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)