Talk:Bohemond I of Antioch

A comment from our readers

The man was a legend.... strikes me as an early Frederick II type character, lacking Fred's intellectual vigour but certainly someone of a similar personality.... just thought I should put that view out there.

Um, according to this article his first wife was his mother, alberada... I was under the impression he had married Constance, the daughter of King Philip.

What does this mean?

What does this statement mean?

"This early hostility to Alexius had a great influence in determining the course of his between Bohemund (whom his father had destined for the throne of Constantinople) and Duke Roger."

Tbarron 21:28 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. It may refer to the dispute in succession of Apulia, i.e between Bohemond and his half-brother Duke Roger. Or if meaning Roger of Sicily (who was not Duke: he was count, or II firstly count then king), it may refer to long-term political positoon, from the time of Bohemond to the time of king Roger II. 217.140.193.123 00:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

count or prince of Taranto?

In all material which I had read, he is always mentioned as Prince of T. So, where comes that "count" from? any document to support? (Actually, the act or document I am asking, is something that gives evidence that he expressly was created count by some liege lord, an act of investiture of the count-title)

I think that he was not count, as the situation was that he was given compensation when renouncing claims to inherit the duchy. Thus, he did not want to be a vassal of that duchy, presumably, and presumably his wish was given. Count indicates that he then became the duke's vassal - but we know that he was given his lordship to be independent. In feudal terminology, prince was lord of allodial estates. Counts, barons, dukes were holders of vassal fiefs, not allodial estates as such. Allodial estate was much more independent. For such reasons I believe he actually took the title of Prince (equivalent), not count nor made homage, AND received his portion as allodial. 62.78.106.188 14:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the "count" comes from, either. This link makes it clear that the title of "Prince" didn't absolutely mean an allodial ruler, although I agree that in this case he was probably independent of Apulia. Looking at the later principality (granted as an appenage to Manfred on the death of Frederick II, held by him as a papal fief in 1154), I think it's clear that it became a fief of the Kingdom of Sicily (by conquest?) when Roger II consolidated the Hauteville possessions, but that is another article. Choess 04:17, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Moved from Bohemund to Bohemond

I decided the be bold and move this and similar pages. There are two reasons for such a move. First, our hero (of course) was a Norman Italian and both the French and Italian Wikipedias use the "o" spelling. Second, "Bohemond Antioch" shows twice the English language Google hits as "Bohemund Antioch". Thanks, MapMaster 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary...this isn't the French or Italian Wikipedias, we don't have to adopt their spellings. Adam Bishop 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is the Bohemond is the standard English spelling. It has twice the Google hits and is the spelling used by standard sources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Encarta. Amazon.com offers 499 books containing "Bohemond" and only 207 books containing "Bohemund". I bring the French and Italian Wikipedias into this because it gives us a clue as to how the real Bohemond spelled his name. If there is a reason to use the incorrect spelling of "Bohemund", please state so on this page. MapMaster 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked more carefully and you are right, Bohemond is the more usual English spelling. I guess I was just used to seeing it here as -und. (However, -und is not really incorrect, we don't necessarily have to use the spellings adopted by other encyclopedias, and he probably spelled his own name in a multitude of ways - in Latin it appears as Boamundus, for example). Adam Bishop 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also support Bohemond. Britannica is still (how long?) the most authoritative source for encyclopedias. Good. --Attilios 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Though it's good to see that this issue was solved pretty easily, I'll toss my (requested) two cents in anyway. My experience says that Bohemond is more common in English than Bohemund, though, of course, neither is wrong and spelling wasn't standardised any European language of his day. Thus, I support the current spelling and it should probably be the standard for all other figures of the same name. (In fact, I had created several other "Bohemond" pages a while ago even though "Bohemund" was used here.) Srnec 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Norman monarchies

"The Norman monarchy he founded in Antioch survived those in both England and Sicily." - I assume this regards the English monarchy as ceasing to be Norman with the Plantagenets. Though surely when quoting from a book, a page reference should be given ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Beardo, I actually added that piece, but I see I neglected to add the page number. If you give me a few days I'll be with my book and I'll add it. Alternatively, I think it was the 2nd edition paperback, if you have a copy yourself. I think its good to include though, showing how stability in different parts of the world was changing! Cheers --Tefalstar (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So, uh, how's looking up that page number going? May 12, 2021, and the link is still just a book title. 147.226.231.30 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Biased?

From my understanding of the First Crusade, Bohemond was not a particularly good guy, especially in comparison to Raymond of Saint Gilles. It seems like he was mostly out to get wealth and power for himself rather than help ensure Christian access to holy places or protect the Byzantine Empire. Expert opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgind (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Birth place

I do not know where he was born. However, it is sure that self-published sources are not regarded reliable sources for WP purposes. Consequently, his place of birth should be verified. Borsoka (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Moltafe, please read reliable sources. Material published by an "an online gathering of men" ([1]), or by a "lineage society" ([2]), or by a "free genealogy site on the web" are self-published and cannot be cited. Please remember all claims which are not substantiated by a reference to a reliable source can be deleted. 15:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)

Borsoka, if that is the case then a lot of information on Wikipedia would be deleted. These people have studied the history of these noblemen etc, so I can't understand why these sites are not acceptable. Tell me what types of sources are acceptable please. Aren't Encyclopedias put together by a "group" of people? Aren't books are put together by either 1 person or a "group" of people? Aren't most sites put together by a "group" of people? This is ridiculous, but don't worry, I will find out his actual birthplace for sure if you don't believe anything I reference. 17:31, 30 May 2016 (AEST)Moltafe (talk)

Yes, sooner or later most information that is not properly verified will be deleted. I suggest you should read WP:Reliable sources: books published by academic institutions are always reliable sources. Wikipedia:UGC makes it clear that the web sites I referred to above could not be accepted as reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Those websites almost certainly got their information from Wikipedia, since our own article said that he was born in San Marco Argentano for years starting in 2007. So even if they were correct, they can't be reliable sources for Wikipedia, because their source is Wikipedia. His father's main base of operations seems to have been Argentano, but that doesn't necessarily mean Bohemond was born there. I don't know of any source that says where Bohemund was born specifically, although it would certainly be interesting to find one. It's possible that it was just never recorded. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, 2 references I now admit may be questionable, but the site reference of http://maccabeesociety.com/bohemond-i-prince-of-antioch, apparently has been authored by someone who has a PhD. What can I say? I will ask a well respected and internationally renowned medieval professor and scholar about this topic and see what he says. 18:34, 31 May 2016 (AEST) Moltafe (talk)

It doesn't matter if he has a PhD - he still got all of his information from an old version of this page. That guy apparently has a PhD in medieval philosophy, but he's certainly not an historian, and that website is definitely the least reliable out of any of the sources you proposed. I suppose that Daufer (talk · contribs) simply guessed that Bohemond was born in Argentano because that's where Robert Guiscard lived, but given that Daufer was banned from Wikipedia years ago, I don't see why we should trust anything he added without a source. But please let us know if you find anything. Which professor and scholar are you going to talk to? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think even a professor's view about Bohemond's birthplace can only be cited if that view was published, as per WP:Verify. Borsoka (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed! And if we found a primary source, a medieval document that actually states where he was born (whether Argentano or elsewhere), that would be original research and we still couldn't cite it here :) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, checking the other language Wikipedias, the French one does not mention a birthplace, German says he was "probably" born in Argentano (without citing a source), and Italian says he was named after San Marco Argentano "according to local tradition, without any historiographical or documentary basis". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And I am pretty sure that one of the bearers of the local tradition was the editor who added this specific piece of information to the article. :) :) Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So apparently now we can honestly say that Bohemond has no official birthplace !! End of story !! Thank you Borsoka !! Moltafe (talk) 1:35, 1 June 2016 (AEST)

You are welcome. Yes, he is one of the thousands of historical figures whose place of birth is unknown. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Here I find reference to Bohemond being baptised Mark because he was born at San Marco. It is a Google snippet from the Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania (1967). Alas, I cannot even identify the paper or author, since no index of this journal appears to be online, nor are there archives going back that far. The citation is to Malaterra, who does not mention San Marco in that passage, only Bohemond's birth, parentage and two names. I cannot identify the Chalandon reference. It is not to any of his usual works that I can search. None of them mention Bohemond's birthplace that I can see. Or have Bohemond-relevant information on p. 381. It's too bad, the article would be a reliable source for this piece of speculation. Srnec (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see that journal online here...but only in PDFs of the individual pages, which is pretty inconvenient. I'm not sure where the article starts or ends! The only work by Chalanadon that seems to be mentioned in there is Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, which is on archive.org, but I don't see anything on the cited page 381. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The citation would be Emanuele Conti, "L'abbazia della Matina (note storiche)", Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 35 (1967), pp. 11–30. I don't know if it's worth adding, but it seems like a reasonable speculation to me. Srnec (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Though the birthplace is somewhat hard to prove, the "so called" evidence makes a strong case that San Marco Argentano could be his birthplace. He could have been born in Calabria due to his father living there while conquering the region. He turned San Marco Argentano into a Norman stronghold. Bohemond was christened Mark after the town's patron saint. It could be coincidence but who knows?? Moltafe (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2016 (AEST)

"of Otranto"?

Sources calling him Bohemond of Taranto outnumber those using Bohemond of Otranto by an order of magnitude. It is obvious why he is called the former, but is there a reason behind the latter or is it perhaps an error? Srnec (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the language he spoke?

Did he speak French like his father and other Normans in France and England, or had he adopted local Italian language of the place he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.150.142.207 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Rightwisely, you should mean the Normans in Normandy NOT “in France” Anyway, a great deal of socalled ‘Normans’ in England had Breton and Flemish has their mothertungs. Other than the aforesaid, they spoke Latin and Anglo-Norman. Furthermore, William the Conqueror/Bastard (also known as William the “Mamzer” in Normandy) was a crypto-Jew and likely spoke/chanted in an Afro-Semitic tongue like his mother. 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:80E7:F9A:3EEB:5E7B (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)