The path to Antioch: an analysis of the Norman and Greek relationships of Bohemond of Taranto By Luke W. Van Vuuren A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in History in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada July, 2021 Copyright © Luke W. Van Vuuren, 2021 Abstract Bohemond of Taranto has been painted by modern scholars as an opportunistic knight who embarked for the east from Sicily with the Latin armies of the First Crusade in order to acquire a significant lordship for himself. However, the details of his early life and other factors which influenced his decision to abandon his holdings in Italy and journey to the east have not received adequate examination. Scholars simply mention Bohemond’s early context in passing but do not investigate the important relationships with his family and other Norman leaders that forced him to depart. These include his father, Robert Guiscard de Hauteville, half-brother, Roger Borsa, stepmother, Sichelgaita, and uncle, Count Roger I of Sicily. In addition, his subsequent relationship with the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos has, for the most part, been presented negatively as one in which both individuals distrusted each other and were unwilling participants in their alliance. While this interpretation may hold some credibility, it has become too influenced by the hindsight of knowing that Bohemond would eventually take control of the city of Antioch instead of returning it to the emperor. As a result, scholars have tended to disregard the mutual benefit they offered one another. Bohemond’s desire to receive an estate in the east would profit from a powerful patron to sponsor his aims, while Alexios required an able military leader to manage his eastern borders, as had been his common practice, and defend against the encroaching Seljuk Turks. In this thesis I thus argue that the element of mutual benefit suggests their early relationship was not tense or distrustful at the outset, despite their past history, but rather cordial. I suggest this relationship only changed, once Bohemond realized the opportunity to hold Antioch for himself had become too great to ignore. 1 Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who has supported me throughout this thesis. I am grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Richard Greenfield, whose expertise and constructive feedback was invaluable in directing my project and helping me present it in a clear and methodological way. I want to also extend my gratitude to Queen’s University and its library staff for providing the resources necessary to conduct this project, particularly in light of the difficulties that Covid-19 produced. I am thankful, too, for the funding that SSHRC has offered me as I completed this project. Finally, I want to thank my family, and in particular my fiancée Alexandra, who provided the mental and emotional support throughout the past few years. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Literature and Source Review 6 Background in the West and the Middle East 16 Chapter 1: Norman Relations and Lost Inheritance 20 Robert Guiscard 21 Roger Borsa 37 Sichelgaita of Salerno 40 Count Roger I of Sicily 48 Chapter 2: Bohemond and Alexios – Established Loyalty 56 Foreigners and Normans in Byzantine Service 56 Request for Grand Domestic 70 Alexios’ Reaction to Bohemond’s request 76 Land Grant 84 Chapter 3: Loyalty until Antioch 94 Early Crusader/Byzantine relations 95 Leadership before Antioch 104 Resupply before Antioch 109 Leadership at Antioch 112 Resupply at Antioch 116 Bohemond’s Bid for Antioch 123 Conclusion 140 Bibliography 143 3 Introduction Bohemond of Taranto is a controversial and, in some ways, a unique figure in the history of the expedition that comes to be known as the First Crusade (1095-1101). He is simultaneously lauded by scholars as the most experienced knight of the expedition, while also considered one of the lowliest leaders, unsupported by his kin.1 As a Norman, Bohemond came from a people full of rich history: tracing their heritage from the Norse Vikings, they had settled in Normandy and, by the later eleventh century, expanded into England and southern Italy, gaining a reputation among contemporaries and early scholars as skilled and cunning mercenaries.2 He was born sometime in the 1050s to Robert “Guiscard” de Hauteville, the duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily (r. 1057-1085) and his first wife Alberada of Buonalbergo. Bohemond was not his given name; he was born with the more traditional Christian name Marc. His father heard about a tale of a legendary giant named Bohemond during a joyous feast, and the merriment of the banquet caused him to describe his large son in the same terms. It is not known how early in his life he received this name, but history has held on to it to the point that he is rarely, if ever, referred to as Marc in any of the traditional sources.3 As the eldest son of Guiscard, the undisputed ruler of all southern Italy, Bohemond was set to take over from his father. Had this arrangement remained in place, one can only speculate if he would have ever embarked on the First Crusade, since he would have held a vast territory in southern Italy and been preoccupied 1 Georgios Theotokis notes that due to their experience against the Byzantines in the Balkans and the Muslims in Sicily, the Normans were best suited for the First Crusade. Georgios Theotokis, The Norman Campaigns in the Balkans (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014), 187; Luigi Russo examines the financial state of Bohemond prior to embarking on the First Crusade and concludes that Bohemond had the least financial support behind him. Luigi Russo, “Norman Participation in the First Crusade: A Re-examination” in Warfare in the Norman Mediterranean, ed. Georgios Theotokis (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020), 176-198. 2 John Norwich, The Normans in the South (London: Longmans, 1967), 70. 3 Orderic Vitalis refers to him as Marc Bohemond on occasion. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1969), Book XI.12, 71, Book VII.5, 17, Book IX.4, 35. 4 with consolidating his position against competing Normans. However, the politics of the medieval world and the de Hauteville ambition to become the unquestionable rulers of southern Italy changed Bohemond’s future. Instead of governing this vast territory in southern Italy, he found himself far to the east, holding the Principality of Antioch against the Byzantine Empire, ruled by Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118), and the various disunited emirates of the Seljuk Turks. This thesis seeks to explore what caused Bohemond to make this shift and what actions were necessary for him to accomplish this. Before going east was ever a prospect, Bohemond was destined to inherit his father’s estate and become the ruler of southern Italy. However, due to circumstances which will be discussed, his birthright was given to his half-brother, Roger “Borsa” de Hauteville. Bohemond used his military and leadership abilities in an attempt to regain his father’s inheritance from his brother, but he failed to displace Roger who was able to maintain control of southern Italy and conceded only a small territory to Bohemond in Apulia. Chapter 1 will examine Bohemond’s relationship with the de Hauteville family and show how his ambitions shifted from southern Italy to the east. Attempts to expand in Italy were challenged by Roger Borsa or Count Roger I of Sicily, and he had been thwarted by Alexios when he tried to advance into the Balkans. Therefore, when the opportunity of the expedition called by pope Urban II in 1095 arrived, Bohemond realized that the greatest opportunity for him lay in the east. With Latin and Greek support, he could potentially acquire territory in the Seljuk or Arab world. In order to achieve this, however, he would need to submit to the authority of Alexios. Chapter 2 will thus examine Bohemond’s attempt to garner Alexios’ favour at Constantinople in order to become a Byzantine-appointed leader of the expedition and with the ultimate hope of receiving command of a key city in the east from which he could expand. Chapter 3 will show that, despite having 5 his request for a Byzantine military title rejected, Bohemond remained loyal to the Byzantines during the crossing of Anatolia and continued setting himself up to receive the city of Antioch. It will argue that his eventual seizure of the city of Antioch from the Byzantine Empire was not premeditated from the beginning of the expedition but rather came about at Antioch only once the opportunity to do so became too great for him to resist. Literature and Source Review The narrative that modern scholars of the First Crusade have tended to provide for Bohemond’s early life is simply that he journeyed east after his inheritance was lost to Roger Borsa. They note the disenfranchisement he suffered and the opportunity the crusade offered him to find new lands for himself, yet they do not analyze the people and events which pushed him to join the expedition to the east. Ralph Yewdale, the author of the first monograph on Bohemond written in 1917, spends precious little time explaining the political influences which pitted significant players against the ambitious eldest son of Guiscard.4 Historians writing in the mid- to late-twentieth century, such as Steven Runciman, Alan Murray, and Emily Albu, only dedicate a paragraph to Bohemond’s familial situation.5 Jonathan Shepard and Graham Loud simply reveal the context surrounding the civil war between Bohemond and Roger Borsa after 4 Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 23-33.