The Genesis of Fratricide: An Analysis of Ethnic Tension between Byzantium and the West during the First Crusade

Material Information

The Genesis of Fratricide: An Analysis of Ethnic Tension between Byzantium and the West during the First Crusade
Scruby, Stephen
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Abbots ( jstor )
Crusades ( jstor )
Emperors ( jstor )
Fathers ( jstor )
Memoirs ( jstor )
Mothers ( jstor )
Princesses ( jstor )
Stereotypes ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Middle Ages
Stereotypes (Social psychology)
Undergraduate Honors Thesis


In the late 11th century, Pope Urban II called the First Crusade at the request of the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios Comnenos, in response to the incursions of the Seljuq Turks into Byzantine territories a defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This meeting of Christian East and West resulted in mistrust and violence instead of cooperation. Cultural differences came to a head with the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204. The medieval stereotypes at the root of these hostilities is the focus of this paper, which will rely upon primary sources for evidence. ( en )
General Note:
Awarded Bachelor of Arts; Graduated May 8, 2012 magna cum laude. Major: History
General Note:
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
General Note:
Advisor: Florin Curta

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Stephen Scruby. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


1 Introduction At the end of the eleventh century AD (November of 1095), at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II issued a call for an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land that became known as the First War of the Cross, or Crusade. This was at the request of the Byzantine emperor, Alexius Comnenus, in response to the increasing incursions of the Seljuq Turks into the formerly Byzantine territories in Asia Minor that had been gaining ground and momentum since the disastrous Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. What the embattled Byzantine emperor expected from the West was an elite force of armored knights that would ostensibly be commanded by an imperial general. Instead, the Christian force exported through Byzantine lands into the East to ok on a form quite different from that requested by Alexius. Instead of a coherent, unified, and professional military force, what first appeared at the gates of Constantinople in early 1095 was a massive, untrained, and belligerent rabble of peasants lea d by a preacher called Peter the Hermit. Having already come dangerous (as a relatively leaderless mob of armed peasants) to the Byzantine capital these their wait outside the city walls. Alexius hastily mobilized the Byzantine navy and h ad these first crusaders ferried across the Bosporus, whereupon the majority were slaughtered by the Turks in a quick series of engagements in western Asia Minor. Upon the arrival of the professional Frankish crusader armies, with the principal elements l ed by Godfrey of Bouillon, Raymond IV of Toulouse, Stephen II of Blois, and Bohemond of


2 Taranto (the son of the Norman Robert Guiscard, who had fought extensively against the Byzantines during the reign of Alexius), the Byzantines were highly guarded and s uspicious. Again, violence broke out over supplies and resources between Constantinopolitans and crusaders. Alexius angered the crusaders by refusing the armies entrance into the City, and further tested their patience by extracting an oath of loyalty to the Byzantine cause (the recapture of former territories) from the leaders of the various forces. This was taken by many in the West as a grievous insult. Eventually, the Crusaders were supplied and ferried into Asia Minor, and given what was later perc eived as questionable intelligence on Turkish military tactics by Alexius. As the campaign of the professional crusaders progressed, Byzantine and Crusader interests continued to grate upon one another. The Byzantines circumvented the crusader armies dur ing the siege of Nicaea, negotiating the Turkish surrender without the knowledge of the besieging westerners. Crusaders hoping to loot the taken city were disappointed and angered; the victorious Byzantine general even denied the Crusaders entrance into t he city they had worked so hard to capture. The angry Crusaders also complained of faulty Byzantine intelligence about the enemy, and the decreasing willingness of Alexius to resupply and support them; the Byzantine military attach was simply a token for ce meant primarily to keep the actions of the crusaders under observation. Although the First Crusade ended in success with the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, it hardly amounted to a cooperative venture between friendly Christian powers. The leaders of th e Crusade almost uniformly broke their oaths to the Emperor Alexius the lands they captured


3 ed, along with the County of Edessa, and the Principality of Antioch. 1 The results of this protracted military expedition issuing from the West (primarily France) was far from what Alexius expected when he contacted Urban II in 1095. He had hoped to brin g about the restoration of his ailing state with the assistance of Byzantine commanded knights from the West. Instead, a rabble rousing horde of looting peasants, followed by an alarmingly independent coalition of martially proficient nobles and soldiers were what passed through Byzantine territory to fight the Islamic enemy. Instead of immediate cooperation between the two Christian entities, what initially transpired through the unprecedented meeting of Christian East and West was mistrust and violence. These negative feelings were further cemented during in Alexius' actions during the siege of Nicaea and his perceived unwillingness to assist the military vent ure that he had himself initiated. The Byzantine aristocracy, along with the common people of Constantinople, on the other hand, learned to fear and mistrust the westerners as soon ce in the civilized nature of the Christian West was greatly eroded by the conduct of the crusaders at the end of the campaign, especially of Bohemond of Taranto, whose family had long been Byzantine enemies in Italy and the western Balkans before the Crus ade. This critical period of time was the prelude to the long era of Crusades issuing from the West into the Holy Land. Contact between the West and Byzantium, minimal on a popular level until the First Crusade, became more commonplace. However, due to reciprocal stereotypes and preconceptions, the character of this renewed contact between East and West was irreversibly 1


4 marred. Formed mainly at the upper levels of both societies, especially among the well educated, derogatory feelings and perceptions do minated Byzantine and Western European views of each other. Often stemming from over simplifications of ethnic stereotypes, those feelings began to replace logic and reason with mistrust and hatred between the two civilizations. Increasingly, the Byzanti Such tens ions most certainly have roots in the 1054 schism, as believers on both sides considered the others to be heretics. However, religious separation cannot serve as an excuse for open hostility between the two civilizations; indeed, it was not a large enough impediment to prevent the First Crusade, which initially was an endeavor to aid the Byzantines, who were still fellow Christians. The stereotypes that troubled the relations between the West and the East were secular in nature and were thus manifested in the secular areas of both societies. Between 1100 and 1204, these feelings intensified, eventually leading to a terrible who inhabited an entire quarter of Con stantinople in a primarily mercantile capacity were massacred in 1182. However, the most devastating and striking event to the Christian world took place in 1204, when the Fourth Crusade, directed originally at Cairo, was diverted to Constantinople. The City was savagely sacked and looted by the Christian army. The massacre of the Latins in 1182 was certainly used as justification by westerners for earlier actions against the Byzantines. 2 However, it is even more plausible to blame the outcome of 1204 on the blazing 2 For instan ce, the 1185 sack of the Byzantine city of Thessaloniki at the hands of the Normans was considered by some in the West to be in retribution for the 1182 Latin massacre in Constantinople.


5 cultural undercurrents of hostility that by now were certainly ubiquitous in both societies. The source of those ethnic and secular stereotypes has been the topic of great study and debate. This study is an attempt to place the origins of th e stereotyping in the context of the First Crusade, and to explain its central role in the eventual tragedy of Christian fratricide in 1204. This topic has been repeatedly explored from a religious perspective by a number of scholars, but the historical p rocess that led to the events of 1204 in Byzantium has largely been ignored from an ethnographic and secular viewpoint. Certainly, religious schism and tension provided the Crusaders of 1204 with some ostensible reason for their actions, but an undercurre nt of ethnic tension and mutual hostility, brewing since the late 11 th century as part of the newly invigorated interaction and rivalry between the Christian East and West, clearly played a key role in the events leading to the Latin conquest of Constantin ople. This historical period would have lasting consequences for the history of both the late Middle Ages and the early modern era, and deserves analysis from a fresh perspective. Eschewing the already thoroughly explored ecclesiastical angle (albeit wit hout denying its significance) in favor of searching for secular reasons for the actions of the Latins in 1204, this study will illustrate the devastating effects of popular misconceptions and negative stereotypes created in both East and West upon the lon g term relations between the two civilizations. My analysis focuses on two of the most important and informative sources concerning the First Crusade and its historical context. The De Vita Sua and the Dei Gesta per Francos of the Benedictine monk Guiber t of Nogent will serve as the primary western sources of scrutiny. The Alexiad an extensive biography


6 my analysis will explore these works primarily as literature, and not just as historical documents. Byzantines, just as Alexius was a sense that they are now used by historians. Although scholars studying the literature of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages have occasionally shown interest in ethnic stereotyping, the real concern with the cultural and e recent date. The study of cultural mentalities broke into the mainstream in 1929 with the founding of the French journal Annales d'Histoire Economique et Sociale by Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch. The levels of society to historical processes. This defied earlier historiography, which focused upon the elite classes of society and broad political events. Febvre, under the influence of Lucien Lvy ed in the exploration of psychological phenomena in their collective manifestations. Later members of the Annales School, including Georges Duby, Jacques Le Goff, and Robert Mandrou introduced a new concept, mentalit which referred to mental structures that defined a broad variety of thoughts and mental templates available to a society at a certain time, limiting the possibilities of what could be perceived and understood by that group of people. 3 This new focus on societal mentalities as a real historic al force led some medieval scholars to explore stereotyping in the Middle Ages. 3 and Jacques Revel, La Nouvelle Histoire (Paris, 1978).


7 In the year of the first issue of Annales the Belgian Orientalist Ernst Honigmann (1892 1954) published his famous path Honigmann climatic zones were used in the geographical and ethnographical literature of that era to explain the physical and cultural differences between races of people throughout the wo rld. 4 Hotter climates, for instance, were thought to produce quick minded and treacherous people, while the more temperate zones of western Europe were home to the more grounded and honorable races. Such notions were revived in medieval Europe during the 13 th century. subsequent notions of geography and culture in the Arab world, as well as in the West, reinforcing stereotypes against foreigners, including Greeks. 5 However, the theory of the climes has remained largely ignored in the subsequent body of scholarship concerning medieval stereotyping. This study will attempt to apply y upon the early creation and reinforcement of anti Byzantine stereotypes in the West, specifically in the case of 12 th century authors such as Guibert of Nogent. In the past three decades, a noticeable body of scholarship has appeared concerning the deve lopment of Byzantine West relations. Much of the earlier work, including some by Steven Runciman, was concerned with the ecclesiastical dimension of the problem. 6 With the 4 In short, the development of the earliest form of the so th century by Montesquieu. 5 See Ernst Honigmann, Die sieben Klimata und die : eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Geographie und Astrologie im Altertum und Mittelalter (Heidelberg, 1929). 6 See, for instance, Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the 11 th and 12 th Centuries (Ox ford, 1955).


8 passage of time, a larger group of scholars began to examine the crusades as a cruc ial boiling point in the relations between Byzantium and the West. Some studies again returned to religious reasons. 7 Others, such as William Daly, explored the conflict between the obligatory spirit of Christian brotherhood and the antagonism between Gre eks and Latins during the crusades. 8 Another angle seeks to examine the reactions of visiting westerners to the city of Constantinople and its inhabitants. 9 The deterioration of medieval East West relations has also been explored from the Byzantine perspec tive. 10 none. 11 However, scholars such as Marc Carrier have recently devoted attentio n to images of Byzantium in other western sources. 12 The fact remains that most of these studies concerning stereotypes exchanged between Byzantium and the West focus almost exclusively on the stereotypes themselves, not 7 The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades edited by V.P. Gross (Kalamazoo, 1986), pp. 181 87. 8 Chr istian fraternity, the Crusaders and the security of Constantinople, 1097 1204. The Mediaeval Studies 22 (1960), 43 Relatio ns between East and West in the Middle Ages edited by D. Baker (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 77 94. For Byzantine Norman relations, see Emily A. Hanawalt, The Meeti ng of the Two Worlds. Cultural Exchange Between East and West During the Period of the Crusades edited by V. P. Gross (Kalamazoo, 1986), pp. 115 122. 9 For an example of this, see K. Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 9 62 1204: Cultural and Political Relations (New York, 1996). 10 See culturelle du XIIe sicle: les ractions des croiss au crmonial byzantin selon les chroniqueu 5 (2003), 49 78. 11 For Anna Comnena, see Byzantine Women. Varieties of Exp erience, 800 1200 edited by L. Garland (London, 2006), pp. 125 139, and D. Rechtshistorisches Journal 8 (1989), 257 Greeks in his Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind (New York, 2002). 12 actions face au crmonial byzantin 1096 (MA thesis, Sherbrooke University, 200 0).


9 upon the authors employing them. C omparative works in this vein are also especially lacking. There are few publications analyzing two Byzantine or two Western authors in the topic of ethnic stereotypes, but there is an almost complete absence of any comparing the works of a western author to those of a Byzantine author. This study is an attempt to make a contribution in that direction.


10 de Vita Sua and Dei Gesta per Francos The works of Guibert of Nogent remain some of the most important historical sources illuminating 12 th held convictions concerning gender roles, especially womanhood, and what may aptly be described as oped his image of the model Frank in his lengthy Monodiae 13 The original manuscript of the Monodiae is no longer extant. 14 It is believed to have disappeared by the 17 th century. The Benedictine monk Andr Duchesne made a partial cop y Germain des Pr 15 He edited and published them in 1651, albeit with misspellings and textual gaps. Thus, the copy of the Monodiae use was incomplete. In 1650, via a letter to Duchesne, he requested permission to borrow his Monodiae He kept the book divisions introduced by Duchesne, as he t several sections of the older manuscript, which was originally from the cathedral in Laon. That manuscript had manuscript, Duchesne created his own copy, which he 13 de Vita Sua Guibert likely completed the three book work sometime before 1118. He died in 1124. See Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, de Vita Sua ed. Georges Bourgin (Paris, 1907), pp. xvii xix. 14 Gui bert made various attacks upon some of the noble families of France in his memoirs. The Marle family of introduced into many family libraries throughout France. 15 borrowed from Duchesn e (which was also made by Duchesne), featured all of the same textual gaps as did his own.


11 document was likely medieval Duchesne noted that it contained abbreviations typical of a the copy from Laon. In addition to this text, there also remains a 13 th century summary of Monodiae were available in certain monasteries throughout France from a relatively early date. 16 Monodiae is not only an autobiography, but also a vast painting of medieval society in 12 th century France. While telling the story of his own life, Guibert commented on events and characters. Rather than explicitly and directly constructing the identity of the Frankis shamefully deviating from the customary behavior of the Franks. Thus, by means of negation, Guibert of Nogent candidly submitted to the attentive reader the ideal chara cter of several chapters of his memoirs. Guibert based his verbal assaults primarly upon accusations of physical ugliness and sexual deviance. In doing so, the proud abb ot disclosed a mental template which he applied to all non Franks, including the Byzantines. Given the popularity rve as a key source for gauging the xenophobia which marked Western views of Byzantium at the time of the First Crusade. Perhaps the most ubiquitous medieval stereotype of Byzantine men was that they were effeminate. Thus, it is appropriate to begin with 16 Monodiae see Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, de Vita Sua I 2, ed. Georges Bourgin (Paris, 1907), pp. xxx i xxxvi.


12 framework for these musings. By examining the manner in which the monk praised his mother and criticized other women, one can acquire a fairly detailed understanding of contrast to his mother in terms of virtue were the maidens in Nogent sous Coucy (the site of Mu is clear that her domineering nature often piqued his ire during his early years. Nonetheless, the language Guibert employed in the early chapters reveals a deep admirat ion and reverence for his mother. As will be discussed below, the abbot of Nogent sous Coucy may even have supposed his mother to be a worthy candidate for canonization. Guibert held her up as a paradigm of the fairer Frankish sex a woman to whom all ot her females, French or otherwise, should have aspired: I said, blessed and holy one, that I thanked Thee for Thy blessings. First and most importantly, I give thanks to Thee, for Thou portioned to me a mother who was beautiful, yet chaste, modest, and fur nished with fear of the Lord. 17 beauty, piety, chastity, and modesty. As will be shown, these are the primary qualities that, according to Guibert, the ideal Frankish woman exuded. Throughout the wo rk, the Benedictine monk invariably associated spiritual honor and purity with comely physical appearance. Conversely, nearly 17 Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, de Vita Sua sancte, quod de tuis tibi beneficiis gratularer. Primum potissimumque itaque gratias ego, quod pulchram, sed castam, modestam mihi memoirs will be used hereafter for ease of reference. Page numbers with lower case Roman numerals refer to translations are mine.


13 some fashion. Thus, Guibert quickly e Moreover, as a dedicated churchman, Guibert placed his mother close to his Savior by relating the harrowing s tory of his own birth: My mother spent nearly all of Good Friday in the excruciating pain of labor (in what suffering, too, did she linger, when I strayed from the way and followed slippery paths), when finally Holy Saturday arrived, the day before Easter. 18 sufferings, Guibert likens her to the Savior. Indeed, Guibert insists t hat only through his existence. surrounded by clerics. She promised the sickly Guibert t o the Virgin, dedicating him from born vassal of King Henry I, wished his son to be a knight. This was not to be, however. Evrard perished in the captivity of the Duke of Norma had her wish. She placed her son under a tutor, whom Guibert found somewhat lacking in both learning and demeanor. He grew into a shy but bright child, however, tempered by his al advice. Guibert claimed that his mother benefited from a miraculously acquired fear of sin at a young age, which she passed down to him: 18 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua mater exegerat (quos etiam angores mihi devio, et lubrica consectanti, totiens improperare solebat); tandem solenne sabbat early April of 1053. Guibert himself provides no dates in his memoirs, nor does he reveal the location of his birth. The monk was entirely indifferent t o the temporal dimension of his own account.


14 She was not even experienced [in the world], but she had learned to abhor sin by the fear of some blow from above, and as she frequently reminded me herself, this had so flooded her mind with the terror of sudden death, that in later times she despaired, since she no longer felt in her mature years the same pangs of righteous fear, as she had in her unformed and ignora nt youth. 19 This supernatural ability to detect and revile sin, as related by Guibert, looks suspiciously like the mark of sainthood. The monk continued to portray his mother as possessing of inward chastity, instilled 20 natura was that of a feminine gender indicates that the abbot shared the widespread opinion that women were, in general, physically and morally weaker than men. By describing her as exceptional, Guibert cast his mother as the ideal Frankish woman. He certainly believed his mother to belong to a dying breed of Fren ch noblewomen a proud few distinguished by chastity, modesty, piety, and beauty. The monk bemoaned subsequent generations of maidens as far less worthy: Ah! How wretchedly has the appearance of maidenhood fallen to ruin, how both the tradition and mantle among all of their habits, can only be identified by their shameful clowning. At all times they display nothing but silliness, swaying about while flashing their eyes and tongues. Chil dishness shows in their gaits, nor is there any part of their customs that is not ridiculous. So much does the extravagance of their dress depart from the old simplicity that in the enlargement of their sleeves, the straightness of their skirts, the disto rtion of their shoes of Cordovan leather with their curling toes, they seem to proclaim that everywhere shame is in exile. 21 19 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua I 12, pp. 36 Ita enim non experientia, sed quodam superni metus incussu horrere peccatum didicerat, et, ut ipsa mihi saepius referre solebat, ita subitae timore mortis mentem ingurgitaverat, ut jam grandaeva doleret, quod non eosdem in maturo animo boni stimulos pavoris haberet, quos 20 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua ...sed tu, Domine, castitatis internae fundator, tu ei sancti moniam 21 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua Eheu! Quam miserabiliter in virginea professione ruit, et res et species custodiae matronalis extabuit, ut in omni earum habitudine sola possint n otari triscurria, ubi nil nisi


15 The gaudy clothes and flippant manners fashionable among the new generations of Frankish contrast. Though outwardly beautiful, she always remained privately humble: With these eyes I have seen and made certain by touch that whereas over all she wore garments of rich material, next to her skin she was cov ered with the roughest hair cloth. Though her soft skin was utterly unsuited to it, she wore this all day and even through the night. 22 Indeed, Guibert forcefully asserted that she surpassed her juniors in all ways that mattered to God (and honorable Fran ks). She understood that her role as a woman was primarily restricted to the maintenance of the home and the instruction of children. In respect to both, as sh 23 As if all that praise was not sufficient to raise his mother to the pinnacle of Frankish legend ary piety. As a young girl, she was visited by demonic spirits who attempted to cause harm to her soul. However, after calling upon the Virgin Mary, she was saved from the that you 24 jocularia sonant, et oculorum nutus et lingua. Petulantia in incessu, nihil non ridiculum constat in moribus. Vestium qualitates in tantum sunt ab illa veteri frugalitate dissimiles, ut dilatatio manicarum, tunicarum angusti a, 22 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua Nam huisce oculis vidi manibusque tractavi, quod, cultiori extrinsecus aliquotiens veste praetensa, cilicio hispidissimo contegeretur ad nudum, nec solum interdiu 23 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua Docebat, quotiens a curis familiaribus solitudo vacabat, quo modo et 24 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua Illo igitur sic divinis virtutibus exturbato, pius ipse spiritus qui


16 point may have been to persuade his audience (almost certainly comprised of fellow monks) that she was nothing less than a saint, though as yet uncanonized. The abbot was likely aware that the image he presented of his mother easily could have been perceived as exaggerated. Perhaps sensing doubt in his audience, th e Benedictine monk admitted that, 25 He himself, at least, was prepared to believe that his mother embodied the paragon of Frankish womanhood. While Guibert positively defined Frankish ideals of virtue by expounding on the character of his mother, he offered sharp contrasts to those ideals through his attacks upon btes noires as he considered them a perverse, foreign, and parasitic people who were eager to speed righteous Franks on the path to sin. His furious assaults were therefore directed also against those infected by Jewish degeneracy, most notably the local count, John of Soissons. 26 Guibert heaps negative attributes upon Jews and their sympathizers, thus creating a sharp contrast to the Christian Franks. The chief characteristics that distinguished Jews or their cronies were physical u gliness and extreme sexual perversity. the divine penalties suffered by thos 25 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua Sed scio quia pariter mihi exinde plurima adhibendae fidei 26 John, Count of Soissons, was sympathetic to Jews and o ffered the local population shelter in the county. Guibert de Vita Sua II 5, p. 120.


17 Meanwhile, John, the Count of Soissons to turn my pen now upon what I promised before was a talented general, but a lover of peace [a coward], whose only motive was his own profit. The wickedness of his father and his grandfather was always exerted for the ruin of the Mother Church. Additionally, the mother of John among other dark exhibitions of her power, caused the tongue of a deacon to be cut from his throat and his eyes to be put out. Doubtless she was encourag ed to do this by the daring of parricide, for with the help of a certain Jew she had poisoned her own brother in greed for his earldom. Because of that the Jew burned and, as for herself, the day before Lent, after dining lavishly, she was stricken with pa ralysis in the night in her first sleep and lost the use of her tongue and all power in the rest of her body; and what was even worse, she henceforth had no understanding of the things of God and afterward lived the life of a pig. 27 His mother having died the death of the lowest of all farm animals, he himself could not have such an extent that he blasphemed against the Savior, which even the Jews, on account of fear of 28 John also defiled churches, feigning piety on important feast days in order to dally with beautiful Frankish women following H oly Mass. His worst crimes, however, were those of adultery and sexual misconduct of the most grotesque order. Though he had a beautiful and young wife, he [John] spurned her and was infatua ted with a wrinkled hag. He kept a bed in the house of a certain Jew and frequently had it arranged for him, but he could never be restricted to a bed, and, in his raging lust, threw himself and that foul woman into any disgusting corner, such as a closet And he had a certain parasite lie with his wife, after the nightly lamps were extinguished, pretending to 27 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua III 16, pp. 208 Joannes interea, Suessorum comes (ut jam stilum ad promissa vertamus), militia solers pacisque studiosus fuit, cujus tamen intentio sola sua utilitas fuit. Nam paterna et avita nequitia in exitium matris semper ecclesiae redundavit. Porro mater inter caetera potentiae suae miracula linguam diacono cuidam a gutture exemptam succidi fecit oculosque convelli. Nimirum id praesumpsit parricidalis audacia. Nam Judaei cujusdam studio fratrem pr oprium cupiditate comitatus veneno occiderat; quam ob causam et Judaeum ignis assumpsit. Et ipsa pridie quam caput jejenii sequebatur, postquam eximie coenaverat, in ipso sui somni nocte primordio paralisi percussa, officia linguae perdidit, totius corpor is invalitudinem incurrit, quodque potissimum est, nil deinceps quod ad Deum pertineret sapuit, et de caetero porcum vixit. 28 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua Ipse Judaeorum et haereticorum perfidiam tantopere coluit, ut, quod Judaeis metum


18 be him [John], so that he could place the crime of adultery upon her. But she sensed it was not the count via the difference in body qualities (fo r the count was grossly scabbed), and overcame the miscreant with her own power and the assistance of her servants. What more is there to say? He did not excuse nuns or holy sisters from his abuse, nor equally did he spare the holy brothers his direct ri valry [in such sinful pursuits]. 29 John dies a most disgraceful death, far from the dignified exit befitting a true Christian Frank. The count, striken with madness in recompense for his life of sin, passed, agonized but unrepentant, into Hell. With thes e vicious assaults upon Jews and Judaizers, the abbot of Nogent sous Coucy displayed a striking intolerance for any deviation from what he saw as the customary dignity and honor of the Franks. This same sharp bias also colored his perception of the Easter n Church and its adherents, the denizens of the Byzantine Empire. Guibert made no mention of the Byzantines in his memoirs. De Vita Sua focused surroundings. Ho wever, Guibert had already cast his eyes eastward in one of his earlier works, a revision of the anonymously authored Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum which he titled Dei Gesta per Francos 30 Crusade was more tha n a simple re 31 While the Gesta did follow the narrative framework of the original, it is an entirely distinct 29 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua III 16, pp. 210 Certe cum conjugem juvenculam speciosam haberet, ea contempta, rugosissimam ita affectabat anum, ut, cum intra domum cujusdam Judaei l ectum sibi et illi saepius apparari faceret, nunquam tamen stratu cohiberi poterat, sed in aliquem angulum turpem, aut certe intra apothecam aliquam prae furore libidinis se cum illa sordidissima contrudebat. Quid, quod cum uxore sua parasitastrum quendam extinctis jam nocte lucernis, sub specie sui cubitum ire mandavit, ut adulterii sui crimen impingeret! Quae cum non esse comitem ex corporis qualitate sentiret (erat enim comes foede pruriginosus), suo quo valuit nisu et pedissequarum auxilio, scurram d ure cecidit. Quid plura? Non sanctimonialem, non 30 Guibert wrote his Dei Gesta per Francos sometime between 1107 and 1108. De Vita Sua was a later work which the abbot wrote near the end of his life. The dates of its composition are still disputed, but Bourgin contends that it must have been completed by 1118. 31 The anonymously authored Gesta was completed around 1101 and its hero is Bohemond of Taranto, the famed


19 Gesta was not so much a narrative as it w as a medium for moral commentary. As the abbot turned his account of the First Crusade to the Holy Land, he gave himself occasion to comment upon the myriad shortcomings of its denizens namely Byzantines and Turks. defamations of the two principal faiths of the east, the Byzantine Church and Islam. To the abbot, the Eastern Church was a spawning ground for heresy. Guibert even hypothesized that it was the nature of the East itsel f that facilitated the straying of Christian minds and degenerated traditions of the Greek Church: However, the faith of the easterners, which was always a tottering affair, soft and variable, ever in a search for novelty, always ejecting itself far from t he confines of true belief, finally deserted the authority of the ancient Church fathers. It may very well be that these very men [easterners], because of the purity of the air and sky in which they are born, are lighter of body and thusly also more agile in respect to their minds, and have fallen into the habit of abusing the brilliance of their keen intellect with many useless fabrications. While unwilling to submit to the authority of either their equals or their emselves, and in searching they succumbed [to 32 grew into conniving heretics. The hot and arid climate of the East spawned a race of slight, clever m en who were destined to become poor Christians. 33 The ancient notion that the culture and political behavior of different peoples was determined by their locations within 32 Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, Dei Gesta per Francos I 2, ed. R .B.C. Huygens (Turnholt, 1996), pp. 89 Orientalium autem fides cum semper nutabunda constiterit et rerum molitione novarum mutabilis et vagabunda fuerit, semper a regula verae credulitatis exorbitans, ab antiquorum Patrum auctoritate descivit. Ipsi p lane homines pro aeris et celi cui innati sunt puritate cum sint levioris corpulentiae et idcirco alacrioris ingenii, multis et inutilibus commentis solent radio suae perspicacitatis abuti et, dum maiorum sive coevorum suorum despiciunt obtemperare magiste rio, scrutati sunt iniquitates, defecerunt scrutantes scrutinio. 33


20 Na turalis Historia Geographia was quite popular in the medieval West during the 13 th century. 34 this so h monasteries as early as the late 11 th and early 12 th centuries. 35 Although Guibert placed the blame for what he saw as dogmatic digressions in the Eastern Church directly on its surroundings, it did not soften his opinions concerning the Byzantines. The monk simply cited Psalm 63.7 to sum up the fate of the Eastern Church and its adherents those who explored evil became evil, the fate of clever and restless minds. 36 g Islam. For, as they fell away from faith in the Trinity, just as those who fall into filth are filthy, gradually they came to the utmost edge of detriment that of receiving paganism upon themselves and as the penalty for the sin arrived, they lost the soil of their ancestral lands to an invading foreign race. Even those able to remain in their native lands are subjected to pay tribute to the foreigners. 37 34 Natural History, likely had an im portant influence on birth the 8 th century English monk Bede used one as a source for his De Rerum Natura Continental copies were extant as well, as evidenced by the famous manuscript in the Abbey Saint Vincent in Le Mans. Thus, it is likely that Guibert of Nogent had access to a copy of the Natural History as well. For Pliny on ethnography, see The C lassical Review 55 (2005), 548 550. 35 nd century work, Geographia Guibert probably did not read it, since the first known translation from Greek into Latin was pub th attestations of its revival. For Ptolemy, see Dennis Cosgrove, Earth in the Western Imagination (London, 2003). The late antique transmission of the idea in the East has been described by Honigmann, Die sieben Klimata 36 See Guibert of Nogen t, The Deeds of God through the Franks trans. Robert Levine (Suffolk, 1997), p. 30. 37 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos Dum enim a Trinitatis fide desciscunt ut adhuc sordescant qui in sordibus sunt, paulatim usque ad extrema suscipien dae gentilitatis detrimenta venerunt et, procedente pena peccati, alienigenis irruentibus etiam solum patriae amiserunt aut, si quempiam ibidem remanere contigit,


21 The Benedictine monk appears to believe that Byzan tine weakness and folly propelled the Eastern Church out of communion with the rest of Christendom, thus inviting the infection of deviation from the true faith c aused God to smite their empire with Islamic invaders. The Greeks continued to suffer humiliating defeats at the hands the invaders, and the conquered account it i s clear that the abbot considered the plight of the 12 th century Byzantine Empire its just desserts. The Greeks excelled at the same sins committed by the shameful pariahs Guibert would later assail in his memoirs. The Eastern Roman Empire was rampant wi th sexual deviancy, slavery, and extravagance How could a people, whom Guibert considered so perfectly to mirror his enemies at home, not deserve the savage ravaging of pagan armies? The monk spared no rhe torical expense as he iterated the more terrible excesses of the Byzantines: Finally, worse than all of these, it seems that among them [the Byzantines] it is generally considered permissible by a law of the empire that young girls may be taken to become p rostitutes, a freedom allowed everywhere as if it were just. 38 To Guibert, the worst acts one could perform always concerned the deepest sorts of depravities. In the case of Count John, whom he would later excoriate for similar charges, the implication wa s that he was acting against the law of the land, which condemned such actions. Byzantium took depravity a step further in institutionalizing it by means of an imperial law. 38 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Ge sta per Francos His denique omnibus preponderare videtur quod imperiali apud eosdem constat generaliter lege sancitum quod, de omnium videlicet filiabus concessa passim quasi pro elieved that some of the money earned by such


22 Guibert dealt similarly with Islam, which he regarded as the wicked brainchild o f wayward Byzantine heretics. Islam was a religion born out of Byzantine excesses, namely those of opulent wealth and sexual depravity. Guibert portrayed the rise of the prophet Muhammad as the ascension of a madman from lowly origins to the heights of p ower, driven insane by wealth and physical lust. After acquiring followers and an underage wife, 39 ...and the erstwhile miserable Muhammad, surrounded by brilliant riches, was lifted, perhaps to his own grea t stupefaction, to an unexpected power. And since the vessel of one bed often received their sexual exchanges, the famed prophet took on the disease of epilepsy, which we call, in the vulgar tongue, the falling sickness. 40 Just as the body John of Soisson consequence for her sins, so was the prophet Muhammad punished by disease. As epilepsy gripped Muhammad, his followers grew in their belief that the man was connected to some otherworldly wisdom. Gui that story: Since he often fell into sudden epileptic fits, with which we earlier mentioned he conte nded, it once happened that, while walking alone, a fit fell on him and he fell down instantly; while he was writhing in this agony, he was found by some pigs, who proceeded to devour him, so that nothing could be found of him except his heels. 41 39 prostitution in Byzantium. 40 Guibert of N ogent, Dei Gesta per Francos pridum miser Mathomus, fortunis undecumque micantibus, ad inopinatos, forsitan non sine sui ipsius incredibili stupore, provehitur. At cum sepius utrorumque commertia lecti unius urna susciperet, propheta ce 41 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos Cum subitaneo ictu epylenseos saepe corrueret, quo eum diximus superius laborare, accidit semel, dum solus obambulat, ut morbo elisus eo dem caderet; et inventus, dum


23 vision of Islam was a dark reflection of the Byzantine Church and John of two entities wracked with sexual depravity and punished by sudden and humiliating violence. Guibert casts the Islamic Turks as the disease which infected the body of the Byzantine Empire, paralyzing and destroying it from the inside. According to Guibert, wreaking plag ue upon the Greeks, punishing them for their heretical leanings and soft spirits. Against this bleak picture of the East, Guibert takes the opportunity to praise the singleminded purity of the Franks. He highlights their alien nature in the East tall, st rong bearers of true faith marching through a land gripped by heresy, greed, and sexual excesses. Guibert regarded the beleaguered Byzantines as totally undeserving of the Christian charity reported that the pope was not motivated by the sumptuous gifts offered by the Byzantine emperor Alexius, but rather by the desire to rescue Eastern Christians from the abuses of the Turks: This great man, although honored with great gifts, and even with p rayers, by Alexius, prince of the Greeks, was driven much more by the danger to all of Christendom...and decided to make a journey to France, to recruit the people of his country. 42 In short, the Frankish knights that set out on Crusade to the East were th e eptiome of what the Byzantines were not: courageous, desexualized, pious, and ultimately concerned with the health of their souls rather than with the material world. 42 See Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks trans. Robert Levine (Suffolk, 1997), p. 40. Accordi ng to Guibert, the Franks were not motivated by wealth, unlike their Eastern brothers. The foremost


24 They spurned the most magnificent honors, as well as their dominion over castles and ci ties; to them their most beautiful wives became decaying filth; common symbols of intercourse, at one time considered more precious than any gem, were scorned... 43 The abbot painted a bright picture of chaste warriors emerging as the last, best hope of the East, which had sunk hopelessly into the vices of sin. He reminded his audience of the virtual worthlessness of women: only through piety and chastity could a man attain true honor. Thus, to scorn contact with women was to be elevated in the eyes of God In this manner, Guibert saw the Crusade as a spiritual transformation for many of his countrymen. It was logical that only the Franks could prevail in such a dismal situation as existed in the ave in war, generous, brilliant 44 Gesta capitalized on the Frankish victory in Jerusalem to create an oddly nationalist tone, praising not one crusader in particular, but indeed the whole people of Franc e, by whose faith and blood victory was won. Though the Franks proved invincible with God at their side, Guibert insisted that their victory was not an easy one. At every turn, the crusader army was hindered and opposed by the weak and cowardly Byzantine s. The abbot made no attempt to conceal his outrage though they were fellow Christians in desperate need of the aid of their Frankish brothers, the Byzantines, with the wicked emperor Alexius at their head, sought first to control and finally to destroy C 43 Gui bert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos I 1, p. 87 Honores amplissimi, castellorum et urbium dominia spernebantur, uxores pulcherrimae quasi quiddam tabidum vilescebant, omni gemma quondam gratiores 44 See Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos II 1, p. 104. This nationalist sentiment is seemingly echoed by Deeds of Louis the Fat However, to Suger, Francia was about the crown and the Catholic church, not a Furor Teutonicus A note on Deeds of Louis the Fat The Haskins Society Journal 16 (2005), 62 76.


25 simultaneously plotting behind their backs. come with them, at the head of his own army, aid them on land and on the sea, and he would order that food be brought from everywhere for them to purchase; if they suffered any losses, he would indemnify them fully; finally, he would not wish or allow anyo ne on this expedition, to the extent that he 45 Guibert then detailed the many failings of Alexius as an ally to the Franks in their battles rs; rather, he sent a pusillanimous, treacherous general who proved a burden rather than an asset. Guibert names version of the Byzantine soul. Tetigus was short a nd dark, and he was distinguished by his mutilated nose. He wore a golden ornament in its place. His hideous countenance already skilled liar, compelled by fe 46 It was not only the Byzantine nobility that opposed the crusaders. In perhaps his most damning accusation against the Byzantine civilization, Guibert relates how the local populace betrayed the Christian host instead of thanking it for their deliverance from Turkish domination. They enticed the Franks with their deceptive, repeated lies, and, whispering in their ears, using the most flattering terms, they claimed that they shunned the Turks, although they 45 See Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks trans. Robert Levine (Suffolk, 1997), p. 61. 46 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos IV 10, p. 182 ...hinc Turcorum timore coactus, illinc famis offered excuses to withdraw to Constantinople on the eve of multiple critical engagements with th e Turks, further highlighting his Greek cowardice. Taticius, as he was known to the Byzantines, was actually of Turkish Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1989), 1 25.


26 did not allow their own wives to go beyond the city limits; when they left the Franks, and were back in the city, they reported to the Turks whatever news they had been able to gather about the weaknesses of the Christian side. 47 As portraye d by Guibert, cowardice and greed penetrated into all levels of Byzantine society. Clearly, treachery was not confined to the Constantinopolitan courts; it was practiced everywhere and by everyone. In all of their nefarious dealings throughout the Franki sh at every possible opportunity. It was all the monk could do to call the Byzantines people while plotting the ruin of those who were truly worthy of that name. 47 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos Cum enim Francos suae assiduae confabulationis visco allicerent et se a Turcorum facie fugitare multae adulationis lenocinio nostrorum auribus musitarent, uxores tamen proprias excedere nullatenus ab urbe sinebat et ad ipsas, digressi a Francis, postliminium facientes, quae




28 Alexiad Although Anna Comnena wrote her Alexiad (Greek: ) nearly half a century after the conclusion of the First Crusade, the text has long been considered the best source for understanding the Byzantine perception of the expedition and its participants. As the remain an objective, unbi ased narrator, despite her numerous proclamations that she was, in fact, a neutral chronicler. Her work is of singular significance to the study of ethnic Dei Gesta pe r Francos one of the less studied Western counterparts. Anna Comnena was proud of her heritage. Born and bred in the royal purple of the poetry, science and rhetoric from an early age. Anna was married to the son of one of her imperia brother. John, in an act of mercy, only exiled his enraged sister to the conv ent of Kecharitomene in Constantinople. It was here that Anna spent the remainder of her life as a nun. She completed the Alexiad during this period. 48 48 y mentioned, the Dei Gesta per Francos was written around 1107 and completed by no later than 1108. Anna completed her Alexiad Anna Komnene and Her Times edited by Thalia Gouma Peterson (New York, 2000), pp. 1 14.


29 comparison between their authorship and style. Both writers penned their works following the events of the First Crusade. Neither had taken part in the conflict, and each expressed a l as 49 assuming any meaningful role in the Crusade she was fourteen when the combine d Frankish crusader forces assembled outside Constantinople. Her gender also kept her from participating in any martial capacity. 50 The two historians were committed admirers of the classics. Guibert of Nogent probably could not read Greek, but he was ex tremely familiar with some of the most important classical authors of the Latin tradition. Virgil and Ovid were among his primary influences. 51 For her part, Anna was extensively versed in literature from classical Greece. She seemed to model her historic al style closely to that of Thucydides, but she also borrowed Odyssey and 49 service with the clergy, and Guibert took her vow quite seriously. In addition, Guibert was likely phys ically ill suited for military activity. He described himself as slight and sickly during his childhood, and was already around 42 years old when the Frankish professional armies set out for the Holy Land. 50 Nevertheless, in the Alexiad the princess disp layed a remarkable familiarity with military tactics, equipment, and naval engagements Alexiad Anna Komnene and Her Times edited by Thalia Gouma Peterson (New York, 2000), pp. 63 81 has finally p ut to rest earlier speculations about those portions of the Alexiad dealing with military campaigns as having been written by 51 See Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, de Vita Sua ed. Georges Bourgin (Paris, 1907), In troduction, p. vi. Guibert thought himself to be a rival to Virgil and Ovid and showcased his lyric poetry in some of his works, including his version of the Gesta Bourgin even suggests that the monk wrote erotic poetry in his earlier years.


30 that epic (sh e often quoted Homer from memory with minor errors). 52 She also mentioned Aristophanes by name in the Alexiad 53 54 ex reproduction of classical Attic prose. Both the Gesta and the Alexiad suffer from confusing grammar as well as overly difficult (and sometimes invented) vocabulary. Both autho rs ardently wished to display their skill in letters, which were indeed acclaimed by their contemporaries. Anselm of Bec (the eventual Archbishop of Canterbury), a fellow in dogma and scholastic theology. 55 Georgios Tornikes, bishop of Ephesus at the time of 56 Guibert and Anna wrote in monastic settings the Benedictine at Nogent sous Coucy, and the princess at the Constantinopolitan convent of Kecharitomene. 57 While Guibert wrote 52 This, of course, assumes that we now have the same text which Anna had. Andrew Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27, no. 1 (1986), 113 120. 53 See Anna Comnena, Alexi as I 8 ed. August Reifferscheid ( Leipzig, 1884), p. 30. 54 Rhetoric a 26, no. 3 (2008), 301 335. 55 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua encouragement, a young Guibert became familiar with the works of Saint Gregory and Augustine of Hippo. 56 See Georgios Torn Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence edited by R. Sorabji (New York, 1990), pp. 393 406. It is possible that Georgios Tornikes knew Anna bec ause of her connection to the monastic community of Constantinople. It is even more likely that he was familiar with her writing. 57 convent. The re, she finished the Alexiad Guibert had been appointed abbot of Nogent sous Coucy in 1104.


31 she clearly addressed the cultural and intellectual elite of the Byzantine Empire. 58 Despite in his Gesta be explained partially by her unwilling entrance into the convent where she spent the remainder of her life. Furthermore, Anna did not seem to consider the First Crusade to be the religiously charged conflict that Guibert saw. 59 In her eyes, the Crusade w Frankish military elements to aid in the recapture of Byzantine territories from the Seljuq God. The very title, Dei Gesta per Francos emphasized that God, not the Franks, was the simple title wishe or something of that nature. 60 The princess nevertheless credited God benevolence, as well as the Comnenian rise to power in the empire. Anna also frequently mentioned that her father was protected by God in battle. All of this would suggest that the 58 literacy among the upper classes of Constantinople, f Bilan et perspectives des etudes mdivales en Europe edited by J. Hamesse (Louvain la Neuve, 1995), pp. 35 42. learned women Anna Komnene and Her Times edited by Thalia Gouma Peterson (New York, 2000), pp. 125 156. 59 The Alexiad throughout its entire fifteen book length, contains only 107 combined instances of words for topics. 60 Instead, her work simply bears reminiscent of Homer, whom Anna imitated at length.


32 princess was convinced that God supported the Byzantine cause by furnish ing her father with blessings and triumphs. Alexiad was to celebrate the life of her father, to whom she was solidly devoted; the work also exemplifies her competence and wisdom. Following her exile, Anna remain ed deeply embittered toward her brother, whom that the Alexiad through displaying her ke Alexius. 61 The lengthy narrative was more than this, however. Throughout the biography, Anna stressed the superiority of the Greek civilization over that of the precariously allied Franks. de Vita Sua presented his mother as a paragon of ancient wisdom, courage, and wit of the Byzantines. In so doing, the princess all owed the reader to discern some of the core values of the Byzantine elite during the 12 th century. It is for this reason that the Alexiad is of such great importance to this study. No source of this period can better define and quantify the Byzantine fea r, contempt, and stereotyping which Throughout the Alexiad the author continually praised her father, contrasting his sterling qualities against those of the culturally in ferior Frankish crusaders. Anna contradicted several common Western stereotypes regarding the Byzantines through extolling 61 Alexiad. Se e, for instance, Vlada Stankov Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100, no. 1 (2007), 169 175. Stankov believes magnum opus


33 the heroic character of her father. In direct opposition to the Western charge that Byzantines were soft and cowardly by nature and worthless in battle, Anna described her father thus: For he displayed himself to be wondrous amongst his peers, as well as the greatest of daredevils. And, at fourteen, he was anxious to join with the Emperor Diogenes on an extremely difficult campaign wh ich he was waging against the Persians [Seljuqs], and by this very heaviest sort of longing for military service, he brazenly touted his passionate rage against the barbarians, and further, declared that, if even he traded blows with them, his sword would make itself drunk with their blood so bellicose was the youth. 62 In this passage, Alexius viscerally displays the ferocity and bravery so honored in Western warriors during that same time. Even Guibert of Nogent would have approved such a brazen display o f righteous rage against Turks, whom the abbot, in unconscious agreement with the Byzantines, considered pagan barbarians. The anonymous author of the G esta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum quite literally, the greatest lover of danger. t of the stereotypical Greek cowardice, softness, or indolence that was so often decried in the West. It rather seemed that a healthy level of bellicosity was desireable in a Byzantine ruler. The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum described Alexius Comnenus as infelix 63 painted a picture of an entirely different man. The version of the Byzantine 62 Anna Comnena, Alexias I 1 ed. August Reifferscheid ( Leipzig, 1884), p. 9. For ease of re ference, the pagination used in Reifferscheid will be used for all subsequent references to the Alexiad Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the Alexiad included herein are mine. 63 administration, see Byzantion 50 (1980), 504 532.


34 Emperor was a middle aged warrior king, beset by troubles and facing overwhelming opposition from all sides. The Alexius seen here succeeds not by force of arms (for Anna admitted that the Byzantines were indeed militarily feeble during the First Crusade), but by his own strength, courage, and cunning. 64 The burden of his empire and its enemies weighed heavily on the man, becoming a stress so grave that it led to physical ailment. Anna explained that the myriad cares of state eventually sent her heroic father to an honorable grave, after saving the empire from near total c great alarm when he perceived that the Frankish crusaders posed a greater threat to Byzantine stability than did the Turkish invaders whom they were ostensibly sent to expel. Who has not heard of those hordes o f Franks who, coming upon the Queen City, already had vacated [their own lands] and encroached into ours from all sides? For on their account, the Emperor of the Romans had fallen into an immense ocean of trouble indeed, for a long time he recognized that they [the Franks] were lusting after the Roman Empire; and he saw their vast crowds which were beyond even the sand and the stars in number, and then considered all of the Roman forces which did not equal a fraction of theirs, even if they could all be mar shalled into one space. 65 Anna, and her father, had good reason to fear the arrival of the crusader armies. Far more troops were present than Alexius had supposed would arrive, and they were under the command of their own lords. The emperor had simply ex pected an elite force of armored eyes, the Frankish militaries could not b e trusted; they were every inch the invaders that the 64 Anna may have deliberately cast her father as another Odysseus. 65 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XIV 4, p. 240.


35 Turks were. The beleaguered emperor now confronted the challenge of a two pronged invasion of the ancient city of Constantinople one from the East, and a new one from the West. Of interest in the abov e passage is the fact that Anna openly reported the numerical inferiority of the Byzantine forces. This information was likely presented to add impact to through tu of the empire, as previously mentioned, proved more grievous to him than did any Frankish lossal caused him great pain. Anna reported that he never complained of it, nor once allowed it to ense pain which had come 66 Anna clearly considered her Of further note is the ethnonym Anna used to refer to the Fra nks. Instead of utilizing 67 Anna always used the latter term in a disparaging sense, as will later be postulated. It is possible that she was aware of the importance which the crusaders 66 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XIV 4, p. 239. 67 Geographia in an attempt to reproduce the ancient writing styles in her own work. She calls most westerners Kelts, excluding the mem bers of the feared Varangian Guard created in 988 by the emperor Basil II, with whom the royal family had frequent Scandinavia or the British Isles, the p rimary recruiting grounds of the Varangians (again lifted from classical sources of geography). As the First Crusade was largely a French and Norman phenomenon, relatively few participants from England or Scandinavia were present. Thus, the crusader armi es probably had very few members of actual Keltic origin. See Anna Comnena, Alexiad II 9, p. 84. For the Varangian Guard, see Sigfus Blondal, Varangians of Byzantium: An Aspect of Byzantine Military History (Cambridge, 1978).


36 the Frankish race was inclined toward honorable behavior. If Anna was in fact cognizant of this, she might have been r efusing the Franks their preferred ethnonym in a subtle effort to insult them, as she did not believe that the crusaders had the ability to comport themselves honorably. Anna elaborated on her perceptions of the Frankish crusaders. She candidly ennumerat during the siege of Nicaea in June of 1097. ...then Bohemund, commanding the right wing and seeing the most ferocious manner in which the Turks were fighting their opponents, sallied forth from main line of the army, and charged viciously against Clitzias thlan [Kilij Arslan I], the very Sultan himself, appearing convincingly as a lion reveling in its might, according to a poet. This which he [Bohemond] did filled the Turks with dread, and thereafter they offered the Franks only their backs. 68 As mentioned earlier, the princess identified and admired similar skill and bravery in her own father. Anna described the extraordinary abilities of Franks on the field of battle in several other passages. Clearly, she considered the crusaders to be exceptionally ski lled at fighting; in combat, but they were also exceedingly rash and stupid. Their arrogance repeatedly placed them in unnecessarily dangerous situations. In the fo llowing passage, Anna recounts a grievous price Bohemond paid for his rash actions in battle. 68 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XI 3 pp. 111 2. ...


37 Then Bohemond, that delusional Latin, who had dared to sit on the throne of the Emperor, became mindless of the Emperor's advice, rode in the extreme front of his army, and in his small minded stupidity forged ahead of the others, who were marching in ranks. Because of this, some forty of his own men were killed at that time (and he was himself seriously wounded), and he turned his back to the enemy and returned t o the center of his formation, thus proclaiming, in deed, the worthiness of the Emperor's counsel (though he would never be willing to say this in words). As Bohemund saw that the Turks were fighting stoutly, he sent for the [other] Frankish troops. 69 In lauded bravery turned to rashness. Heedless of the sage imperial advice to wait for reinforcements and lead his army from a tactical position, the hotheaded Norman placed himself in the middle of the fray. His foolishness cost the lives of many of his best men, and nearly his own. Anna smugly noted his undignified retreat, affirming simultaneously bot h the Latin tendency such a stupid man certainly had no business desiring the mastery of the Roman Empire. The Franks were a n impetuous race inclined to battle, but to the Byzantines, they were too untrustworthy and stupid to be counted upon for anything else. The chapters of the Alexiad focusing upon the Byzantine recapture of Nicaea with Frankish aid are an excellent case st udy for examining Byzantine interactions with the 69 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XI 3, p. 111. lkans, Bohemond was


38 f the events as told in the Alexiad reveal some important and unique Byzantine values. with the Turkish generals inside the city. Using the threat of the bloodthirsty Fran ks outside the Turks to abdicate to Alexius. During these negotiations, Alexius simply advised the allied crusaders to continue the siege. To maintain the appearanc e of Byzantine cooperation, he devices: This was really advice to make the Franks bel ieve that the city had been taken by Butumites in war and to keep secret the drama of treachery the Emperor had arranged. For the Emperor did not want the Franks to know anything of what Butumites had done. On the following day the war cry was raised on bo th sides of the city and on the land side the Franks started the assault with great vigour, and on the other Butumites mounted to the battlements, fixed the imperial sceptres and standards along the walls and with bugles and trumpets acclaimed the Emperor. And in this way the whole Roman army entered Nicaea. Now Butumites having in mind the number of the Franks, feared on account of their fickleness and impetuosity, that they might enter and take possession of the citadel...Now this was literally a kind of prophecy and an irrefutable proof of that man's great experience. 70 Byzantines. Anna acknowledged that the simple minded Franks considered such a ploy to be treache ry. However, the ability to sidestep battle by means of superior diplomacy was, in the Byzantine mind, as important as martial prowess. Where, in the person of Alexius, the 70 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad is so literal that my own translation was unnecess ary.


39 Franks saw a cowardly schemer, the Byzantines saw a clever and admirable leader. That her father won a battle without ever drawing a sword was a point of great pride for Anna. The image of stupified shock upon the faces of the besieging Franks as they saw Byzantine e princess a great deal of satisfaction. However, the sly emperor Alexius was not finished exercising his superior intellect. In order to appease the outraged crusader leaders and place them even further under his thumb, he appealed to what Anna consider greatest vice greed. The Emperor was still spending time at Pelecanus, and wishing that those among the Frankish Counts who had not yet sworn fealty to him also take the oath, he ordered Boutoumites via letter to advise all the Counts together not to set forth on the road to Antioch before taking leave of the Emperor; for if they complied, it would be possible advice, and urged all the others to go with him to the Emperor, so insatiably greedy of money was he. When they arrived at Pelecanus, the Emperor welcomed them with great ceremony, and treated them with a great deal of delicacy; later he summoned them and transgressors of it, admonish those who you know have not yet sworn their allegiences to tly sent for those who had not yet sworn; and they all gathered as one and consummated the oath. 71 were motivated to undertake the Crusade by stirrings of Christian charity. The Byzantine 71 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XI 3, pp. 109 10. j


40 wishes at Pelecanus. 72 It was clear to the Byzantine mind that the Franks were utterly defenseless in the face of their o wn avarice. That the only part of Frankish nature which her father could trust was greed would be safeguards against the rapacity of the Franks, knowing all too well that the enraged host would pillage the newly captured metropolis. Then Boutoumites was appointed Duke of Nicaea by the Emperor, and the Franks sought permission from him to enter the city and visit and worship in its churches. However he, knowing their n ature to a certainty, as was mentioned earlier, did not allow them all to enter at once, but opened the gates and permitted only single groups of ten Franks to enter at a time. 73 the Alexiad will through his crafty manipulation of their basest instin cts. Nothing could have been more insulting to a proud Frank, nor more amusing and satisfying to a cultured and complacent Byzantine mind. 72 The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum admiringly recounted Tanc father after the recapture of Nicaea. See Byzantion Comnenus: fealty, homage pistis, do Parergon 2 (1984), 111 141. 73 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XI 3, p. 109. n.




42 III. Idolizing the Enemy: Guibert of Nogent and Anna Comnena Both Anna Comnena and Guibert of Nogent held deep misgivings concerning other peoples Guibert toward easterners, Anna toward the denizens of western Europe. However, in singular instances, both authors stepped away from their prejudices. Guibert of Nogent and Anna Comnena found worth and honor in speci understated. By singling out honora ble individuals among their enemies, Anna and Guibert revealed their most dearly held values. wars with the Normans in the decades before the First Crusade. When Rober conquest of southern Italy brought him into direct conflict with the Byzantines, he needed justification for waging war against them. 74 Guiscard went to great lengths to legitimize his belligerence towards the Byzantines by means of an aggressi ve propaganda campaign that built upon pre existing anti Byzantine and anti Greek stereotypes. By the 1080s, as Guiscard and his son Bohemond were preparing to invade the western Balkans, this campaign had reached its apogee. Norman anti Byzantine propag anda amplified earlier assaults upon the character of Easterners. Such ethnic stereotypes were especially prevalent in Italy during the preceding century. 75 Liutprand of Cremona, who had visited Constantinople as the envoy of Otto I, 74 Though the Great Schism of 1054 placed the Byzantine church out of communion with Ro me, the Byzantines status as Christians at the Council of Clermont in 1095. 75 Earlier anti Byzantine stereotypes in Western Europe often recycled classical ones concerning Greeks in Roman literature. Virgil and Juvenal were common sources for medieval anti Byzantine rants.


43 assailed the Byzantin 76 Norman propaganda capitalized on the feminine characterization of Greeks by the Lombard bishop. To the Norman mind, Byzantine women were veiled, slothful, unwarlike, and deceitful all demeaning char acteristics shared by their male counterparts. The Lombard chronicler Amato of Montecassino declared Norman seizures of Byzantine lands divine punishments for their ue 77 Amato became a significant contributor to the Norman propaganda campaign, writing his History of the Normans during the height of Norman clashes with Byzantine forces in southern Italy. For their part, the B yzantines received the freshly Despite this vortex of political and ethnic hostility, the Byzantine princess Anna Comnena made a notable effort to commend a high ranking member of the N orman camp. Robert th century work, the Alexiad At four distinct points, Anna greatest enemies. Known in the Alexiad as (Gaita), the Lombard princess rode beside her husband Robert Guiscard against the armies of 76 See Liutprand of Cremona, Liutprand of Cremona: The Embassy to Constantinople and Other Writings, trans. F.A. Wright (London, 1993), pp. 202 3. Liutprand traveled to Constantinople in 968 to arrange a marriage between the future Otto II and Anna Porphyrogenita, the daughter of Emperor Nicephorus Phocas. The bishop was outraged by what he saw as the excessive vanity of the Gree ks particularly when he was relieved of his purple garments by court officials. The color purple was reserved only for the imperial family at the Byzantine court. 77 Amato of Montecassino, The History of the Normans III 38, ed. Prescott N. Dunbar and G.A. Loud (Rochester, 2004), pp. 86 109. History of the Normans likely written between 1072 and 1080, does not survive. The earliest version is an Old French translation from the 14 th century.


44 ways a foe of her fathe 78 southern Italy. 79 Beyond allying Robert with the ruling family of Salerno, the marriage brought him a wife who, according to Anna, possessed remarkable valor and martial capability. As will be discussed below, Anna reported that Gaita behaved with honor superior to that of her Norman in laws during a battle with the Byzantines. Prior to this, Anna had portrayed Gaita as also outshining her husband in terms of Christian piety. In the Alexiad she even objects to her This came about, as they say that the most villainous Robert, who indeed was anxious for battle with the Romans, and had been preparing war for a great deal of time, was hindered by some of the most high born men in his retinue, and also was being prevented by his own wife, Gaita, on the grounds that the war would be unjust and begun against Christians; often he stayed his h and just as he began to commit to an assault. 80 the Lombard woman above her Norman husband. Indeed, in the very same sentence, Anna calls Robert about Gaita. Eventually, Robert Guiscard made good on his intention to wage war on the 78 Patricia Skinner made an earlier iden tification of the relationship between Sikelgaita and Anna. See Patricia Gender and History 12, no. 3 (2000), 622 41. 79 Amato of Montecassino, History of the Normans IV 18, pp. 109 31. 80 Anna Comnena, Alexias I 12 ed. August Reifferscheid ( Leipzig, 1884), pp. 42 3.


45 Christians. In her su bsequent appearance in the Alexiad Gaita is now an enthusiastic Hydruntum (modern day Otranto) At this point, one would expect Anna to reverse completely her posi tive regard for Gaita. Instead, she continues to praise the Lombard princess. For, having marched there [Salerno], he [Robert] arrived at Hydruntum. He seated himself there, and after enduring for a few days, he received his wife, Gaita (indeed, for she too joined her husband in war, and in truth the woman made a fearsome image, after she had donned full armor). After he embraced her upon arrival, he set forth from there with the entire expedition and captured the city of Brindisi. 81 Anna gives the reade r a new image of Gaita that of a formidable woman at arms. She enhances that image with her liberal use of epic vocabulary. Nearly all of the verbal elements of the passage ( are taken from classical sources written in the Ionic dialect, which is often employed in heroic poetry. 82 To an educated Byzantine, such a choice of words served to enhance the drama surrounding the appearance of a fully armored Gaita. Anna was well versed in classical Greek literature, and was giv en to using the vocabulary of ancient authors in order to add impact to the actions of her father, Emperor Alexius. However, in this particular passage, she does the same for an enemy, a woman of a rank similar to her own. Instead of treating Gaita as a rival like her 81 Anna Comnena, Alexiad I 15, p. 50. 82 The participle used by Xenophon and Herodotus. The words wor ds in his Histories to similar dramatic effect.


46 normally reserves for her own father. No higher praise could have been offered by the Byzantine princess. Anna elevates Gaita most dramatically in the fourth book of her work, in which she recounts the Battle of Dyrrhachium, fought in 1081 between Robert Guiscard and Alexius Comnenus, now Emperor of the Byzantines. 83 Anna initally reported that the battle was turning ill for the Normans. It was only But they [the Byzantine soldiers] became very firm in their resistance so the others [the Normans] turned their backs since they were not all picked men and threw themselves into the sea. Up to the utmost reaches of their necks [in water], they approached the armed ships of the Romans and Venetians, pleading for safety the re, where they were not well who was riding with him and was another Pallas, if not Athena herself saw the fleeing soldiers, regarded them with a piercing look, and called to them with a very great voice, saying in defender, throwing herself at the whole mass of f leeing soldiers. Upon seeing this, they took hold of themselves and called themselves back to the battle. 84 aspects of this passage are noteworthy. Here, Anna selec ted words that exalted Gaita beyond 83 The battle at Dyrrhachium, in modern day Albania, was a Norman victory. Alexius was later able to secure the 84 Anna Comnena, Alexiad IV 6, p. 145.


47 particularly significant because Anna u Gaita in all her other appearances in the work. Anna may have wanted to create this sense of distance between Gaita and the Normans because of their diametrical conduct in the Battle of Dyrrhachium. I n a clever reversal of the stereotype famously employed by the Normans against Byzantines, Anna presents the Norman soldiers as effeminate cowards, requiring the comparatively superior martial prowess. 85 the narrative with Homeric vocabulary. In this passage, she further amplifies her heroic pres ence by means of a direct comparison between Gaita and the Greek goddess of war, Athena. Anna adds that Gaita uttered a speech echoing Homeric words, albeit in her own language. 86 By employing this passage, the princess festooned Gaita with the battle re galia of a goddess, armed with the martial and rhetorical skills of the ancients. This image would have appealed greatly to the Greek noblewoman, given her deference for classical works. Gaita reverts to the traditional feminine role of her day in her fi nal appearance in the Alexiad 87 Here, No lon ger the invincible warrior goddess, she is the Alexiad is beyond question, her reasons for displaying it in a narrative celebrating her 85 It is important to remember that Gaita was a Lombard, not a Norman. Anna thus elevated her warlike status at the direct expense of the Normans. 86 It is extremely doubtful that Sikelgaita had any appreciable knowledge of the Homeric epi cs. 87 Anna Comnena, Alexiad VI 6, p. 198.


48 s are less clear. The Byzantine princess idolized classical heroes, and was clearly well versed in the knowledge of warfare as well. Her precise and It m ay be submitted that Anna saw in Gaita a kindred spirit a woman of noble rank, learned in the arts of war, fierce, and capable of independent action. Anna long desired the office of Empress, and perhaps even wished to perform heroic deeds of her own as a sign of her worthiness. Anna would have had another motive for elevating a woman, though an enemy, above men. She considered herself superior to her brother John II Comnenus, who succeeded her father, in much the same way as she presented Gaita in compar ison to Robert Guiscard. And we had peace until the end of his life. But with the Emperor, all that was most pleasing disappeared, and his achievements all became vain after his d emise due to the stupidity of those inheriting the imperial staff. 88 Following her failed attempt to seize the throne, Anna almost certainly harbored deep vicariously enjo yed the fabled success of Gaita, who rose above all the men of her station on The exploits of the Lombard woman provided Anna with the perfect means to respond to the litany of Norman insults against her fellow countrymen. 88 Anna Comnena, Alexiad XIV 3, p. 238. comfortable exile.


49 Two even more curious exultations of an enemy woman mark the male dominated Latin literature of the First Crusade. The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum devot ed an entire chapter to a dialogue between the Turk Kerbogha (known as Curbaran in Latin), the atabeg of Mosul, and his mother (who remains unnamed). Guibert gives similar attention to the characters in his own version of the work, Dei Gesta per Francos Both authors create a strange dichotomy between the two characters, both of whom are Muslim. Kerbogha is the stereotypical Islamic warlord proud, raging, licentious, and cruel but his mother is a voice of reason, an out of place advocate for the Christia n cause. 89 It is of great interest that two extremely biased Christian authors imbued a female adherent of Islam with such high personal worth. As Kerbogha is making preparations for an assault upon the Crusader armies trapped inside the walls of Antioch, his mother begs him to retreat. In the words of the anonymous author: Indeed, the mother of the same Curbura (Kerbogha), who was in the city of Aleppo, said to her not to commi t to battle with the Franks, because you are an undefeated soldier, and never have I heard of any sort of rashness from you or your army, and because no person has 90 89 Jay Rubenstein, Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind (New York, 2002), pp. 99 100. 90 Anonymi Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum XXII 1, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1890), pp. 323 lacrimabiliter: Fili, suntne vera, quae audio? Cui ait ille: Quae? Et dixit illa: Audivi quia bellum vis comm ittere cum Francorum gente. Ait ille: Verum omnino scias. Dixit illa: Contestor te, fili, per omnium Deorum nomina et per tuam magnam bonitatem, ne bellum cum Francis committas, quoniam tu es miles invictus, et nullam imprudentiam ex te aut ex tuo exerci tu unquam penitus audivi, et te e campo ab aliquo victore fugientem quisquam minime invenit.


50 Guibert of Nogent follows th is part of the passage closely, but his version of Kerbogha receives even more colorful praise in respect to his martial record from his mother. She also makes an abrupt recognition of the ascendancy of the Christian religion over her own. best of men, I dare to appeal to your most honorable and inborn nobility that you not bring a fight to them [the Franks], lest you invite damage to your reputation. Since the brilliance of your arms shines even to the remotest reaches of the Ocean ab ove India, and even farthest Thule resounds with your praise, why do you deign to sully your blades with the blood of poor men, whom it is senseless to attack, and in whose defeat there is no glory? And since you are able to compel distant kings to trembl e, what desire is in your heart to assail wretched foreigners? Son, I admit that you rightfully detest their contemptible persons, but you know for certain that the authority of the Christian religion 91 The Benedictine monk bemoaned the anon ymously authored Gesta as a drab work, written 92 Gesta with flowery language explains these initial differences between the two passages. However, his version udden and direct statement confirming the superiority of Christianity. Guibert granted this Muslim woman what he believed was the sure wisdom of a Christian Frank. In his memoirs, Guibert described his own mother as a woman who miraculously knew (and fea experienced [in the world], but she had learned to abhor sin by the fear of some blow from 93 91 Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, Dei Gesta per Francos V 11, ed. R.B.C. Huygens (Turnholt, 1996), pp. 212 ibi liberalissimos mores, queso, contestari te audeam ne eis pugnam inferas, ne tuae detrimentum laudis incurras. Cum enim usque in ulteriorem superioris Indiae Oceanum armorum tuorum claritudo refulgeat tuisque preconiis respondeat ultima Tile, quare pau perum hominum sanguinibus tuos obducere mucrones affectas, quos impetere inanis est pena et superasse nulla sit gloria? Et cum reges valeas terrere remotos, quid tibi cordi est lacessere advenas miseros? Personas eorum, fili, fateor, merito contemptibile 92 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos plus equo simplicibus et quae multotiens grammatic ae naturas excederet lectoremque vapidi insipiditate 93 Guibert of Nogent, de Vita Sua I 12, ed. Georges Bourgin (Paris, 1907), pp. 36


51 wrath from on high, and cautioned her son against inviting it. Kerbogha and Guibert himself occupy parallel positions in those narratives Kerbogha in the Gesta Kerbogha Guibert illustrates the superior honor and wisdom of the Franks over the Turks. Both authors suddenly reveal the surprisingly extensive knowledge of Christian lore displaye Franks, will defeat her son in the upcoming battle. The anonymous author relates the Turkish ...their God fights for them daily and guides and defends them with His protection by day and night, just as a shepherd watches over his flock. He does not allow them to be injured or molested by any people, and this same God sends to flight anyone who seeks to oppose them, just are ready to jo in in battle, their God, all powerful and mighty in battle, together with His 94 Psalms in their versions of the Gest a 95 Just as it is hard to believe that Gaita could have recited Homeric verses on the battlefield, so is the idea doubtful that a Turkish woman, even quodam superni metus incussu horrere peccatum didic 94 Anonymi Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum XXII 4, pp. 325 Deus eorum pro ipsis cotidie pugnat, eosque diu noctuque sua protectione defendit et vigilat super eos, sicut pastor vigilat super gregem suum, et non permittit eos laedi nec conturbari ab ulla gente, et quicunque volunt eis obstare, idem eorum Deus conturbat illos, sicut ipse ait per os David prophetae: 'Dissip a gentes, quae bella volunt,' et alibi: 'Effunde iram tuam in gentes, quae te non noverunt, et in regna, quae nomen tuum non invocaverunt.' Antequam vero praeparati sint ad incipiendum bellum, eorum Deus omnipotens et bellipotens simul cum sanctis suis omn es inimicos iam habet devictos... 95 See Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks trans. Robert Levine (Suffolk, 1997), p. 97. Both Psalms 81.8, 78.6, 92.3, as well as R omans 9.25.


52 of high social rank, could have had such intimate familiarity with the Christian Bible. Nor would one be capable of quoting such passages offhand in such accurate fashion. Both the Turkish general one last chance before he attacked His chosen people, the Franks. While the anonymous author clearly set the Turkish woman apart from her son, his motives for doing so remain unclear. However, he did cross enemy lines to cast positive light may Gesta Neither Guibert nor the anonymous author held out any positive regard for the denizens of the East, Christian or Muslim alike. 96 Given the generally anti feminine attitude of Latin authors in the 12 th century, it is quite noteworthy that these two gave a Turkish woman such positive treatment. However, by turning one of their own highest ranking women into a divine messenger from God, both Gesta authors hi ghlight the hubris and foolhardy nature of the Turks, their sworn enemies. As predicted, Kerbogha attacks the Christian forces in Antioch and is soundly defeated. The Christian wisdom of his Muslim mother is thus confirmed, proving the emminence of the F 96 See Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos I 5, p. 104, and Rubenstein p. 98. Guibert directly noted that thought of the non Chris tian women of the East.


53 Conclusion In studying the works of Guibert of Nogent and Anna Comnena, the roots of the ethnically charged friction that marred Byzantine West relations throughout the Crusades can be more easily discerned. Both aut hors revealed an affinity for classical literature which laid Aeneid A nna Comnena learned to dismiss foreigners as illiterate barbarians via Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Byzantine and western writers proved unable to escape from these classical roots of mistrust and disrespect. The partnership between Christian Eas t and West suffered further from differing definitions of honor. Frankish honor was chiefly concerned with honesty, valor, and, in the women, marriage, and sexua l mores indicates a profound Frankish concern with sexuality. While this same topic was also certainly a point of moral debate in Byzantium, Greek sources Alexiad ) lead one to conclude that it was rather muted in


54 compar ison to its Frankish counterpart. Sexuality and depravity were not great concerns in While both sides apparently valued ferocity in battle, only the Byzantines appeared to appreciate other dim Alexiad reveals the Byzantine affinity for stealth and diplomacy over open warfare. These concepts are blasted by western pens as treachery and cowardice. Therefore, command abilities so prized in the Greek world were the very qualities for which they were damned as a race in the West. These elemental differences in the perception of worth and honor doomed the success of Byzantine capturing Jerusalem was a chieved in spite of their complete failure to synergize with their Greek hosts. This failure would be a prelude to further disappointments for Christianity in the future Crusades, culminating in the tragic Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204. While the Christian world collapsed in upon itself, the Islamic enemy in the East grew stronger, and finally, by the 15 th century, claimed the East for its own. accomplished more than the creation of a simple survey of Crusades era literature. It has revealed that there is indeed truth to be found in stereotypes not concerning their targets, but rather their employers. The ethnic stereotypes hurled across the Bosporus between East and West were mirrors, illuminating the deepest values and self perceptions of those who used them, allowing one to discern the true differences between the Christian East and West on the eve of the Crusades.


55 Bibliography Primary Sources Amato of Mo ntecassino. The History of the Normans. Ed Prescott N. Dunbar and G.A. Loud (Rochester, 2004). Anonymi Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum Ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1890). Comnena, Anna. Alexias Ed. August Reifferscheid (Leipzig, 1884); Trans. Elizabeth Dawes (London, 1928). Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy. Dei Gesta per Francos. Ed. R.B.C. Huygens (Turnholt, 1996); Trans. Robert Levine (Suffolk, 1997). Guibert, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy. de Vita Sua. Ed. Georges Bourgin (Pa ris, 1907). Liutprand of Cremona. Liutprand of Cremona: The Embassy to Constantinople and Other Writings. Trans. F.A. Wright (London, 1993). Browning, in Aristotle Transf ormed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence Edited by R. Sorabji (New York, 1990), pp. 393 406. Secondary Sources Anna Komnene and Her Times Edited by Thalia G ouma Peterson (New York, 2000), pp. 125 156.


56 Blondal, Sigfus. Varangians of Byzantium: An Aspect of Byzantine Military History (Cambridge, 1978). Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 ( 1989):1 25. Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages. Edited by D. Baker (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 77 94. ecs et Latins dans la perspective politico culturelle du XIIe sicle: les ractions des croiss au crmonial byzantin selon les Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia 5 (2003): 49 78. actions (MA thesis, Sherbrooke University, 2000). Ciggaar, K. Western Travelers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantiu m, 962 1204: Cultural and Political Relations (New York, 1996). Cosgrove, Dennis. Imagination (London, 2003). Furor Teutonicus Dee ds of Louis the Fat. The Haskins Society Journal 16 (2005): 62 76. Mediaeval Studies 22 (1960): 43 91. Dennis, Geo The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades. Edited by V.P. Gross (Kalamazoo, 1986), pp. 181 87. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27, no. 1 (1986): 113 120. The Meeting of the Two Worlds. Cultural Exchange Between East and West During the Period of the Crusades. Edited by V. P. Gross (Kalamazoo, 1986), pp. 115 122.


57 Honigmann, Ernst. Die sieben Klimata und die : eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Geographie und Astrologie im Altertum und Mittelalter (Heidelberg, 1929). Anna Komnene and Her Times. Edited by Thalia Gouma Peterson (New York, 2000), pp. 1 14. Le Goff, Jacques, Chartier, Roger, and Revel, Jacques. La Nouvelle Histoire (Paris, 1978). Alexiad Anna Komnene and Her Times. Edited by Thalia Gouma Peterson (New York, 2000), pp. 63 81. The Classical Review 55 (2005): 548 550. Oikonomides, N Bilan et perspectives des etudes mdivales en Europe Edited by J. Hamesse (Louvain la Neuve, 1995), pp. 35 42. alty, homage Parergon 2 (1984): 111 141. Rhetorica 26, no. 3 (2008): 301 335. Rechtshistorisches Journal 8 (1989): 257 274. Rubenstein, Jay. Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind (New York, 2002). Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Chur ches during the 11 th and 12 th Centuries (Oxford, 1955). Gender and History 12, no. 3 (2000): 622 41. Byzantion 50 (1980): 504 532. Byzantine Women. Varieties of Experience, 800 1200. Edited by L. Garland (London, 2006), pp. 125 139. Stankov ephoros Bryennios, Anna Komnene and Konstantios Doukas. A Story of

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EKRHJN0ZE_43C7RM INGEST_TIME 2017-06-01T19:24:35Z PACKAGE AA00057740_00001