1 Bohemond’s baptismal name was Mark. Guiscard is said by Vitalis, Orderic Jokingly to have called him ‘Bohemond’ upon hearing at dinner of a legendary giant of that name: Historia Aecclesiastica, XI, 12, ed. & trs. Chibnall, M., VI (Oxford 1978) 70–1 Google Scholar; Falkenhausen, V. von, ‘Olympias, eine normannische prinzessin in Konstantìnopel’, Bisanzio e l’Italia. Raccolta di Studi in Memoria di Agostino Per-tusi (Milan 1982) 72.Google Scholar

2 For Bohemond’s skill in exploiting his fame in France and in manipulating a call for a fresh Crusade to serve his own ends in 1106, see Rowe, J.G., ‘Paschal II, Bohemond of Antioch and the Byzantine empire’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 49 (1966) 182-7, 195, 199–201 Google Scholar. Frankish nobles are said to have offered to him their children ‘to whom he willingly stood godfather, even bestowing his own name on them’: Orderic Vitalis, Historia Aecclesiastica, XI, 12, ed. Chibnall 70-1. Children in the Latin East, too, were named after him: ibid., p.70, n.2. Bohemond’s ability to make propagandistic capital even out of the terms of his agreement with Alexius at Dyrrachium was demonstrated by Rösch, G., ‘Der “Krezzug” Bohemunds gegen Dyrrachion 1107/1108 in der Lateinischen Tradition des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Romische Historische Mitteilungen 26 (1984) 187-8, 190.Google Scholar

3 Gadolin, A., ‘Prince Bohemund’s death and apotheosis in the church of San Sabino, Canosa di Puglia’, B 52 (1982) 136–41 Google Scholar; Epstein, A.W., ‘The date and significance of the cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy’, DOP 37 (1983) 83-6, 88 Google Scholar; Castelfranchi, M.F., ‘Contributo alla conoscenza dell’ edilizia religiosa nella Longobardia meridionale: I, Canosa Langobarda’, Quaderni dell’ Istituto di Ar cheologia e Storia Antica, Università degli Studi ‘G. D’Annunzio’ Chieti, 3 (1982-3) 232-7, 244–6.Google Scholar

4 Al. X, 11, p.234; Sew., 329. (Translations of this and other works are my own, taking account of those translations which are cited). For earlier bibliography on Anna and recognition that for all her disclaimers she was writing an encomium of her father, see Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I (Munich 1978) 404, 406–09 Google Scholar. At the same time Anna did have some access to documents emanating from imperial archives: ibid., 406. See also Chrysostomides, J., ‘A Byzantine historian: Anna Comnena’, Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, ed. Morgan, D.O. (London 1982) 32–3.Google Scholar

5 Gesta, VIII, 20, pp.44-5; Tudebode, Peter, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, IX, 3, RHO III, pp.54–5 Google Scholar; Peter Tudebode, trs. Hill, J.H. & Hill, L.L. (Philadelphia 1974) 61–2 Google Scholar (henceforth: Hill & Hill); Yewdale 65-6; Runciman 231.

6 See below 273.

7 Hagenmeyer no.16, pp.161-5.

8 Hagenmeyer no.16, p.165; cf. pp.95-6, 356.

9 The pope’s presence and formal annulment of the Crusaders’ sworn undertakings would, it seems, merely have formalized a lifting of their obligations which, according to Bohemond at least, Alexius’ breach of faith had already brought about. See below n.305.

10 France, J., ‘Anna Comnena, the Alexiadand the First Crusade’, Reading Medieval Studies 9 (1984) 21-2, 24–6.Google Scholar

11 France, J., ‘The departure of Tatikios from the Crusader army’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 44 (1971) 137–47 Google Scholar. France also supposed that Taticius was instructed by Alexius to counterbalance Bohemond with Raymond of Toulouse, pursuing a policy of ‘divide-and-rule’ (ibid., 144). This, and other aspects of France’s reconstruction, were criticized by Lilie, R.-J., Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten (Munich 1981) n.156 on pp.354–5 Google Scholar. Lilie also points out the contradiction between Anna’s depiction of Alexius’ attitude towards Bohemond at Constantinople and her story that Taticius heeded Bohemond’s warning at Antioch. He argues (ibid., 31) that if one believes the latter story one must accept the former, too, — and thus endorse an absurdity. However, Anna’s briefer anecdotes and asides are often less polished and more revealing than her grand literary set-pieces which are designed to establish principal themes and of which her account of the Crusaders’ arrival at Constantinople is an example. Harmonization on Anna’s part of all the elements in her sprawling materials should not be expected. Even in her account of Alexius’ reception of Bohemond, a literary tour de force, there are, most probably, authentic anecdotes and vignettes, as Lilie himself recognizes: ibid., n.47 on p.337. And even in this literary tour deforce there are inconsistencies or at least anomalies: below, 191, 247-8, 257.

12 Al. X, 11, pp.230, 232; Sew., 326, 328.

13 Al. X, 11, pp.230-1; Sew., 326.

14 Al. X, 11, p.233; Sew., 328-9.

15 Al. X, 11, p.234; Sew., 329.

16 Al. X, ll, p.234; Sew., 329. I translate hypolepseos as ‘reputation’, following the reading of the Epitome of the Alexiad, a work compiled at an early date, possibly with Anna’s consent: Leib, I, clxxiv.

17 Al. X, 11, p.235; Sew., 330.

18 Al. X, 11, p.235; Sew., 330.

19 Al. X, 11, pp.231, 232; Sew., 327, 328.

20 Below 241, 246-8.

21 No figure is provided by Anna for the size of the Byzantine contingent that journeyed with the Crusaders as far as Antioch. But it may be that it was more or less identical with the ‘force of brave peltasts, two thousand in all’ whom Alexius had placed under the command of Taticius and Tzitas for the assault on Nicaea: Al. XI, 2, 3, pp.12, 17; Sew., 336-7, 341. A figure of 3,000 soldiers making up the Byzantine contingent is given by Gislebert of Mons, Chronicon Hanoniense, Monumenta Gef-maniae Historica, Scriptores, XXI (Hanover 1869) 504 Google Scholar. Taticius is described as Alexius’ ‘seneschal’ by Gislebert. See also Lilie, , Kreuzjahrerstaaten, n.212 on pp.364–5.Google Scholar

22 Al. XI, 4, p.20; Sew., 343. The ‘sultan’ in question would have been the Sultan of Rum.

23 Al. X, 11, p.233; Sew., 329. See, e.g., Chalandon, F., Histoire de la première Croisade (Paris 1925) 193–4 Google Scholar; Runciman, 224; France, Tatikios 145; idem, Anna Comnena 27. These scholars give equal or greater weight to Taticius’ alleged calculation that the famine-stricken Crusaders anyway had no hope of taking Antioch. But they do not fully address the problem posed by Anna’s account of her father’s appraisal of Bohemond at Constantinople: ‘the arch mischief-maker’ should have been the last person to be heeded by Taticius. R. Manselli (‘Normanni d’Italia alla prima Crociata: Boemondo d’Altavilla’, lopigia 11 (1940) (50) argues that Bohemond, having allied himself whole-heartedly with Alexius, gave Taticius bona fide advice to go to Alexius in quest of aid.

24 Ridwan’s relief army was routed by the Crusaders on February 9 1098: Hagenmeyer, H., Chronologie de la première Croisade (Paris 1902) 124–6 Google Scholar. Anna’s story is rejected by, e.g. Yewdale, 59-63; Hill, J.H.& Hill, L.L., Raymond IVde Saint-Gilles (Toulouse 1959) 65 Google Scholar. To Lilie (Kreuzfahrerstaaten 32, 47-8) the story has the ring of ‘trash, with Bohemond in the villain’s role’, and serves both to justify Taticius’ withdrawal and to shift the blame for it onto Bohemond. Lilie thinks the tale is a ‘propaganda device’ of Anna, designed to rebut the arguments of Bohemond, which made great play of Taticius’ ‘flight’. If, however, this were an essentially fictitious, deliberate ‘propaganda device’, it would surely have been purveyed as the sole explanation for Taticius’ departure and would have been invoked repeatedly and prominently elsewhere in the Alexiad. Yet this does not happen. And if Anna were consciously spinning a yarn so as to blame Bohemond for Taticius’ withdrawal, even she might be expected to have noticed that her tale of the false tip-off jarred with her earlier emphasis on Alexius’ awareness of Bohemond’s villainy. If, on the other hand, the tale was not her brainchild and was inserted merely as one of the reasons for Taticius’ departure which she had gleaned from her sources, its inconsistency with the tableau in Book X could the more easily have been overlooked by Anna. Assuming that the tale is rooted in reality, Bohemond’s denunciation of Taticius’ abandonment of the Crusaders showed brazenness. Such would not, however, have been out of character: above, n.2; below, n.37.

25 Al. XI, 4, pp.19-21; Sew., 343-5. The deal between Bohemond and the Armenian was most probably struck in May 1098. Anna is therefore wrong to set it before Bohemond’s deception of Taticius. Even so, the essence of her account of Bohemond’s dealings with Firuz and with his fellow commanders resembles that of the Western sources: below 254-5, 273.

26 See, e.g., Yewdale 59.

27 Al. XI.4.P.20; Sew., 343; Gesta, VI, 16, p.34; Tudebode, VI, 5, p.41; Hill & Hill 49. Guibert reckons Taticius to have been moved by fear of famine as well as by fear of the Turks: IV, 10, p.175.

28 However, the circumstances posited by Anna’s tale would explain why Taticius’ departure was abrupt and seems to have taken the Crusaders by surprise. The fact that he left ‘all his possessions’ in the Crusader camp may reflect his zeal to withdraw, as well as being ostensibly his guarantee that he would return: Gesta, VI, 16, pp.35-6; Tudebode, VI, 5, pp.41-2; Hill & Hill 50.

29 Raym. ch.7, p.246; trs. Hill, J.H.& Hill, L.L., Raymond D’Aguilers (Philadelphia 1968) 37 Google Scholar (henceforth: Hill & Hill).

30 On the political and strategic implications of the grant, see below, 270-1. Hill & Hill (Raymond IV 66) regard the grant as an example of the ‘contradictory rumors’ which flew around the camp after Taticius’ departure. Lilie supposes (Kreuz-fahrerstaaten 29) Bohemond to have ‘claimed’ that the Cilician cities were entrusted to him and avers that they would ‘scarcely’ have been left to Bohemond alone among the Crusaders. The significance of the congruence of the evidence of Anna and Raymond of Aguilers was emphasized by Chalandon, , Première Croisade 192–3.Google Scholar

31 Gesta, IV, 11, pp.25-6; Tudebode, IV, 4, p.32; Hill & Hill 41. Peter of Alifa is said by Anna to have been ‘of constant and unswerving loyalty to the emperor’, in the context of 1107-08: Al. XIII, 4, p.101; Sew., 406. Anna notes his earlier participation in the Normans’ campaigns against her father: Al. IV, 6, p.161; Sew., 148; Al. V, 5, 7, pp.22, 32; Sew., 166, 173. Peter of Alifa’s receipt of Comana is also recounted by Orderic Vitalis, Historia AecclesiasCica, IX, 8, ed. & trs. M. Chibnall, V (Oxford 1975) 66-9. Significantly, mention of the emperor is omitted altogether by Orderic and other later writers directly or indirectly dependent on the Gesta: Chibnall, ibid., p.68, n.1. See also la Force, Marquis de, ‘Les conseillers latins du basileus Alexis Comnène’, B 11 (1936) 158–9 Google Scholar; Nicol, D.M., ‘Symbiosis and integration. Some Greco-Latin families in Byzantium in the 11th to 13th centuries’, BF7 (1979) 131.Google Scholar

32 Al. XI, 4, p.21; Sew., 344.

33 Bohemond’s speech, as reported by Anna, provides for the gainer of the city to have ‘the guardianship of this city, say, until the arrival from the emperor of him who is to take over from us’: Al. XI, 4, p.21; Sew., 344. This would have been in accord with the terms of the Crusaders’ oath, as reported by Anna in the case of Godfrey: Al. X, 9, p.226; Sew., 323. No further mention of this proviso is made by Anna and she subsequently represents the commanders as granting ‘full power’ over Antioch to Bohemond without any reference to the emperor’s rights (Al. XI, 6, p.32; Sew., 352) and without ever recording their actual despatch of an embassy to Alexius in July 1098. In fact these commanders were then not willing to settle for less than the arrival of Alexius in person with an army, judging by the Gesta, VIII, 20, p.45; Tudebode, IX, 3, p.55; Hill & Hill 62. (Below, n.304). Anna’s reports of speeches to a considerable extent represent her own interpretation of a character or a situation, especially when firsthand accounts are not available to her. But that she should make Bohemond expressly reserve Alexius’ rights remains intriguing, if inconclusive.

34 E.g., Al. VI, 10, 14, pp.68-70, 83-6; Sew., pp.202-03, 213-15; cf. Buckler, G. AnnaComnena (Oxford 1929), p.231 Google Scholar, n.8; France, Tatikios 139.

35 Al. XI, 4, p.20; Sew., 343.

36 Al. IV, 4, p.151; IX, 9, p.182; VI, 10, pp.67-8; VII, 7, p.109; Sew., 141, 288, 201-02, 232; cf. France, Tatikios 141.

37 The disastrous impression made on the Crusaders by Taticius’ departure and (most importantly) his failure to return or to send supplies may only have dawned on Alexius gradually. For, as noted below, the Crusaders’ chances of taking Antioch looked slim throughout the first half of 1098. It may well have been Taticius’ report of the ‘conspiracy’ against him which compounded Alexius’ mistrust of the ‘changeable’ character of the Franks en masse and made him very hesitant to proceed to their relief: he might have to reckon with Frankish as well as Turkish hostility: Al. XI, 6, p.28; Sew., p.349. But the damaging implications of Taticius’ withdrawal, and of his own failure to aid the Crusaders, cannot long have been unknown to Alexius. Taticius’ withdrawal formed a key part of Bohemond’s charges against Alexius’ conduct by 1103 at the latest: Al. XI, 9, pp.39-40; Sew., p.358. See Lilie, Kreutfahrerstaaten 41, 47, 49. Above, n.24.

38 Al. XI, 10, p.42; Sew., 360; cf. France, Tatikios 147.

39 Al. XIV, 4, p.160; Sew., 449.

40 Above 191.

41 Al. XIV, 4, 7, pp.161, 172; Sew., 449-50, 458. On the multiplicity of plots against Alexius see B. Leib, ‘Complots à Byzance contre Alexis I Comnène’, BS 23 (1962) 251-66, 274.

42 The suspicions which Anna, blessed with hindsight, ascribes to Alexius were harboured by Geoffrey Malaterra, writing in or before 1100. He refers to ‘Bohemond, who had previously invaded Romania with his father Guiscard and was ever desirous of subjugating it (semper earn sibisubjugare cupiens erat)’: Malaterra, IV, 24, p.102. On Malaterra, see Repertorium Fontium Historiae Medii Aevi, IV (Rome 1976) 643-4; O. Capitani, ‘Specific motivations and continuing themes in the Norman chronicles of Southern Italy: eleventh and twelfth centuries’, The Normans in Sicily and Southern Italy, preface by C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford 1977) 7-10. Malaterra’s work was commissioned by Count Roger of Sicily. His evident bias in favour of Roger and against Bohemond does not necessarily invalidate his judgement on the latter. Bohemond’s zeal to liberate the Holy Sepulchre, while not necessarily utterly fraudulent, was fitful and never far removed from his own self-seeking. His call to the pope to come to Antioch and to berate those who had not fulfilled their Crusading vows was at least partly inspired by a need for reinforcements who would have no sworn obligations to Alexius; the pope was also formally to annul the Crusaders’ oaths sworn to Alexius: below, n.305. In the event, Bohemond’s anxiety to secure for himself Antioch detained him from completing ‘the sacred journey’ until well after the fall of Jerusalem: Yewdale 165. That Normans in the milieu of Robert Guiscard aspired to widespread dominion and, specifically, to the conquest of Byzantium is indicated by Aimé of Monte Cassino, Storia de’Normanni, V.3, ed. V. de Bartholomaeis (Rome 1935) 223-4; cf. L. Boehm, ‘Nomen gentis Normannorum: der Aufstieg der Normannen im Spiegel der normannischen Historiographie’, Settimane di Studio del centro italiano di studi suir alto medioevo 16 (1969) 657-8. Anna’s supposition that Bohemond inherited from Guiscard designs on the Byzantine empire was thus not absurd, although it exaggerates the specificness of his goals in 1096-7: Al. X, 11, p.234; Sew., p.329. A lucid formulation of Bohemond’s position at that time is offered by Yewdale, 43-4. It should be noted that the inscriptions beneath the cornice of the cupola and on the bronze doors of his mausoleum make much of his feats in Syria and ‘Greece four times conquered’: Schulz, H.W., Denkmàler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unteritalien, I (Dresden 1860) 60, 61 Google Scholar; Epstein, Cathedral of Canosa 86-7. The inscriptions are coeval with the tomb and may well express that for which Bohemond wished to be remembered, at any rate at the close of his days.

43 Fairly dispassionate writers such as Fulcher of Chartres recognized as much: Historia Hierosolymitana, 1, 9, RHO, III, 332; trs. F.R. Ryan & Fink, H.S., History of the expedition to Jerusalem (New York 1973) 80 Google Scholar. Bohemond’s awareness of the continuing power of Byzantium and his estimate of the benefits he would reap from imperial favour are portrayed graphically and concisely by Runciman, 158. Although Runciman notes (163-4, 178, 182) the subsequent occasions when Bohemond appeared to be enjoying imperial favour and to be taking Alexius’ part, he does so only in passing. He basically follows Anna’s interpretation of Alexius’ policy, i.e. that Alexius saw through Bohemond’s schemes and that Alexius and Raymond forged an alliance against the Norman in April 1097. Anna’s failure to mention any altercation between her father and Raymond is scantly considered: Runciman, p.164, n.l.

44 In 969 Antioch’s walls had succumbed to the Byzantines only after a lengthy blockade and a stealthy scaling with specially-built ladders at midnight: Leo the Deacon, Historiae Libri Decern, V. 4, ed. Hase, C.B. (Bonn 1828) 81–2 Google Scholar. The city was sacked, then rebuilt: Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, ed. Stillwell, R. et al. (Princeton 1976) 62–3 Google Scholar; Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Strayer, J.R., I (New York 1982) 326 Google Scholar. The formidable nature of Antioch’s defences is emphasized by Raym. ch.5, p.242; trs. Hill & Hill 31.

45 According to Anna, Bohemond feared that Alexius would settle old scores by poisoning him: Al. X, 11, p.232; Sew., 328.

46 Gesta, I, 4, p.8.

47 He was, however, far from uncritical, disapproving of Bohemond’s appropriation of Antioch and he parted company with Bohemond at that time. For the section of his work relating events after Bohemond’s appropriation of Antioch, he very seldom uses words of praise for Bohemond: see Hill’s, R. preface to Gesta, p.x, n.3, p.xiii Google Scholar; Yewdale, 61; Hanawalt, E.A., ‘Norman views of Eastern Christendom: from the First Crusade to the Principality of Antioch’, The Meeting of Two Worlds. Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, ed. Goss, V.P.(Kalamazoo, Michigan 1986) p. 117 & n.3 on pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

48 Guibert, III, 2, p.152; HBS, ch.5, p.m.

49 Albert, II, 7, 9, pp.304, 305; Dölger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches, I, pt.2 (Munich 1925) nos.1187, 1188, p.44.Google Scholar

50 Will. Tyre, II, 14, col.263; Dolgerno. 1197, pp.45-6, where the case is put for regarding the content, if not exact form, as that of an authentic letter of Alexius.

51 Will. Tyre. II, 14, col.264.

52 Al. X, 7, p.214; Sew., 315; Raym. ch.2, p.237; Hill & Hill 22.

53 Gesta, II, 5, p.10; Hagenmeyer, , Chronologie, 59-60; Yewdale 40-1; Runciman 156–7 Google Scholar.

54 Gesta, II, 5, p.11; Al. X, 11, p.230; Sew., 326; Dölger. no.1199, p.46.

55 Al. X, 11, p.232; Sew., 328. Albert (11, 18, p.312) claims that Bohemond initially refused to have an audience with the emperor but was eventually won round by Godfrey of Bouillon’s persistent persuasion. Albert was relying on a source favourable to Godfrey and his account of the Crusaders’ stay at Constantinople greatly exaggerates Godfrey’s importance at that stage of the expedition. His claim is therefore highly suspect, and in other respects his account of Bohemond’s position at that time is open to doubt: see below, 244. Albert’s allegation (II) 14, p.309) that Bohemond proposed to Godfrey that together they should mount a joint-attack on Alexius, only to be rebuffed by Godfrey, lacks corroborative evidence. Admittedly, an argument from silence is blunted by the fact that Bohemond would have kept his proposal confidential, as Lilie (Kreuzfahrerstaaten, 4-5) points out. However, it is most probable that Bohemond was too well aware of the difficulties which a siege of Constantinople would have posed for the Crusaders to have proposed an attack: see above, 200.

56 Anna may have compressed events in representing Bohemond as going straight to Alexius and as swearing his oath on the day after his first audience with him (Al. X, 11, pp.231-2; Sew., 327-8). However, the interval between Bohemond’s arrival and his oathtaking is not likely to have exceeded four or five days: Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 64-5; Dölger no.1200, p.46. Only after extracting an oath from Bohemond would Alexius have been likely to have invited Count Raymond to Constantinople.

57 Ralph, ch.10, p.612.

58 Al. X, 11, p.233; Sew., 328; Zonaras, John, Epitome Historiarum, XVIII, 25, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, III (Bonn 1897) 749 Google Scholar; Ralph, ch.10, p.612. Bohemond is one of the very few Crusading leaders expressly said to have received vestments, as well as silver and gold. The choice of gifts may possibly reflect a taste on Bohemond’s part for Byzantine trappings and attire, as well as Alexius’ awareness of this. However, Stephen of Blois and Robert of Normandy were also offered ‘as many nomismata and silken garments as they pleased’: Fulcher, I, 9, p.332; trs. Ryan & Fink 80.

59 Will. Tyre, 11, 15, col.265. Below, 210.

60 Miiller-Wiener, W., Bildlexikon zur topographieIstanbuls (Tubingen 1977) 223 Google Scholar.

61 Al. X, 9, 10, pp.221, 225, 228; Sew., 319, 322, 325.

62 Raym. ch.2, p.237; Hill & Hill 22; Dölger no.1201, p.46. The invitation was brought by Raymond’s own envoys, who further reported that ‘Bohemond, the duke of Lorraine [Godfrey of Bouillon] and the count of Flanders [Robert], and other leaders, were urging this’, Raym. ibid..

63 Raym. ch.2, p.238; Hill & Hill 23; Tudebode, II, 7, p.21; Hill & Hill 29.

64 Raym. ch.2, p.238; Hill & Hill 24; Tudebode, II, 7, p.21; Hill & Hill 29. Yewdale (p.45) is one of the very few scholars to remark upon the apparent oddness of Alexius’ choice of pledge.

65 Raym. ch.2, p.238; Hill & Hill 24; cf. France, Anna Comnena 22.

66 Raym. ch.ll, p.257; Hill & Hill 54. On Raymond of Aguilers, see ibid., 6-7; Hill & Hill, Raymond IV 30; Riley-Smith 79.

67 Gesta, II, 6, p. 13; Tudebode, II, 7, p. 21; Hill & Hill 30; Ralph ch. 12, p. 613; Guibert, III, 5, p. 155. The key role of Bohemond was underlined by Count Raymond when in autumn 1098 he repeated ‘the words and the oath which he had sworn to the emperor on Bohemond’s advice’, Gesta, X, 31, p. 75; Tudebode, XII, 6, p. 87; Hill & Hill 95; below, n. 305.

68 On the size of Raymond’s host, see Runciman 337. Raymond of Aguilers’ indication that the count’s army had arrived at Constantinople when he considered taking vengeance on Alexius is inherently probable. The count would hardly have publicly contemplated violence unless his army was in the offing, for he had travelled ahead unarmed, with only a few companions. Raymond of Aguilers is liable to confuse matters of chronology, but his account of the situation at Constantinople in April 1097 is circumstantial and deserves trust in the one detail where it differs significantly from the Gesta: Raym. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24; Gesta, II, 6, p. 13. Tudebode’s sequence coincides with or echoes Raymond’s: Tudebode, II, 7, p. 21; Hill & Hill 29. Hagenmeyer (Chronologie 68-9), followed by most modern scholars, gives preference to the Gesta ‘s sequence and places the army’s arrival just after the confrontation with Bohemond and Raymond’s oath-swearing. (See, however, Chalandon, Première Croisade 147; Hill & Hill, Raymond IV Aï). Hagenmeyer’s date for the arrival of the Provencals — ‘towards April 27’ — is unexceptionable, but his dating of Raymond’s oath-swearing to April 26 is probably a day or two too early. For given that Raymond had arrived in Constantinople ‘towards April 21’ (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 67), he is likely to have spent six or seven days in visiting Alexius, learning of his army’s plight, complaining to Alexius, submitting to arbitration, rebuffing further repeated requests for homage and contemplating hostilities against Alexius: Raym. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 23-4. Ralph of Caen even supposes (ch. 12, p. 613) that Tancred with the South Italian Normans had already crossed to Asia Minor by the time that Raymond was finally induced to swear an oath. Albert’s statement (II, 20, p. 314) that Raymond ‘having become agreeable and beloved to the emperor, tarried fifteen days in Constantinople, … having become under faith (fide) and oath his man’ is not strictly accurate. For homage is just what Raymond refused to Alexius, ‘on peril of his life’. He was only willing to swear to respect the life and possessions of Alexius: Raym. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24; cf. Hill, J.H. & Hill, L.L., ‘The convention of Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of Saint-Gilles’, American Historical Review 58 (1953) p. 324 Google Scholar & n. 11, pp. 325-6; eidem, Raymond IV 41-2. Albert’s chronological indication as to the length of Raymond’s stay after his oath-swearing may also be erroneous, albeit only by one or two days. Hagenmeyer’s dating of his departure from Constantinople to ‘towards May 10’ (Chronologie 71) is well-grounded. See also Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 9 & nn. 53, 55, 56 on pp. 337, 338-9.

69 Gesta, II, 5, p. 11.

70 Gesta, II, 7, p. 13.

71 Ralph ch. 12, p. 613.

72 Al. XI, 2, p.ll; Sew. pp.335-6.

73 As Anna all but acknowledges in a moment of candor: Al. XIV, 2, p. 146; Sew, 439. Anna’s phrasing of Alexius’ instructions to Taticius — that he should take over ‘the cities that they captured, if indeed (ei ge) God were to grant (them) this favour’ — may faithfully reflect Alexius’ doubts as to the likelihood of such a contingency: Al. XI, 3, p. 17; Sew., 341.

74 Al. XI, 3, p. 16; Sew., 340.

75 Anna’s account of this episode is basically compatible with that of Ralph, ch. 18-19, pp. 619-20. (Al. XI, 3, p. 17; Sew., 340-1). Ralph’s prime aim was to eulogize Tancred, whom he had joined in the Levant. His partisanship, exaggeration of Tancred’s feats and penchant for long, invented, speeches are blatant, but these qualities do not rob him of significance as a guide to the course of events. His principal informant was Tancred himself, whom he describes as looking to him to record ‘the victories of the army of Christ’: Ralph, preface, 603; Payen, J.-C., ‘Les “Gesta Tancredi” de Raoul de Caen’, La chanson de geste et le mythe carolingien. Mélanges René Louis, II (Mayenne 1982) 1052–3 Google Scholar; Boehm, L., ‘Die “Gesta Tancredi” des Radulf von Caen’, Historisches Jahrbuch 75 (1956) 50-1, 59-60, 66–7 Google Scholar (on Ralph’s view of the emperor); Hanawalt, Norman views 118.

76 Ralph, preface, 603; Payen, “Gesta Tancredi” 1052; below, n. 151.

77 Ralph, ch. 12, pp.613-4; ch. 17, p.618; below, 231. Ralph omits the detail, reported by Anna, that Bohemond physically restrained Tancred from violence in the presence of Alexius and stresses that Tancred came to terms with Alexius only very reluctantly and that he made the foedus conditional upon Alexius’ aid to the Crusaders. But he does not deny that their right hands were joined or that ‘the ritual was celebrated which princes observe for these foedera’ (chs. 17-18, pp. 618-19). He thus acknowledges that Bohemond fulfilled his mission to make Tancred do homage. Fealty is not mentioned by Ralph explicitly, but if Tancred did homage he could scarcely have refused Alexius fealty. See F.-L. Ganshof, ‘Recherches sur le lien juridique qui unissait les chefs de la première Croisade à l’empereur byzantin’. Mélanges offerts à Paul-Edmond Martin (Geneva 1961) 56, 60, 61, n. 2; M. Bloch, Feudal Society, trs. L.A. Manyon, I (London 1965) 146-7.

78 Bohemond’s ‘somnolence’, ‘laziness’ and even ‘inexperience’ are cited by Ralph ch. 13, pp. 613, 614.

79 Ralph ch. 18, p. 619; Al. XI, 3, p. 17; Sew., 341.

80 The date of his arrival at Constantinople has been fairly firmly established by Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 64-5. He conducted supplies to the Crusaders at Nicaea, long enough after their arrival there (on May 6) for them to run short of food, but in time for them to be able to begin their attack on the city on May 14, presumably having been reinvigorated by the foresaid supplies. If Bohemond arrived around May 11 and if (as the Gesta, II, 7, p. 14 perhaps suggests) he had made part of the journey by sea, he would have left Constantinople around May 7.

81 Bohemond was put up at the monastery of Sts Cosmas and Damián, near which other Crusaders had encamped earlier: Al. X, 9. 10, pp. 220, 228, 231; Sew., 319, 325, 327. There is no evidence that Bohemond subsequently took up residence in the nearby Blachernae palace, as did Stephen of Blois: see n. 82. But Alexius’ designation of him as pledge in response to Raymond’s demand for requital indicates that he kept in close contact with the palace. On the location of ‘the Cosmidion’, a complex which encompassed the monastery of Sts Cosmas and Damián, see Janin, R., Constantinople byzantine (Paris 1964) 461–2 Google Scholar; idem, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I, tome 3 (Paris 1969²) 287, 289.

82 Godfrey, with most of his commanders (though not his brother Baldwin) seems to have visited the palace and to have sworn his oath on January 20. He seems to have rejoined his men on the western shore of the Bosporos and subsequently, at Alexius’ request, crossed with them to the Asian shore. Albert’s chronological data concerning the movements of Godfrey, the hero of his (hypothetical) source, is most probably reliable: Albert, II, 15-17, pp. 310-12; Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 53-4; Dölger no. 1196, p. 45; France, Anna Comnena, p. 24 & n. 38 on p. 35. Godfrey paid frequent visits to Alexius’ palace but his purpose was to complain about the scarcity of provisions, not amicable hobnobbing: Albert, II, 17, p. 312. Relations between Byzantines and Crusaders may have been even more fraught than Albert makes out. For it is possible that the clash with the Latins ascribed by Anna to Maundy Thursday (April 2) may really have been triggered off by disputes over provisioning, quite unconnected with the oath which Godfrey had already sworn: Al. X, 9, pp. 221-2; Sew., 320. Robert of Normandy spent, with his forces, fourteen days encamped before Constantinople: Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 71-2. Robert’s travelling companion, Stephen of Blois, spent ten of those days with Alexius in his palace, a statistic which enhances his claim to have received special consideration from the emperor: Hagenmeyer no. 4, p. 139. Robert of Flanders seems to have arrived at Constantinople after Bohemond (Albert, II, 19, p. 313) and formed part of the host which reached Nicaea on May 6: Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 70.

83 Above, n. 68.

84 Hill & Hill, Raymond IV 43; above, n. 68. According to Guibert, III, 5, p. 155, Raymond, after swearing his oath ‘chose to rest inactive for a while together with his forces’ on the outskirts of Constantinople. Bohemond, in contrast, is represented as closeted with the emperor.

85 Raym. (ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24) states that because Count Raymond refused homage to Alexius, ‘the emperor dispensed little to him’. For all the chaplain’s bitter antipathy towards Alexius (which caused him to belittle Alexius’ distribution of gifts after the capture of Nicaea), his circumstantial account of Raymond’s confrontation with Alexius and Bohemond elucidates the briefer references to the episode in the Gesta and deserves priority over the sources which are silent on this score. These sources are Anna (Al. X, 11, p. 235; Sew., 330), Albert (II, 20, p. 314) and Will. Tyre (II, 21, col. 272). Both Anna and Albert (followed, I think, by Will. Tyre) were most probably influenced by hindsight tinged, in Anna’s case, by affection for the man who became her father’s staunch ally. Albert’s erroneous assertion that Raymond became ‘under faith and oath (Alexius’) man’ casts doubt on his general sketch of Raymond’s dealings with Alexius, a topic of secondary interest to him: above, n. 68. Anyway, Alexius did bestow some gifts on Raymond and thus a reconciliation of sorts was effected. This presumably involved a visit by Raymond to the palace and a distribution of gifts to his large host on a corresponding scale. Some reminiscence of this reconciliation and distribution could have reached Albert. See also Lilie, KreuTfahrerstaaten 9.

86 Ralph ch. 13, p. 614.

87 Gesta, II, 7, p. 14.

88 Above 208.

89 Gesta, II, 7, p. 13; cf. HBS, ch. 19, p. 180; Robert of Rheims, Historia Hierosolimitana, III, 1, RHO, III, p. 755; Guibert, III, 5, p. 155. Stephen of Blois’ first letter, written at Nicaea in June 1097, alludes to the ships of ‘the pious emperor’ shuttling ‘night and day’ between Constantinople and a port nearby to Nicaea, bearing food: Hagenmeyer no. 4, p. 138.

90 Gesta, II, 8, p. 16. Supplementary topographical information in Tudebode, II, 9, p. 22; Hill & Hill 31; HBS, ch. 21, p. 181; Raym. ch. 3, p. 239; Hill & Hill 25. Characteristically, and fallaciously, Albert promotes Godfrey to the prime position in the siege: II, 22, p. 315.

91 Al. X, 7, 9, pp. 215, 225; Sew., 315, 322.

92 Albert, II, 16, pp. 310-11; Ganshof, Recherches 57-8.

93 Hagenmeyer no. 4, p. 138; cf. p. 139.

94 Hagenmeyer no. 4, pp. 138, 139. These details are too specific to have been invented by Stephen.

95 Al. X, 10, p. 228; Sew., 325.

96 Al. X, 7, 9, 10, pp. 213, 220, 226; Sew., 313, 318, 323.

97 They pressed Raymond of Toulouse not to fight against fellow Christians, i.e. the Byzantines: Gesta, II, 6, p. 13; Raym. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24.

98 Ralph (ch. 9, p. 611; cf. eh. 11, p. 612) purports to cite a letter of Alexius to Bohemond in which Alexius promises to indulge him as a son, if he will show a son’s loyalty and good-will. This letter may merely be a heavily embroidered version of the one also known to Will. Tyre (II, 14, cols. 263-4; above, n. 50), but Ralph may, through Tancred or Bohemond himself, have heard that Bohemond was addressed by Alexius as a ‘son’: see Dölger, no. 1197, p. 46; Ganshof, Recherches 58.

99 Hagenmeyer no. 4, pp. 138-9, 226. See above 213.

100 Runciman (p. 163) lays emphasis on Bohemond’s rivalry with Raymond, and suggests that he still hoped for a formal command under Alexius: he was ‘eager to please the emperor’. Runciman does not raise the question of how far he succeeded.

101 See above 209. Ralph’s indication that Tancred made his reluctant journey by sea tallies with Stephen of Blois’ indication that the commanders were received by Alexius on an island: Ralph ch. 17, p. 618; Hagenmeyer no. 4, pp. 140, 235-6.

102 Bohemond seems to have regained control over most of the South Italian Normans from Tancred during the siege of Nicaea and thus had no pressing personal need to cut down his nephew to size: see below 260.

103 And even then, it is only from Raym. (ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24) and from Tudebode (II, 7, p. 21; Hill & Hill 29) that we learn of Bohemond’s role as imperial pledge. Whether or not Tudebode represents a source independent of Raym. is an open question: below, n. 132. Significantly, the sole Latin source to recount Bohemond’s pressure on Tancred is that penned by Tancred’s admirer, Ralph. Other commanders may have been overawed by Bohemond without the benefit of an eulogist to record their sentiments or plight.

104 Robert of Rheims, Historia Hierosolimitana, VIII, 2, RHO, III, p. 843.Google Scholar

105 Gesta, X, 31, p. 75; cf. Tudebode, XII, 6, p. 87; Hill & Hill 95.

106 ‘ut veniret loqui simul secreto secum’, Gesta, II, 6, p. 11, 11.16-17; cf. II.5-6; Tudebode, II, 2, p. 18; Hill & Hill 27.

107 The translation by Hill, R. of the Gesta, II, 6, p. 11 Google Scholar, ll.17-18 — ‘Tunc illuc venit dux Godefridus cum fratre suo’ — is misleading. Tunc followed by the perfect in the Gesta means ‘subsequently’, i.e. Godfrey and Baldwin went (back) to the City after Bohemond’s ‘secret’ discussions with Alexius. For other such instances of tunc = ‘subsequently, thereupon’, see, e.g. Gesta, I, 4, p.8, 11.9, 14; II, 6, p. 13, 1.15; VI, 14, p. 32, 1.4 from bottom; IX, 21, p. 51, 1.7 from bottom; IX, 24, p.58, 1.2 from bottom; X, 39, p. 92, 1.13.

108 See above, n. 103.

109 Al. X, 11, p. 234; Sew., 329. See above 191.

110 Gesta, 11, 6, p. 12.

111 Ai. X, 11, pp. 232-3, 235; Sew., 328, 330.

112 Gesta, 11, 6, p. 11, 1.2 from bottom; cf. p. 12, 1.2. There is no indication in the Gesta that the oath required of Bohemond was any different from that sought of ‘all the leaders’.

113 The assumption that ‘the Domesticate of the East’ really was the subject of conversations between Alexius and Bohemond is open to the objection that Anna is elsewhere rather free with her use of ‘Domestic’: she makes her father ‘Great Domestic of the eastern and western armies’ when he was probably only Domestic of the West (Al. VII, 2, p. 91; Sew., 219; R. Guilland, ‘Le Grand Domestique’, repr. in Guilland’s Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, I (Berlin 1967) 406), and she describes Philaretus as ‘raised to the title of Domestic’ around 1070, when he seems merely to have been a doux bearing the title of magistros, as indicated on one type of his seals: Al. VI, 9, p. 64; Sew., 198; Yarnley, C.H., ‘Philaretos: Armenian bandit or Byzantine general?’, Revue des études arméniennes 9 (1972) 335 Google Scholar; Shandrovskaya, V.S., ‘Ermitazhnye pechati Filareta Vrakhamiya’, Vestnik Obshchestvennykh Nauk, Akademiya Nauk Armyanskoy S.S.S.R., Erevan 3 (387) (1975) 37, 39, 47 Google Scholar. But assuming that Bohemond and Alexius did discuss ‘the Domesticate of the East’, this would have encompassed the area of Antioch, the region where Bohemond was, according to the Gesta, encouraged to hope for lands. However, the Gesta aversion of Alexius’ offer seems to denote lands beyond Antioch, rather than the city itself, and anyway probably merely echoes a rumour circulating among the Crusaders: below 227. At the time of the Crusade Adrian Comnenos was Grand Domestic of the West: Guilland, Grand Domestique 407.

114 Krey, A.C., ‘A neglected passage in the Gesta and its bearing on the literature of the First Crusade’, The Crusades and other historical essays presented to D.C. Munro, ed. Paetow, L.J. (New York 1928) 58-60, 75–6 Google Scholar. Those responsible for the interpolation are taken to have been involved in Bohemond’s recruiting drive.

115 E.g. by Runciman, p. 159, n.l; Douglas, D.C., The Norman achievement (London 1969) n. 57 on pp. 233–4 Google Scholar (with reservations); Lilie, , KreuTfahrerstaaten 8. France (Anna Comnena 25, n. 46 on pp. 35–6)Google Scholar regards Krey’s thesis as ‘possible’ but also thinks that the negotiations mentioned by Anna may have formed the basis of the Gesta’s story. The Hills (Tudebode 9) claim to have ‘found further evidence to bolster Krey’s argument’, but that which they cite is far from conclusive. Krey’s thesis is also accepted by Pryor, J.H., ‘The oaths of the leaders of the First Crusade to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus: fealty, homage —pistis, douleia ’, Parergon 2 (1984) n. 19 on p. 135 Google Scholar.

116 Gesta, Vili, 20, p. 45; X, 30, p.72; Hagenmeyer no. 16, p. 165. See above 188; Krey, , Neglected passage 59, 61–2 Google Scholar & n. 10.

117 Krey, , Neglected passage 63–5 Google Scholar.

118 The passage runs from ‘fortissimo autem viro Boamundo’ to ‘iste suum nunquam preterirei’: Gesta, II, 6, p.12; Krey, Neglected passage 58.

119 Krey, Neglected passage 71.

120 Krey, Neglected passage 74; Hill & Hill Tudebode 10-12; see also Riley-Smith 60-1.

121 Krey, Neglected passage 59-60, 75; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronica, ed. Schmale, F.-J. & Schmale-Ott, I., Ausgewàhlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, XV (Darmstadt 1972) 148–9 Google Scholar. Objections to the identification of the libellus with the Gesta were raised by Schmale-Ott, I., ‘Untersuchungen zu Ekkehard von Aura und zur Kaiserchronik’, Zeitschrift fur Bayerische Landesgeschichte 34 (1971) Heft 2, 421 & n. 39; Hill & Hill Tudebode 11 Google Scholar.

122 Krey, Neglected passage 59. Lilie dismisses the alternative interpretation — of lands but not the city. He argues that Antioch is mentioned as the starting-point from which the distances could be measured out, and that a division between the city and the hinterland would have been ‘an artificial construction without future prospects’ as well as being a departure from Byzantium’s previous organization of the area: Kreuzfahrerstaaten, n. 45 on pp. 336-7. Such an arrangement would not, however, have been absurd from Alexius’ point of view in 1097: Bohemond’s lands would have stretched towards the Euphrates and his task of defending them from Turkish counterattacks might well have obliged him to look to Antioch as a secure rear-base in friendly hands rather than as a target for attack. Antioch was, after all, virtually impregnable. See the remarks of Jamison, E., ‘Some notes on the Anonymì Gesta Francorum, with special reference to the Norman contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade’, Studies in French language and medieval literature presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope … (Manchester 1939) 193–5 Google Scholar. In any case, the ambivalence of the phrasing ill becomes a forgery intended to establish Bohemond’s right to the city and, as will be seen below, Antioch is not named in all versions of the alleged offer by Alexius.

123 A point adumbrated by Hill, R. in her edition of the Gesta, p. 12 Google Scholar, n. 2.

124 Tudebode, II, 2, 8, pp. 18, 22; Hill & Hill 30. The mention of the first grant is omitted by the Hills in their translation, which follows one of the three 12th-century manuscripts of Tudebode, Codex Paris Bibl. Nationale no. 5135A. See ibid. 5-6; 30, n.55.

125 Tudebode, II, 2, 6, pp. 18, 20; Hill & Hill 29.

126 The terms of Bohemond’s oath of fiducia in Tudebode are strikingly similar to those credited to Count Raymond by Raymond of Aguilers, ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24. The obvious conclusion is that this incongruous detail was borrowed from Raymond by Tudebode to amplify his account of Bohemond’s first oath-taking, and that Tudebode’s general depiction of Count Raymond’s dealings with Alexius at Constantinople is likewise indebted to Raymond of Aguilers. See, however, Hill & Hill, Tudebode 30, n. 55; below, n.132.

127 Tudebode is thought to have completed his work before 1111: Hill & Hill, Raymond D ‘Aguilers 4; Riley-Smith 61.

128 Ralph, ch. 10, p. 612. See nn. 75, 151-2. Bohemond was one of Ralph’s informants. But had he been Ralph’s source for the grant, he would surely have emphasized that Antioch had been granted, and not an unspecified portion of ‘Romania’. Ralph, writing in the Levant, would not have regarded Antioch and ‘Romania’ as interchangeable terms.

129 See above, 204, 209-10. Ralph’s miscellany of explanations for Bohemond’s behaviour could reflect the fact that he was fed on material from Bohemond as well as from Tancred. The latter may have regaled him with, among other things, rumours originating in 1097, while the former may have wilfully distorted the situation. See below, n. 151; p.240.

130 See above 222.

131 Tudebode, II, 8, p.22; Hill & Hill 30.

132 This remains a prepossessing explanation of their interrelationship. For given that Tudebode summarized portions of Raymond of Aguilers (as the Hills themselves acknowledge: Tudebode 27, n.40), there is no reason why he should not also have drawn on the Gesta, which predates the work of Raymond. The Gesta ‘s structure is the same as Tudebode’s and substantial passages are almost word for word identical with Tudebode. The divergences between them on which the Hills lay such stress (Tudebode 7-9) can be explained by Tudebode’s use of minor sources supplementing his main source, the Gesta. These sources could have ranged from written via oral ones to his own observations as a participant on the Crusade: hence, for example, his information about the offer to Bohemond of ‘lands of Romania’ and the minute details about the deaths of members of the Tudebode family, clearly his kinsmen. See above 22; Tudebode, X, 8, p.67;. XII, 3, p.85; Hill & Hill 72-3, 93. The occasions where Tudebode’s text is fuller and more coherent than the Gesta’s could be explained by Tudebode’s access to a more complete text of the Gesta than that now extant, e.g. for the account of Peter Bartholomew’s visions of St Andrew: Gesta, IX, 25, p. 59; Tudebode, X, 10, p. 70; Hill & Hill 76, 77, n. 36.

133 Gesta, II, 6, pp. 11-13.

134 Gesta, II, 6, p. 13. Above 206.

135 See above, n. 82. The Gesta earlier mentions laconically a pactum between Godfrey and Alexius, and also the plan to exact fidelitas from Hugh of Vermandois: I, 3. pp. 6-7.

136 Gesta, IV, 11, p. 26; VIII, 20, p. 45; X, 30, p. 72.

137 And this even though the true nature of Bohemond’s (liege-) homage was very probably unknown to him: below, 240-1.

138 See above, n. 47.

139 ‘Omnibus nostris fidem et securitatem dedit’, Gesta, II, 6, p. 12; ‘dedit nobis fiducias atque securitatem cum iuramento’, Hagenmeyer no. 12, p. 154. See, on Alexius’ pledges, Hagenmeyer 296; Bohemond’s postscript: Hagenmeyer no. 16, p. 165.

140 Al. X, 11, pp. 231, 232; Sew., 327, 328. Anna’s vague term, ‘customary oath’, is inaccurate in that, on her own evidence, Godfrey of Bouillon (and, clearly, the other leaders) swore specific terms which did not feature in ‘customary oaths’ of Latins in the West or in Byzantine service.

141 Al. X, 7, p. 215; Sew., 315; Ganshof, Recherches 58 & n. 8, 59. On anthropos, see n. 142.

142 Al. X, 10, p. 229; Sew., 325. Compare these words of Baldwin with those which Godfrey, his brother, addresses to Hugh of Vermandois: Godfrey upbraids Hugh for having brought himself ‘to the rank of slave (eis doulou taxin)’, Al. X, 9, p. 225;

Sew., 322. Anna here intends ‘slave’ to heighten the contrast with Hugh’s alleged former status of basileus, and her usage should not be regarded as technical or as a literal translation of Western terms. But clearly in this imagined conversation, as in the words attributed to Baldwin, Anna supposes the Crusaders to have by their oaths placed themselves on the footing of agents of the emperor, to whom they owe positive, active, service and not just general loyalty and deference. It is therefore probable that by ‘man’ (anthropos) Anna had in mind either the condition of servitor/retainer or a translation (or caique) of the Latin homo in its technical sense of ‘one who has done homage to a lord’. Anna’s usage in this context is too opaque and capricious for a choice between the two interpretations to be made. But that she was at least acquainted with anthropos = homo/homme emerges from the text of Bohe-mond’s sworn terms of 1108, which she cites: Al. XIII, 12, pp. 126, 127, 129, 137; Sew., 424, 426, 427, 432.

143 As Pryor rightly stresses: Oaths 111, 131-2; see also France, , Anna Comnena 29-30 and the valuable remarks of Waha, M. de, reviewing Lilie’s, R.-J. Kreuz-fahrerstaaten in B 54 (1984) 408 Google Scholar.

144 Al. X, 9, p. 226; Sew., 323. Subsequently other leaders were required to take ‘the same oath as Godfrey’: Al. X, 10, pp. 228, 229; Sew., 325; cf. France, Anna Comnena 1A. Clearly Anna regards the terms of Godfrey’s oath to be standard. Her specification of Godfrey’s oath seems reliable. For the Crusaders’ pledge to restore whatever cities they captured is recounted in compatible terms by Ekkehard of Aura, Chronica 148-9; cf. Raym. ch. 14, p. 267; Hill & Hill 74-5. The Gesta, which claims that Alexius swore personally to accompany the Crusaders, makes no mention of the Crusaders’ oaths to return cities to him or his representative. Nonetheless, it states that Comana was handed over to Peter of Alifa to be held ‘in fealty to God and the Holy Sepulchre and to our leaders and the emperor’: Gesta, IV, 11, pp. 25-6; cf. Tudebode, IV, 4, p. 32; Hill & Hill 40-1. This is surely a biased and somewhat distorted allusion to the Crusaders’ enactment of their pledge: see above, n. 31. Tudebode does, in fact, mention Taticius’ role as being to receive land liberated by the Crusaders ‘in fidelitate imperatoris’: VI, 5, p. 41; Hill & Hill 49.

145 The oath of fealty would previously have been known to Alexius exclusively in his capacity of employer of Latins as mercenaries; then, their relationship with him would, in effect, have been that of obedient servants to a master. When Anna claims that a ‘customary oath’ was taken by Count Robert I of Flanders while merely passing through the empire (several years before the Crusade), she betrays the looseness of her usage: Al. VII, 6, p. 105; Sew., 229; above, n. 140; Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 20-1 & n. 96 on p. 347.

146 Lemarignier, J.-F., Recherches sur l’hommage en marche et les frontières féodales (Lille 1945) 1, 95–6 Google Scholar; Hollister, C. Warren, ‘Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum ’, Speculum 51 (1976) 203 Google Scholar. For the latter reference I am grateful to George Garnett, See also below 235.

147 Ganshof, Recherches 59-60.

148 Ganshof, Recherches 59, 62-3. On the ritual enacting, and concepts embedded in, homage and fealty, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 145-7, 160–2 Google Scholar; Goff, J. Le, ‘The symbolic ritual of vassalage’, repr, in Le GoTf’s Time, work and culture in the Middle Ages, trs. A. Goldhammer (Chicago 1980) 240–8 Google Scholar.

149 This, together with the limited terms of service mentioned in Anna’s description of Godfrey’s oath, comprised the Crusaders’ sworn obligations to Alexius, in the view of Pryor, Oaths 122, 124.

150 Ralph, ch. 10, p. 612; ch. 11, p. 613.

151 Ralph, ch. 12, p.614; ch. 17-18, pp.618-19. See above 210; Ganshof, Recherches 56, 60. The work of Ralph is, with that of Baldric of Dol and Ekkehard of Aura relegated to the level of ‘second- and third-generation chronicles’ by Pryor (Oaths n. 74 on p. 139). Ralph was writing after the death of Tancred (December 12 1112) but during the second patriarchate of Arnulf I of Jerusalem, who was re-elected in 1112 and died in 1118: preface, 604. Ralph states that ‘the daily conversation’ of Bohemond and Tancred used to recall the Crusaders’ victories and ‘the captured cities, Antioch by guile by night, Jerusalem by arms by day’; and each, but especially Tancred, had reminisced as if in the hope that Ralph would record these events: preface, 603. We have no good reason to doubt Ralph’s claim. See n. 75.

152 Ralph, preface, 603-04. Ralph acknowledges a debt only to Patriarch Arnulf, who has corrected his style. His claim that Bohemond, too, had hinted at the need for a written record of the First Crusade suggests that, at the time of their conversation, Bohemond was not making use of the Gesta as an instrument of propaganda. See above 219.

153 See above 226.

154 Gesta, II, 6, p. 13.

155 Raym. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 2Ï4\ above 205. Tudebode’s account of the earlier part of Raymond’s stay at Constantinople is close to, and quite possibly derivative from, Raym.’s: II, 6-8, pp. 20-2; Hill & Hill 29; above, n. 126.

156 Raym. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 24; Gesta, II, 6, p. 13; Tudebode, II, 8, pp. 21-2; Hill & Hill 30.

157 Hill & Hill, Convention of Alexius Comnenus p. 323, nn. 9 & 10, p. 324 & n. 11, p. 326; Ganshof, Recherches 55, 62; above, n. 68. Pryor (Oaths 126-7) claims that the Gesta and the almost identically worded Tudebode are ‘badly confused’, seemingly on the grounds that while they represent Alexius as demanding ‘homage and fealty’ they make Bohemond threaten Raymond only in the event of his refusal of ‘fealty’, without mention of ‘homage’. But this amounts to compression, not confusion. The two texts do not recite the declaration of Bohemond in full, because their immediately subsequent sentence suffices to show that homage as well as fealty was still at issue. There is no real contradiction between their version and Raymond of Aguilers’ more circumstantial account, wherein Bohemond demands both homage and the oath (of fealty) of the count. The Gesta and Tudebode clearly regard ‘homage and fealty’ as Alexius’ standard demand, but do not always spell out the cognate terms: above, n. 147.

158 As Pryor emphasizes: Oaths 115, 127; cf. de Waha in B 54 (1984) 408; Holt, J.C., ‘1086’, Domesday Studies, ed. Holt, J.C. (Woodbridge, Suffolk 1987) 58–9 Google Scholar & n. 78 (in relation to England after the Norman Conquest).

159 Riley-Smith 16, 99, 111 & nn. 102, 104 on p. 195. On the various forms a fief could take, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 173–4 Google Scholar.

160 Ralph of Caen indicates that the Crusade leaders were given to expect ‘renewal’ of the money which they had already been paid by the emperor : ch. 11, p. 613. Albert claims that Godfrey of Bouillon’s host received weekly payments (in the form of 10 modioi of gold tetartera) for a protracted period: II, 16, p. 311; Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, 56. Cf. Ganshof Recherches 62; Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 23.

161 Gesta, II, 6, p. 12 (above, 226); Fulcher, I, 9, p. 332; trs. Ryan & Fink 80.

162 Raym. ch. 14, p. 267; Hill & Hill, 74-5; Hill & Hill, Convention of Alexius Comnenus 325, n. 13. Judging by the words which Raym. puts in Count Raymond’s mouth, he swore his limited oath over these relics while the other leaders swore their (different) oaths over them, too. It is possible that this was the occasion upon which Adhemar of Le Puy acquired his relic of the True Cross: Riley-Smith 93. Adhemar joined Raymond at Constantinople: Hagenmeyer, Chronologie 69.

163 Gesta, II, 6, p. 12; I, 3, p. 6, where pactum presumably designates Godfrey’s oath and homage rather than merely a ceasefire: see above 218 & n. 135; Fulcher, I, 9, p. 332; trs. Ryan & Fink 79; Hagenmeyer no. 12, p. 154; Ralph, ch. 17, p. 618 [pacta foedera of Bohemond); Albert, II, 19, p. 313 (foedus of Robert of Flanders). The close resemblance between the descriptions of Alexius’ sworn undertakings in the Gesta and in the letter of, probably, April 1098 indicates that from a very early date (probably April 1097) the Crusaders at least believed in the existence of such an undertaking: above 228 & n. 139. The passage of the Gesta outlining what Alexius swore is not regarded as an interpolation by Krey.

164 It is not clear whether Alexius’ sworn terms were written down or whether they were in that case bestowed on the Crusaders in the form of a privilege — a chrysobull. No Latin source expressly mentions such a document. But a chrysobull containing, inter alia the emperor’s ‘promises’ (hypeschemena) was issued by Alexius for Bohemond in 1108; Al. XIII, 12, pp. 126, 137; Sew. 425, 433, See above 218 and n.171

165 Pryor, Oaths 128; cf. Bloch, Feudal Society 224; Ganshof, Recherches 61 & n. 9.

166 Powicke, M., The loss of Normandy (Manchester 1961 ²) 80 Google Scholar; cf. Hollister, Warren, Anglo-Norman regnum 203 Google Scholar.

167 Hollister, Warren, Anglo-Norman regnum 203 Google Scholar. See, on the gradual emergence of a distinction between homage de paix and homage vassalique in the twelfth century, rendered on the border between Normandy and the French kingdom, Lemarignier, Recherches sur l’hommage en marche 90-112, 123-5.

168 Bloch, , Feudal Society 228 Google Scholar; Goff, Le, Symbolic ritual of vassalage 252–4 Google Scholar; France, , Anna Comnena 30 Google Scholar.

169 Cf.Waha, de in B 54 (1984) 407 Google Scholar.

170 Above 205.

171 Al. XIII, 12, p. 125; Sew., 424. See Dölger no. 1243, pp. 51-2. Strictly speaking, the ‘treaty’ of 1108 was constituted by the chrysobull containing Bohemond’s sworn terms, which Anna mentions but does not cite: Rösch, , ‘Kreuzzug’ Bohemunds 189–90 Google Scholar.

172 Al. XIII, 12, p. 137; Sew., 433. See above, n. 162. Bohemond in 1108 swore holding the Gospels, the instruments of Christ’s Passion presumably being far away in Constantinople: Buckler, , Anna Comnena 468 Google Scholar, n. 3.

173 Al XIII, 12, p. 125; Sew., 424.

174 Al. XIII, 12, p. 126; Sew., 425; Ferluga, J., ‘La ligesse dans l’empire byzantin’, ZRVIl (1961)Google Scholar, repr. in Ferluga’s, Byzantium on the Balkans (Amsterdam 1976)401, 405–06 Google Scholar. Pryor’s, attempt (Oaths 131 & n. 108 on p. 141)Google Scholar to place more weight on the lack of mention of lizios in Book X of the Alexiad than on the very specific statement in the 1108 text fails to reckon with the opaqueness and compression of Anna’s narrative of the Crusaders’ oath-taking in 1097. See above 228, Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 22-3. The original clause of the 1097 ‘treaty’ is represented as declaring Bohemond to be liege man to both Alexius and John Porphyrogenitus (his son and designated heir). The interests of Alexius and John were presumably deemed identical, however anomalous liege homage to two lords may have seemed to Westerners.

175 Al. XIII, 12, pp. 125-6; Sew., 424. On the significance of liege homage, which is only widely attested in the West from the second half of the eleventh century onwards, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 214–16 Google Scholar.

176 Al. X, 9, 10, pp. 221, 228-9; Sew., 319, 325; Gesta, li, 6, p. 13; Rayra. ch. 2, p. 238; Hill & Hill 23-4. See above 232.

177 See n. 144.

178 Gesta, II, 6, p. 12; cf.Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten 23 Google Scholar.

179 Above 226-7.

180 This fact is stressed by Ferluga, (Ligesse 410–11)Google Scholar in his bid to show that all the Crusading leaders performed liege homage in 1097. See Fulcher, II, 39, p. 418; trs. Ryan & Fink 193; Albert, X, 45, p. 652; HBS, ch. 142, p. 229; Will. Tyre XI, 6, col. 491; Narratio Floriacensis de captis Antiochia et Hierosolyma et obsesso Dyrrachio, ch. 14, RHO, V, p. 362; Yewdale 129-30.

181 HBS, ch. 142, p. 229. The Narratio Floriacensis (ch. 14, p. 362) describes Bohemond as ‘submitting himself to him (Alexius) and promising fealty so long as he (Alexius) observed the terms which he had sworn’. On the date and provenance of these two works, see Rösch, , “Kreuzzug” Bohemunds 182–4, 186 Google Scholar.

182 In fact he succeeded in giving Western writers the impression that his Dyrrachium campaign had been successful for at least a generation after the event: Rösch, , “Kreuzzug” Bohemunds 187-8, 190 Google Scholar.

183 See above 215, 224-5, 227.

184 Ralph ch. 12, p. 614. See above 209-10 & n. 129.

185 Al. X, 11, pp. 230, 232, 233-4; Sew., 326, 328-9. See above 190.

186 Above 210-11 & n. 68. On the financial burdens of preparing for the expedition, see Riley-Smith 44-7.

187 Protospatharius, Lupus, Chronicon s.a. 1096 Google Scholar, Monumenta GermaniaeHistorica, Scriptores, V (Hanover 1844) 62; Gesta, I, 4, p.7.

188 Lupus Protospatharius s.a. 1096, 62.

189 Malaterra, IV, 24, p. 102. Numerous Saracens — to the tune of 20, 000 — were there under the command of Count Roger, according to Lupus Protospatharius s.a. 1096, 62.

190 Malaterra, IV, 24, p. 102. Malaterra echoes the annoyance of his patron, Count Roger, at the collapse of the siege. But his scepticism about Bohemond’s motives may have been committed to paper before he had heard of his appropriation of Antioch: news of this would not have reached the West before the late summer of 1098. Malaterra links an abiding ambition of Bohemond to conquer ‘Romania’ with his observation of a huge host that was passing, without a leader, through Apulia en route for ‘Romania’. An idealistic gloss upon Bohemond’s motives is offered by Robert of Rheims, Historia Hierosolimitana, II, 3-4, pp. 740–1 Google Scholar; cf.Jamison, , Some notes 191–2 Google ScholarPubMed; above, n. 42.

191 Al. X, 11, pp. 233-4; Sew., 329.

192 Malaterra, IV, 10, p. 91; Ralph ch. 2, p. 606; Yewdale 27-8. Apparently, Bohemond and Roger Borsa had formally been reconciled by August 1088: Ménager, L.-R., Recueil des Actes des Ducs Normands d’Italie, I (Bari 1980) 168 Google Scholar.

193 Malaterra, IV, 20, p. 99; Yewdale 33.

194 Malaterra, IV, 10, 20-1, pp. 91, 99.

195 Lupus Protospatharius s.a. 1092 (sic) 62.

196 The mounting dislocation in Calabria, Apulia and other lands under Norman rule is emphasized by Tramontana, S., ‘La monarchia normanna e sueva’, Storia d’Italia, III, II mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Federico II (Turin 1983) 546 Google Scholar. On the proliferation of private castles to the detriment of ducal authority in Calabria from 1085 onwards, see Noyé, G., ‘Féodalité et habitat fortifié en Calabre …’, in Structures féodales et féodalisme dans l’Occident Méditerranéen (X-XIII siècles), Collection de l ’École Française de Rome 44 (1980) 625.8 Google Scholar.

197 2,000 men are said to have followed Tancred back across the Vardar in order to aid those on the far side against the emperor’s Turks and Pechenegs: Gesta, I, 4, p. 9. The rear-guard consisted of the unarmed and of sick or superannuated warriors, according to Ralph, who reckons their number as ‘six hundred’: ch. 5, p. 608. Not all Bohemond’s men followed Tancred back across the river, so a total of between 3,500 and 4,000 combatants for Bohemond’s force is plausible. Manselli (Normanni d’Italia 62) puts at between 3,000 and 4,000 Bohemond’s ‘army’, counting therein women and servants but not the Norman counts and their retainers. Such a figure seems to me excessive.

198 Gesta, II, 5, p. 10.

199 Albert, II, 18, p. 312; Manselli, , Normanni d’Italia 62 Google Scholar.

200 Guibert, III, 1, p. 151; Robert of Rheims, Historia Hierosolimitana, II, 4-5, p. 742 Google Scholar. The ‘many others’ of Tudebode (I, 7, p. 16; Hill & Hill 24) represents, in my view, an abbreviation of the same list of companions of Bohemond as is to be found in the Gesta, and does not represent the words of a hypothetical lost source. Some additional names were, however, available to the author of HBS, ch. 7, pp. 176-7. The speech about Bohemond’s army attributed to a messenger of Alexius by Ralph of Caen is, on Ralph’s own avowal, not authentic: ch. 8, pp. 610-11.

201 On the Crusaders’ numbers, see Runciman 337-9; Riley-Smith 63.

202 Jamison, , Some notes 203 Google ScholarPubMed; above 243.

203 Jamison, , Some notes 195 Google ScholarPubMed. The six relatives whose names are known to us are :— Tancred; Richard and Rainulf, sons of the count of the Principality of Salerno; Herman of Canne; Geoffrey of Montecaglioso; Robert, son of Gerard: Jamison, , Some notes 195-8, 200–201 Google ScholarPubMed.

204 Ralph chs. 2-3, pp. 606-07.

205 Ralph ch. 6, p. 609; Gesta, I, 4, p. 9; Tudebode, I, 10, p. 17; Hill & Hill 25-6; HBS ch. 10, p. 177. Here, Tudebode does add a significant detail, the name of one of the brothers of Count Geoffrey of Rossignolo: Jamison, , Some notes 205–06 Google ScholarPubMed. See also above n. 197.

206 Gesta, II, 5, p. 10; HBS ch. 11, p. 178; Ralph ch. 7, p. 610. See above 203.

207 Gesta, II, 5, p. 11; HBS ch. 12, p. 178. Above 207-08.

208 Gesta, II, 7, p. 13; HBS oh. 19, p. 180. See above 208.

209 See above 209-12.

210 Ralph ch. 7, p. 610.

211 Al. X, 11, pp. 233-4, Sew., 328-9. We have no evidence that Bohemond appointed a regent for his Southern Italian holdings, neither do we know whether many of these had been sold to finance his expedition: Yewdale 36. More suggestive is the circumstantial evidence of the disparity between Bohemond’s residual aspirations and his position in Southern Italy in the years immediately preceding 1096: above 242-3. See also France, , Anna Comnena 22 Google Scholar.

212 William de Grandmesnil had, like Bohemond, exploited the rumours of Roger Borsa’s death in 1093 and had seized Rossano. He refused to relinquish it even after Count Roger intervened with ‘many thousands of Saracens from Sicily and Calabria (sic)’. Eventually he had to submit to judgement and lost not only Rossano but also the fiefs he held of Roger Borsa. Thereupon he went with his wife Mabel, a daughter of Guiseard, to Constantinople. He made this journey in, probably, the summer or autumn of 1094: Malaterra, IV, 21-2, pp. 99-101; Yewdale 33; Jamison, , Some notes 199 Google ScholarPubMed; Ménager, L.-R., ‘Inventaire des familles normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicile (XI-XII siècles)’, in Roberto il Guiscardo e ifsuo tempo (Rome 1975) 316–17 Google Scholar; see also below 250.

213 Al. X, 5, 6, 9, 10, pp. 209, 212, 220, 228-9; Sew., 311, 313, 319, 325; Cf.France, , Anna Comnena 21–2 Google Scholar.

214 See above 191.

215 Al. X, 11, p. 234; Sew., 329.

216 Al. X, 11, p. 233; Sew., 328.

217 See above 212-13.

218 See above 209 & n. 101; Runciman 152, n. 1.

219 It may not be wholly fortuitous that Anna mentions his request for ‘the Domesticate of the East’ at the conclusion of his encounters with Alexius.

220 Al. X, 11, p. 234; Sew., 329. Even seen against a background in which Bohemond was satisfactorily discharging major responsibilities, such a calculation on Alexius’ part would not have been unreasonable. It may, unlike the other premonitions and insights about Bohemond with which Anna credits him, be authentic. See above 247.

221 Gesta, II, 6, p. 13; Tudebode, II, 6, p. 20; Hill & Hill, 28-9; Raym. ch. 2, p. 237; Hill & Hill 22; Al. X, 9, p. 221; Sew. 319. See above 214. On Stephen’s election: Hagenmeyer no. 10, p. 149, 276-7; Riley-Smith 74 & n. 94 on p. 183.

222 Al. X, 11, p. 230; Sew. 326.

223 Al. V, 4, pp. 18-21; Sew, 163-5; Malaterra, III, 39, p. 81; William of Apulia, La geste de Robert Guiscard, V, 5–23 Google Scholar, ed. & trs. M. Mathieu (Palermo 1961) 236-7; Yewdale 18; Angold, M., The Byzantine-empire 1025-1204: apolitical history (London 1984) 108 Google Scholar.

224 Al. V, 6-7, pp. 27-32; Sew. 170-3; William of Apulia, Gesta, V, 30-76, pp. 236–41 Google ScholarPubMed; Yewdale 20-2; Angold, Byzantine empire 108; A.A. Glabinas, 4 (1984) 39-43; idem, 13 pt. 2 (1985) 1259-1260.

225 For the ‘counts’: Al. V, 7, p. 32; VI, 1, 5, pp. 43, 50; Sew., 173, 182, 188. On Peter of Alifa, see Nicol, Some Greco-Latin families 131. See n. 31 and, on William de Grandmesnil, n. 212. Bohemond’s own half-brother, Guy, who migrated to Byzantium in or after 1085, is credited with great distress upon hearing a (false) report that Bohemond, ‘honour and glory of the whole world, whom all the world feared and loved’, was dead (Gesta, IX, 27, p. 64). These words, though concocted by the Gesta’s author, may suggest that Bohemond’s reputation among his fellow Normans in 1097-8 was that of a gallant warrior, not a political operator. The doubts which have been raised as to whether Alexius’ consultation of Guy and Guy’s lamentation originally formed part of the Gesta’s text have yet to be substantiated. On Guy, see William of Apulia, Gesta 359 (Mathieu’s commentary); Al. VI, 5, p. 51 Google Scholar; Sew. 188-9; France, , Tatikios 141 Google Scholar.

226 On Roussel, see Schlumberger, G., ‘Deux chefs normands des armées byzantines au XI siècle’, Revue Historique 16 (1881) 296–301 Google Scholar; Bréhier, L., ‘Les aventures d’un chef normand en Orient au XI siècle’, Revue des Cours et Conférences 20 (1911-12) 176–86 Google Scholar; Janin, R., ‘Les “Francs” au service des byzantins’, EO 29 (1930) 66–7 Google Scholar; Ciggaar, K., ‘Byzantine marginalia to the Norman Conquest’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 9 (1987) 45–6 Google Scholar.

227 That Alexius could not understand the language (or languages) of the Westerners is indicated by the fact that, upon observing the movement of a Crusader’s lips, he had to ask an interpreter what he had said: Al. X, 10, p. 229; Sew., 324.

228 Malaterra, I, 3, 19, pp. 8, 19; Boehm, , Nomen gentis Normannorum 687–8 Google Scholar.

229 Malaterra, I, 36, p. 24; II, 26, p. 38; A. Nitschke, ‘Beobachtungen zur norman-nischen Erziehung im 11. Jahrhundert’, , Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 43 (1961) 269–70 Google Scholar.

230 On the Normans’ self-image of valour and strenuitas, see Capitani, , Specific motivations 7-8, 10, 21 Google Scholar; Loud, G.A., ‘The “Gens Normannorum” — myth or reality?’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference on A nglo-Norman Studies 4(1981) 111–12 Google Scholar. For mention of the Saracens in Count Roger’s employ, see above nn. 189, 212; Malaterra, IV, 17, p. 96. The recourse to diplomacy is exemplified by Roger Bursa’s restoration to the citizens of Rossano of their right to a ‘Greek’ metropolitan in a (successful) bid for their surrender: Malaterra, IV, 22, p. 100; Ménager, L.-R., ‘La “byzantinisation” religieuse de l’Italie méridionale (IX-XII siècles) et la politique monastique des normands d’Italie’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 54 (1959) 28 Google Scholar, repr. in Ménager’s, Hommes et Institutions de l’Italie normande (London 1981) no. 1 Google Scholar.

231 HBS ch. 67, p. 198. Count Roger’s son, Roger II, was, of course, familiar with both Greek and Arabic.

232 See, e.g. charters of Count Roger in I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia, ed. S. Cusa, I (Palermo 1868) 4-6, 385-90; ibid., Il (Palermo 1882) sommario 695ff. The Byzantine imperial ideological topos of the ruler dispensing benefits on his subjects as the sun radiates light occurs in, for example, a charter issued at Palermo in 1097: ibid., II, 509; cf.Hunger, H., Proimion. Elemente der byzantinischen Kaiseridee in den Arengen der Urkunden (Vienna 1964) 78 Google Scholar & n. 109. The dossier of acts of a Messina monastery points to the persistence of spoken Greek of a distinctive form in parts of Sicily and Calabria even in the thirteenth century: Guillou, A., Les actes grecs de S. Maria di Messina (Palermo 1963) 24, 32–3 Google Scholar. See also Guillou, A., ‘Les archives grecques de S. Maria della Matina’, B 36 (1966) 306–07 Google Scholar repr. in Guillou’s, Studies on Byzantine Italy (London 1970) no. 5 Google Scholar; Guillou, A. et al., Saint-Jean-Théristès. 1054-1264 (Vatican 1980> 47-58, 59-61, 69–73 +47-58,+59-61,+69–73>Google Scholar. While the Latin élite in Apulia and Calabria frequently imposed restrictions on Greek monasteries, even they had to come to terms with the persistent strength of Basilian monasticism in certain areas: Ménager, “Byzantinisation” religieuse, 21-32.

233 The seal authenticates a Latin diploma of 1090. Its reverse bears the conventional invocation in Greek: ‘Lord, help thy servant Bohemond’: Engel, A., Recherches sur la numismatique et sigillographie des Normands de Sicile et d’Italie (Paris 1882) 92 & pi. II: 1 Google Scholar; Yewdale 30; Epstein, Cathedral of Canosa 87. For the repercussions of the Greek element’s importance on Norman ecclesiastical policy in the area of Taranto, see Fonseca, CD., ‘La prima generazione normanna e le istituzioni monastiche dell’ Italia meridionale’, Roberto il Guiscardo e il suo tempo (Rome 1975) 138–40 Google Scholar.

234 Trincherà, F., Syllabus Graecarum Membranarum (Naples 1865) 65–6 Google Scholar; Morris, R., ‘The Byzantine aristocracy and the monasteries’, The Byzantine aristocracy, ed. Angold, M. (Oxford 1984) 123–4 Google Scholar.

235 ‘… touto epi to eggraphon hypedeixas moi, deloun tauta einai eis aphierosin tes mones’: Trinchera, , Syllabus 66 Google Scholar. Manselli concluded from this document that Bohemond knew Greek, but did not detail his reasons or elaborate upon this topic: Normanni d’Italia 57, n. 2.

236 ‘ton Alexion eis lykou stoma enebalon’: Al. V, 6, p. 29; Sew., 171. See above 250. Anna’s detail of the grapes would point to a date in July, at the earliest, for the battle, whereas an earlier dating for the battle seems more probable: Glabinas, , Oi 41 Google Scholar.

237 See Koder, J. & Hild, F., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 1. Hellas und Thessalien (Vienna 1976) 205 Google Scholar & map facing 316.

238 Gesta, VIII, 20, p. 44. The Gesta represents Firuz as an ‘emir of the Turkish race’, echoing the allusion to him as ‘a certain Turk’ in the princes’ letter of September 11 1098: Hagenmeyer no. 16, p. 162. However, he was according to Raym. (ch. 8, p. 251; Hill & Hill 46) ‘one of those who had been Turkicized’ and Anna regards him as an Armenian (Al. XI, 4, p. 19; Sew., 342). So, too, does Ralph, who emphasizes that although he had apostatized to Islam, his former religion was not forgotten by his Turkish master, who put him in charge of a tower where he would be least likely to encounter the Crusaders: ch. 62-3, pp. 651-2. Ralph’s detailed, coherent account of the traitor’s origins and circumstances is compatible with Raym. and Anna, as well as with Matthew of Edessa and the Arabic sources: Runciman, 231, n. 3. It is therefore to be preferred even to the princes’ letter of September 11 1098 where Bohemond’s deal with ‘a certain Turk’ is recounted in the first person singular. This represents, in my view, deliberate simplification on Bohemond’s part for the sake of heightening the contrast between himself and the infidel foe: to have explained that the traitor was an Armenian apostate would have been to risk bathos. Bohemond could have been more discursive in recounting the affair to Ralph.

239 Gesta, VIII, 20, p. 44; Tudebode, IX, 3, p. 54; Hill & Hill 61; Ralph ch. 63, p. 652; Fulcher, I, 17, pp. 342-3; trs. Ryan & Fink 98-9. The accounts of Ralph and Fulcher seem to be independent of one another, even though they are similar. For Fulcher takes Firuz to be a Turk.

240 Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum expugnantium Hierusalem ch. 13, RHO, III, p. 499 Google Scholar.

241 Raym. implies that he was one of the Armenians who had been ‘Turkicized … fourteen years previously’, when Antioch had fallen to the Turks: ch. 8, p. 251; Hill & Hill 46. See also Ralph ch. 62, pp. 651-2; Runciman 231, n. 3.

242 This can be inferred from the fact that he communicated with the ‘Saracen’ leaders of Marra through an interpreter: Gesta, X, 33, p. 77; Yewdale 7, n. 28. Armenian would also surely have been beyond Bohemond’s ken.

243 Gesta, VIII, 20, p. 46; Tudebode, IX, 6, pp. 57-8; Hill & Hill, 63.

244 The vivid, detailed, description of the scaling of the battlements, together with the use of the first person plural, indicate that it was written by an eye-witness: Gesta, VIII, 20, p. 47 & n.l; Tudebode, IX, 6, pp. 57-8; Hill & Hill 64. Firuz’s laudatory reference to Bohemond is not implausible: according to Ralph, Bohemond’s earlier campaigns against Byzantium had made him famous in Asia and Orientals now supposed him to be the ‘prince of princes’ among the Crusaders: ch. 63, p. 652. Ibn al-Atir (or rather, his source) was numbered among them: Yewdale 65, n. 65.

245 nn. 31, 212.

246 Gesta, IX, 27, p. 63.

247 See above 216-17, Guy, who was already at Constantinople in 1096, cannot be regarded as a Crusading leader.

248 Above 208. Fluency in spoken Greek was highly exceptional, though not wholly unknown, in Normandy: Ciggaar, , Byzantine marginalia 49, 51 Google Scholar.

249 Al. X, 11, pp. 231, 233; Sew., 327, 328. Anna’s account of the conversations between Alexius and Bohemond in 1097 is inconclusive as evidence, for she also depicts Alexius as addressing a Frank directly in a situation where an interpreter must have been employed: Al. X, 10, pp. 229-30; Sew., 326; above, n. 227.

250 Al. XIII, 10, p. 123; Sew., 423. Yewdale (7 & n. 28) considers and casts grave doubt upon the possibility that Bohemond knew Greek, on the grounds that one member of the delegation sent to initiate negotiations with him, and to act as hostages, is said to have ‘known the Celtic language’ (Al- XIII, 9, p. 117; Sew., 418). But his role cannot have been that of an ‘interpreter’, as Yewdale supposes. For two others of the four-man delegation could speak for themselves, being of Western origin, Marinos of Naples and ‘the Frank Roger, who was celebrated for his bravery’. Both are said to have been ‘intelligent and to have had great experience in Latin customs’ (ibid.). While their language skills qualified the three Latin-speakers to comb through the preconditions for negotiations with great care and to answer any awkward points that Bohemond might raise, they also enabled them to comprehend what others in Bohemond’s camp were saying, such as the ‘count called Hugh’ (Al. XIII, 9, p.120; Sew., 420), and generally to appraise the situation through conversing with persons other than Bohemond. These three Latin-sepakers remained as hostages with Bohemond’s half-brother, Guy, himself Grecophone, and now back in league with Bohemond. It was the fourth, and seemingly Latinless, emissary, Constantine Euphorbenos, who escorted Bohemond to the Byzantine camp (Al. XIII, 9, 10, pp. 120-1; Sew., 420-1). This last fact tends to confirm my contention that Bohemond could speak Greek. On ‘the frank Roger’, see Nicol, Some Greco-Latin families 123-4.

251 Al. XIII, 11, p. 125; Sew., 423-4.

252 Al. XIII, 11, p. 124; Sew., 423. Anna seems also to indicate that Bohemond corresponded with Alexius in Greek, reading ‘in private’ a letter from Alexius and then ‘writing’ a reply, which Anna cites: Al. XI, 9, p. 39; Sew., 358. Further, she appears to quote verbatim from a message which Bohemond dictated, ‘using an insolent and utterly barbaric utterance (phone)’, to be sent to Alexius: Al. XI, 12, p.51; Sew., 368. Perhaps it is significant that there is no mention of provision for translation in the text of Bohemond’s sworn terms of September 1108.

253 Al. X, 11, p. 233; Sew., 328.

254 Al. X, 11, p. 234; Sew., 329; above 249.

255 Having journeyed to Byzantium in 1076, Olympias-Helen stayed there ‘for about twenty years’: Vitalis, Orderic, Historia Aecclesiastica, VII, 5 Google Scholar, ed. & trs. Chib-nall, M., IV (Oxford 1973) 14–15 Google Scholar; Falkenhausen, von, Olympias 67–8 Google Scholar & n. 57.

256 Al. XI, 2, pp. 12-13; Sew., 337-8; above 249.

257 Riley-Smith 73-9.

258 Above 199-201.

259 Above 245.

260 Gesta, II, 8, p. 16; Tudebode, II, 9, p. 22; Hill & Hill 31. However, the Gesta’s statement that Tancred was ‘next to him’ may well indicate that Tancred now had gained sufficient followers (presumably at Bohemond’s expense) to command a separate station.

261 Only Anselm of Ribemont’s first letter (of November 1097) mentions Stephen and Robert of Flanders as in the ‘lesser army’ of the van, and in grouping Robert thus Anselm contradicts the Gesta (III, 9, p. 18) and other, later, chronicles (Hagenmeyer no. 8, p. 145). But preference must be given to Anselm’s version, as being almost contemporary, even though Anselm himself was absent — at Alexius’ camp — at the time of the battle of Dorylaeum. lhe Gesta’s author, although present, may have supposed that Robert of Flanders was in the second army from the fact that he fought beside Raymond of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon and Hugh of Vermandois, leaders of the second army, in the main battle. See also Yewdale 48; Runciman 184, 186. It is noteworthy that neither Robert of Flanders nor Robert of Normandy had shown any hostility to swearing an oath to Alexius, while Stephen’s delight with his reception is manifest: Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 9, 15; below 269. Tancred alone among the leaders would have been a less than congenial travelling companion for Taticius in the vanguard.

262 Al. XI, 3, XIV, 2, pp. 17, 146; Sew., 341, 439. Though the role of guidance is not specifically mentioned by Anna, it was the obvious way in which Taticius could have ‘by every means assisted [the Crusaders] and braved the first danger (prokindyneuonta)’. Moreover, Taticius’ commission to act as guide is expressly mentioned by Tudebode, VI, 5, p. 41; Hill & Hill 49. Taticius’ men, cognizant with Turkish military formations, would also have been useful as scouts. They appear to have been lightly-armed ‘peltasts’: above, n. 21.

263 Al. XI, 3, p. 18; Sew., 341-2. Above, n. 34.

264 Al. XI, 2, pp. 11-12; Sew., 336-7. Above 200-201, 208.

265 Hagenmeyer no. 8, p. 145. Hagenmeyer (p. 260) suggests ‘Normannorum’ as an emendation of ‘Romanorum’, and the phrase could then designate Robert of Normandy, as it does in Anselm’s second letter (ibid., no. 15, p. 160). However, the phrase could be interpreted (as it is by Hagenmeyer) as being in apposition to ‘Boemundus’ and, giving preference to the lectio difficilior, one could take it as an allusion to Bohemond’s close ties with the empire — though surely not as an official title that had been conferred on him.

266 ‘oxys pros ta sympiptonta’, Al. X, 11, p. 233; Sew., 328. The Byzantines’ final judgement on Bohemond concurs with that of his contemporary, Malaterra. See n. 190.

267 Raym. ch. 4, p. 241; Hill & Hill 30; France, , Tatikios 138, 144 Google Scholar.

268 Yewdale 56-7.

269 Raym. ch. 6, p. 245; Hill & Hill 35. The date can be deduced from the fact that while the earthquake which Raymond proceeds to recount is dateable to December 30 1097, Bohemond only returned from a fruitless five-day foraging expedition on January 1 : Hagenmeyer, , Chronologie 114–19 Google Scholar. He probably began to talk of withdrawal immediately after returning from the unsuccessful expedition.

270 Raym. ch.6, p. 245; Hill & Hill 36; France, , Tatikios 138, 144 Google Scholar.

271 Taticius is presumably identical with the ‘herald’ (praeco) of Alexius whom Ralph (ch. 54, p. 647) describes as responsible for the influx of supplies. In early February there was a ‘Roman fleet’ in the harbour at St Symeon, which Taticius was able to join and direct to Cyprus: Al. XI, 4, p. 20; Sew., 343. Since the ‘herald’ is said by Ralph to have been ‘present’ (aderat), this provisioning seems to have been organized while Taticius was stationed at Antioch, in the earlier stages of the siege. Ralph’s immediately subsequent statement that ‘the siege had begun with winter’ (ch. 54, p. 647) tends to support this inference. (See, however, Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten n. 134 on 352)Google Scholar. Raym. alludes to English ships which, he says, had reached Antioch and Laodicea ahead of the Crusader army (ch. 18, 290; Hill & Hill 113). Raym. claims that these ships and Genoese vessels ‘daily’ brought supplies from Cyprus ‘and the other islands’ and, by intimidating the Moslems, made the sea safe for Greek shipping (ibid.). Raym.’s account thus tallies with Ralph’s in suggesting that supplies of Byzantine provenance were arriving by sea in the early stages of the siege (cf. Ralph ch. 58, p. 649). See Hagenmeyer 264-5; Runciman 255 & n. 2 and, on the likely sequence of events at Laodicea in 1097-98, Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 268–9 Google Scholar. The English ships would seem to have been commissioned by the emperor. See also n. 298.

272 Hagenmeyer 287-8; Runciman 226-8 & map on 214; Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten 29 Google Scholar.

273 According to Raym., Taticius was spreading a rumour that a large Byzantine army was approaching; allegedly, he knew it to be false: Raym. ch. 7, p. 246; Hill & Hill 37; below, n. 293.

274 Raym. ch. 6, p. 245; Hill & Hill 36; France, , Tatikios 138, 145 Google Scholar; Riley-Smith 65.

275 Unfortunately, the ‘princes’ in Raymond’s council are not named: Raym. ch. 6, p. 245; Hill & Hill 36. On ‘brotherhoods’, see Riley-Smith 65.

276 Raym. ch. 6, p. 246; Hill & Hill 37.

277 See Hagenmeyer, , Chronologie 120, 122 Google Scholar.

278 Thus Raym.’s allegation (ch. 6, p. 246; Hill & Hill 37) that, at some time after the launch of Count Raymond’s compensation scheme, all the leaders except Count Raymond met and pledged the city to Bohemond is highly implausible. Most probably, Raym. has conflated the decisions of a meeting at which the leaders swore not to abandon the siege, even if it were to last seven years, with those of the meetings in May at which the leaders eventually agreed that the city should pass to whoever managed to acquire it: Gesta, VIH, 20, pp. 44-5; Tudebode, IX, 3, pp. 54-5; Hill & Hill 61-2. No separate mention of the May meetings occurs in Raym.. France, (Tatikios 143)Google Scholar argues for accepting Raym. ‘s account of the decisions of a single meeting. Raym. seems to represent that meeting as occurring before the departure of Taticius. It is, however, far more probable that the meeting in which the leaders swore not to abandon the siege was convened as a direct response to the departure of Taticius — or to his failure rapidly to return.

279 Riley-Smith 69, 74.

280 See above n. 269; Riley-Smith n. 72 on p. 182.

281 Raym. ch. 6, pp. 244, 245; Hill & Hill, 32, 34-5; cf. Gesta, V, 12, p. 29; France, , Tatikios 143 Google Scholar.

282 Above 263.

283 Raym. ch. 7, p. 246; Hill & Hill 37; above 194-5.

284 Whether the reason for the ‘conspiracy’ — the leaders’ belief that Taticius had persuaded ‘the sultan’ to attack them — was concocted by Anna or by Bohemond himself is an open question. Bohemond’s authorship is at least possible. Lilie may object (Kreuzfahrerstaaten n. 156 on 354-5) that Taticius was not in fact utterly isolated, having such sympathizers as Stephen of Blois and, probably, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders. However, Taticius may well have shared Anna’s oft-repeated view of the Westerners’ character as ‘unstable and easily led’: Al. X, 5, p. 206; Sew., 308; Buckler, , Anna Comnena 441 Google Scholar.

285 See above 263.

286 Bohemond’s position as leader of the South Italian Normans was no longer in danger of being sapped by Tancred, as it had been in the Balkans (above 246). However, a horseless knight was incapable of fighting, as the Byzantines (e.g. Al. V, 6, pp. 28-9; Sew., 171) observed. And to sell one’s arms and become a footsoldier was to sacrifice status. The shortage of horses at Antioch is therefore very likely to have stimulated knights to look to affluent lords for patronage or regular pay, besides aggravating the purely military situation. On the payment of wages by the wealthy leaders and the considerable mobility of knights between contingents, see Riley-Smith 68, 71, 77-9.

287 Gesta, V, 12, p. 28; Tudebode, V, 1, pp. 34-5; Hill & Hill 43. Bohemond had darted ahead of the Crusaders’ main host in quest of the Turks beyond Comana: Runciman, 191-2, 216.

288 Albert, III, 38, p. 366; Ralph ch. 49, p. 642; Yewdale 54; Runciman 216-17 & map on 214; Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten 15 Google Scholar. It is perhaps noteworthy that Albert mentions Taticius’ position directly after mentioning Bohemond’s. See also Gislebert, , Chronicon Hanoniense 504 Google Scholar.

289 It had been with Robert of Flanders that Bohemond had gone on his fruitless foraging expedition in the last days of 1097: above n. 269.

290 Gesta, VI, 16, p. 35; Tudebode, VI, 5, pp. 41-2; Hill & Hill, 49-50.

291 Albert, V, 3, pp. 434-5; Gislebert, , Chronicon Hanoniense 504 Google Scholar; Runciman 250-1.

292 Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten 15, n. 83 on 342–3 Google Scholar. Stephen, on fleeing from Antioch, went to the trouble of making his way to Alexius in order to inform him of the Crusaders’ dire plight and, presumably, to justify his own withdrawal: Gesta, IX, 27, p. 63; Tudebode, XI, 1, p. 74; Hil! & Hill 81; Al. XI, 6, p. 27; Sew., 348.

293 Raym. ch. 7, p. 246; Hill & Hill 37. Raym. may, however, be imputing to Taticius responsibility for rumours which arose among the Crusaders themselves. Judging by the Gesta and Tudebode, Taticius at the moment of his departure laid emphasis on his ability to fetch provisions and horses rather than rapid military assistance.

294 Tancred is said to have left a small garrison at Mamistra, as had Guynemer the pirate-chief at Tarsus; Adana was under the sway of Welf, a Burgundian knight: Runciman 199-201; France, , Tatikios 146, 147 Google Scholar. There is no evidence that these towns were lost again to the Turks during the winter of 1097-98, and Stephen of Blois was able to withdraw to Tarsus as a place of safety in the spring: Al. XI, 6, p. 27; Sew., 348; Ralph ch. 58, p. 649. Mamistra was reckoned as a port of embarcation for Cyprus and as three days’ land journey from Antioch by the peasant Peter Bartholomew: Raym. ch. 10, p. 255; Hill & Hill 54.

295 Gesta VI, 16, pp. 34-5; Tudebode, VI, 5, pp. 41-2; Hill & Hill 49.

296 See above 224.

297 Guy, Bohemond’s half-brother, is clearly represented as believing that the Byzantine army with which he was serving was heading for Antioch, up to the time of their encounter with Stephen of Blois and other fugitives at Philomelion: Gesta, IX, 27, p. 64. Anna claims likewise: Al. XI, 6, pp. 27-8; Sew., 348-9. The expectation, if not hope, that Alexius might anyway proceed to Antioch was probably one of the considerations behind the invitation which the Crusading leaders sent to him from there in July 1098. See the observations of Hagenmeyer 296; cf. Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten 34–6 Google Scholar.

298 Al. XI, 4, p. 20; Sew., 343. Although some ships bearing provisions were able to dock at St Symeon in the winter months (Raym. ch. 5, 7, pp. 242, 248; Hill & Hill 32, 41), the road between the port and Antioch only became safe in March: Runciman 228-9. Regular navigation would anyway have resumed in the Mediterranean in that month, and thenceforth individual journeys to Cyprus for provisions were unremarkable: Hagenmeyer no. 17, p. 166, cf. 288, 360-1; Raym. ch. 10, p. 255; Hill & Hill 54. While Byzantine consent was a precondition of the traffic with Cyprus and Greek bottoms may well have carried some of the provisions to the Crusaders in the spring of 1098, our evidence for active organization of the provisioning by a Byzantine official appears to relate to the earlier stages of the siege. See above, n. 271.

299 Above 255-6.

300 Gesta, VIII, 20, p. 45; Tudebode, IX, 3, p. 55; Hill & Hill 62. See n. 304.

301 The account presumably represents reports on the commanders’ deliberations which were made public after the seizure of the city. It simplifies matters, to the advantage of Bohemond, in that Raymond of Toulouse seems to have refused to agree to Bohemond’s proposal (Raym. ch. 6, p. 246; Hill & Hill 37). But the essence of the story is to be found not only in the pro-Norman Ralph (ch. 64-65, pp. 653-4) but also in Anna Comnena: Al. XI, 4, p. 21; Sew., 344. So it is probably authentic. See also Albert, IV, 15, 16, pp. 399-400; above 196 & n. 278. It should also be noted that, according to the Gesta and Tudebode, the initial response of the other commanders to Bohemond’s proposal was that they should share the city alike: ‘As we have had equal toil, so we shall have equal possession’: Gesta, VIII, 20, pp. 44-5; Tudebode, IX, 3, p. 55; Hill & Hill 62. If such words really were uttered, they indicate that Alexius’ rights were not at the forefront of the Crusaders’ considerations at that time, seemingly the end of May.

302 Hagenmeyer no. 13, p. 155; Yewdale 73; Runciman 251. In return, the Genoese at Antioch undertook to help Bohemond defend Antioch against all attackers except Count Raymond — a clear indication that conflict between Raymond and Bohemond was to be expected and that Bohemond’s title to Antioch was far from secure: Hagenmeyer no. 14, p. 156. Bohemond was presumably trying to provide for his maritime supply and communication lines, which the Byzantines would now threaten.

303 Hagenmeyer no. 13, p. 156; cf. 310.

304 Gesta, X, 30, p. 72; Fulcher, I, 23, p. 350; trs. Ryan & Fink 107; Albert, V, 3, pp. 434-5; Gislebert, , Chronicon Hanoniense 504 Google Scholar; Yewdale 72-3; Runciman 250; Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 34-5, 37-9, 42-3, n. 163 on 356; n. 181 on 358–9 Google Scholar. It should be noted that the message, while broadly compatible with the leaders’ agreement with Bohemond of a month or so earlier, is not in total accord with their oaths sworn at Constantinople. For according to Anna, who seems here to be reliable, cities were to be handed over to the emperor’s representative: Al. X, 9, p. 226; Sew., 323. See above 229-30. To require that the emperor come in person to receive Antioch and ‘fulfil (his) obligations’, rather than merely to seek the despatch of an imperial representative seems to introduce a new condition into the Crusaders’ readiness to observe their fealty. Whether or not Alexius had really sworn to accompany them in person with an army (Gesta, II, 6, p. 12), many Crusaders must now have become indignant at his failure to provide effective aid or supplies: hence, perhaps, their insistence that he now show up in person, even though their need for supplies and siege-equipment was now less pressing.

305 Hagenmeyer no. 16, p. 165. Bohemond’s injunction to Urban II to ‘separate (separare) us your sons … from the unjust emperor’ seemingly represents a demand that Urban dissolve the sworn undertakings of the Crusaders to Alexius (cf. Hagenmeyer 357). Bohemond’s aim was to invalidate Count Raymond’s invocation of the oath sworn to Alexius (Gesta, X, 31, pp. 75, 76; Tudebode, XII, 6, p. 87; Hill & Hill 95). Bohemond himself probably suffered few qualms about perjury but Raymond could and did awkwardly recall that his oath had been sworn ‘per consilium Boamundi’. Some other leaders probably had residual qualms. See above 188, 216; Lilie, Kreuzfahrerstaaten 42–3 Google Scholar. It must be emphasized that only at Antioch, from the time when he began invoking his oath as an obstacle to Bohemond’s appropriation of the city, can Raymond be regarded with certainty as aligning himself with Byzantium — and even then the alignment may only have been tentative, inchoate and contingent upon his antipathy towards Bohemond. The tableau of relationships between Alexius, Bohemond and Raymond presented in the Alexiad’s Book X is thus almost an inversion of the actual state of affairs in spring 1097. See also France, , Tatikios 143-4, 147 Google Scholar; idem, Anna Comnena 21-2, 25-6, 31; Lilie, , Kreuzfahrerstaaten 8-13, 44 Google Scholar.