ Our lieutenant explained in minute detail the essential rules: be silent, obey signals, always look at the officer in charge, adapt movements to the ground, use shelter in order to offer the smallest possible target, never drop vigilance and observation in order to guard against any surprise.”

This description suggests that trainers acknowledged the need for greater tactical sophistication than close-order drill alone would permit but emphasizing the need to follow the officer closely in all things left infantrymen lost and unable to proceed without leadership – if officers fell during combat, their men had no experience in taking the initiative themselves.

The acute shortage of experienced officers and NCOs who could conduct effective training was another cause of these problems. Alpini Lieutenant Garrone recorded that he was “daunted” by the scale of his task in training his men, and complained that he had been given insufficient guidance and support. Since officer training was itself weak on practical matters, tactical instruction and personnel-management, junior officers' task was an unenviable one.

Along with time and experienced instructors, the Italian army was critically short of equipment. Weapons handling and target practice, among the most fundamental elements of infantry training, were deeply flawed.  Any form of firing practice was difficult given the acute shortages of equipment. In August 1914 the Italian army had at its disposal 750,000 rifles of the 1891 model, supposed to be the standard, and no hand grenades at all. Training was therefore sometimes carried out with just one or two rifles per company, each man taking turns with the weapon. Gino Frontali described the situation in late 1914:

“Target practice suffered from a most serious defect. It was done in a great hurry… we fired two rounds (twelve shots each) every week. This exercise was sufficient to familiarize us with the use of the rifle, but not to establish any precision of aim. One saw progress only rarely. Those who [already] shot well, who had a passion for hunting, improved a little after the first lessons. The others, the majority, hit the target only rarely, and no-one seemed concerned about it.”

There are other rememberances of the training camp at Porretta near Modena and almost none of them is positive: "For two months in Modena and for one under the tent in Porretta I learned a few military things and certainly nothing of war" recalls for example Alberto Ghisalberti of the 42nd Infantry, and concludes: "At least we learned to pitch a tent!" Certainly the training that was provided by official cadres left most unprepared at the beginning of the war as training differed greatly from the reality of the front.

A panorama of a portion of the training camp (campo di addestramento) at Porretta (Modena)

The shortage of weapons with which to train also affected machine-gun units and the artillery, some of whom were forced to practice maneuvering their weapons with wooden models. Frontali reported an infantry major's comments in May 1915: “We have no machine guns, they are running courses for machine gunners using wooden guns, and none of the gunners have ever fired a shot using a real weapon.”

In May 1915, when its neutrality ended, Italy’s entire stock of machine guns was 618 (including those in use in Libya and not all in working order) compared with 1,500 for Austria-Hungary, 2,000 for France, and 3,000 for Germany when these countries had started to fight some 10 months previously.

The Italian Front Overview

When war came to Italy in May 1915, it opened up a third front for Austria-Hungary – the major front in Russia, the Serbian Front and now in Italy. The Italian Front covered about 600 km from the Swiss border to the Adriatic Sea – covering two areas, the Trentino (and Tyrol) in the west and the Carnia-Karst (Carso) in the east (the Isonzo).  The Austrian Command was unable to face its former ally with more than just a defense force - barely managing to garrison the new front. The Austro-Hungarian Command shortened the front, moving back the defensive lines along a system of trenches, caves and fortified shelters arranged in the previous months. 

The Austro-Hungarian Army was composed of three parts: the joint army ("Imperial and Royal Army" - kaiserlich und königliche Armee or k.u.k.), recruited from all parts of the country), the Imperial Austrian Landwehr and the Royal Hungarian Honvéd. In July 1914 the force included - 36,000 Officers, 414,000 NCOs and troops, 120,000 horses (estimate) and 1,200 artillery pieces.  After war was declared, the force had 3.35 million men (including the first call-up of the reserves and the 1914 recruits).

The Imperial Army had about 115,000 troops in the Isonzo/Carnia Front.  However, the size of that Army kept increasing as the Imperial Army was able to move troops from both the Serbian Front and the Russian front as these areas had turned into an Austrian and Austrian/German advantage with losses by both the Serbs and Russians in late 1914 and early 1915.  The Imperial Army moved its front lines in Italy to easily defensible positions on high ground essentially abandoning the lower valleys and plains (what little there were) of the political borders. There were few fortifications along the Isonzo front before 1914, so a defensive line based on field fortifications, wire and minefields, was hastily 

The Italian Army advances in May 1915 into areas abandoned by the Austrians for defensive positions in the higher mountains (blue) and the Austrian mountain defenses (red)

constructed, in particular around the plateaus of the Bainsizza (at Gorizia) and the Carso.  The Austrians hastily built powerful defenses in the area, using terrain to its advantage and literally blasting strong dugouts, trenches and gun-pits from the rocks. The Imperial Army essentially gave up a small amount of low-lying territory in return for a huge tactical advantage. To defeat the Austrians and drive them from these formidable positions the Italians would need considerable firepower (especially heavy artillery), competent leadership and NCOs, and effective tactics suited to such warfare. Italy had none of these.

The troops deployed in defense of the Tyrol amounted to about 35,000 men; the Tyrolean Standschützen companies were also mobilized.  In support of its ally, the German army also sent some departments, although when Italy entered the War, they did NOT declare war against Germany.  Similarly, the Austrians had built formidable defenses in these mountains as well.  In September 1914, the Austro-Hungarian General Staff commissioned General Franz Rohr to build the Tiroler Widerstands linie (Tyrolean resistance line [linea di resistenza Tirolese]), an uninterrupted entrenched line from Tonale to the Marmolada to be used in the event of a conflict with the Kingdom of Italy. About 20,000 civil workers were employed. Around Trento a new massive fortification was also set up.

The Italians on the other hand were interested in an offensive war in support of Italia irredentia. Cadorna had planned for the Italian army to take up a defensive stance in the Trentino, launching its 

 offensive across the river Isonzo, which snaked down to the Adriatic sea in the east, on two main directions: from the Cadore and from the Carnia.  The main attack fell to the left wing (2nd Army), its goals being Ljubljana and later Vienna, with Trieste as a secondary objective to be reached by the right wing (3rd Army).

Young Soldier - 1915

Arrival at the Front

On December 2, 1915, my father arrived in territory “declared in a state of war”, i.e. the war zone, to the 121st Infantry Regiment (RF). The unit was located at the front line at the Castelnuovo del Carso Sector.

One cannot imagine arriving at an area where people are waiting to kill you in battle. The young farm-boy who until some months ago had probably not ventured very far from his home in Abruzzo now ventured into Venezia and Fruili.  The following is an excerpt from a diary by someone probably much like my father who arrived in this same time frame in November 1915.  Domenico Bodon, a private with the Chieti Brigade (124th Infantry Regiment), who arrived behind the front lines at Ruda/Villa Vicentina on November 7, 1915 wrote:

We are very close to the front, all around houses are destroyed.

In a town where the train is forced to stop, there is a huge camp and in the middle, the Italian flag. 11 am.  The village is called Villa Vicentina, the last station as the train can no longer continue, because the enemy lays further on; I'm still on the train and without food since last night. We disembarked and the appeal is made to stay close to it. Nice weather. The cannon thunders continuously. It starts at 11 and a quarter. At one and a half we are facing the enemy on the spot where the shrapnel landed this morning. You can see the holes made without misfortune. Still wanting to eat and I find myself in a field full of mud. After 2 hours of waiting we were ordered to wait.

Oh God! In that mud, where, now traversed by other soldiers, you sank to the whole shoe. Patience! We planted the tent and meanwhile those of us 5, destined for this work, were free, went in search of straw, something to put down our poor bones. In the end everyone got sweaty and then he went to get the bedding getting 4 kilos for each one.

5 o'clock in the evening. We are at the end. Meanwhile, we talk with several companions who tell us the name of the locality is Ruda. The night comes and at 7 pm the ration came: a little pasta and a nice piece of meat, almost raw; but hunger is so great that we had to swallow it to pieces. The thirst began; and where in the night to find the water? A companion showed us the point and then we started splashing in the puddles. We reached the fountain and drank to fullness. And then a mess tin brought it to me under the curtain.

So here we are at night high, prepare the bed, we will say, without lighting matches, all groping. In the meantime, one was preparing, the other waiting, until the last one arrived to close. I was the last one.

In that time I was waiting, a show of the most gruesome presents itself to me. On the Isonzo front, there are always great reflections, but many, that run with their trajectory of long pieces, so that our, under that strong clear, could see the enemy pieces; and then the cannon that was ready fired with a tumult that in the middle of the night was disgusting. Know among other things that we are stationed near a cemetery. At the same time you can also see the shrapnel split in the air and then maybe do damage that I cannot explain now. In short, I was so impressed that I immediately went to bed with the idea that perhaps among those 4 sheets to stay safe.

It is unlikely that my father was thrown immediately into the front. On 14 December, the 121st RF is relieved at the front and goes back to the rear at Campolongo and Armelino, near Ruda. The Regiment remains there until January 2, 1916. So there was no combat in 1915 for my father.

While the Regiment is in the rear, one of the primary roles is to continue to train itself and its new members of the group such as my father. These young men are not yet soldati (soldiers) and know very little of what they are facing.  The 121st Regiment was part of the Macerata Brigade. The Brigade was established on March 1, 1915. The Brigade command and its brother 122nd Regiment were taken from the 12th Infantry Regiment; the 121st Regiment from the 93rd Regiment.

It is not known to which Battalion my father was assigned, either infantryman or special weapons or in a pioneer unit as a “genio” / “zappatori” or engineer/sapper. The Army’s basic unit was the “Regiment”. Each Regiment at full strength consisted of three “Battalions” (of 1000 men each, further divided into four “Companies” of 250 men.  Each Battalion had three rifle companies and one special weapons company generally with a machine gun squadron, a mortar squadron and a pioneer platoon, tasked with construction duties.

“Macellata” - Brief History of the Macerata Brigade in 1915 

The Macerata Brigade by the time my father reported had become known as the “Macellata” Brigade which means butchered/slaughtered – a play on the official name of the Brigade. This nickname is typical "gallows" humor of soldiers and the reason for this nickname becomes evident when the history of the Regiment in battle is uncovered.

The brigade fought in both the Second (August) and the Fourth (November) Battles of the Ionzo. These battles included brutal trench warfare at Redipuglia and the trenches Rocciosa, dei Morte and Razzi. These actions were recognized by the Italian high command and resulted in the award to the Brigade of the Medaglia d'argento al valor militare (which became part of the Brigade’s emblem).  The Brigade returns to the rear on December 14 to Campolongo and Armelino for the remainder of the month.  Total losses (deaths) for 1915 were 92 officers and 2,796 men constituting a loss of nearly half the Brigade and giving the Brigade the unfortunate “Macellata” nickname.

Medaglia d'argento al valor militare, Citation reads: With tremendous energy and tenacity they conquered and firmly maintained important positions on the Karst, … to the east of Polazzo and Castello Nuovo, …  July-November 1915 …

America's Founding Father James Wilson and Tamaqua, Pennsylvania

Prologue

Who?? and What??

I grew up in Tamaqua. Everyone who has grown up in Tamaqua knows about its “origin”.  The story is that, how, in 1799, one Burkhardt Moser emigrated from Northampton County over the Blue Mountain and settled near the confluence of the Panther Creek and Little Schuylkill River (then known as the Tamaqua - or Tamaguay - Creek). Here he built a sawmill and later his permanent residence in 1801 (which today remains standing, in part, at the rear of 307 East Broad St).  Moser was a lumberman and farmer and with a small cadre of family and friends, a small settlement took root.  In 1817 coal was discovered here and a railroad was built in 1831 to transport it and as they say, the rest is history.

Burkhardt Moser's original log cabin dwelling built 1801 in Tamaqua, PA

The (William) Penn Proprietorship “purchased” the land upon which the town later arose in the mid eighteenth century.  This acquisition was made under the Purchase of 1749 Treaty. What was to become Tamaqua was first assigned to Northampton County. The northern-most township in this part of Northampton County was Lynn Township and initially this land north of the Blue Mountain became part of Lynn Township. But in 1762, a township north of the Blue Mountain was created called Penns Township. Later in the first decade of the 1800s, Penns Township was further divided into East Penn (eventually becoming part of Carbon County decades later) and West Penn Townships. The area north of new West Penn Township was further sub-divided into Rush Township.

With the exception the fertile farmland immediately north of the Blue Mountain (near Lizard Creek) very little migration to the new land took place. The first reason for this was the effect of the French and Indian War in the 1750s.  Subsequently at its conclusion in 1763 and a little more than a decade later the American War for Independence began and lasted until 1783.  This was the second reason for the slow migration.  

But the lack of migration here did not mean that the land was ignored. People purchased the new land and began to establish individual ownership. There was a 5-part process to create deeds (and have individual owners buy the lands). The original and normal process for obtaining land in Pennsylvania was set up under the authority of Crown of England for the colony of Pennsylvania: 

    1) the applicant submitted an application for a land tract; 

    2) the Pennsylvania Land Office (after the payment of a fee) issued a warrant, or order, for a survey; 

    3) the next step was to pay another fee for the survey and wait until a deputy surveyor could be assigned to do the work; 

    4) the survey with a precise description and map of the tract was returned to the Land Office for issuing the final title or “patent”; and

    5) the patent (upon payment of yet another fee) was issued and a name given to the tract by the patentee. (From the years of the Penn Proprietorship until about 1810, tracts were given names to make it easier to track them when they changed ownership. Moser named his tract, "Amsterdam.")

It is estimated that approximately 70% of land within Pennsylvania was transferred from the colonial or, later, state government to private owners using this process. In the other 30% of land transfers, different processes were used. Many early settlers settled on vacant land before paying for and receiving government authorization (a warrant), often because they were beyond government offices or because Pennsylvania had not acquired the territory yet through treaties with Indians.  Rather than receiving a “warrant to survey” ordering a surveyor to come and survey the land as in the normal process, they received an “order to accept” a survey conducted after their settlement.  In this case, the survey states it was conducted on a “on a warrant to accept” and the word “accept” is noted in the relevant Warrant Register.

Sometimes, many years passed between the steps.  Moreover, the process was rife with land speculation.  Many warrantees were not interested in the land to have as their own, but would purchase the land in order to sell to those who did desire it as farmers, lumbermen or others as patentees. Furthermore they could be an additional step of land speculation in which both the warrantee and patentee would be speculators, intent on subdividing their tracts and reaping the expected profits.

The process, for example, for Burkhardt Moser's patent occurred as follows:

    1) John Burkhardt Moser applied for a Warrant in Northampton County on June 27, 1768 (A-21-253).  

    2) However, the survey was not completed and returned until November 9, 1775. Moreover, Moser did not turn the warrant into a patent before he died in 1807.  

    3) Later his son Burkhardt received a deed (accept to warrant) on June 21, 1809 (H-1-138), 41 years later. 

By this time Burkhardt (the son) had settled in Tamaqua and began a small but growing community there.  The elder John Burkhardt Moser never moved from Lynn Township and died in 1807.

Warrant of Burkhart Moser, dated June 21, 1809, Rush Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania

Other Developers of Tamaqua

Burkhardt the Elder was actually the second person to apply for ownership of land in what was to later become Tamaqua borough limits. Nine other individuals (or groups) were to purchase land (warrantees) which eventually became Tamaqua borough limits.  It is important to recognize that these warrants and patents included substantial acreage (from 200 to 400 and sometimes more, acres for each patent) and only a portion of the original deeds constituted property in the borough limits.  For example, Moser’s final deed was 221 acres, with about 50% being east of the future town limit (an area later known as Greenwood and Rahn Township).

The following is a summary of the Warrantee / Patentee records for what was to become the borough (limits) of Tamaqua:

#	Warrantee	Date of Warrant	Patentee	Date of Patent
9	John Wood	7/22/1784	John Reiner	5/9/1786
10	Peter Aston	7/10/1793	James Wilson	9/17/1794
11	Aaron Bowen	11/23/1785	Aaron Bowen	2/4/1786
25	Frederick Boller	11/18/1793	James Wilson	9/16/1794
26	Jacob Hauser	5/6/1776	Jacob Hauser	7/15/1782
27	Peter Scholl	6/2/1768	Charles Graff et al	1/4/1828
28	J. Dunn et al	8/13/1794	Aaron Winder et al	5/30/1854
29	J. Burkhardt Moser	6/27/1768	Burkhardt Moser	6/21/1809
40	Melchior Christ	8/10/1794	Thomas Armat	1/5/1798
90*	Joseph Clark	11/18/1793	Andrew Douglass	9/16/1794
* See the extreme NW corner of the Tamaqua boundary. Not IDed by number on map below.

The map below shows the relative location of the tracts of land that would constitute the area of the future borough of Tamaqua: 

Map showing the Patents/Warrants issued on land later to become the Borough of Tamaqua (see parallelogram, outlined in black); Burkhardt Moser's plot shown outlined in green. See Warrantee Maps for Rahn Township.

As points of interest, there were ten land plots that covered "Tamaqua". Only three land plots share the same family name as both warrantee and patentee. James Wilson was the only person to own two plots within "Tamaqua" (as a patentee). He was also the largest landowner by area in the future borough.  Peter Scholl was the first warrantee in 1768, Moser being the second. Jacob Hauser was the first patentee in 1782. Three warrants were not converted to patents (deeds) until the 19th Century, the last in 1854. Only three warrants were issued before the American Revolution. Only Hauser's patent was issued prior to the completion of the American Revolution. Only two warrants are fully enclosed by the future Tamaqua borough limits.

Land Speculation and James Wilson

The Founding Fathers

Land speculation was a common preoccupation among the Founding Fathers. For some it became an economic affliction. As noted by Albert J. Beveridge in his The Life of John Marshall, Volume II, p. 202,

“Hardly a prominent man of the period failed to secure large tracts of real estate, which could be had at absurdly low prices, and to hold the lands for the natural advance which increased population would bring”. 

For many, such speculation would prove a hazardous preoccupation. Virginia’s Henry Lee and Pennsylvania’s Robert Morris and James Wilson ended up in jail because of their debts from land speculation. Washington biographer James Thomas Flexner in his George Washington: Anguish and Farewell (1793-1799), p. 371, noted that land speculation was, 

“a fundamental aspect of American economic life, but it had become in the last few years an extremely tricky one. General [Henry] Knox was above the knees in financial trouble because of the new settlements he had started in Maine.”

Speculation in land became particularly rampant in the early 1790s when the stability of the new republic seemed assured. Describing the process of speculation, historian Forrest McDonald in his The Presidency of George Washington, p. 10, wrote: 

“One worked or connived to obtain a stake, then worked or connived to obtain legal title to a tract of wilderness, then sold the wilderness by the acre to the hordes of immigrants, and thereby lived and died a wealthy man. Appropriately, the most successful practitioner of this craft was George Washington, who had acquired several hundred thousand acres and was reckoned by many as the wealthiest man in America.”

So in the 1790s, there were rich speculators and there were successful farmers and businessmen who bought up large tracts of land (400 acres) with the goal of subdividing the area and sell to migrant immigrants in smaller parcels (5-10 acres). Tamaqua was no different and one man who was well known, and who was also a founding father, was James Wilson.  He owned two plots which are (in part) contained within the Tamaqua town (old) limits (see above). He owned what was to become upper Dutch Hill and part of the North Ward, as well as the southwestern part of the South Ward.

James Wilson

James Wilson was born in Leven, Fife, Scotland on September 14, 1742. He immigrated to Philadelphia in 1766 and became a teacher (Latin tutor who became an English professor) at the College of Philadelphia (later to become the University of Pennsylvania). After studying law under John Dickinson (a legendary Pennsylvania attorney and fellow Founding Father), he was admitted to the bar and set up a legal practice in Reading, Pennsylvania. He moved to Carlisle, where he operated a farm and became a founding trustee of Dickinson College. 

He wrote a well-received pamphlet arguing that Parliament's taxation of the Thirteen Colonies was illegitimate due to the colonies' lack of representation in Parliament. He was elected twice to the Continental Congress, and was a signatory of the United States Declaration of Independence. 

After some time, Wilson moved his family back to Philadelphia.  Upon holding the University of Pennsylvania’s first law lectures – which may also have been the first in the United States – James Wilson became known as the founder of what is today the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

In 1787 he was a major force in drafting the United States Constitution. Wilson served on the Committee of Detail, which produced the first draft of the United States Constitution. He was the principal architect of the executive branch (see McConnell, Michael W. (2019). "James Wilson's Contributions to the Construction of Article II". In Barnett, Randy E. (ed.). The Life and Career of Justice James Wilson (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Center for the Constitution. pp. 23–50 and p. 219) and an outspoken supporter of greater popular control of governance, a strong national government, and legislative representation proportional to population. Along with Roger Sherman and Charles Pinckney, he proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in the United States House of Representatives. While preferring the direct election of the president through a national popular vote, he proposed the use of an electoral college, which formed the basis of the Electoral College ultimately adopted by the Convention. After the convention, he campaigned for the ratification of the Constitution, with his "speech in the statehouse yard" reprinted in newspapers throughout the country, and he opposed the Bill of Rights. Wilson also played a major role in drafting the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution.

Lawyer, Founding Father and Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson

A leading legal theorist, he was also one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States. In his capacity as first Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, he taught the first course on the new Constitution to President Washington and his cabinet in 1789 and 1790. 

However, Wilson was, as noted above, one of the numerous Founding Fathers who was a land speculator. During 1779 he began actively taking up the development of the country, not only in Pennsylvania and other States of the East, but in the new territories of the West, over which the States were quarreling but which was bound to become National domain. He was an owner of the combined Illinois and Oubache (Wabash) Land Companies, and later became their attorney and president, and from this time until his death it is doubtful if there was a greater individual land owner in America. Two years later he owned 300 shares in the Indiana Land Company, whose bounds covered a good part of two eventual States, Indiana and Illinois. Within a dozen years or so he had sold a half million acres to the Holland Land Company and bought over 4,000,000 acres scattered in all parts of the South from the Potomac and Ohio to the western boundary at the Mississippi.  His papers show that he was not merely a speculator, but, as he put it to certain Dutch capitalists, proposed to develop our need with their abundance of men and money. He outlined to them a plan of immigration and development imperial in its scope. (From James Wilson and the Constitution: the opening address in the official series of events known as the James Wilson Memorial by Burton Alva Konkle [Philadelphia], 1907)

As an example of this (and after he began his tenure on the Supreme Court in 1792), Robert Morris and John Nicholson incorporate the Pennsylvania Population Company with a capital of $500,000 to raise money on 500,000 acres in northwestern Pennsylvania; shares are sold at $200; John Nicholson takes 400 shares and another 100 for Robert Morris; other directors include James Wilson, Gen. William Irvine (1741-1804), Walter Stewart, Theophile Cazenove (representing Dutch investors) and Aaron Burr. The object is to sell land in small parcels to settlers. (See Arbuckle, Rappleye, Chernow.)  

He continued speculating near his adopted home in Pennsylvania. He established mills and factories in Northampton County and speculated in the Pennsylvania interior including upcountry Northampton and Berks Counties, where Tamaqua was to be born.  In 1794 Wilson owned over 6,000 acres in northern Penns Township (what was to become Rahn Township) including two parcels in Tamaqua.  Wilson had been described as owning large areas of coal lands in Northampton County, which he later sold in 1796 to Benjamin R. Morgan of Philadelphia and General Henry Lee of Virginia. (See The History of the Supreme Court, Volume 1, Gustavus Myers, p.114, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Co. 1912.) It is not clear that the Tamaqua parcels were part of these “coal” lands, although both parcels were certainly future collieries – parcel 10, with the LCN Number 14 and parcel 25, near the West Lehigh Colliery.

However, Wilson suffered financial ruin from the Panic of 1796–1797 and was briefly imprisoned in a debtors' prison on two occasions (while on the Supreme Court). He suffered a stroke and died in August 1798 (in North Carolina), becoming the first U.S. Supreme Court justice to die.  He was replaced on the Supreme Court by Bushrod Washington, George’s cousin (appointed by President John Adams).  His son, Bird Wilson, was still settling his vast affairs in 1852, decades after Wilson’s death.

Part 3 - The Normans in Italy: The Normans Expand in Southern Italy: The Twelve Baronies – Melfi and the County of Apulia and Calabria

 Prologue

During the 1030 and 1040s, in addition to the intrigue between the Lombards and Byzantines, southern Italy was rocked by raids from Sicilian Muslims.  The areas affected were primarily the Byzantine ruled lands in nearby Calabria (and to a lesser extent, Lucania - now Basilicata - and Apulia).  Lupus reported that in 1031 (or 1032) Pothos Argyros (the catepan of Byzantine Italy) faced an invasion by the Emirate of Sicily. [See Mense Iunij comprehenderunt Sarraceni Cassianum. Cod. Andr. in terra Hydruntina, et tertio die mensis Iulij fecit proelium (a) Potho cum Sarracenis, et ceciderunt Graeci. Annales, 57.45–46] The Italian chroniclers report that the Muslims sacked Cassano allo Ionio (in Calabria) in June, and that, hurrying to confront them Argyros was defeated and killed. [See Felix, Wolfgang (1981). Byzanz und die islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (in German). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, p.202] 

It was during this period that William “Iron Arm”, one of twelve sons of Tancred De Hauteville,  journeyed to Italy with his younger brother Drogo in the first half of the eleventh century (circa 1035), in response to requests for assistance (and the possibility of money and land) made by fellow Normans under Rainulf Drengot, by then the count of Aversa. This immigration was a transformative event in Italian history. (William and Drogo's half-brothers Robert Guiscard and Roger would also later immigrate). These De Hauteville would later conquer large parts of southern Italy, the island of Sicily and their sons would create the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, in the 12th century.

Emperor Michael IV ordered one of his top generals to Italy, George Maniakes, to succeed Agyros and stabilize the situation in Italy and in addition seek to drive the Muslims from Sicily, which they had held since the ninth century.  Maniakes brought a formidable mercenary army which included the Viking hero Harald Hardrada, Italian Lombards under Arduin and the recent Norman adventurer / immigrants under William Iron Arm. These latter troops were committed by Guaimar IV of Salerno. 

Invasion of Sicily and Revolt of the Lombards and Normans

From 1038 until 1040, Maniakes' diverse group defeated Arab forces in south-eastern Sicily, where the jewel in the crown was the city of Syracuse. It was in Sicily that William earned his nickname, "Iron Arm," by killing the emir of Syracuse with a sword in single combat. George Maniakes was satisfied to conquer Syracuse, controlling it from the coastal fortress that still bears his name. He was then appointed catapan of Italy but his victory was to prove fleeting.

Maniakes publicly insulted Arduin, the Lombard leader, who decided to withdraw back to peninsular Italy. William and the Normans decided to follow the Lombards, over a dispute on the sharing of the spoils of war. Back in Apulia the two were not always on the most amicable terms with each other or with the Byzantines. 

As a final insult, Harold and most of the Vikings also abandoned Maniakes. This made it difficult for Maniakes to hold his piece of Sicily. Maniakes likewise offended Stephen, his admiral, who had important connections back in Constantinople. In Maniakes' absence, the Emperor's crown had passed to Constantine IX. The general was recalled to the capital in 1042 and Syracuse (and Sicily) once again fell into Arab hands. Adding insult to injury, when Michael Dokeianos was appointed catapan of Italy, replacing Maniakes, he appointed Arduin as the military commander of the city of Melfi in Puglia.

In 1040, the Lombards of southern Italy revolted against the Byzantines, with the support of Norman mercenaries. In March, the rebels scored a first victory and killed Dokeianos, near the Olivento. In September 1041, they defeated the new Byzantine catepan, Exaugustus, the son of Basil Boioannes, and took him captive.  In February 1042, the original nominal leader, Atenulf, brother of the prince of Benevento, defected with the catepan's ransom money to the Byzantiness and was replaced by Argyrus, the son of Meles (of the original Lombard Rebellions). After some early successes, Argyrus also defected to the Byzantines. Agyrus apparently received a bribe from Constantine IX, and travelled to Constantinople and received the title of "Duke of Italy, Calabria, Sicily, and Paphlagonia."

In September 1042, the Normans elected their own leader, ignoring Arduin. The revolt, originally Lombard, had now become Norman in character and leadership. William Iron Arm was elected by the Normans as their count. Under him the Normans essentially conquered this part of northern Puglia from the Byzantines. William and the other leaders, chief among them Drogo and Peter, petitioned Guaimar IV, Prince of Salerno, for recognition of their conquests. They received the lands around Melfi as a fief and proclaimed Guaimar "Duke of Apulia and Calabria". At Melfi in 1043, Guaimar divided the region (except for Melfi itself) into twelve baronies for the benefit of the Norman leaders.

Amatus recorded that "the Normans divided among themselves" the lands at Melfi, following their victories against the Byzantines dated to 1041, and that:

• “William received Ascoli;

• Drogo had Venosa;

• Arnolin had Lavello;

• Hugh Toutebove had Monopoli;

• Rodulf had Canne;

• Walter, Civitate;

• Peter, Trani;

• Rodulf son of Bebena, Sant´Arcangelo;

• Tristan, Montepeloso;

• Hervey, Grumento;

• Asclettin, Acerenza; and

• Rainfroi, Malarbine”

adding that “Prince Guaimar of Salerno…invested each one of them,”

Location of the Twelve Baronies of the Normans

William married Guida, daughter of Guy, duke of Sorrento, and niece of Guaimar, continuing a Norman strategy of using marriage to solidify political moves.

Melfi was the third of the Norman territories in Italy.  Melfi is located then in northern Apulia (present day Basilicata).  The lands at Melfi range from Monte Gargano near the Adriatic Sea to Monopoli (south of Bari).  Melfi gained its importance in the Middle Ages as a strategic point between areas controlled by the Byzantines – the Byzantine Themes of Lucania and Longbardia - and those controlled by the Lombards – the Duchy of Salerno, as a buffer territory, much like Ariano had been earlier.

County of Apulia and Calabria

William and Guaimar then began the conquest of Calabria (from the Byzantines) in 1044 but William was defeated near Taranto by Argyrus. He died in early 1046 and was succeeded by his brother Drogo. 

Drogo had fought on behalf of his brother in Apulia, seizing in 1045, Bovino from the Byzantines. In 1047, Drogo married Altrude of Salerno, a Lombard princess. In 1047, while the Emperor Henry III was visiting southern Italy, he received Drogo's homage and invested him with all the territory which he already controlled. After this Drogo began using the title "Duke and Master of all Italy and Count of all the Normans of Apulia and Calabria". [See Raoul Manselli. "Altavilla, Drogone d'". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 2, Alberto Ghisalberti (ed.) Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana, 1960] 

In 1051, Drogo was assassinated at Monteilaro, near Bovino, the victim of a Byzantine conspiracy of the Catepan, the Lombard, Argyrus, who was planning the reconquest of Apulia. Drogo was then succeeded by his brother Humphrey.

By this time, the Norman advances in southern Italy had alarmed Pope Leo and others. First, the Norman presence in Italy was more than just a case of upsetting the power balance, for many of the Italian locals did not take kindly to the Norman raiding and wished to respond in kind. Second, the instability brought about on the Norman side by the murder in unclear circumstances of Drogo. Third, Leo met Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor in Saxony, and asked for aid in curbing the growing Norman power. This was supported by the Italian and Lombard rulers in the south - the Prince of Benevento, Rudolf, the Duke of Gaeta, the Counts of Aquino and Teano, the Archbishop and the citizens of Amalfi — together with Lombards from Apulia, Molise, Campania, Abruzzo and Latium. The Pope had also another friendly power, the Byzantines now ruled by Constantine IX. At first, the Byzantines had tried to buy off the Normans and press them into service within their own largely mercenary army. So, the Byzantine commander, the Lombard Catepan of Italy Argyrus, offered money to disperse as mercenaries to the Eastern frontiers of the Empire, but the Normans rejected the proposal, implicitly stating that their aim was now the conquest of southern Italy. 

The sum of all this led to Leo establishing a coalition army of Germans, Lombards and Italians in 1053. Argyrus also contacted the Pope, and when Leo and his army moved from Rome to Apulia to engage the Normans in battle, a Byzantine army personally led by Argyros moved from Apulia with the same plan. The Normans understood the danger and collected all available men into a single army under the command of Humphrey as well as the Count of Aversa, Richard Drengot, others of the De Hauteville family, including Robert Guiscard, and the Count of Ariano, Gerardo, Guiscard's nephew (by marriage).

The Normans defeated the Papal army with Agyrus unable to reach the battle area in time to help them in the Battle of Civitate. After this defeat, Pope Leo did eventually acknowledge the Normans as the rulers of their domains in southern Italy. The Battle of Civitate proved to be a turning point in the fortunes of the Normans in Italy, who were able to win a victory despite their differences among themselves, solidifying their legitimacy in the process. Moreover, it was the first major victory for Robert Guiscard, who would eventually rise to prominence as the leader of the Normans. [Eads, Valerie. "Civitate, Battle of," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology. Edited by Clifford J. Rogers. Vol. 1. Oxford: University Press, 2010. p. 204.] In terms of its implications, the Battle of Civitate had the same long-term political ramifications as had the Battle of Hastings in England and Northern Europe, a reorientation of power and influence. [Norwich, John Julius. The Other Conquest. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. p. 96.]

Humphrey died in 1057 and was succeeded by Guiscard. Soon after his succession, likely in 1058, Guiscard separated from his wife because they were related within the prohibited degrees (apparently in a concession to the Papacy). The reformist Papacy, at odds with the Holy Roman Emperor (due to the Investiture Controversy) and the Roman nobility itself, resolved to recognize the Normans and secure them as allies. Therefore, at the Council of Melfi, in 1059, Pope Nicholas II invested Guiscard as duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily.  Guiscard, now "by the Grace of God and St. Peter duke of Apulia and Calabria and, if either aid me, future lord of Sicily", agreed to hold his titles and lands by annual tribute to the Holy See and to maintain its cause.  In the next twenty years he was to undertake a series of conquests, winning his Sicilian dukedom.

Depiction of Robert Guiscard

The Drengots 

A series of deaths during the period of 1054–1056, that of Pope Leo with no immediate successor, of Constantine IX Monomachos leaving Constantinople in internal strife and Emperor Henry III leaving a child heir, gave the Normans a near free hand in Southern Italy. [G.A. Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (New York: Longman, 2000), p. 120] Richard (who was Guiscard's brother-in-law, took advantage of this. Richard had been constantly seeking territorial expansion through war against his Lombard neighbors, Pandulf VI of Capua and Guaimar's son and successor, Gisulf II of Salerno. [John Julius Norwich, The Normans in the South 1016-1130 (London: Longmans, 1967), pp. 108–09] He pushed back the borders of the latter until there was little left of the once great principality but the city of Salerno itself and when the (weak) prince of Capua died in 1057, he besieged Capua and took the princely title (1058) from Pandulf's brother, Landulf VIII, but left the city in Lombard hands for at least four years more, until 1062. [Norwich, 1967, pp. 108–09]

In 1059, the future Pope Gregory VII, then a high-ranking member of the Papal Curia, travelled to Capua to enlist for aid on behalf of the reforming Pope Nicholas II against the antipope Benedict X. [Norwich, 1967, p. 124] Soon, Richard was besieging Benedict and, in 1059, Nicholas convened a synod at Melfi where he confirmed Richard as count of Aversa and prince of Capua at the same time as investing Guiscard as duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. [Norwich, 1967, p. 124] Richard and Guiscard swore allegiance to the papacy and respect for papal territory, completely transforming the political loyalties of the south of Italy and removing the few remaining independent Greek and Lombard princes and the Holy Roman emperor from the political picture. [Norwich, 1967, p. 124]

Richard I, Prince of Capua, making donation, miniature from Sant'Angelo's Register in Formis, manuscript, Italy, 12th century

Epilogue

The conquest of southern Italy thus fell into three distinct stages. First, up to the early 1040s the Normans acted as mercenaries, selling their services to almost every power in the south, except for the Muslims, “fighting for the purpose of gain” in Malaterra’s succinct phrase. (“Causa militari aliquid lucrandi”, Malaterra, i.6, p. 10.) This led to the Norman enclaves of Ariano and Aversa.

From 1042 onwards they acted in their own right, extending their operations from the Lombard zone (Ariano) into Apulia (at Melfi and elsewhere), and in the 1040s and 1050s employment turned into conquest. The capture of Capua in 1058 and the investiture of the Norman leaders Robert Guiscard and Richard I of Aversa by the pope in 1059 as, respectively, duke of Apulia and prince of Capua effectively closed this phase, even though not all of southern Italy was yet in Norman hands. The papal investiture was a sign that the Normans were there to stay, and it recognized that by then their takeover was inevitable.  

The third phase was one of consolidation on the mainland, defeating the last bastions of Byzantine rule in Apulia and Calabria, annexing the remaining Lombard led duchies and, then combined with a new enterprise, the conquest of the island of Sicily in 1061.

Side Notes: What factors led to the emigration from Normandy to southern Italy?

The first factor that encouraged many contacts between France and Italy during the last quarter of the tenth and the first quarter of the eleventh century was pilgrimage.  Italy was the crossing point of every major pilgrimage route leading to the Holy Land. Normans became familiar with southern Italy, its politics, its culture and its opportunity for advancement.

The next contributing factor to the Norman migration to the south is the over-population of Normandy, but in the sense of “inheritance”.  The best example of this period is the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, whose reasons for venturing to Italy are suggested by Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra and Orderic Vitalis. According to Amatus “these people [the Normans] had increased to such a number that the fields and orchards were not sufficient for producing the necessities of life for so many” (Amatus, I. 1.), while Malaterra adds that “the sons of Tancred [Hauteville] noticed that whenever their aging neighbors passed away, their heirs would fight amongst themselves for their inheritance resulting in the division of the patrimony – which had been intended to fall to the lot of a single heir – into portions that were too small. [...] Ultimately, … they came to Apulia, a province of Italy.”(Malaterra, 1. 5) Orderic Vitalis noted this through the last “speech” he put into the mouth of Robert Guiscard on his deathbed in July 1085: “We were born of poor and humble parents and left the barren (sterile) country of the Cotentin and homes which could not support us to travel to Rome.” (Orderic Vitalis, VII, p. 32) These accounts underline the fact that the division of the family patrimony was a serious issue in eleventh century Normandy. Inheritance dashed the aspirations of many younger sons for acquiring a piece of land for themselves. The type of “joint tenure” estate, where the younger sons were given a share of the patrimony under the control of their elder brother, which would satisfy the younger members of a family and discourage emigration became standard only in the late eleventh century.  (See E. Tabuteau, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-century Norman law, Chapel Hill, London, 1988, Cahen, La Regime Feodal, pp. 88-9, and Loud, “How Norman was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?”, p. 18) 

Next, political factors played an important role in the decision to leave for Italy. Many who did so were exiles, victims of ducal wrath due to their military or political opposition to him, although some were later pardoned by the duke and reinstated. Exile was a common tool of punishment used by the Richard II, known as the “Ullac” (the duke’s right to exile has Scandinavian origin – ullac - and it is first documented in the 1050s: Haskins, Norman Institutions, pp. 27-30; Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 166-67; E. Van Houts, “L’Exil Dans l’Espace Anglo-Normand”, La Normandie et l’Angleterre au Moyen Age, ed. P.Bouet, V.Gazeau, CRAHM, Caen, 2001, pp. 117-27), against uncooperative members of the nobility, in which someone of note would have aroused the interest of the Duke himself.  But the driving force behind the expansion of the 1020s-50s to Italy was the political and social disturbances in Normandy itself and many parts of northern France after the break-down of Robert II’s regime in 1034, and especially during William II’s minority. (See D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, The Norman Impact upon England, (2nd ed.), Yale University Press, London, 1999, pp. 31-80; Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 46-93)  

Other Normans were escaping the bitter conflicts between aristocratic families, during the crucial decades for the rise of aristocratic power (1035-55).  These years appear in great contrast to the period of relative stability and peace of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries in Normandy, a situation which had attracted political exiles from other parts of France actually, e.g. Anjou and Brittany, who would become leading members of the Norman aristocracy. The dramatic phase of Norman expansion began when the same type of territorial fragmentation and reorganization of family structures became pronounced within Normandy itself. (See Bates, Normandy Before 1066, p. 244.)