Jump to content

Talk:Principality of Antioch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hmm... wasn't Bohemund already Prince of Taranto? john 00:01 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was a count in Taranto, and then he declared himself a prince in Antioch just for prestige. Adam Bishop 00:10 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Runciman calls him Prince. "The princes at first held back, but Guiscard's son Bohemond, now prince of Taranto" (History of the Crusades, Vol. 1, p.112) john 00:19 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't have any sources that refer to him as anything other than "Bohemund of Taranto," they never give a title (I unfortunately don't own Runciman or any of the big histories). Googling for him turns up results with Prince, Duke, and Count as a title (not that that really means much). I could swear there was some minor controversy because he called himself a Prince when he actually wasn't... Adam Bishop 00:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I never followed up on this - Runciman has the habit of calling all the major crusade leaders "princes", including Godfrey and Raymond, who were certainly a duke and a count respectively. This comes from the convention of calling their crusade the "princes' crusade," when what is meant is that they were wealthy nobles as opposed to a crowd of poorer knights and soldiers. They weren't literally princes, and neither was Bohemund, as Taranto wasn't a principality. Adam Bishop 01:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, upon further reading, it seems that Taranto really was a principality under the king of Sicily. I guess I don't know very much about southern Italy at this period. In any case, calling all the crusaders "princes" is still hyperbole, and the problem is not whether or not Bohemund was already a prince, but that he claimed Antioch at all. Hopefully this is the last I will have to say about this :) Adam Bishop 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss his titles (and status) under Talk:Bohemund I of Antioch. I think he was not COUNT of T, but allodial prince there. 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)



Please see the Map showng "Antioch under Byzantine Protection". Please edit it and remove Edessa as a county, its under Syrian control by 1158, when Antioch was made a Byzantine vassal.Tourskin 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, KOJ was bigger as Adam pointed out. I can edit the map if you want, just leave a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabr-el (talkcontribs) 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Helmet" denier of Antioch, 1163-1216. British Museum.

"Helmet" denier of Antioch, 1163-1216. PHG Per Honor et Gloria 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography/Further Reading

I am wanting to add two sections. The first would be on the historiography on the principality. This would include the main primary sources: Walter the Chancellor; Ralph of Caen; Albert of Aechen; and Fulcher of Chartres. I would like to write quite generally about the nature of their sources as they majorly effect the current information we have on Antioch. I think there should also be a small section on secondary sources which mention the new works published by scholars in recent years on Antioch, including Thomas S. Asbridge, E. S. Bouchier (published in 1921 but no mention on the page) and Joshua Birk. In the second section I think a further reading list should also be added so anyone interested in this topic who wants to read beyond Wikipedia has clear access to different types of sources. Thanks Preciousfacts (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Preciousfacts Thank you for improving the article. Further reading sections are always a good idea so good move adding one! The new section on relationship with other Latin settlements is a significant improvement. The text is well referenced and provides context for the events recounted in the article. I wondered if you might be able to check over one sentence in particular? Secondly, alliances between Latin rulers was secured through their shared situation in the East. This alliance was strengthened by feudal ties and marriage alliances between eastern Latin rulers There's a mixture of singular and plural here so the wording needs tweaking. I was going to do it myself but wasn't sure if you wanted to focus on one alliance (in which case it would be worth specifying which) or several. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]