3. The Wrath of Bohemond (1098)
“Sing, Goddess, sing of the rage of Bohemond, son of Robert Guiscard, that murderous anger which condemned Latins to countless agonies and threw many warrior souls, deep into Hell, leaving their dead bodies carrion food for dogs and birds".
*****
Whatever were Alexios’ motivations to help the Crusaders and intentions towards the Crusade itself, his arrival with a substantial military contingent proved to be the salvation of the so-called “pilgrimage”, and certainly ensured its short-term success from the mouths of complete annihilation. By vanquishing Kerbogha of Mosul and neutralizing the enmity of the hateful brothers Radwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus, the path from Antioch towards Jerusalem was much more secure for the soldiers and pilgrims of Europe.
Yet, the unexpected presence of the emperor created another serious contend between the princes of the expedition, mainly Bohemond of Taranto and Raymond of Toulouse. So far, Bohemond – whose interest in acquiring the possession of Antioch for himself had recently become too evident – had been strengthening his own standing among the princes by deceitfully smearing Alexios’ and Tatikios’ reputations, arguing that the treacherous Greeks had been secretly conspiring with the accursed Turks to destroy the faithful pilgrims in that godforsaken siege. With careful and perfidious persuasion, he wanted to ensure that whatever triumph came from the conquest of Antioch was ascribed to himself. After the Crusaders successfully entered the city and slaughtered its inhabitants (mainly due to the machinations of Bohemond) it became all too clear that the Norman warlord intended to crown himself prince of Syria, with prized Antioch as his capital. In this regard, he immediately found in Raymond of St. Giles a staunch opponent, because the Provençal lord also secretly harbored a desire of becoming lord in Antioch.
Now that Alexios made himself present, in full imperial regalia, like a gilded archangel of God descended from the heavens to purge the impious besiegers, Bohemond’s carefully structured intrigue was suddenly terminated, as a house of cards blown by the wind, and he grew increasingly desperate.
Alexios I Komnenos, in his first act once he arrived in Antioch – hardly demonstrating his consternation towards the grim fate of its citizens – bestowed his patronage over John the Oxite (the [Syriac] Patriarch of Antioch) who had been imprisoned by the Turkish governor Yaghi-Siyan before the siege began. In the next day, Alexios presided over a solemn ceremony in the palace of the slain emir, and reaffirmed the oaths of fealty that had been pronounced by the Latin princes a couple years earlier, in Constantinople. Some of them, like Raymond of St. Giles and Godfrey of Lorraine, had been reluctant to swear an oath towards what they saw as a haughty oriental despot, but, now, even them seemed to be gladly accepting imperial overlordship, recognizing the valor of the emperor.
In a display of magnanimity that overjoyed the Latins, when offered the suzerain’s share of the spoils of Antioch, the Emperor vehemently refused to accept it, and ordered it to be distributed among soldiers and pilgrims alike, in reward to their services to the Empire.
Bohemond, in a fit of frustration, even tried to claim the overlordship of Antioch on the grounds that he personally had alone allowed it to be captured, by obtaining the collaboration of the traitor Firouz, and that he had ensured the city’s safety by leading the Crusaders against the Turks. Even so, realizing that he had little chance in a direct opposition to the emperor, he masked his own ambition in a façade of having fulfilled his duty as a vassal toward his liege, and that he expected a just reward. This custom, of course, was much more meaningful in the feudal Latin Europe than in Rhomanía, and Bohemond possibly expected to gain the ears and the support of his Crusader colleagues by insisting on the “matter of honor” that the suzerain was obliged to compensate his vassals.
The emperor did not fall for the bluff, however. He might not have fathomed the extent of Bohemond’s ambitions – it is likely that Alexios, until now, did not suppose that some of the Crusaders intended to remain in the Near East after they achieve Jerusalem – but, nevertheless, he distrusted the Norman prince’s ploys, and took measures to curb his transgressions.
By careful diplomacy, Alexios I Komnenos immediately sought to acquire the support of his colleagues so as to isolate Bohemond’s standing. Count Raymond of Toulouse was a rival of the Norman prince, and vehemently supported Alexios’ rights over Antioch, while Godfrey of Lorraine, Robert of Flanders, Stephen II of Blois and Robert Curthose of Normandy, and even Bohemond’s own nephew Tancred were successfully persuaded by gifts and honors, and failed to support Bohemond’s pretense.
*****
Frustratingly delayed at receiving a response to his vocal requests of receiving Antioch as a fief, Bohemond was infuriated when he realized, in September 1098, that his case would have no support beyond his own (severely outnumbered) Italo-Norman subordinates. When the emperor offered him the lordship over the border fort of Harim – a derelict citadel that had been surrendered by Radwan of Aleppo in exchange for a truce – Bohemond took insult, and stormed away from Antioch with his followers.
At first, it seemed that he intended to return to Europe, but then he followed a northeastern course, and it became clear that he intended to seek his fortune in the no man’s land in eastern Syria, where Baldwin of Boulogne – Godfrey of Lorraine’s brother – had recently acclaimed as suzerain of the native Armenians in the frontier stronghold of Edessa.
It is likely that Bohemond intended to emulate Baldwin’s enterprise, and, indeed, his fame as the vanquisher of the Turks spread quickly, attracting bands of adventurers, mainly Syrians and Armenians, seeking riches and glory. Considering that the fort of Turbessel was nominally in Baldwin’s hands, and seeing no use in becoming hostile to the Lorrainer lord, Bohemond and his Italo-Norman soldiers and native mercenaries committed themselves to the siege of Samosata, an ancient city located on the banks of the Euphrates River, currently in the hands of a vassal of the Turkish Emir of Amida [Diyarbakir], called Sökmen Artuqid.
The Latins gave up the siege when a Turkish relief force arrived in late October 1098, and retreated to Turbessel, where they were found by bishop Adhemar of Monteil himself, who had voyaged to the east with a company of Frankish knights to rendezvous with the Italo-Normans.
After some days of cordial dialogues, the soft-speaking Provençal bishop successfully convinced the disgruntled Norman lord to rejoin the expedition going to Jerusalem, reminding him of his solemn vow to retake the holy city from the infidels, and promising that God would give the just reward for the agents of His holy enterprise.
Until November, Basileus Alexios I Komnenos remained in western Syria, personally leading his own Rhomaioi forces, supported by Pecheneg and Turcopole mercenaries, and by the Crusader allies, against the fragmented Arab and Turkish governments in the region. Now that Radwan of Aleppo had been beaten, no potentate remained to rule over the myriad of castles and towns in Mediterranean Syria, and most of these places accepted the Rhomaioi hegemony, conceding tribute and much needed goods (mainly food, but also horses and daily utensils) to reinforce the Crusaders, who, nevertheless, became increasingly restless to resume their march to Jerusalem.
Not long after Alexios returned to Cilicia (in November 1098), and from there to Constantinople, leaving his trusted general Tatikios to rule over Syria as the Doux of Antioch, Bohemond of Taranto rejoined the Crusaders in the city of Ma’arrat al-Numan, whose intimidated population gave free passage and supplies to the foreigners.
Adhemar de Monteil, still revered as the overall leader of the Crusade, voicing the concerns of the minor knights and many of the pilgrims, all uninterested in the petty grievances of their chiefs, pressed for his followers to continue on their joyful procession to the holy land, and after a brief winter sojourn in Laodicea, in late January 1099 the combined European army, assisted by a flotilla of Rhomaioi warships, marched south along the Mediterranean coast.
_______________
Chapter Notes: OTL Bishop Adhemar de Monteil – widely considered the de facto leader of the 1st Crusade until the Siege of Antioch – died in early August 1098, likely of typhus, contracted inside the city. Afterwards, Raymond of Toulouse and Godfrey of Bouillon were regarded as the leaders of the expedition, and their rivalry provoked some unnecessary contends that almost undermined the success of the Crusade (like their failure to take Ascalon/Ashkelon due to a petty feud over who would assume the lordship of the city). IOTL, thus, Bishop Adhemar was in Antioch when the city was struck by a plague and died there, but ITTL, he was campaigning in Syria with his fellow Crusaders, thus ensuring that he does not catches the sickness that would cause his deceasing. His longevity will prove to be fundamental to the foundation of the *Kingdom of Jerusalem", as we'll see, and he remains the official leader of the First Crusade, as a Papal representative.
Also, Bohemond succeeded in pressing his own claim towards Antioch, and thus became the first Prince of Antioch, in spite of Alexios Komnenos’ designs over the city. Unquestionably, Bohemond’s triumph owed to the Crusaders’ distrust against the Byzantine Emperor after he supposedly betrayed his own obligations towards them, abandoning the expedition to its fate as Kerbogha marched from Mosul – as they had sworn fealty to him – and thus Alexios’ appearance ITTL prevents Bohemond to grab Antioch for himself, and, thus he is forced to continue together with the army towards Jerusalem (which he did not do in OTL).
Last edited: