Part I - The Normans in Southern Italy - Background

One of the most under-rated military campaigns took place in southern Italy beginning in the early 11th Century and ending in the fourth decade of the 12th Century. The takeover of southern Italy was accomplished by the Normans. Perhaps it is under-rated because there was no "invasion" of Italian land by a Norman army.  In fact the Normans (in small bands of adventurers and fortune hunters) appear to have first come there as pilgrims and shown their mettle in small skirmishes with Lombards, Arabs/Muslims and Byzantines, and then second, been invited by several of the leaders of southern Italy somewhat later to help protect themselves.

Southern Italy

Southern Italy at the turn of the 11th Century was a mixture of three distinct zones. Apulia or Puglia (Longobardia) and Basilicata (Lucania)/Calabria were ruled by the Byzantine empire, the island of Sicily by the Arab/Muslims or Saracens (as it had been since their conquest of the ninth century) and the central mountains of Campania/Benevento which were divided between three major Lombard principalities (dating back to the 6th Century) - Capua (north of Naples to the border with the papal states), Salerno in the south (from the Amalfitan peninsula down to the Gulf of Policastro) and the remnants of Benevento (in the inland mountain district, from Avellino northwards to Spoleto - the Abruzzi and the Adriatic). In the Abruzzi, lay a series of independent counties, partly Lombard, partly Frankish in character, but this region was in almost every aspect, geographic, economic and social, separate from the south proper. On the west coast there were three small duchies, Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi, which had throughout the earlier middle ages retained a determined yet precarious independence from their larger neighbors, the principalities of Capua and Salerno. Both Naples and Amalfi still acknowledged dependence on the Byzantine empire, largely as a means of protection against the aggressive instincts of their neighbors, the Lombard princes.  These Lombard princes also subjected themselves to (at various times) to the Byzantines or alternatively to the Germanic rulers of East Francia (the Holy Roman Emperors) lying north of the Papal States.

Southern Italy Circa 1000 CE.  (Wikimedia Commons)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Southern_Italy%2C_ca._1000_AD.svg

Fragmented as the political divisions of southern Italy were, the cultural and religious divide was more complex still, for it did not coincide with the political boundaries. In the Byzantine dominions the population of northern and central Apulia was almost entirely Lombard, by this stage speaking Latin-Romance dialects, and observing Latin religious rites. Southern Apulia and Lucania were more mixed, although the Greek part of the population was probably in the majority, and had been strengthened in Lucania by emigration from Sicily (after the Muslim conquest). Calabria was mainly, and in the south almost entirely, Greek.

Normans Arrive into the Mix

Into this cauldron of political, religious and ethnic mixtures, Normans (from the region of Normandy in France) who were the descendants of the Vikings, began to appear.  Normans first arrived in Italy as pilgrims, probably on their way to or returning from either Jerusalum or from visiting the shrine at Gargano - the Sanctuary of Saint Michael, the Archangel., during the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. These Norman pilgrims would travel to Rome and thence to Salerno, to Gargano and finally to Brindisi to depart for the Middle East.

Modern Day Sancturary of St. Michael, the Archangel (Wikimedia Commons)

As these Normans appeared in transit, soon they began to interest the Lombard-led populations.  Several theories have been put forward by Norman chroniclers - Amatus of Montecassino, William of Apulia, and Leone Marsicanus (all in the eleventh and twelfth centuries).  Another theory comes from Radulfus Glaber in his earlier work, ca. 1030 (right after the events themselves occurred).

The earliest reported date for the arrival of Norman knights (engaged in combat) in southern Italy is 999.  In that year, according to several sources, Norman pilgrims returning from Jerusalem by way of Apulia stopped at Salerno, where they met with Prince Guaimar III, during which the city and its environs were attacked by Saracens demanding an annual tribute.  While Guaimar began to collect the tribute, the Normans upbraided him and his Lombard subjects for lack of bravery, and they assaulted the Saracen besiegers.  The Saracens fled, much booty was taken, and a Guaimar pleaded with the Normans to stay.  They refused but promised to show their riches to their compatriots in Normandy and to tell them of possible rewards for (mercenary) military service in Salerno. This account of the arrival of the Normans is sometimes called the Salerno tradition. This was first recorded by Amatus of Montecassino in his “Ystoire de li Normant” between 1071 and 1086, then was borrowed from Amatus by Peter the Deacon for his continuation of the “Chronicon Monasterii Casinensis” of Leo of Ostia, written in the early 12th century.  It is also mentioned by Orderic Vitalis in his "Historia Ecclesiastica".

William of Apulia had an alternative explanation from the years 1015-1016 in Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, dated 1088–1110. He does not mention Salerno in his work, though like Amatus he said that the first Normans to come to Italy were pilgrims. In his version, Norman pilgrims to Gargano encountered Melus, a member of the Lombard aristocracy of Apulia (in Bari) who was rebelling against the Byzantines. These Normans recognized the wealth of the region and the opportunities it offered for mercenaries.

Marsicanus, in the original version of his chronicle of Montecassino gives a briefer explanation that differs somewhat. He described the original revolt of Melus (ca. 1009) and then how he took refuge in Capua where he encountered forty Norman "in flight from the anger of their lord, the Count of Normandy" and persuades them to take part in his proposed invasion. Leone listed the leaders of the Normans as Gilbert Botericus, Rodulf of Tosny, Osmund, Rifinus and Stigand. In the later revision of the chronicle (by Leone or someone else), Amatus’ account is inserted almost verbatim while the list of the Norman leaders is omitted.  Amatus had in his account continued and described how the Count of Normandy had exiled a man called Gilbert Buatère for killing an individual called William, how Gilbert and his four brothers (Rudolf, Osmund, Rainulf and Asclettin) came to Italy and at Capua met Melus joining him in a new uprising. There are a variety of problems with this account especially the dates wherein Amatus appears to contract events that occurred over 20-30 years to imply they occurred in rapid succession. The latter two series of events are referred to as the Gargano traditiion.

The common elements in these accounts are: 1) Normans as pilgrims, 2) the role of political exiles, 3) the naming of Gilbert Buatère and 4) Norman involvement in Melus' second rebellion. Radulf's  version of the Normans’ arrival in "Radulfus Glaber Opera", edited by J.France, N. Bulst and P. Reynolds, Oxford Medieval Texts, Oxford, 1989, pages 96-101, refers to a man called Rodulf who had angered the count of Normandy, correctly named as Richard II (996-1026). Rodulf went with some companions to Rome where it was Pope Benedict VIII (1012-24) who recruited them for an attack on Apulia. Glaber’s suggestion that the pope was the instigator of or at least party to, the attack on Apulia in 1017 is supported by a contemporary French chronicler Adehemar of Chabannes: "Chronicon", edited by J. Chavanon, Paris, 1897, pages 178. Glaber also noted that news of their initial victories led to many other Normans leaving France and coming south. Certainly relations between the papacy and the patriarchate of Constantinople were poor in the 1010s as the papacy had been trying to reassert its authority, largely unsuccessfully, over the bishoprics of Byzantine Italy since the mid-tenth century.

It is possible that these stories are just the two or three tales that survived the times. They may include and be conflated with other stories known then but forgotten now. What we can ascertain is the following:

1. The events of 999-1000 in Salerno of the Normans against the Saracens need not be dismissed as legend nor does it have to be related to the second rebellion of Melus in 1016-17. Moreover, this account does not invalidate other versions of the Normans’ arrival.
2. William of Apulia's version of events should be seen as separate from the role of the Norman pilgrims at Salerno. There was a longstanding link between Normandy and the shrine at  Gargano. The presence of Melus at Gargano is likely. 
   
3. Norman mercenaries were already in Italy in the early years of the eleventh century. They had been recruited by the abbots of Montecassino and Saint Vincent of Volturno around 1010. Amatus decribes how after the early battles in Apulia in 1017 more Normans "from Salerno" joined Melus’ army suggesting they were already there.
4. Even the participation of Normans in Melus' first rebellion should not be ruled out. According to a document included in Finium agri Troiani descriptio faeta a Basilio Boiano Prol Ospdthario Catapano Italiae, a. 1019, XVIII, [in:] Syllabus Graecorum Membranarum, ed. F. Trinchera, Neapol 1865, p. 18 (Syllabus), the Byzantine general Basil Boioannes employed another group of Franks (the Byzantines always referred to Normans as Franks irrespective of their true ethnicity) and set them in city of Troia's fortress in the year 1019. What is especially interesting is that, these mercenaries must have lived in Italy for some time before they pledged allegiance to Basil, having served the counts of Ariano (ton areianiton kometon). These two events show that the Franks/Normans earned the reputation of superior soldiers very quickly and that gave them a

   

   This is the Byzantine Tower in Biccari, several kilometers from Troia. There was a similar structure in Troia built by Boiannes ca. 1017 as part of a network of towers and fortifications extending from northern Apulia to the Adriatic Sea. (Commune di Biccari Website)
   

   
   chance to serve under the Byzantine army. The contingent of mercenaries from Troia proved not only to be useful but also faithful. This is shown in another document concerning the same Franks/Normans, issued in 1024, by the same Basil (See Syllabus a. 1024, XX, p. 21), where the aforementioned soldiers served for considerable period of time (as mercenaries) and some of them might have been promoted.  
5. The involvement by Pope Benedict VIII with Norman mercenaries in Melus’ rebellion is feasible given growing problems between Rome and Constantinople.  
6. Glaber also suggested that Landulf V, prince of Benevento was involved, while Amatus and Leone Marsicanus agree that Melus gathered his forces in Capua, presumably with the concurrence of its princes, the two cousins Pandulf II and Pandulf IV. Both Capua and Benevento, which were temporarily united between 1008 and 1014 has ambitions to recover land their predecessors had held in northern Apulia, so their involvement cannot be surprising.

So by 1015, there were a group of Normans living in southern Italy primarily and employed as mercenaries. They appeared to be in service with the various Lombard princes, the Byzantine army and the Roman church. It is likely that various groups of Normans (sometimes including non-Normans but all lumped together as "Franks") would be on opposite sides of service and they did not align with each other or any political or religious philosophy. But that would be about to change in the next decades.

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.)