Talk:Norman conquest of southern Italy

What's still missing from this page?
Srnec 05:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 213.226.226.125 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Conquest of Salerno
 * Conquests in Latium and Abruzzi
 * Conquest of Malta
 * Conquest of Naples
 * Conquest of Amalfi
 * What happened with Norman rulers in Italy and with their aristocracy after the 12th century? Maybe a link to other page would be sufficient.

Opinions needed
Hi, a new article, Arab-Norman civilization was created today by. What do the editors here think of this topic? Is it worth its own article, should it be renamed, or should it be merged elsewhere, such as here or to the History of Islam in southern Italy article? Or somewhere else? Comments requested at Talk:Arab-Norman civilization, thanks. --Elonka 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of term "Imperial Army"
While reading through I noticed the term imperial army was used to describe the holy roman emperors' force descending on Troia, considering the byzantine empire's armies were imperial armies as well, perhaps it would be better to change the term used or be more specific? A minor thing, but its a bit confusing. Fritigern (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the context makes it clear, but I will change it anyway. Srnec (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Move this article?
Since it is not a circumscribed episode as the Norman conquest of England, I suggest changing the title in History of the Normans in southern Italy.--Enok (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But then we have to expand the article scope to describe Norman rule and culture (not just conquest) and almost the whole of the twelfth century (after most conquering was done but before the Norman identity had disappeared). No, the article scope is fine: it is about the Norman conquests in southern Italy which added up to a conquest of southern Italy. Srnec (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Military history of the Normans in southern Italy or History of the Norman conquests in southern Italy?--Enok (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor rewording the intro paragraph
I just want to get a sense of other contributors opinions regarding the introduction sentence, "The Norman conquest of southern Italy spanned the late 11th and much of the 12th centuries" and if it should be amended to one that is more supported by literary sources since there was no definite start point during the "late 11th century" (like the Norman Conquest of England.) I think it would be better to remove the "late" and simply state "11th century" being that southern Italy was conquered throughout the entire century rather than the "late" eleventh century. Here's one literary example of this, author R. Allen Brown wrote in The Normans p. 95 (originally published by Boydell & Brewer in 1984): "By comparison, the Norman conquest of southern Italy and Sicily is different [than the conquest of england]. There, too, about a century elapsed between the first known party of Norman knights in action at Salerno in 999 and the fall of the last Moslem stronghold in Sicily at Noto in 1091, but within it there was no one short period of concentrated or outright conquest, and no one battle to decide the fate of nations. Indeed, in mainland Italy the conquest - if that word is even appropriate - was piecemeal in a double sense: territory and lordship were acquired over a long period of some 70 years (reckoned to the fall of Bari in 1071), and by a number of different Norman leaders. There was no unity until 1130 and, in the begining, no concerted plan nor even any conscious design of conquest beyond the universally held ambition to be militariter lucrum quaerentes." The earliest date I came across when it's mentioned as far as "planned conquering" was in 1042 where there was a council between three factions of Normans where for the first time they discussed plans and ambitions and carved up southern Italy amongst themselves, Rainulf Drengot and William Iron Arm were among them. The conquest of Sicily is another matter since that did have a definite start point (1061) but the article isn't called the "Norman conquest of Sicily." — -  dain -  talk    22:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and I already had changed the article before noticing this discussion. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Tarantula Encounter
There is a 'dubious' flag on the line about calling off the invasion of Sicily due to Tarantulas.

Is anyone able to clarify what the general understanding of this event is? TarantulaGuiscard (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed this section for the time being. I found a source stating that they were forced to move camp because of spiders, but it doesn't necessarily imply this was the reason for their failed attempt. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/_Texts/CRAROS/2/3B*.html. If there are no further comments I will look up later how to cite it properly and add a more accurate mention again. TarantulaGuiscard (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Though an obviously dubious story as historical reality, the story is really what the (one) mediaeval Latin biographer of Roger I says. Here it is in full, with critical bits in bold:
 * ''Duke Robert was in Apulia when he found out that his brother was being harassed by numerous enemy attacks in Sicily. He was not unwilling to take his share in the profits [there], but also wanted to play a part in the work, and so he raised a large army from Apulia and Calabria, and marched towards Sicily. Hearing of his brother's arrival, the count went swiftly and most joyfully to meet him at the Calabrian city of Cosenza. They then marched on [together], and in the year from the Lord's Incarnation 1064 crossed the Straits of Messina with five hundred knights. They travelled unscathed right through Sicily, with nobody daring to do anything to stop them, until they came to Palermo. On the duke's instructions, which he afterwards regretted, they pitched their tents on a mountain which later became known as Monte Tarantino because of the number of tarantulas there. The mountain was covered with them, and they were a sore trial to the army. These tarantulas have a disgusting effect on both men and women, although to those who have escaped this it seems a source of humour. The tarantula is an insect, related to the spider, but whose sting is poisonous; all those whom it does sting it fills with a great and deadly wind. They cannot get rid of this wind, which bursts noisily and disgustingly from their behinds, and unless a heated vessel or something else boiling hot is speedily applied, they are said to be in deadly danger. Some of our men suffered from this disgusting affliction, and finally they decided to change their campsite to somewhere which was still near the city but safer. There they stayed for three months, but the inhabitants of Palermo fought back bravely and they achieved very little against it, although they harassed it by plundering many of the neighbouring places round about it. Once they realised that they would be unable to conquer the city, at least at that time, they moved their camp [again] and went to attack Bugamo. The citizens of that castrum put up only a feeble resistance, and they razed it to the ground, bringing back all the inhabitants, including the women and children, as captives, along with their property. They then wanted to return to Calabria, and so they pitched their tents not far from the city of Agrigento, for this was their most direct route. The inhabitants of that city were far too confident in their own strength, and shouting noisily they burst forth from the gates and attacked them. But their rash assault was beaten off by their enemies, who as they fled pursued them right up to the gates of their city. The duke then left, and after his arrival in Calabria he brought the expedition to an end. He had the people of Bugamo, whom he had taken prisoner, brought to Scribla, the place which he had previously abandoned, and restored it by settling them there. - Geoffrey Malaterra, Deeds of Duke Roger'', cap. XXXVI. (trans. Graham Loud)
 * Basically the Normans made no progress in the siege of Palermo, the capital, and instead of admitting they were defeated this story of the tarantulas serves to cover the ignominy of Roger's failure. GPinkerton (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
The section about the Lombard revolt contradicts the article 'poena cullei' at § 'Abolition'. It says there that this punishment was abolished by the Basilika in 892, and was only revived by Germans in the late medieval period. How then, could this punishment be meted out in 1021? &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 05:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)