This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)
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)