- We have followed throughout the principle of italicizing place names whose medieval forms we have used when the places no longer exist, as in this case, or when we have a preferred a medieval form to a modern one; e.g. Dyrrachion rather than Durrës. Many people and places had multiple names in Greek, Turkish, Armenian, Frankish, and Arabic. We have used Greek and Armenian forms for Greeks and Armenians and places in Byzantine and Armenian regions, with modern Turkish or Arabic in parentheses the first time, except in the case of well known places, for example Edessa.
- John France has detected an “Armenian strategy” that may have been discussed with Alexios in Constantinople. See Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge, 1994), p. 368 and pp. 116, 167–68, 190–96; idem, “La stratégie arménienne de la Première Croisade,” in Les Lusignans et l’Outremer. Actes du Colloque (Poitiers, Université de Poitiers, 1994), ed. Claude Mutafian (Poitiers, 1995), p. 144. His inquiry was not the same as ours, however, and he did not make a connection to the Domestikaton of the East and a marcher lordship for Bohemond.
- Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. Diether R. Reinsch and Athanasios Kambylis (Berlin and New York, 2001) [hereafter Alexias], X.xi.7 (1:320), alternatively, Anne Comnène Alexiade (règne de l’empereur Alexis I Comnène 1081–1118), ed. and trans. Bernard Leib, 3 vols. (Paris, 1937–45); tome IV, Index, Paul Gautier (Paris, 1976) [hereafter Alexiade], 2:234. The texts are identical here.
- On the authorship of the Alexiad, see James Howard-Johnston, “Anna Komnene and the Alexiad,” in Alexios I Komnenos. I: Papers, ed. Margaret Mullett and Dion Smythe (Belfast, 1996), p. 300. Varied reactions to Howard-Johnston’s thesis may be found in Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed. Thalia Gouma-Peterson (New York and London, 2000).
- That is, as one dissembler to another. The skill of Cretans as dissemblers was proverbial. The quotation, perhaps from Plutarch, was a learned way of referring to it. See Alexiade, 2:234, n. 2.
- We say to the best of our knowledge advisedly. No doubt we have overlooked someone. Rudolf Hiestand’s paper came to our attention only at the last moment. In a thought-provoking paper to the Canadian Institute of Balkan Studies in 1996, Paul Magdalino asked: “Is it not just as likely that Alexios offered Bohemond the position, and that Bohemond refused it because it would hamper his freedom of action?” See The Byzantine Background to the First Crusade (Toronto, 1996), p. 8.
- John France also suggests that there may have been something lying behind the reports of the Alexiad and the Gesta Francorum but does not consider that Alexios may have offered Bohemond the office rather than the latter asking for it; see “The Departure of Tatikios from the Crusader Army,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 44 (1971), 141. Peter Charanis also suggests that Alexios intended to use Bohemond to create “a Latin state in the Orient under his suzereinty which might serve as a buffer between his empire as he hoped to reconstitute it and the Islamic world”; see “Aims of the Medieval Crusaders and how they were Viewed by Byzantium,” Church History 21 (1952), 129. He makes no connection, however, to the Domestikaton of the East. Pasquale Corsi does the same; see “Boemondo a Constantinopoli,” in Boemundo: storia di un principe Normanno. Atti del convegno di studio su Boemondo, da Taranto ad Antiochia e Canosa: Normanno, Taranto–Canosa, maggio–novembre 1998, ed. Franco Cardini et al. (Università degli Studi di Lecce, 2003), p. 20. Giuseppe Morea argues that Bohemond wanted the leadership of the crusade and that since Urban had not offered it to him he sought the Domestikaton of the East from Alexios so as to allow him to direct operations and, as an imperial official, to receive any lands conquered for the Empire; see Marco Boemondo d’Altavilla (Canosa, 1986), pp. 45–46. Rudolf Hiestand does connect the grant of lands to Bohemond’s request for the Domestikaton of the East and argues that Bohemond sought a permamenent arrangement for himself within Byzantine structures. See Rudolf Hiestand, “Boemondo I e la Prima Crociata,” in Il Mezzogiorno normanno-svevo e le Crociate, ed. Giosuè Musca (Bari, 2002), pp. 80–81.Ralph Yewdale also thought that the story that Bohemond asked for the Domestikaton of the East was “not impossible.” He rejected, however, the grant of lands and did not put the two together; see Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924), p. 43.
- Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, “Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantine aux IXe–XIe siècles,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 84 (1960), 52–67; Rodolphe Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, 2 vols. (Berlin and Amsterdam, 1967), 1:405–68; Hans Joachim Kühn, Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert: Studien zur Organisation der Tagmata (Vienna, 1991), pp. 135–57.
- Details conveniently available in Alexias, 2:116–17, Alexiade, 4:39; Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle historias, ed. and trans. Paul Gautier, as Nicéphore Bryennios histoire (Brussels, 1975) [hereafter Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle] under δομέστικος μέγας and δομέστικος τῶν Σχολῶν. On the Hyle historias, see Leonora Neville, “A History of the Caesar John Doukas in Nikephoros Bryennios’ Material for History?,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 (2008), 168–88.
- Philaretos was always known by his Greek name and we have retained it.
- Guilland, Recherches, 1:407; Peter Frankopan, “Kinship and the Distribution of Power in Komnenian Byzantium,” English Historical Review 122 (2007), 20. See also Jonathan Shepard, “When Greek meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemond in 1097–98,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988), 219, n. 113.
- On Philaretos see Michael Attaleiatēs, Historia: introducción, edición, traducción y comentario, ed. Inmaculada Pérez Martín, Nueva Roma 15 (Madrid, 2002) [hereafter MA (Pérez Martín)], pp. 99–100, 215; Michael Attaleiatēs, Historia, ed. C. M. Wladimir Brunet de Presle and Immanuel Bekker, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 34 (Bonn, 1853) [hereafter MA (Bonn)], pp. 132, 301; Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Gregory Abū ’l Faraj the son of Aaron, the Hebrew physician commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, trans. Ernest A. Wallis Budge, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1932) [hereafter Bar Hebraeus, Chronography], 1:227–29, 231; Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς Χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτζη, ed. Eudoxos Tsolakes, Εταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν σπουδῶν 105 (Thessalonike, 1968) [hereafter Skylitzēs continuatus], pp. 136–37, 184; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. Ara E. Dostourian (Lanham, 1993) [hereafter ME], II.60, 62, 66, 71, 74 78, 82, 84 (pp. 137–43, 145, 147–52); Vardan Arewelc‘i, Historical Compilation, trans. R. W. Thomson, “The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc‘i,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (1989), 125–226 [hereafter Vardan Arewelc‘i, Compilation], §60 (p. 196); John Zōnaras, Ἐπιτομὴ ἱστοριῶν/Epitome historiarum, ed. Ludovicus [Ludwig] Dindorf, 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1868–75) [hereafter Zōnaras, Epitomē], XVIII.xii (4:209); Michael the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), ed. and trans. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, 4 vols. (Paris, 1899–1910) [hereafter MSyr], XV.iv, vi, viii (3:173, 179, 187–88); Alexias, VI.ix.2 (1:186–87), Alexiade, 2:64; Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, II.28 (pp. 200–3); Anonymi auctoris chronicon ad A.C. 1234 pertinens, trans. Albert Abouna, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium 354; Scriptores Syri 154 (Louvain, 1974) [hereafter Anonymi auctoris chronicon], §§237, 239 (pp. 35, 36).
- See also Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance (Philadelphia, 2008), pp. 41–43 and passim; Werner Seibt, “Philaretos Brachamios – General, Rebel, Vasall,” in Καπετάνιος και Λόγιος/Captain and scholar: Papers in Memory of Demetrios I Polemis (Andros, 2009), pp. 281–95; Claude Mutafian, La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, 2 vols. (Paris, 1988), 1:370–72; Gérard Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés: étude sur les pouvoirs Arméniens dans le proche-Orient Méditerranéen (1068–1150), 2 vols. paginated continuously (Lisbon, 2003), pp. 5–357, esp. pp. 17–73, 97–99, 195–206; Nicolas Adontz, “La famille de Philarète,” in “Notes arméno-byzantines III,” in Études armeno-byzantines (Lisbon, 1965), pp. 147–52, originally published in Byzantion 9 (1934), 377–82; Jean-Claude Cheynet, Trois familles du duché d’Antioche, in idem and Jean-François Vannier, Études prosopographiques, Byzantina Sorbonensia 5 (Paris, 1986), pp. 66–73; idem, La société byzantine. L’apport des sceaux, Bilans de recerche 3, 2 vols. (Paris, 2008), 2:390–410; Friedrich Hild and Hansgerd Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, Tabula imperii Byzantini 5, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1990), 1:62–64; idem and Marcell Restle, Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos, Tabula imperii Byzantini 2 (Vienna, 1981), pp. 105–8; Joseph Laurent, “Byzance et Antioche sous le curopalate Philarète,” Revue des études arméniennes 9 (1929), 61–72; idem, “Des Grecs aux Croisés: étude sur l’histoire d’Édesse entre 1071 et 1098,” Byzantion 1 (1924), 387–95, 397–99; C. J. Yarnley, “Philaretos: Armenian Bandit or Byzantine General,” Revue des études arméniennes, n.s. 9 (1972), 331–53.
- Alexias, VI.ix.2 (1:186), Alexiade, 2:64.
- Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Les Arméniens de l’empire en Orient de Constantin X à Alexis Comnène,” in L’Arménie et Byzance: histoire et culture, ed. Bernadette Martin-Hisard et al., Byzantina Sorbonensia 12 (Paris, 1996), pp. 67–78.
- Now ruined, about 8 kilometres west of Aplast‘a (Elbistan).
- ME, II.60 (p. 138).
- See Appendix. Cheynet concludes that the Alexiad was mistaken; see La société byzantine. L’apport des sceaux, 2:406.
- MA (Pērez Martín), pp. 127–28, 215–16, idem (Bonn), pp. 172–74, 301; Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, II.28 (p. 201). See Joseph Laurent, “Le duc d’Antioche Khatchatour 1068–1072,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929–30), 405–11.
- See Cheynet in Cheynet and Vannier, Études prosopographiques, pp. 66–73.
- Cheynet, La société byzantine. L’apport des sceaux, 2:407–9.
- See Cheynet, “Les Arméniens de l’empire en Orient.”
- Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, III.15 (p. 239); Alexias, III.ix.3 (1:110–11), Alexiade, 1:131.
- William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, in MGH SS 9:239–98, II.416–43 (p. 262); William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, ed. and trans. Roger A. B. Mynors, completed by Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1998) [hereafter WM], IV.344 (1:594–95). See William B. McQueen, “Relations between the Normans and Byzantium 1071–1112,” Byzantion 56 (1986), 441–42; Richard Upsher Smith, “Nobilissimus and Warleader: The Opportunity and the Necessity behind Robert Guiscard’s Balkan Expeditions,” Byzantion 71 (2001), 510–11, 515–16.
- Alexias, I.x.2, (1:35), Alexiade, 1:37; Amatus of Monte Cassino, L’ystoire de li Normant, ed. Jacques-Joseph Champollion-Figeac, L’ystoire de li Normant et la chronique de Robert Viscart (Paris, 1835) [hereafter Amatus, Ystoire], VII.xxvi (p. 214); idem, Chronique de Robert Viscart, loc. cit., II.i (pp. 301–2); Gaufredus Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducis fratris eius, ed. Ernesto Pontieri, RIS NS 5.1 (Bologna, 1928), III.xlii, IV.iv (pp. 82, 87). See also Hélène Bibicou, “Une page d’histoire diplomatique de Byzance au XIe siècle: Michel VII Doukas, Robert Guiscard et la pension de dignitaires,” Byzantion 19–20 (1959–60), 43–75; Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades (London and New York, 2003), pp. 27, 38–41; McQueen, “The Normans and Byzantium,” pp. 429–32, 447–49; Jonathan Shepard, “‘Father’ or ‘Scorpion’? Style and Substance in Alexios’s Diplomacy,” in Mullett and Smythe, eds., Alexios I Komnenos. I: Papers, pp. 69, 76–79.
- Cf. France, “La stratégie Arménienne de la Première Croisade,” p. 144: “Le rétablissement d’un tel territoire [the lands of Philaretos] attirait beaucoup Alexis, pour qui il servirait de base pour miner le sultanat de Nicée-Iconium et cela a été manifestement entrepris avec son consentement et son accord.”
- Alexias, X.xi.5–6 (1:318–19), Alexiade, 2:232–33.
- See Emily Albu, “Bohemond and the Rooster: Byzantines, Normans, and the Artful Ruse,” in Anna Komnene and Her Times, pp. 157–68. Albu does not discuss Alexios’s and Bohemond’s negotiations of 1097 as an example.
- John Skylitzēs, Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, ed. Ioannes (Hans) Thurn, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 5 (Berlin, 1973) [hereafter JS], Κονσταντῖνος ὁ Μονομάχος.22 (pp. 467–69), Μιχαὴλ ὁ Γέρων.4 (p. 486); ME, II.17–19 (pp. 100–101). On Hervé, Robert Crispin, and Roussel de Bailleul, see also Gustave Schlumberger, “Deux chefs normands des armées byzantines au onzième siècle,” Revue historique 16 (1881), repr. in Récits de Byzance et des Croisades, 2e série (Paris, 1922), 65–91; idem, Sigillographie de l’Empire byzantin (Paris, 1884), pp. 656–64; Jean-Claude Cheynet, “L’implantation des Latins en Asie Mineure avant la Première Croisade,” in Migrations et diasporas méditerranéenes (Xe–XVIe siècles), ed. Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier (Paris, 2002), pp. 117–22; idem, “Le rôle des Occidentaux dans l’armée byzantine avant la Première Croisade,” in Byzanz und das Abendland im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert, ed. E. Konstantinou (Cologne, 1997), pp. 111–28; Raymond Janin, “Les Francs au service des Byzantins,” Echos d’Orient 29 (1930), pp. 63–67; Jonathan Shepard, “The Uses of the Franks in Eleventh-Century Byzantium,” Anglo-Norman Studies 15 (1992), 296–302; Alexander Kazhdan, “Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century,” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy P. Mottahedeh (Washington, D.C., 2001), pp. 92–95; G. A. Leveniotis, Το στασιαστικό κίνημα του Νορμανδού Ουρσελίου (Ursel de Bailleul) στην Μικρά Ασία (1073–1076), Εταιρεία Βυζαντινών Ερευνών 19 (Thessalonike, 2004); Werner Seibt, “Übernahm der französische Normanne Hervé (Erbebios Phrangopoulos) nach der Katastrophe von Mantzikert das Kommando über die verbleibende Ostarmee?” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 10 (2010), 89–96.
- Amatus, Ystoire, I.viii–ix (p. 12); De nobili Crispinorum genere, in PL 150:735–44, col. 737; MA (Pérez Martín), pp. 93–95, 126–28; idem (Bonn), pp. 122–25, 170–73; Michael Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077), ed. and trans. Émile Renauld, 2 vols. (Paris, 1926–28) [hereafter MPChr], ῾Ρωμάνος Δ´ .xxxix–xl (2:169–70); Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, I.24 (p. 134); Skylitzēs continuatus, pp. 134, 153; Zōnaras, Epitomē, XVIII.xv (4:217).
- MA (Pérez Martín), pp. 111–12, 136–42, 146–47, 151–52, 182–83, 192–95, 206–7; idem (Bonn), pp. 148–50, 184–93, 198–200, 206–7, 252–55, 268–72, 288–89; Skylitzēs continuatus, pp. 144, 147, 157–61, 175–76, 178, 180, 186; Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, II.4, 14–25, 28, III.26 (pp. 146–49, 166–97, 200–201, 254–55); Zōnaras, Epitomē, XVIII.xiii–xiv, xvi, xviii, xix (4:212–13, 220–23, 226, 231); Alexias, I.i.1–iii.4, x.1, II.1.2 (1:11–17, 34, 55), Alexiade, 1:10–16, 36, 63; Amatus, Ystoire, I.ix–xvi (pp. 12–15). See also Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Sceaux de la collection Khoury,” Revue numismatique 159 (2003), No° 20 (pp. 436–37).
- For some others, see Cheynet, “L’implantation des Latins,” pp. 117–19.
- Alexias, VI.v.2, XIII.iv.5 (1:176, 395–96), Alexiade, 2:51, 3:102; Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. Louis Bréhier as Histoire anonyme de la Première Croisade (Paris, 1924) [hereafter GF (Bréhier)], IX[27] (pp. 142–45); Peter Tudebode, Petri Tudebodi seu Tudebovis sacerdotis sivracensis, historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, in RHC Oc 3:9–117 [hereafter PT (Recueil)], XI.iii (pp. 75–76); idem, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, ed. John H. and Laurita L. Hill, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des Croisades 12 (Paris, 1977) [hereafter PT (Hill)], XI (pp. 105–6); Tudebodus imitatus et continuatus ex codice bibliothecæ casinensis, qui inscribitur Historia peregrinorum euntium Jerosolymam ad liberandum Sanctum Sepulcrum de potestate ethnicorum, RHC Oc 3:165–229 [hereafter HBS], §LXXVIII (pp. 203–4); Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi in expeditione Hierosolymitana, in RHC Oc 3:603–716 [hereafter RC], c. LXXII (pp. 658–59); Robert of Reims, Historia Iherosolimitana, in RHC Oc 3:717–882 [hereafter RR], VI.xvi (pp. 816–17). See also McQueen, “The Normans and Byzantium,” pp. 445–47.
- ME, I.64, 77, 87 (pp. 56, 67–68, 74); Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i, History of Armenia, trans. Marius Canard and Haïg Berbérian, Récit des malheurs de la nation arménienne (Brussels, 1973) [hereafter AL], §§X, XIII (pp. 51, 68); Vardan Arewelc‘i, Compilation, §55 (pp. 193–94). See also Victor Langlois, “Grégoire Magistros,” in Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1867–69), 1:401–3; idem, “Mémoire sur la vie et les écrits du prince Grégoire Magistros duc de la Mésopotamie, auteur arménien du XIe siècle,” Journal Asiatique, 6ème série 13 (1869), 5–64.
- AL, §XVI (pp. 81–87); ME, II.3, 24, 71, 77 (pp. 87, 105, 142–43, 146); MA (Pérez Martin), pp. 35, 63; idem (Bonn), pp. 46, 83; JS, Βασίλειος καὶ Κωνσταντῖνος.43 (p. 363), Κονσταντῖνος ὁ Μονομάχος.19 (pp. 462–64); Skylitzēs continuatus, pp. 113–14. See also Michael Grünbart, “Die Familie Apokapes im Lichte neuer Quellen,” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 5 (1998), 29–41; Ivan Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria. Vol. 2: Byzantine Seals with Family Names (Sofia, 2006), pp. 56–59.
- See Charles M. Brand, “The Turkish Element in Byzantium, Eleventh–Twelfth Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (1989), 1–25.
- MA (Pérez Martín), pp. 105–6; idem (Bonn), pp. 139–40; Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, I.11–12, III.15–16 (pp. 100–104, 236–41); Skylitzēs continuatus, p. 141; Zōnaras, Epitomē, XVIII.xii (4:211). See also Joseph Laurent, “Byzance et les origines du sultanat de Roum,” in Mélanges Charles Diehl (Paris, 1930), 1:177–82, p. 178; Brand, “Turkish Element in Byzantium,” p. 2.
- Alexias, VII.viii.7 (1:225), Alexiade, 2:114. See Brand, “Turkish Element in Byzantium,” pp. 2–3.
- Alexias, II.iv.7, IV.iv.3, VI.xiv.4, VIII.v.5, X.ii.6 (1:64, 127, 201, 247, 286), Alexiade, 1:74, 152; 2:83, 141, 146, 193; Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria. Vol. 2, Nos 529–32 (pp. 312–15). See Janin, “Les Franks,” pp. 68–69; Shepard, “Father or Scorpion,” pp. 116–17; Marquis de la Force, “Les conseillers latins du basileus Alexis Comnène,” Byzantion 11 (1936), 164–65.
- Alexias, I.xv.5, XIII.iv.4, ix.1, ix.8 (1:50, 395, 407–8, 410), Alexiade, 1:55, 3:101, 117, 120; AA, II.9 (pp. 74–75); Nicholas Kalliklēs, Nicola Callicle Carmi, ed. and trans. Roberto Romano (Naples, 1980), No 19 (pp. 93–94), trans. pp. 141–42; Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria. Vol. 2, No 696 (pp. 395–97). See Janin, “Les Franks,” p. 68; de la Force, “Les conseillers latins,” pp. 161–62.
- Alexias, II.iv.6–7, IV.iv.1, vi.2, V.iii.2, VI.xiv.3–4 (1:63–64, 126, 132–33, 146–47, 200–1), Alexiade, 1:73–74, 150–51, 159, 2:14, 82–83. See Shepard, “Father or Scorpion,” p. 116.
- Alexias, V.vii.3, VII.iii.6, ix.7, x.2, VIII.v.5, X.ii.7, iv.10, XI.ii.7–10, ix.4, xi.5, XII.ii.1, XIV.iii.1, v.7 (1:160, 211, 229, 230, 247, 287, 294–95, 327–29, 350, 358, 362, 435), Alexiade, 2:31, 97, 120, 121, 141, 194, 204, 3:14–16, 41, 48, 49, 56, 154–55, 168–69.
- Nikēphoros Bryennios, Hyle, IV.20 (pp. 287–88); Alexias, IV.iv.3, VI.x.2-xi.1, xiv.4–7, VII.iii.6, vii.3, IX.v.5, vii.1, ix.3, X.ii.6, XI.ii.4–5, iii.3–4, iv.3, ix.1–x.8 (1:126–27, 189–93, 200–2, 211, 221, 269–70, 272, 277–78, 286, 326, 330–33, 348–52), Alexiade, 1:151; 2:67–72, 83–86, 97, 109, 171, 175, 182, 193, 3:12–13, 17–18, 20, 40–45. See Brand, “Turkish Element in Byzantium,” pp. 3–4. The naval command against the Pisans is most improbable; see John H. Pryor, “A View from a Masthead: The First Crusade from the Sea,” Crusades 7 (2008), 98.
- See Jean Flori, “De l’anonyme normand à Tudebode et aux Gesta Francorum: l’impact de la propagande de Bohémond sur la critique textuelle des sources de la première croisade,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 102 (2007), 717–46.
- See below p. 52 and n. 83.
- GF (Bréhier), II[6] (pp. 28–31): “Quo hospitato, imperator [malignus imperator, Bongars] misit pro eo {… hospitato, misit pro eo, … Cambridge, Corpus Christi, MS 281}, ut veniret loqui (loqui, om. Vatican MS Reg. Lat. 641) simul secreto secum. … Fortissimo autem viro Boamundo, quem valde timebat, quia olim eum sepe [sepe, om. Vatican MS Reg. Lat. 641] cum suo exercitu ejecerat de campo, dixit quoniam, si libenter ei juraret, XV dies eundi terre in extensione ab Antiochia retro daret et VIII in latitudine; ….”
- Hagenmeyer claimed that “loqui” and “sepe” were omitted in Vatican, MS Reg. Lat. 572 also, but this was because he thought that the Recueil edition was of 572, when in fact it was of Reg. Lat. 641. In fact Reg. Lat. 572 has both words (fols. 8v, l. 21 and 9r, l. 23) and reads as in n. 44. Reg. Lat. 641 omits both words (fols. 6v, l. 20 and 7r, l. 17) and reads as indicated in n. 44.
- On Peter Tudebode and the Gesta Francorum, see most recently Susan Edgington, “The First Crusade: Reviewing the Evidence,” in The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. Jonathan Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 57–77; Flori, “De l’anonyme normand”; John France, “The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers and the Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere of Peter Tudebode: An Analysis of the Textual Relationship between Primary Sources for the First Crusade,” in Crusade Sources, pp. 39–69; idem, “The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum in the Early Twelfth-Century Sources for the First Crusade,” in Clermont, pp. 29–42; Jay Rubenstein, “What is the Gesta Francorum and who was Peter Tudebode?,” Revue Mabillon, n.s. 16 (2005), 179–204. See also Evelyn Jamison, “Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade,” in Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope (Manchester, 1939), pp. 183–208, repr. in her Studies on the History of Medieval Sicily and South Italy, ed. Dione Clementi and Theo Kölzer (Aalen, 1992), pp. 275–300; Kenneth B. Wolf, “Crusade and Narrative: Bohemond and the Gesta Francorum,” Journal of Medieval History 17 (1991), 207–16.
- PT (Recueil), II.ii (p. 18), manuscript variants in square brackets: “Cumque feliciter hospitatus esset [taliter receptus fuisset, MS B], tunc [tunc, om. MS B acc. PT (Hill), p. 43] imperator mandavit pro eo [mandavit illi, MS D; mandavit ille, MS D acc. PT (Hill), p. 43] ut iret locutum secrete [secrete om. MS C acc PT (Hill), p. 43] cum eo. [ut veniret loqui cum eo, MS D] Concordaverunt se ambo. Imperator quidem permisit [ambo ita quod imperator permisit, MS C] Boamundo XV dietas terrae [om. terrae, MS C] in longitudine Romaniæ et octo in latitudine; ….” The second sentence is omitted in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS Lat. 5135 from “… cum eo.”
- According to PT (Recueil), MS B (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS Lat. 4892) turns the approach around to Bohemond: “Quumque taliter receptus fuisset (Bohemond), mandavit imperatori quatinus insimul colloquerentur. Tunc concordaverunt se ambo. Nam imperator promisit Boamundo quindecim dietas terræ in longitudinem Romaniæ et octo in latitudinem.” The Hills read “Cumque” for “Quumque,” “imperator mandavit” for “imperatori mandavit,” and “permisit” for “promisit.”
- See Jamison, “Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum,” p. 287.
- PT (Recueil), II.viii (p. 22), manuscript variants in square brackets: “Fortissimo autem viro Boamundo dixit [Facturum Boamundo dixit, MS C; Itaque dixit, MS D] imperator, quem valde timebat in corde suo quia sæpe eum [in corde quia jam sæpe eum, MSS C, D] ejecerat [cum suo exercitu ejecerat, MSS C, D] de campo, quod si libenter ei jurasset, quindecim dies eundi terrae suae [om. suae, MSS C, D] in [om. in, MSS A, C] extensione ab Antiochia retro daret, et octo in latitudine.” PT (Hill), p. 48, has no other variants. MS B (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS Lat. 4892) has an abbreviated text: “Boamundo itaque dixit imperator, quem valde timebat (nam sæpe eum cum suo exercitu devicerat) quod si libenter jurasset, ei quindecim dietas terræ in extensione ab Antiochia daret, et octo in latitudine.”
- RC, c. X (p. 612): “sed tamen tanta Romaniæ dimensione donatus, in qua equus dies quindecim per longum, octo autem expenderet per transversum.” Ralph’s translators thought that the grant was “not repeated in other crusade accounts,” but have overlooked the other reports. See The Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen: A History of the Normans on the First Crusade, trans. Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach (Aldershot, 2005), p. 32, n. 27.
- RHC Oc 3:xli.
- RC, cc. CXXIII, CXLI, CXLVII (pp. 691, 705, 709).
- Cf. below, n. 83, where the report that Tancred crossed the Bosporos in secret in order to avoid taking an oath may have been derived from the Gesta Francorum.
- See also Rubenstein, “What is the Gesta Francorum,” pp. 181–82.
- HBS, §XVIII (pp. 179–80).
- Peter the Deacon, Chronica monasterii Casinensis IV, ed. Hartmut Hoffmann, in MGH SS 34:458–6–7, c. 11 (p. 478): “…, insuper et Boamundo quindecim dierum terram in longitudine, octo autem in latitudine ex ista parte Antiochie daret.”
- GN, III.iv (p. 142). Huygens signals no manuscript variations of any significance.
- At the Seventh Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East in Avignon, 27–31 August 2008, Stephen Biddlecombe, who is preparing a new edition of Baudri of Bourgueil, reported that 14 extant manuscripts are known. We do not know whether any of the seven new manuscripts have the grant of lands.
- Baudri of Bourgueil, Historia Jerosolimitana, RHC Oc 4:9–111 [hereafter BB], I.xx (p. 25, n. 8): “Boamundo etiam, quem plus quam ceteros metuebat, si libenter hominium et juramentum faceret, promisit ab Antiochia deinceps quindecim dietas terræ in longum et octo in latum dare.” See also Préface, pp. xii–iii. On the manuscript, see Nicholas L. Paul, “Crusade, Memory and Regional Politics in Twelfth-Century Amboise,” Journal of Medieval History 31 (2005), 127–41; Neil Wright, “Epic and Romance in the Chronicles of Anjou,” Anglo-Norman Studies 26 (2004), 177–89, p. 182.
- At Avignon, Damien Kempf reported preparing a new edition of Robert of Reims. We do not know whether new manuscripts have been found.
- BB, Prologus (p. 10).
- GF (Hill), Introduction, pp. xxxix–xl.
- Rubenstein, “What is the Gesta Francorum,” pp. 189, 194: “No one would deny that an earlier draft must lie behind the Gesta.” Rubenstein’s conclusion, p. 197, that the versions of the Gesta and of Peter Tudebode were derived from the libellus seen by Ekkehard of Aura is unnecessary.
- See also Flori, “De l’anonyme normand,” esp. pp. 740–42, who believes that there were at least two versions before Peter Tudebode’s, which was then reworked for the Gesta Francorum. At Avignon, Marcus Bull, who is preparing a new edition of the Gesta Francorum, stated that for various reasons there must have been at least two versions of the Gesta prior to the extant one.
- John France has suggested that the “interpolation” may have been based on Bohemond’s own understanding of the reply to his request for the office. See his “Departure of Tatikios,” p” p. 142.
- August C. Krey, “A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and its bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to D. C. Munro, ed. Louis J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 57–78. Paraphrase and quotation of Krey is tacit here.
- The two passages are as follows, with the “interpolated” passage marked “…”. GF (Bréhier) II[6] (p. 30): “Novissime vero congregati omnes maiores natu (natu, om. MS C2) qui Constantinopoli erant, timentes ne sua privarentur patria, repererunt in suis consiliis atque ingeniosis schematibus quod nostrorum duces, comites, seu omnes majores imperatori sacramentum fideliter (fidelitatis MSS C2, C3) facere deberent (Reg. Lat. 641: debent). Quod [qui MS A1, Bongars] omnino prohibuerunt, dixeruntque: ‘Certe indigni sumus, atque justum [injustum, Bongars] nobis videtur nullatenus [ullatenus, MS C1, Bongars] ei sacramentum jurare.’ Forsitan adhuc a nostris majoribus sepe delusi erimus (Reg. Lat. 641: eximus); ad ultimum quid facturi erunt? (Bongars: erant) Dicent quoniam necessitate compulsi volentes nolentesque [nolentes volentesque MS A1, Bongars] humiliaverunt se ad nequissimi imperatoris uoluntatem. … Tam fortes et tam duri milites, cur hoc fecerunt? Propterea igitur (MS C2: scilicet), quia multa [multi, MS C2] coacti erant necessitate.”
- Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymita, RHC Oc 5:7–40 [hereafter EA], c. XIV (p. 22). Cf. Ekkehard of Aura, Chronica. Recensio I, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale and Irene Schmale-Ott, Frutolfi et Ekkehardi chronica necnon anonymi chronica imperatorum, Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 15 (Darmstadt, 1972), p. 148.
- August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants (Gloucester, MA, 1958), p. 195.
- Krey, “A Neglected Passage in the Gesta,” pp. 63–64. Our own translation is below, p. 54.
- Thomas S. Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130 (Woodbridge, 2000), p. 92; Harris, Byzantium, p. 64; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096–1204, rev. ed. (1988; Eng. trans., Oxford, 1993), pp. 9–10; idem, “Der Erste Kreuzzug in der Darstellung Anna Komnenes,” in VARIA II: Beiträge von A. Berger et al., Poikila Byzantina 6 (Bonn, 1987), pp. 49–148, at pp. 120–27; France, Victory in the East, p. 16, n. 48; Hiestand, “Boemondo I e la Prima Crociata,” p. 68.
- We say so advisedly. No doubt we have overlooked someone.
- Marc Carrier, “Pour en finir avec les Gesta Francorum: une réflexion historiographique sur l’état des rapports entre Grecs et Latins au début du XIIe siècle et sur l’apport nouveau d’Albert d’Aix,” Crusades 7 (2008), 22–31; McQueen, “The Normans and Byzantium,” p. 453.
- Hans-Joachim Witzel, “Le problème de l’auteur des Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum,” Le Moyen Age 61 (1955), 319–28; Hans Oehler, “Studien zu den «Gesta Francorum»,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 6 (1970), pp. 74–76.
- GF (Hill), p. x, n. 3; Emily Albu, The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion (Woodbridge, 2001), p. 178; France, “The Departure of Tatikios,” p. 142.
- Jean Flori, Bohémond d’Antioche: chevalier d’aventure (Paris, 2007), p. 107; Gennaro Maria Monti, L’Italia e le crociate in Terra Santa, 2nd ed. (Genoa, 1988), p. 73. In “De l’anonyme normand,” pp. 737–38, Flori argues that the “interpolation” was meant to include Antioch: “Qu’elle [Alexios’s promise] soit ou non plausible, la mention de cet engagement sert évidement la propagande de Bohemond: Antioche lui appartient à la fois de facto, par droit de conquête et de iure par suite d’une promesse d’Alexis.”
- Corsi, “Boemondo a Constantinopoli,” p. 20.
- Ferdinand Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène (1081–1118) (1900; repr. New York, n.d.), p. 186; René Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du royaume Franc de Jérusalem, vol. 1 (Paris, 1934), pp. 22–23; Charanis, “Aims of the Medieval Crusaders,” pp. 128–29; Hiestand, “Boemondo I e la prima Crociata,” pp. 80–81; D. C. Douglas, The Norman Fate, 1100–1154 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1976), pp. 175–76, and cf. his The Norman Achievement, 1050–1100 (London, 1969), p. 164.
- Nicholas L. Paul, “A Warlord’s Wisdom: Literacy and Propaganda at the time of the First Crusade,” Speculum 85 (2010), 541–42.
- Shepard, “When Greek meets Greek,” pp. 219–27. Paraphrase and quotation of Shepard is tacit here.
- Hiestand also considers the two accounts not irreconcilable. They may reflect two solutions proposed or two aspects of a single one. See Hiestand, “Boemondo I e la prima Crociata,” p. 80.
- Referring to the letter from the leaders to Urban II; see below pp. 54–55.
- Shepard’s judgement is based on Ralph of Caen; see RC, cc. X–XIII (pp. 612–14). Bohemond goes ahead to Constantinople and performs homage to Alexios. Tancred (and Ralph) lament over the leaders brought low by their oaths. Tancred crosses the Bosporos secretly to avoid swearing an oath and joins others heading for Nicaea. Bohemond is still in Constantinople. Tancred sends messengers to rebuke him. Bohemond follows when they return to Tancred.
- Ralph’s scenario elevated Tancred at Bohemond’s expense. No crusader could cross the Bosporos without Alexios’s knowledge. The report that Tancred crossed secretly to avoid taking an oath and joined others advancing on Nicaea may have been derived from Gesta Francorum, II [vii] (pp. 13–14). Peter Tudebode has nothing of this and has all forces crossing together after Tancred arrives; see PT (Recueil), II.i–ix (pp. 18–22); idem (Hill), pp. 43–48. The Historia Belli Sacri followed the Gesta Francorum because its compiler found nothing about this in Tudebode; see HBS, §XIX (p. 180). Albert of Aachen also said that Tancred crossed with his and Bohemond’s forces but kept it secret from the emperor and also from Bohemond and Godfrey, which was obviously impossible; see AA, II.19 (pp. 90–91). Significantly, William of Tyre altered Albert’s account to say merely that Tancred carefully avoided the presence and audiences of the emperor. WT, 2.15 (p. 181).
- No evidence supports Ralph’s assertion that Tancred crossed without Bohemond’s knowledge or that Bohemond lingered on in Constantinople, except to organize supplies. The only explanation is that some sources interpreted Tancred’s avoidance of Alexios as keeping his presence “secret.” He certainly did avoid swearing an oath to Alexios but, according to the Alexiad, did so later at Pelekanos (Pendik) after the conquest of Nicaea. See Alexias, XI.iii.1–2 (1:329–30), Alexiade, 3:16–17. Of the Latin sources, only Ralph of Caen recorded this meeting with Alexios but it is confirmed by Stephen of Blois’s first letter to Adela. See RC, cc. XVII–XVIII (pp. 618–20); Epistulæ et chartæ ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes/Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck, 1901; repr. Hildesheim, 1973) [hereafter Hagenmeyer, Epistulæ], No IV (p. 140).
- See Jamison, “Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum,” p. 286; Charanis, “Aims of the Medieval Crusaders,” p. 129; Flori, “De l’anonyme normand,” p. 719.
- In Bohémond d’Antioche, pp. 108–9, Flori argues ingeniously that “retro” is an adverb governed by “daret,” rather than a locative adjective governed by “ab Antiochia,” and that the phrase “… quindecim dies eundi terrae in extensione ab Antiochia retro daret, et octo in latitudine” should read: “… he would give him in return lands ….” This forces the meaning to allow the possibility that Antioch may have been included. It also ignores the “ab” of “ab Antiochia” and Peter Tudebode’s first reference and Ralph of Caen’s, neither of which can be read to include Antioch since they do not mention the city. We consider that the traditional reading of the text should stand.
- Pointed out by Susan Palmieri in “Heroes and Villains: Bohemond, Alexius and the Question of Antioch in Propaganda and Myth” (IV-Honours thesis, Sydney, 2006), pp. 9–10.
- Even if one accepts that the Gesta and Peter Tudebode were based on a now-lost common source, rather than Tudebode being based on the Gesta or vice versa, that does not affect the argument. Note that in his report of the siege of Jerusalem Tudebode wrote: “Credendus est qui primus hoc scripsit, quia in processione fuit et oculis carnalibus vidit, videlicet Petrus [sacerdos] Tudebovis Sivracensis.” See PT (Recueil), XIV.vi (p. 106); idem (Hill), p. 138. The very idea that Tudebode, who was on the crusade and at Jerusalem, did not write his text until after the Gesta Francorum had been revised and interpolated and then used it as his source for the land grant is absurd.
- EA, c. XIII (p. 21).
- Hagenmeyer, Epistulæ, No° XVI (pp. 161–65). On the letter, see also Paul, “A Warlord’s Wisdom,” pp. 555–56.
- Hiestand also considers the paragraph a later interpolation, on some of the same grounds as we: see “Boemondo I e la prima Crociata,” pp. 84–85.
- Hagenmeyer, Epistulæ, pp. 161 and 165, n. d. Also pointed out by Hiestand, “Boemondo I e la prima Crociata,” p. 68, n. 6.
- FC, I.xxiv.14 (p. 258, n. m). The two texts in the Epistulæ of 1901 and Fulcher’s Historia of 1913 are absolutely identical, all the way down to the punctuation.
- FC, I.xxiv.1 (p. 258, n. h).
- Not used by Hagenmeyer and found only in the notes to the edition of Fulcher in RHC Oc 3:311–485 [hereafter FC2], esp. p. 466, n. 13.
- FC2, I.xiii (p. 350, n. e); Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, in RHC Oc 3:487–543 [hereafter BN], c. XXIV (p. 506).
- Also pointed out by Palmieri in “Heroes and Villains,” pp. 49–50.
- The Gesta Francorum’s claim that Godfrey and Baldwin of Boulogne were also present at this private audience is obviously ridiculous. It would hardly be private if they were; see GF (Bréhier), II[6] (p. 28). Peter Tudebode does not say they were; see n. 47 above. The Historia Belli Sacri follows the Gesta Francorum; see HBS, §XIII (p. 178). No other source reports a private meeting.
- Alexias, X.xi.5, XI.iii.1 (1:318–19, 329), Alexiade, 2:232–33, 3:16; AA, II.18 (pp. 88–91); BB, I.xxi (p. 25); GF (Bréhier), II[6–7] (32–34); RR, III.i (p. 755); Balduini III Historia Nicæna vel Antiochena, in RHC Oc 5:133–85 [hereafter HN], c. XIV (p. 146); PT (Recueil), II.ii, vii (pp. 18, 21); idem (Hill), pp. 43, 46–47; HBS, §XIX (p. 180); Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, in RHC Oc 3:231–309 [hereafter RA], c. II (p. 238); RC, c. XVII (p. 618); Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1968–78) [hereafter OV], IX.6 (5:51).
- GF (Bréhier), II[5] (p. 10): “…; sed vir prudens Boamundus noluit consentire, tantum pro justicia terre quantum [tam … quam, MSS C] pro fiducia imperatoris.”; HBS, §XI (p. 178): “Sed vir sapiens Boamundus noluit consentire pro justitia terræ et fiducia imperatoris, ….” The clause does not occur in Peter Tudebode.
- GN, III.iii (p. 140): “At vir ille illustris id vetuit, partim ne terrae iura turbaret, partim ne imperatoris tenerum adhuc animum offenderet, immo ne pacta cum eo per internuntios recens facta cassaret”; BB, I.xix (p. 24): “Boemundus enim suos [legatos] jam ad eum [Alexios] direxerat. … Boamundus autem illud viriliter prohibuit, ne forte imperator in eo aliquid [aliquem MS G] inveniret perperam; ….”
- WT, 2.11 (p. 174): “Imperator igitur cum suis familiaribus et domesticis anxius plurimum, … tum quia domini Boamundi affuisse legationem eumque in proximo venturum cognoverat, ….” William’s authority for this is unknown but he did know the Gesta Francorum, Baudri of Bourgueil, and the Historia Belli Sacri and may well have put two and two together.
- Li estoire de Jerusalem et d’Antioche, which survives in a single manuscript dated to the second half of the thirteenth century, reports a meeting of the Norman barons at Bari deciding to send envoys to Alexios to seek safe conduct for Bohemond and Tancred. As it stands the report is a fantasy, but it may well reflect a memory of this actually having been done. See Li estoire de Jerusalem et d’Antioche, in RHC Oc 5:621–48, §V (pp. 627–28).
- See below, pp. 54–55.
- See Jamison, “Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum,” p. 287. Jamison thought that the “pact” of 1097 referred to in the treaty was “the agreement by which imperial territory was to be handed back to the emperor on its conquest by the Crusaders.” She made no connection to the Domestikaton of the East and did not notice that the treaty referred to a written document in 1097. Shepard also considers the treaty but with reference to the oaths rather than the grant. He considers that the Alexiad’s reference to a written treaty was to a written version of Bohemond’s oath and that the other leaders would also have had them. He does point to a special relationship between Bohemond and Alexios in 1097 and to Bohemond alone performing liege homage in 1097 but does not make the connection to a written treaty and the Domestikaton of the East. See Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek,” pp. 236–41. Jean Flori affirms that there is no evidence that Alexios and Bohemond had a “pacte particulier” in 1097, overlooking the evidence of the Treaty of Deabolis, which he later says “annule donc totalement le traité antérieur conclu en 1097.” See Bohemond d’Antioche, pp. 111, 284.
- AA, IX.33–36 (pp. 680–87). On Bohemond’s captivity and release, see also Yvonne Friedman, “Miracle Meaning and Narrative in the Latin East,” in Signs, Wonders, Miracles: Representations of Divine Power in the Life of the Church, ed. Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory, Studies in Church History 41 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 123–34. Claudio Carpini accepts that Alexios did offer the 260,000 bezants for Bohemond; see “La prigionia di Boemondo,” in Boemundo: storia di un principe Normanno, pp. 67–73, at p. 69. So also does Giuseppe Morea; see Boemondo d’Altavilla, p. 80.
- OV, X.24 (5:354–55).
- Vita et miracula S. Leonardi Nobiliacensia, in Acta sanctorum, 6 November (November, Tomus III), (Brussells, 1910), pp. 160, 164. Matthew of Edessa reported that Richard was given to Alexios in return for a great sum of money when Bohemond was released; see ME, III.14 (p. 192).
- The story of Richard of the Principate’s release to Alexios and his subsequent release by him upon the intervention of St Leonard cannot be true but may well reflect a story of Alexios trying to ransom Bohemond into his hands. See A. Poncelet, “Boémond et S. Léonard,” Analecta Bollandiana 21 (1912), 35–36, n. 5. George Beech has tried to reconcile the stories of Richard’s release into Alexios’s custody but in our opinion they cannot be reconciled; see “A Norman-Italian Adventurer in the East: Richard of Salerno, 1097–1112,” Anglo-Norman Studies 15 (1992), 25–40, esp. p. 33. Orderic Vitalis, who has his own fantastic tale about how Bohemond was released, is clear that Richard was released with Bohemond and that they went to Antioch together. See OV, X.24 (5:377). Moreover, why would Alexios want to buy Richard? He would have wanted Bohemond. And why would Amīr Ghāzī let Bohemond go free with only a small ransom but release Richard to Alexios for a great deal when he could have got ten times what he would for Richard?
- The letter is one of three problematic letters by Theophylakt to the rebel Gregory Taronitēs and the Frank referred to is unnamed; but Bohemond fits the bill. Theophylakt of Ochrid, Theophlacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed. Paul Gautier, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 16/2 (Thessalonike, 1986), No 81 (p. 430). See also Alice Leroy-Molinghen, “Les lettres de Théophylacte de Bulgarie à Grégoire Taronite,” Byzantion 11 (1936), 589–92; Margaret Mullett, “The Madness of Genre,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992), 239–43.
- AA, IX.36 (pp. 686–87); ME, III.14 (pp. 191–92); MSyr, XV.viii (3:189); Vardan Arewelc‘i, Compilation, §65 (p. 200); Ibn al-Athīr, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fī’l-ta’rīkh Part 1: The Years 491–541/1097–1146, The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response, trans. Donald S. Richards (Aldershot, 2006) [hereafter Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil], A.H. 495 (p. 60); RC, c. CXLVII (p. 709); Vita et miracula S. Leonardi Nobiliacensia, p. 168; HBS, §CXXXIX (p. 228).
- RC, cc. CXLVIII-CLIII (pp. 710–14). See also Alexias, XI.x.9–xi.7 (1:352–55), Alexiade, 3:45–49; AA, IX.38–47 (pp. 688–703); WT, 11.1 (p. 495); FC, II.xxvi–xxvii, (pp. 464–77); HBS, c. CXL (p. 228); ME, III.20 (p. 194); A. S. Tritton, “The First and Second Crusades from an Anonymous Syriac Chronicle,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 65 (1933), 69–101, 273–305 [hereafter Anonymous Syriac Chronicle], pp. 78–80; Ibn al-Qalānisī, Dhayl ta’rīkh Dimashq, trans. H. A. R. Gibb as The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades (London, 1967) [hereafter Ibn al-Qalānisī, Dhayl], pp. 60–61; Kamāl al-Dīn Abū ’l Qāsim ‘Umar ibn al-‘Adīm, Zubdat al-ḥalab fī ta’rikh Ḥalab, extracts in RHC Or 3:571–690, p. 592; Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil, A.H. 497 (pp. 79–80).
- Flori, Bohémond d’Antioche, pp. 294–99.
- GN, III.2 (p. 138). See also OV, X.24 (5:377).
- HBS, c. CXL (p. 228); BN, c. LXV (p. 538); OV, XI.12 (6:68–69).
- GN, VII.xxxvii (p. 337), a passage added to Guibert’s Gesta Dei by a later scribe, preserved only in MS F, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham (Libri) 1054, fol. 90v. See also FC, II.xxix (pp. 482–83); HBS, c. CXLI (pp. 228–29); Narratio Floriacensis de captis Antiochia et Hierosolyma et obsesso Dyrrachio, in RHC Oc 5:356–62 [hereafter NF], §XII (p. 361); OV, XI.12 (6:70–73); WM, IV.387 (1:693); Suger of Saint-Denis, Vita Ludovici grossi regis, in Oeuvres complètes de Suger, ed. A. Lecoy de la Marche (1867; repr., Hildesheim and New York, 1979), pp. 1–149, c. IX (pp. 29–30); WT, 11.1 (p. 495). ME, III.20 (p. 194) has Bohemond marrying Adela of Blois, who was instrumental in arranging the marriage.
- HBS, c. CXL (p. 228); BN, c. LXV (p. 538); Caffaro de Caschifelone, Annales Januenses, in Annali genovesi di Caffaro e de’ suoi continuatori dal MXCIX al MCCXCIII, vol. 1, ed. L. T. Belgrano (FStI) (Rome, 1890), p. 14; EA, c. XXXIII (pp. 37–38); Ekkehard, Chronica. Recensio I, p. 202.
- See Brett E. Whalen, “God’s Will or Not? Bohemond’s Campaign against the Byzantine Empire (1105–1108),” in Crusades – Medieval Worlds in Conflict, ed. Thomas F. Madden et al. (Farnham, 2010), pp. 111–12.
- RC, cc. CLIV–VI (pp. 714–15); AA, IX.47 (pp. 702–5); FC, II.xxx.2–5 (pp. 485–88); Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil, A.H. 498 (pp. 92–93); ME, III.33 (p. 199); Ibn al-‘Adīm, Zubdat al-ḥalab fī ta’rikh Ḥalab, pp. 593-; Ibn al-Qalānisī, Dhayl, pp. 69–70.
- Alexias, XII.ii (1:362–64), Alexiade, 3:56–59; AA, XI.40 (pp. 816–17); WT, 10.23 (24) (pp. 481–82). Tancred issued a privilege to Pisa for its help in the recovery of Latakia dated to the first Indiction, which ended on 31 August 1108. See Documenti sulle relazioni delle città toscane coll’ Oriente Cristiano e coi Turchi fino all’anno MDXXXI, ed. Giuseppe Müller (Florence, 1879), No I (p. 3).
- Alexias, XIII.xi.2 (1:412–23), Alexiade, 3:124–39; ME, III.14 (pp. 191–92); MSyr, XV.viii (3:189). See Howard-Johnston, “Anna Komnene and the Alexiad,” p. 280. John Zōnaras reports Bohemond’s attack and making peace but adds nothing. See Zōnaras, Epitomē, XVIII.xxv (4:247–48).
- FC, II.xxxix.2 (p. 524); AA, X.45 (pp. 758–59); WT, 11.6 (p. 504); NF, §XIV (p. 362); HBS, §CXLII (p. 229); HN, c. LXXII (p. 181); Secunda pars Historiæ Iherosolimitanæ, in RHC Oc 3:545–85, c. XXII (p. 568); OV, XI.24 (6:100–5); Rodulphus Tortarius, Epistula VII ad Gualonem, in Rodulphus Tortarius, Carmina, ed. M. B. Ogle and D. M. Schullian (Rome, 1933), pp. 315–16. But see below p. 64 and n. 132.
- Alexias, XIII.xii.1 (1:413), Alexiade, 3:125 [the editions are identical].
- Alexias, III.x.5, VII.viii.7 (1:113, 225), Alexiade, 1:134, 2:114.
- Alexias, XIII.ix.4, xi.1 and 2 (twice), xii.1 (twice), xii.2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13 (three times), 15, 23 (twice), XIV.i.1, iii.8 (twice) (1:408–9, 412–18, 420–21, 424, 437–38), Alexiade, 3:119, 124–32, 135, 141, 158.
- To the best of our knowledge, only Joshua Prawer alludes to this written agreement. Without citing his source, which was no doubt the Alexiad, he wrote that in 1097: “Il semble bien qu’il [Bohemond] ait dès ce moment conçu un projet de longue haleine: apparaître à la tête de l’armée franque, non comme un de ses chefs, mas comme investi d’un commandement émanant directement de l’empire byzantin.” Prawer thought, however, that Bohemond did not get the written agreement for which he had hoped: “… Bohémond ne reçut pas l’acte écrit de privilège qu’il avait espéré, ….” See Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, trans G. Nahon, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1975), 1:198.
- Shepard reads the Gesta Francorum as referring later to a written version of Raymond’s agreement with, and oath to, Alexios. See Jonathan Shepard, “Cross-Purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade,” in The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. Jonathan Phillips (Manchester, 1997), p. 110. See GF (Bréhier), X[31] (p. 168): “Boamundus autem querebat cotidie conventionem quam omnes seniores olim habuerant ei [olim erga illum habuerant, MSS C] in reddendam civitatem [reddenda civitate, MSS C]; … Boamundus recitavit suam conventionem suumque ostendit compotum. Comes Sancti Egidii similiter sua patefecit verba et jusjurandum quod fecerat imperatori per consilium Boamundi.” Cf. PT (Recueil), XIII.vi (p. 94); idem (Hill), p. 125. But this “conventio” was the agreement Bohemond reached with the other leaders before Antioch was taken. See GF (Bréhier) VIII[20] (p. 102) and cf. PT (Recueil), IX.iii (p. 55); idem (Hill), p. 84. Raymond simply made clear, “patefecit,” the terms of his oath.
- Alexias, XIII.xii.2 (1:414), Alexiade, 3:126.
- See John H. Pryor, “The Oaths of the Leaders of the First Crusade to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus: Fealty, Homage – πίστις, δουλεία,” Parergon: Bulletin of the Australian and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, n.s. 2 (1984), 120–24.
- For instance, Pryor, “The Oaths of the Leaders of the First Crusade,” pp. 130–32. Views expressed there must now be modified.
- Alexias, XIII.xii.7, 11 (1:416–17), Alexiade, 3:128, 129–30.
- Alexias, XIII.xii.12, 21 (1:417, 420), Alexiade, 3:130, 134–35.
- Attempts to identify the various places were made by René Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale (Paris, 1927), passim, and Ernst Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (Brussels, 1935) [= Aleksandr Vasiliev (Vasil’ev), Byzance et les Arabes, tome III], pp. 126–29. See also Klaus-Peter Todt, “Antioch and Edesssa in the so-called Treaty of Deabolis (September 1108),” ARAM Periodical 11–12 (1999–2000), 485–501.
- See Hild and Restle, Kappadokien, pp. 41 n. 2, 93, 111, 225, 272, 277.
- Alexias, XIII.xii.24–25 (1:421), Alexiade, 3:136–37.
- We say “virtually” because it is an unreliable text. That being said, its editors date it to ca. 1110–14, so it is very nearly contemporary. It is part of a chronicle of France from 879–1110. The same text was published by Bouquet; see “Ex historiæ Francicæ fragmento,” in RHGF 12, ed. Léopold Delisle (1877; repr., Farnborough, 1968), pp. 1–8, at p. 7.
- NF, §XIV (p. 362): “Duci quas pater armis vindicaverat terras redditurum. Praebiturum quoque ex suis supplementum copiis ad conquirendum in Romania, quam Turci obtinuerant, quantum itineris diebus XV confici possit longitudinis et latitudinis: ….”
- The Euphrates was considered a natural frontier. See Jean-Claude Cheynet, “La conception militaire de la frontière orientale (IXe–XIIIe siècle),” in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999, ed. Antony Eastmond (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 57–69. For earlier periods see Jonathan Shepard, “Constantine VII, Caucasian Openings and the Road to Aleppo,” and Catherine Holmes, “‘How the East was Won’ in the Reign of Basil II,” both in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, pp. 19–40, 41–56; Jonathan Shepard, “Byzantium’s Eastern Frontier in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices, ed. David Abulafia and Nora Berend (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 83–104. Shepard points to a new desire to recover frontier provinces, especially in the East, from the mid-tenth century and the reign of Constantine VII. See his “Emperors and Expansionism: From Rome to Middle Byzantium,” in Medieval Frontiers, pp. 55–82, esp. pp. 72–77.
- ME, I.7, 18–19, 58–59, II.53 (pp. 21, 28–30, 51–55, 128–29); MSyr, XIII.vi (3:136); Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd, al-Anṭāki, Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd d’Antioche continuateur de Sa‘īd ibn Biṭrīq, ed. and trans. Ignatii Kratchkovsky and Aleksandr Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis XVIII.5, XXIII.3, 2 vols. (Paris, 1957; Paris, 1932, repr. Turnhout, 1988), XXIII.3, pp. 353–54, 268–69; AL, §VII (pp. 30–31); JS, Ρωμανὸς ὁ Νὲος.10 (pp. 252–53), Νικηφόρος ὁ Φωκᾶς.17 (pp. 271–73), Ἰωάννης ὁ τζιμισκὴς.21 (p. 311), Ρωμανὸς ὁ Ἀργυρός.4–6, 13 (pp. 378–82, 387); MPChr, Ρωμανὸς Γ´, VII-XI (1:35–40); ῾Ρωμάνος Δ´, XIII (2:159); MA (Pérez Martín), pp. 80–82, 91–2, idem (Bonn), pp. 105, 107–8, 120–21; Skylitzēs continuatus, pp. 120, 125–32; Zōnaras, Epitomē, XVII.xi, XVIII.xi (4:129–31, 207–9).
- ME, I.57, II.53 (pp. 50–51, 128–29); MSyr, XV.iii (3:168); AL, §VI (pp. 28–29); MA (Pérez Martín), pp. 83–84, idem (Bonn), p. 110; JS, ῾Ρωμανός ὁ Ἀργυρός.4–6 (pp. 377–82); Skylitzēs continuatus, p. 139.
- Judith R. Ryder, “John the Oxite and Alexios I Komnenos: Friends or Foes” (forthcoming).
- On the religious importance of Edessa and the two relics, see Judah B. Segal, Edessa, “The Blessed City” (Oxford, 1970); Holger Klein, “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople,” Byzas 5 (2006), 91–92.
- Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions, ed. and trans. Elizabeth Jeffreys (Cambridge, 1998).
- See Digenis Akritis, pp. xlvii–xlviii.
- Ptochoprodromos, ed. Hans Eideneier, Neograeca medii aevi V (Cologne, 1991).
- Ptochoprodromika, IV.116, 189–90, 1058; I.155–57.
- Roderick Beaton, “Cappadocians at Court: Digenes and Timarion,” in Alexios I Komnenos. I: Papers, pp. 329–38.
- Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte, ed. Wolfram Hörandner, Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 11 (Vienna, 1974), XI.54, 101–10, 161–70; XII.35–6. Michael Italikos, Lettres et discours, ed. Paul Gautier, Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 14 (Paris, 1972), No 43 (pp. 239–70); Nicephoros Basilaca, Orationes et epistulae, ed. A. Garzya (Leipzig, 1984), No B3 (pp. 48–74), esp. p. 65.13–31.
- WT, 17.16–17 (pp. 781–85).
- Gérard Dédéyan, “L’immigration arménienne en Cappadoce au XIe siècle,” Byzantion 45 (1975), 41–117; MacEvitt, Crusades and Christian World of the East, pp. 38–39.
- As Cheynet has pointed out; see his “Conception militaire de la frontière orientale,” p. 64.
- We have researched the major sources ourselves but acknowledge the work of other scholars. We have not attempted to reinvent the wheel. See Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés; idem, “Les princes Arméniens de l’Euphratèse et l’empire byzantin (fin XIe – milieu XIIe S.),” in L’Arménie et Byzance, ed. Martin-Hisard et al., pp. 79–86; Sirarpie Der Nersessian, “The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia,” in Setton, Crusades, 2:630–59; James H. Forse, “Armenians and the First Crusade,” Journal of Medieval History 17 (1991), 13–22; Jacob G. Ghazarian, The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia during the Crusades: The Integration of Cilician Armenians with the Latins, 1080–1393 (Abingdon, 2000; repr. London and New York, 2005). Ludwig Buisson, Erobererrecht, Vasallität und byzantinisches Staatsrecht auf dem ersten Kreuzzug (Hamburg, 1985), adds little. On Armenian historiography see Tim Greenwood, “Armenian Sources,” in Byzantines and Crusaders in Non-Greek Sources, 1025–1204, ed. Mary Whitby, Proceedings of the British Academy 132 (Oxford, 2007), pp. 221–52.
- ME, II.76, 87, 114 (pp. 66–67, 74, 167); Alexias, XII.ii.1–7 (1:362–64), Alexiade, 3:56–59 [the identification with the “Aspietes” of the Alexiad is disputed]; AA, XI.40 (pp. 816–17); RC, c. XL (p. 634). Samuel of Ani, Tables chronologiques, trans. Marie-Felicité Brosset, in Collection d’historiens arméniens, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1874–76), 2:339–483, at p. 453. See Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 660–80 and passim under Ochin; Hild and Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, 1:65; Joseph Laurent, “Arméniens de Cilicie: Aspiétès, Oschin, Ursinus,” in Études d’histoire arménienne (Louvain, 1971), pp. 51–60.
- ME, II.74 (pp. 144–45); AL, §X (pp. 46, 50, 56). See also Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 308–11, 318–19; Hild and Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, 1:63–64.
- ME, III.46, 74 (pp. 205, 220); See also Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 430, 433, 489, 1209.
- ME, II.113–14 (pp. 166–68); MSyr, XV.viii (3:187); Samuel of Ani, Tables chronologiques, pp. 453, 455–57; Vahram of Edessa, Chronique rimée des rois de la Petite Arménie, in RHC Darm 1:493–533, at pp. 497–98; Extrait de la Chronique de Sempad, seigneur de Babaron, Connétable d’Arménie, trans. Victor Langlois, Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, tome IV, No 6 (St. Petersburg, 1862) [hereafter Smbat Sparapet, Chronique], p. 7; Alexias, XII.ii.1–7 (1:362–64), Alexiade, 3:56–59; AA, XI.40 (pp. 816–17). See also Mutafian, La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, 1:368; Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 365–417; Adontz, “L’aïeul des Roubéniens,” in “Notes arméno-byzantines VI,” in Études armeno-byzantines, pp. 177–95 [originally published in Byzantion 10 (1935), 185–203]; Hild and Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, 1:64.
- ME, II.60–61 (pp. 137–39). See also Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 319–29.
- ME, II.85, 88 (pp. 152–54); Vardan Arewelc‘i, Compilation, §61 (p. 197). See also Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 156–59.
- ME, III.14, 25, III.37–38, 46, 56–57 (pp. 191–92, 196, 200–1, 205, 211–12); MSyr, XV.viii (3:187); AA, IV.6, V.14, XI.40 (pp. 256–57, 354–57, 816–17); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 1:237; Samuel of Ani, Extrait de la Chronographie de Samuel d’Ani, in RHC Darm 1:445–68, Annus 561 (p. 449); Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, p. 72; Anonymi auctoris chronicon, §249 (p. 44). See also Mutafian, La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, 1:369–70; Werner Seibt, “Vasil Goł – Basileios der ‘Räuber’ – Βασίλειος σεβαστὸς καὶ δούξ,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 58 (2008), 153–58; MacEvitt, Crusades and the Christian World of the East, pp. 84–87; Joseph Laurent, “Les croisés et l’Arménie,” in Études d’histoire arménienne, p. 132.
- AA, III.17–18 (pp. 164–67). Bagrat is not otherwise known.
- ME, II.104–6, 113 (pp. 161–63, 166–67); Anonymi auctoris chronicon, §§ 238, 241 (pp. 35–36, 37–39); MSyr, XV.iv, vi (3:173–74, 179). See also Jean-Claude Cheynet, Sceaux de la collection Zacos (Bibliothèque national de France) se rapportant aux provinces orientales de l’Empire byzantin (Paris, 2001), pp. 67–68; Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, p. 69; William Saunders, “The Greek Inscription on the Harran Gate at Edessa: Some Further Evidence,” Byzantinische Forschungen 21 (1995), 301–4.
- Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, pp. 70–71; ME, II.117–18 (pp. 168–70); Anonymi auctoris chronicon, §§245–46 (pp. 41–42); MSyr, XV.viii (3:187); AA, III.22–23 (pp. 172–77); FC, I.xiv.13 (pp. 213–14).
- AA, III.19–24, 31, V.18, VII.27–29 (pp. 168–77, 188–89, 360–61, 524–27); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 1:233–34, 236–37; ME, II.104–5, 108, 113, 117–18, 134 (pp. 161–64, 166–70, 176); MSyr, XV.vi, vii, viii (3:179–80, 185–86, 188–89); Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, pp. 74, 78; Anonymi auctoris chronicon, §§239, 252, 260 (pp. 36, 45, 49–50). On T‘oros and Khawril see Laurent, “Des Grecs aux Croisés,” pp. 405–10; Cheynet, Sceaux de la collection Zacos, pp. 80–82.
- ME, II.133, III.24, 74 (pp. 176, 195, 220). See Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Thatoul, archonte des archontes,” Revue des études byzantines 48 (1990), 233–42; George T. Beech, “The Crusader Lordship of Marash in Armenian Cilicia, 1104–1149,” Viator 27 (1996), 38–39; MacEvitt, Crusades and the Christian World of the East, pp. 82–84.
- AA, III.21, IV.8, 50, VIII.23 (pp. 170–73, 260–61, 328–29, 616–17); ME, II.105, 117 (pp. 162–63, 168–69); Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, p. 78; Anonymi auctoris chronicon, §260 (p. 49).
- On carrier pigeons and the crusaders’ apparent unfamiliarity with them, see Susan B. Edgington, “The Doves of War: The Part Played by Carrier Pigeons in the Crusades,” in Autour, pp. 167–75. To the best of our knowledge, the Byzantines did not use carrier pigeons.
- For some estimates see France, Victory in the East, pp. 188–89, n. 119.
- AA, III.3–13, 15–17 (pp. 140–65); WT, 3.18(17), 20(19)-23(22), 25(24)-26(25) (pp. 218–26, 228–30).
- GF (Bréhier), IV[10] (pp. 56–60); PT (Recueil), IV.ii–iii (pp. 30–31); idem (Hill), pp. 58–59; HBS, §XXXI (pp. 184–85).
- FC, I.xiv.3 (pp. 206–8); BN, c. IX (pp. 496–97).
- RR, III.xx–xxii (pp. 767–68); BB, II.v–vi (pp. 37–38); GN, III.xiii (p. 164). The Amboise MS G of Baudri of Bourgueil, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS Lat. 5513, has an insert later, after the defeat of Kerbogha, discussing Baldwin’s expedition into “terra gentilium,” his arrival at Edessa, and his adoption by its old Armenian ruler. There is no mention of him being summoned there, however. See BB, III.xx (p. 80).
- RC, cc. XXXIII–XLV (pp. 629–40); ME, II.117 (p. 168); Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, p. 70; MSyr, XV.vii (3:184); Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil, A.H. 494 (p. 47). The Gesta Tancredi is now known solely in the twelfth-century manuscript from the monastery of Gembloux, Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 5373. At a critical point, Edmund Martène and Ursin Durand in 1717 were able to decipher only partially some eight lines of it and they were illegible by the time of the Recueil edition. From where the legation came is missing. In the Chanson d’Antioche, the only other source, the legation is from “Li Vius de la Montagne,” identified by Paulin Paris as T‘oros of Edessa, even though the offer included the hand of his daughter and Baldwin actually married the daughter of T‘at‘ul of Maraš. See Chanson d’Antioche, ed. Paulin Paris, 2 vols. (Paris, 1832–48; repr. Geneva, 1969), III.446–47 (1:181).
- Matthew of Edessa said that the crusaders announced their coming in letters to Kostandin of Vahka and to T‘oros of Edessa; see ME, II.113 (p. 166). An embassy from T‘oros may have been a response to such a letter but this must be doubted given the distances and the limited time available.
- See Stephen Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (1951–54; repr., Harmondsworth, 1965), 1:197ff.; MacEvitt, Crusades and the Christian World of the East, pp. 56–58 and n. 14; Flori, Bohemond d’Antioche, p. 126. Many others could be added. For dissenting views, see Robert L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of his Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (Private ed., Chicago, 1940), pp. 5, 38–39.
- As John France has pointed out: see Victory in the East, p. 194; idem, “La stratégie arménienne de la Première Croisade,” p. 145. See also Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 17–18.
- Richard of the Principate and Robert of Anzi went with Tancred. Baldwin was accompanied by Baldwin of le Bourcq, Peter of Dampierre-le-Château, count of Astenois, Count Rainald III of Toul and his brother Count Peter of Stenay, Count Gilbert of Clermont-sur-Meuse, Gilbert of Montclair, and Count Cono of Montaigu. See AA, III.6, 15–16 (pp. 148–49, 162–63); WT, 3.18(17), 25(24) (pp. 219, 229); RC, cc. 37, 43 (pp. 632, 638).
- AA, III.3 (p. 140); WT, 3.18(17) (p. 219).
- AA, III.11 (pp. 154–57); WT, 3.23(22) (p. 226).
- AA, III.5, 7, 8, 9 (pp. 147, 148, 150, 152); WT, 3.20(19).23–32, 24(23).17–23 (pp. 222, 227).
- Albert of Aachen said that Baldwin went to Armenia and Ṭlbashar; Fulcher of Chartres that he set out for the Euphrates and Ṭlbashar; Raymond of Aguilers that he headed towards the Euphrates for Edessa; “Bartolf of Nangis” that he headed for the Euphrates and Ṭlbashar on the advice of native scouts; Guibert of Nogent that he headed for Edessa on the advice of one of T‘oros’s household “knights”; and the Amboise manuscript of Baudri of Bourgueil that he headed for the Euphrates lands and Edessa. William of Tyre was confused. He first said that Baldwin returned to the main army “which had reached Maraš some time ago,” and where he had earlier said, following Fulcher of Chartres, that the forces stayed for three days. Then, in an attempt to explain away Baldwin’s reprehensible conduct in Cilicia, which he attributes to the suggestion of others, he said that he went to see Godfrey, who was sick, at Maraš, was reconciled, and then left with Pakrad towards the North. All of this is either simply erroneous or impossible. Since the forces were at Maraš for only three days, Baldwin cannot possibly have learned that they were there and have reached them in the time. See AA, III.17 (pp. 164–65); WT, 3.19(18), 21(20), 26(25), 4.1 (pp. 221, 224, 229, 233); FC, I.xiv.4 (p. 208); RA, c. XIV (p. 267); BN, c. IX (p. 496); GN, III.xiv (p. 165); BB [MS G], III.xx (p. 80).
- See N. H. H. Sitwell, Roman Roads of Europe (London, 1981), pp. 194–95; Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. Richard J. Talbot (Princeton, 2000), map 67: Antiochia.
- FC, I.xiv.2 (p. 206).
- See also ME, II.117 (p. 168); Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, p. 70; Anonymi auctoris chronicon, §245 (pp. 41–42). See also Laurent, “Des Grecs aux Croisés,” pp. 410–38; Dédéyan, Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 666–77.
- ME, II.133, III.24 (pp. 176, 195); GF (Bréhier), IV[11] (pp. 60–64); PT (Recueil), IV.iv–vi (pp. 32–34); idem (Hill), pp. 60–61. Matthew of Edessa alone names T‘at‘ul. The Latin sources do not mention him but neither do they mention appointing anyone to govern the town and he was still there after the crusade. On Peter of Alifa, see de la Force, “Les conseillers latins du basileus Alexis Comnène,” pp. 158–60; Kazhdan, “Latins and Franks in Byzantium,” pp. 94–95.
- RA, c. VI (p. 246). Hiestand accepts Raymond’s evidence and argues that the territories offered to Bohemond included Cilicia. See “Boemondo I e la prima Crociata,” p. 82. This flies in the face of the terms of the grant and of the Empire’s claims to Cilicia, which it never abandoned.
- Alexias, XI.iv.3 (1:332–33), Alexiade, 3:20; GF (Bréhier), VI[16] (pp. 78–80); PT (Recueil), VI.v (pp. 41–42); idem (Hill), pp. 69–70; HBS, §XLIII (p. 189); AA, IV.40 (pp. 310–13); RA, c. VI (p. 245).
- RC, c. CXLI (pp. 704–5); FC, I.xxxv.2–5 (pp. 344–48); BN, c. XLI (p. 519); AA, VII.27–29 (pp. 524–27); WT, 9.21 (pp. 447–48); ME, II.134 (pp. 176–77); Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil, A.H. 493 (p. 32).
- RC, c. CLI (p. 712).
- ME, III.39 (p. 201); AA, XI.21–22 (pp. 794–97). See also Asbridge, Principality of Antioch, pp. 104–23.
- WT, 15.2 (p. 676), 15.3 (p. 678). See also Monique Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d’Edesse, 1098–1150 (Paris, 1988), pp. 80–81, 110–11. Paul Gindler, Graf Balduin I von Edessa (Halle, 1901), does not discuss the issue.
- Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, pp. 275–79.
- Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d’Edesse, pp. 111–12; MacEvitt, Crusades and the Christian World of the East, p. 64.
- FC, I.xxxiii.1–21, III.xxxiv.16 (pp. 322–34, 741–42); WT, 9.14–15 (pp. 438–40); AA, VII.6–8 (pp. 494–99).
- Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek,” passim.
- This explains why Raymond took his forces through the wilds of the east coast of the Adriatic rather than through Norman South Italy. The reasons are tied up with Raymond’s history of marriage and marriage relations with the daughters of Roger the Great, count of Sicily. The Normans hated him.
- Paul, “Crusade, Memory and Regional Politics,” p. 141: “Boamundus princeps sapientissimus et modestus”; idem, “A Warlord’s Wisdom,” esp. pp. 534–35, 538
- The verses are in several hands. Since they have never been published, we transcribe them here. The original poem in six lines is a declension poem on the name Boamundus. The lines that concern us are 7–8. They are in a second hand, probably of the later twelfth century. The last three lines, not reproduced here, are in later third (ll. 9–10) and fourth (l. 11) hands.
- N. Nunc reboat mundus; quia fecit tot Boamundus
- G. Facta Boamundi; resonant per clymata mundi
- D. Ergo Boamundo; sit laxi et gloria mundo
- acc. Per totum mundum; fert fama boatis boamundum
- V. Vixisti munde; mundo mundus boamunde
- a. In monacho mundo sit lax . decus in Boamundo Gloria Normanis in cunctis redditur annis; Quos timet hic mundus . sapiens docet ut Boamundus
- See Ann W. Epstein, “The Date and Significance of the Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37 (1983), 79–90; Heinrich W. Schulz, Denkmäler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unteritalien, vol. 1 (Dresden, 1860), pp. 59–62; Émile Bertaux, L’art dans l’Italie méridionale. Tome premier: De la fin de l’Empire Romain à la conquête de Charles d’Anjou (Paris, 1904), pp. 312–16; Flori, Bohémond d’Antioche, pp. 294–96.
- “Magnanimus Sirie iacet hoc sub tegmine princeps / Quo nullus melior nascetur in orbe deinceps. / Grecia victa quater, pars maxima Partia mundi / ingenium et vires sensere diu Boamundi. / Hic acie in dena vicit virtutis abena / agmina millena, quod et urbs sapit Antiocena.”
- “Unde boat mundus, quanti fuerit Boamundus / Graecia testatur, Syria dinumerat. / Hanc expugnavit, illam protexit ab hoste; / hinc rident Graeci, Syria damna tua. / Quod Graecus ridet, quod Syrus luget, uterque / iuste, vera tibi sit, Boamunde, salus.”
- Although generally referred to as seals, the lead stampings attached to documents were actually “sealings.” The “seals” were the matrices used to stamp them.
- Catalogues for the three Spink sales in 1998–99 were prepared by Jean-Claude Cheynet, which gives them an unusually high credibility for auction catalogues.