University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The History Collection

Page View

Baldwin, M. W. (ed.) / The first hundred years

XII: The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099-1118,   pp. 368-409 PDF (16.5 MB)

Page 373

he had sworn an oath at Constantinople in 1097 to return Antioch, when captured,
to the emperor Alexius Comnenus. But, as we already know, he had seized possession
of Antioch for himself in 1098—1099 after it had been captured.5 Very
plainly Bohemond had embarked upon the crusade in order to secure a dominion
for himself rather than to recover the Holy Sepulcher for the church. 
 Bohemond's usurpation naturally made Alexius an enemy of the Franks in Antioch.
It also prevented Alexius from aiding in the capture of Jerusalem and ruined
whatever chance there may have been for a rapprochement of the Latin and
Greek churches based upon a common crusade to the Holy Sepulcher, as seems
to have been a part of pope Urban's plan in starting the First Crusade. Bohemond's
ambition had also offended Raymond of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse, whom
Urban had consulted before preaching the crusade in 1095, and who had hoped
to be regarded as its secular leader under the papal legate, bishop Adhémar
of Le Puy.6 
 Let us now examine Bohemond's problem after he had seized possession of
Antioch. He was faced by a hostile Byzantium. Three of his logical maritime
outlets, Latakia, Valania, and Maraclea, had been turned over to Byzantine
officers by count Raymond of Toulouse when the latter continued with the
crusade to Jerusalem in 1099. Byzantium now controlled Bohemond's coastal
waters, as well as the island of Cyprus to the west. The emperor Alexius,
learning of Bohemond's usurpation of Antioch and violation of the oath made
at Constantinople, protested at once, and was rebuffed. Alexius dispatched
an army to seize Cilicia and from there to operate against Antioch. It took
only Marash, the Cilician Armenians preferring the Franks to the Greeks.
But in 1099 a Byzantine fleet occupied the ports of Corycus (Korgos) and
Seleucia (Silifke) on the Cilician coast, basing a squadron at Seleucia to
harry Bohemond's sea communications.7 Possession of 
 5 chapter x, pp. 324, 326—327. It is even held by B. Kugler, Boemund
und Tankred (Tubingen, i86z), p. 2, and E. Kiihne, Zur Geschichte des Fürstentums
Antiochia (Berlin, 1897), pp. a, ii, that Bohemond's seizure of Antioch was
evidence of an ambition to found a great military power in the east. 
 6 Raymond, the most powerful of the crusader princes, apparently felt a
special obligation to Urban II, since he had been involved in the initial
plans for the crusade. He had also been close to Urban's legate, Adhémar
of Le Puy, whose death made it easier for Bohemond to mature his plans for
the seizure of Antioch. Raymond undoubtedly felt .that if Antioch fell to
Bohemond, Alexius' good will would be permanently forfeited and Urban's great
plan for a Greek-Latin concord would be ruined beyond repair. Hence Raymond
must have been a prime mover in the resolution of the princes (July 5, 5098)
to invite the emperor to come to Antioch and join them. For Urban's plan
for the First Crusade see above, chapters VII and VIII. 
 ~'  Anna Comnena, Alexiad (ed. Leib, II), pp. 34, 39—4!, 45—46.

Go up to Top of Page