My Books and other publications

Those publications with an asterisk (*) were co-written with C.W. Daniels. This list does not include editorials for Teaching History, book reviews or unpublished papers. Neither does it include the two series of books for which I have been joint-editor: Cambridge Topics in History and Cambridge Perspectives in History. Including these books would increase the length of this appendix by 52 books.

1974-1979

Computer-based data and social and economic history (for the Local History Classroom Project), (1974).

Social and Economic History and the Computer (for LHCP), (1975).

‘Local and National History -- an interrelated response’, in Suffolk History Forum, 1977.

‘Our Future Local Historians’, in The Local Historian, Vol. 13, 1978. *

‘Sixth Form History’, in Teaching History, May 1976. *

‘Sixth Form History’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 3 June 1977. *

‘The new history -- an essential reappraisal’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 2 December 1977. *

‘Interrelated Issues’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 1 December 1978. *

‘The Myth Exposed’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 30 November 1979 * also reprinted in John Fines (ed.) see below.

1980-1984

Nineteenth Century Britain, (Macmillan), 1980. *

‘The Local History Classroom Project’, in Developments in History Teaching, (University of Exeter), 1980. *

‘A Chronic Hysteresis’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 5 December 1980. *

Twentieth Century Europe, (Macmillan), 1981. *

‘Is there still room for History in the secondary curriculum?’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 5 December 1981. *

‘Content considered’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 9 April 1982. *

Twentieth Century Britain, (Macmillan), 1982. *

‘A Level History’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 8 April 1983. *

‘History in danger revisited’, in The Times Educational Supplement,  9 December 1983. *

‘History and study skills’, in John Fines (ed.), Teaching History, (Holmes McDougall), 1983. 

‘History and study skills’, reprinted in School and College, Vol. 4, (4), 1983.

Four scripts for Sussex Tapes, 1983:

People, Land and Trade 1830-1914.

Pre-eminence and Competition 1830-1914.

The Social Impact of the Industrial Revolution.

Lloyd George to Beveridge 1906-1950.

Four computer programs for Sussex Tapes, 1984:

The Industrial Revolution.

Population, Medicine and Agriculture.

Transport: road, canal and railway.

Social Impact of Change.

‘It’s time History Teachers were offensive’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 28 November 1984. *

The Chartists, (Macmillan), 1984. *

1985-1989

‘Using documents with sixth formers’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 29 November 1985. *

Learning History: A Guide to Advanced Study, (Macmillan), 1986. *

GCSE History, (The Historical Association), 1986, revised edition, 1987, as editor and contributor.

‘Training or Survival?’ with M. Booth and G. Shawyer in The Times Educational Supplement, 10 April 1987.

Change and Continuity in British Society 1800-1850, (Cambridge Topics in History, Cambridge University Press), 1987.

‘There are always alternatives: Britain during the Depression’ for BBC Radio, 14 September 1987.

‘Cultural imperialism’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 4 December, 1987.

‘The Training of History Teachers Project’, in Teaching History, 50, January 1988.

‘History’ in Your Choice of A-Levels, (CRAC,) 1988.

‘The Development of Children’s Historical Thinking’ with G. Shawyer and M. Booth, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 18, (2), 1988.

‘The New Demonology’, Teaching History, Vol. 53, October 1988.

The Future of the Past: History in the Curriculum 5-16: A Personal Overview, (The Historical Association), 1988.

‘History Study Skills: Working with Sources’, History Sixth, Vol. 3, October 1988. *

‘A Critique of GCSE History: the results of The Historical Association Survey’, Teaching History, Vol. 55, March 1989.

1990-1999

‘History Textbook Round-up’, Teachers’ Weekly, September 1990.

‘Partnership and the Training of Student History Teachers’, with M. Booth and G. Shawyer, in M. Booth, J. Furlong and M. Wilkin (eds.), Partnership in Initial Teacher Training, (Cassell), 1990.

Economy and Society in Modern Britain 1700-1850 (Routledge), 1991.

Church and State in Modern Britain 1700-1850 (Routledge), 1991.

‘History’ in Your Choice of A-Levels, (CRAC), 1991.

‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’, Teaching History, 63, April 1991.

‘BTEC and History’, in John Fines (ed.), History 16-19, (The Historical Association), 1991.

‘What about the author?’, Hindsight: GCSE Modern History Review, Vol. 2, (1), September 1991.

‘Appeasement: A matter of opinion?’, Hindsight: GCSE Modern History Review, Vol. 2, (2), January 1992.

Economic Revolutions 1750-1850 (Cambridge Topics in History, Cambridge University Press), 1992.

‘Suez: a question of causation’, Hindsight: GCSE Modern History Review, Vol. 4, (1), September 1993.

‘History’ in Your Choice of A-Levels, (CRAC,) 1993.

History and post-16 vocational courses’, in H. Bourdillon (ed.), Teaching History, (Routledge), 1993.

‘Learning effectively at Advanced Level’, pamphlet for PGCE ITT course, (Open University), 1994.

Preparing for Inspection, (The Historical Association), 1994.

Managing the Learning of History, (David Fulton), 1995.

Chartism: People, Events and Ideas (Perspectives in History, Cambridge University Press), 1998.

BBC History File: consultant on five Key Stage 3 programmes on Britain 1750-1900, 1999.

2000-2009

Revolution, Radicalism and Reform: England 1780-1846, (Perspectives in History, Cambridge University Press), 2001.

‘The state in the 1840s’, Modern History Review, September 2003.

‘Chartism and the state’, Modern History Review, November 2003.

‘Chadwick and Simon: the problem of public health reform’, Modern History Review, April 2005.

2010

Three Rebellions: Canada 1837-1838, South Wales 1839, Eureka 1854, (Clio Publishing), 2010.

2011

Three Rebellions: Canada 1837-1838, South Wales 1839, Eureka 1854, (Clio Publishing), 2011 Kindle edition.

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1840-1882, (Clio Publishing), 2011.

Economy, Population and Transport (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition.

Work, Health and Poverty, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition.

Education, Crime and Leisure, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition.

Class, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition.

2012

Religion and Government, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2012 Kindle edition.

Society under Pressure: Britain 1830-1914, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2012 Kindle edition.

Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain, 1830-1918, (Authoring History), 2012.

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1840-1882, (Clio Publishing), 2012 Kindle edition.

Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain 1830-1918, 2012,  Kindle edition.

Rebellion in Canada, 1837-1885 Volume 1: Autocracy, Rebellion and Liberty, (Authoring History), 2012.

Rebellion in Canada, 1837-1885, Volume 2: The Irish, the Fenians and the Metis, (Authoring History), 2012.

2013

Resistance and Rebellion in the British Empire, 1600-1980, Clio Publishing, 2013.

Settler Australia, 1780-1880, Volume 1: Settlement, Protest and Control, (Authoring History), 2013.

Settler Australia, 1780-1880, Volume 2: Eureka and Democracy, (Authoring History), 2013.

Rebellion in Canada, 1837-1885, 2013, Kindle edition.

'A Peaceable Kingdom': Essays on Nineteenth Century Canada, (Authoring History), 2013.

Resistance and Rebellion in the British Empire, 1600-1980, 2013, Kindle edition.

Settler Australia, 1780-1880, 2013, Kindle Edition.

Coping with Change: British Society, 1780-1914, (Authoring History), 2013.

2014

Before Chartism: Exclusion and Resistance, (Authoring History), 2014.

Suger: The Life of Louis VI 'the Fat', (Authoring History), 2014, Kindle edition.

Chartism: Rise and Demise, (Authoring History), 2014.

Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain, 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2014.

Before Chartism: Exclusion and Resistance, (Authoring History), 2014, Kindle edition.

2015

Chartism: Rise and Demise, (Authoring History), 2015, Kindle edition.

'Development of the Professions', in Ross, Alastair, Innovating Professional Services: Transforming Value and Efficiency, (Ashgate), 2015, pp. 271-274.

Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The Midlands and the South, (Authoring History), 2015.

Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The North, Scotland Wales and Ireland, (Authoring History), 2015.

2016

Chartism, Regions and Economies, (Authoring History), 2016.

Breaking the Habit: A Life of History, (Authoring History), 2016.

Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The Midlands and the South, (Authoring History), 2016, Kindle edition.

Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The North, Scotland Wales and Ireland, (Authoring History), 2015, Kindle edition.

Chartism, Regions and Economies, (Authoring History), 2016, Kindle edition.

Suger: The Life of Louis VI 'the Fat', revised edition, (Authoring History), 2016.

Robert Guiscard: Portrait of a Warlord, (Authoring History), 2016.

Chartism: A Global History and other essays, (Authoring History), 2016.

Chartism: A Global History and other essays, (Authoring History), 2016, Kindle edition.

Roger of Sicily: Portrait of a Ruler, (Authoring History), 2016.

Three Rebellions: Canada, South Wales and Australia, (Authoring History), 2016.

2017

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882, (Authoring History), 2017.

Disrupting the British World, 1600-1980, (Authoring History), 2017.

Britain 1780-1850: A Simple Guide, (Authoring History), 2017.

People and Places: Britain 1780-1950, (Authoring History), 2017.

2018

Britain 1780-1945: Society under Pressure, (Authoring History), 2018.

Britain 1780-1945: Reforming Society, (Authoring History), 2018.

Three Rebellions: Canada, South Wales and Australia, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882, (Authoring History), 2018. Kindle edition.

Disrupting the British World, 1600-1980, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.

Britain 1780-1945: Society under Pressure, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.

Britain 1780-1945: Reforming Society, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.

Robert Guiscard: Portrait of a Warlord, (Authoring History), 2016, 2018, Kindle edition.

Roger of Sicily: Portrait of a Ruler, (Authoring History), 2016,  2018, Kindle edition.

People and Places: Britain 1780-1950, (Authoring History), 2017, 2018, Kindle edition.

Breaking the Habit: A Life of History, (Authoring History), 2016, 2018, Kindle edition.

2019

Radicalism and Chartism 1790-1860, Authoring History), 2019.

Radicalism and Chartism 1790-1860, Authoring History), 2019, Kindle edition.

2020

The Woman Question: Sex, Work and Politics 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2020.

Canada's 'Wars of Religion', (Authoring History), 2020.

The Woman Question: Sex, Work and Politics 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2020, Kindle edition.

2021

Canada's 'Wars of Religion', (Authoring History), 2021, Kindle edition.

The Woman Question: Sex, Work and Politics 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2021, hardback.

Economy, Population and Transport 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2021, paperback and hardback.

2022

Classes and Cultures 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2022, Kindle, hardback and paperback.

Work, Health and Poverty 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2022, Kindle, hardback and paperback.

Education and Crime 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2022, Kindle, hardback and paperback.

Religion and Government 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2022, Kindle, hardback and paperback.

1066 and Brexit

In a week’s time it will be the 950th anniversary of the one event that most people in Britain know…the Battle of Hastings.  It is no surprise that this totemic event has been linked to the equally totemic decision to leave the EU…the one was when England lost her independence before the Norman onslaught; the latter when the people of Britain took back that independence from the hordes of EU technocrats…a case of one in the eye for Brussels!!! 

The events of the summer and early autumn of 1066 are well known. On 25th September, the combined armies of Earl Tostig, brother of King Harold, and King Harold Hardrada of Norway, were defeated at Stamford Bridge. Upon his return to London, King Harold received the news of Duke William’s landing at Pevensey on 29th September and within a fortnight the battle of Hastings took place. King Harold was killed and with him the greater part of the English nobility. Duke William’s victory, the carnage of the battlefield, and the retrospective significance of the heavenly sign portending victory were at once reported all over Europe.  Britain lay at the heart of the globalisation of northern Europe in the eleventh century with the rapid expansion of the Viking trading empire…yes there was a Norway option even then!!

Many Norman families were of Scandinavian descent and retained memories of their Viking forebears. However, links between Normandy and Scandinavia weakened with time, and there is little evidence that in the period from the 1020s that the dukes of Normandy maintained relations with the Scandinavian realms in the way that they clearly did with the Scandinavian kings of England, Cnut, Harald and Harthacnut. When William became king of England in 1066, however, he was obliged to pay attention to these realms because of the threat represented by Denmark in particular. He had little to fear from Norway, because King Harald Hardrada, together with Earl Tostig, had perished. But King Sweyn Estrithsson of Denmark was a nephew of King Cnut of England; moreover, a sister of his father Ulf, called Gytha, had married Earl Godwine and was the mother of the Harold who died at Hastings. These dynastic links encouraged, in Sweyn Estrithsson and subsequently in his eldest son and successor King Cnut IV the ambition to reunite the kingdoms of Denmark and England. Svein Estrithsson gave active backing to the Anglo-Saxon rebels in England, besides invading England himself in 1069 and 1070. His sons invaded England again in 1075. And yet another invasion was planned in 1085 by Cnut IV in alliance with his father-in-law, the Flemish Count Robert ‘the Frisian’. This never materialised and was the last attempt to oust William from the English throne. 

Three sources are relevant with regard to Scandinavia. The earliest is a poem, which gives us a glimpse of how the Anglo-Danish community felt a decade after the arrival of the Normans. It was written in England in 1076 by Thorkill Skallason, a Danish skald[1] in the service of Earl Waltheof, shortly after his master had been executed by King William for his involvement in the 1075 rebellion. His view of William is understandably bitter[2].

“William crossed the cold channel and reddened the bright swords, and now he has betrayed noble Earl Waltheof. It is true that killing in England will be a long time ending. A braver lord than Waltheof will never be seen on earth.”

The second source is the History of the Archbishops of Bremen, written c. 1080 by Adam of Bremen, a clerk at the archiepiscopal court[3]. His testimony is important because in 1068 or 1069 he visited King Sweyn Estrithsson and may have incorporated some of the king’s views. He justifies a digression on 1066 by reminding his readers that the battle of Hastings was great and memorable and that it had happened in England which of old had been subjected to the Danes. Adam calls Harold Godwinson a ‘vir maleficus’ who usurped the throne of England. He continues by saying that Harold killed not only his brother Tostig, but also King Harold Hardrada and the king of Ireland. Then, relying on hearsay, he says that only eight days later William crossed from France to England and fought a battle against a tired victor. Harold died, together with 100,000 Englishmen. According to Adam, William was God’s avenger in punishing the English, who had sinned against Him. He banished almost all the monks who lived without a monastic rule and brought in Lanfranc to restore divine worship. In a later addition, Adam himself attributes King William’s wealth to his confiscation of 300 ships left behind by King Harald Hardrada plus the gold which Harald had collected while a Varangian in Greece. If this story originated from King Sweyn, which is quite possible, then it reinforces the hypothesis that Sweyn’s attacks on England in the immediate post-conquest period were inspired by a quest for booty as well as land. Although Adam of Bremen openly condemns Harold’s election as king, he justifies William’s invasion and his succession to the throne only in terms of divine retribution. The same attitude can be found in contemporary English sources like the anonymous Vita Edwardi, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

The third source that reflects Danish opinion dates from c. 1122, when the Anglo-Saxon exile Aelnoth of Canterbury[4], who lived at Odense, wrote his biography of King Cnut IV, son of King Sweyn Estrithsson, who was killed in 1086. According to Aelnoth, King Cnut planned the abortive invasion of 1085 as revenge for the death of his kinsman, King Harold Godwinson and for the imposition on the English by William the Conqueror of the imperium of the Romans and the French. “In their despair”, he wrote,

“the English, whose dukes, counts, lords, noblemen and other people of high rank had either been killed, or imprisoned, or deprived of their father’s honours, wealth, dignity or inheritance or expelled abroad, or left behind and forced into public slavery, were not able to bear the tyranny of the Romans and the French and declined to seek foreign help.”

King Cnut is pictured as the natural protector of the English people against the aggression of a foreign duke. Even almost a millennium after the Conquest, it seems there were people who still see the British Isles as part of a larger Scandinavian kingdom.

 

---

[1] R. Frank, Old Norse Court Poetry: the Dróttkvætt Stanza, Islandica, Vol. 2, (1978) for the nature of scaldic verse; also, R. Frank, ‘Skaldic Poetry’, Old Norse - Icelandic Literature: a Critical Guide, edited C.J. Clover and J. Lindow, Islandica, Vol. 45. (1985), pages 157-196.
[2] Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway, translated by L.M. Hollander, London, 1964 is the great twelfth-century synoptic history by Snorri Sturluson. Two sections of this poem have survived in Old Norse as part of the saga of Harold Hardrada: King Harald's Saga: Harold Hardrada of Norway from Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla, translated M. Magnusson and H. Palsson, Harmondsworth 1966, pages 157-8; cf. De gestis regum ii, 311: “Siquidem Weldeofus in Eboracensi pugna plures Normannorum solus obtrucavenat, unos per portam egredientes decapitans.” The suggestion of an underlying verse was first launched by F.S. Scott, ‘Earl Waltheof of Northumbria’, Archaelogia Aeliana, (1952), pages 159-213 at page 179.
[3] Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum was written c. 1080. In four books: book I covers activities of missionaries in the north; book II is on 10th and early 11th century archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, including material on reigns of Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut; book III is on Archbishop Adalbert (1043-72), including material on reign of Edward the Confessor etc. (e.g. pages 124-5, 158-9); book IV is on the islands of the north. Text: Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. B. Schmeidler, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, 1917. Text and German translation: Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches, ed. W. Trillmich and R. Buchner, Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 11, 1978, pages 160-502. English translation: F.J. Tschan, Adam of Bremen: History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, 1959.

[4] Aelnoth, Gesta Svenomagni etc 1047-1104, translated by E. Albrechtsen, Odense 1984.

Suger: The Life of Louis VI 'the Fat'

JUST PUBLISHED

The kingdom of France when Louis VI came to the throne in 1108 was a patchwork of feudal principalities over which the authority of the French Capetian monarchy was weak. Beyond the heartlands of Capetian power around Paris, kings of France had little power and the rulers of the great principalities such as Aquitaine paid little heed to the authority of the French state. Under Louis VI, this gradually began to change and, although it took a further two centuries to complete the process, the feudal supremacy of the French monarchy began to be asserted and the lands over which it had feudal hegemony began to expand. Much of what we know about Louis' reign comes from his life written by his friend and advisor Suger Abbot of St-Denis. Suger was a talented individual who straddled the often perilous divide between Church and State with considerable skill. He was a diplomat, administrator in both ecclesiastical and political spheres and staunch defender of his monastery. He witnessed many of the important events of Louis' reign and knew many of the people he wrote about. His Life of Louis VI is a partial biography, like most medieval biographies, that aims through recounting Louis' life to demonstrate what the nature of 'good' kingship should be--to defend the weak, to dispense justice, to defend both Church and State from those who sought control over them and to defend France against attack from within and without. His is an epic tale of good versus evil, justice versus injustice and right against wrong.

This volume provides a translation of Suger's work with detailed annotation that identify the key participants and explain the significance of the key events. The introduction provides a brief biography of Suger and examines what his intentions were in writing his book. Two appendices look at the French defeat at the Battle of the Two Kings at Brémule in 1119 and the murder of Charles of Flanders in 1127 through the eyes of other medieval writers. There is also a detailed bibliography.

4000,000 and counting

PASSING 400,000

I started my Looking at History blog on Blogger on 30 July 2007 and it’s taken until 7 June 2013 to reach 400,000 ‘hits’: an average of around 66,000 per year.  I’ve published 823 blogs in that time, around 137 blogs a year.  Inevitably, take-up of the blogs was initially slow but once they began to appear in Google Search the number of hits began to rise significantly and in the past two years the blog has consistently been getting 20,000 hits a month.

Analysis of which blogs have been particularly popular shows that ‘Disease in the Victorian city: extended version’ has over 9,000 hits followed closely by ‘Suffrage since 1903: Arguments against  women’s suffrage’ with 8,300.  Generally the blogs on nineteenth century British society, women’s history and Canada have performed the best.  Given the nature of the blogs, their audiences is not surprising with the United Kingdom (150,000) and United States (121,000) being the most important.  There has also been a good take-up from Canada (23,000), Australia (13,000), France (11,000) and Germany (10,000) with a gap before Russia (2,000) and India (2,000). 

The bulk of the hits are accessed through Internet Explorer (41%), Firefox (21%) and Chrome(20%) using Windows (77%), Macintosh(10%) and Linux (5%).  Access using tablets or phones is currently more limited with iPad (2%), iPhone(2%) and Android (1%) but this represents a significant increase since the end of 2011 when these did not register at all. 

Comments on the site have been overwhelmingly positive and in several cases helpful in enabling me to correct errors and I have been both gratified by this as well as pleased that readers take the time to make comments (whether critical or not). 

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book V, lines 285-415

[285] While this had been happening, his noble son Roger[1] had continued unceasingly to threaten Cephalonia. Robert intended to go himself to that island which he had sent his son to capture. He took ship there, but before he could catch sight of the camp he was stricken with fever. [290] The burning flux [canicula] began to rage, whose fearful heat is in the summer time usually fatal to men. His wife had come from Italy not long before and was present in her son’s camp[2]. When Robert arrived, she went out [to meet him], leaving the army and fleet behind. [295] When she realised that Robert, her great husband on whom all her hopes were based, had the fever, she rushed to him, weeping and tearing her garments. Seeing that her husband was dying and that his end was near, she tore her face with her nails, [300] ran them through her uncombed hair, and cried out.[3]

‘Oh horror! What have I done, unhappy woman that I could be left so unfortunate. When the Greeks learn of your death, will they not attack me and your son, and the people for whom you were the sole glory, [305] hope and strength? Your presence protected them when things were desperate. When you were there none of them feared the threats of the enemy, or to meet them in battle. [310] Your leadership made them safe, and they dared to enter battle even though the troops opposed to them were greatly superior in numbers. Seeing you no mortal courage could ever resist. Now your wife and son are left the prey of wolves, and will never be safe without you. When our people lose your courage, they will lose their own as well. [315] What can exceed the cowardice of the mob? Unholy death, I beg you to spare this man, whose death will cause so many others to die too! But if you are unwilling to grant my prayers, wait at least until he has led us back to our homes, so that there is a safe place for us after his funeral. [320] Oh, miserable one! My prayer is in vain; such prayers are ignored for death never spares anyone’.

Roger mourned no less tearfully than his mother, his lamentations and groans rising to the heavens. He cried for the loss of a father [325] before he fully knew how to defend what he had or to acquire new possessions, or to follow the example of his father’s brave deeds. Who could look with a dry eye on the tears of those present? Who could be so unyielding, so iron-hearted, not to share the grief suffered by so many? [330] Amidst all these tears he received the Body and Blood of Christ, and died, ending his life loved by all. So, in exile, the soul of this mighty prince left his body. [335] The man who had never allowed his men to show fear in his presence and who had been accustomed to raise the spirits of others now rendered up his own spirit.

Not wishing her husband’s body to remain on Greek soil, his wife tried to return to her own lands. She embarked on the galley which she knew to be the fastest, placing Robert’s corpse on board, [340] and crossed the sea, so that, although he had not been allowed to come back to his kingdom alive, Italy might [at least] have the consolation of the return of his body.

Roger went to his father’s camp, sadly announced his father’s death to everyone there, [345] and asked their advice. For he said that if he did not speedily return home then he would be deprived of his rightful lordship, to which his father had designated him the heir. They all promised that they were ready to serve him faithfully as they had served his father, and then they begged him to help them to return across the sea.[4] [350] He agreed to what the people asked. However he pleaded with them to wait until he had gone to the island of Cephalonia, where he had left their comrades. ‘The people’, he said, ‘remaining at the siege[5] would be right to call me faithless if I left without returning to their camp [355] and telling them (as I did you) the news of my father’s death, and of my own departure’. After saying this he returned to his siege camp, announced that his father had died and that he intended to withdraw. [360] Everyone there said that they would do what he wanted, and would continue to obey his orders, on condition however that a suitable agreement was concluded with him.

While Roger was thus absent visiting his camp, the men in the other camp became [365] absolutely panic-stricken[6], and abandoned all hope of escape, thinking that life and safety were to be denied them. If all the Greeks, Persians and Arabs [gens Agarena] had attacked them, and all the peoples of the world [370] flocked together, armed themselves, and come upon them while they were themselves unarmed, they could not have been more afraid than they were now. The death of this one man made all these people fearful. Those who, when the duke had been alive, were accustomed to defeating innumerable peoples were now, [375] once he was dead, afraid to resist [even] a few. It is well-known that one man is often more valiant than ten thousand, and a thousand men can put two thousand to flight. Fearing the enemy’s arrival, and with the bigger ships already burned, the terrified people did their best to prepare the smaller ones, so that they could cross the Adriatic and thus put an end to their fears. [380] So afraid were they that they gave no thought to money or clothing; they abandoned it all and humbly begged the sailors to carry their bodies alone in the ships. When the ships were some way from the shore a group of men mounted their horses [385] to ride out to them, and then, abandoning their mounts, climbed on board without them. Another group swam out to embark on the ships. However most of them were unable to return with the fleet, and being left there surrendered to the Greeks. [390] They were all so afraid that they forgot their native valour and remained timidly to serve the Greeks.

The ships were already close to the shores of Apulia when a terrible storm stirred the sea to a fury. Most of the sailors were drowned, and part of the army perished with the fleet. [395] The ship in which his noble body was being transported was dashed to pieces by the storm. The corpse fell into the sea and was only recovered with difficulty. Afraid that it would then start to smell unpleasantly, his wife (who always showed good sense) had the duke’s heart and entrails buried at Otranto, [400] then had the rest of the body embalmed with many sweet-smelling things and carried to the city of Venosa, where the tombs of his elder brothers lay.[7] The duke was buried near them in great state. The city of Venosa is made resplendent by such burials. [405] Since the time of Charlemagne or Caesar never has the earth produced such brothers as these. They are buried in the church built on their orders, the beauty of which illuminates the town. May the Heavenly King, three and one give pardon to them.

[410] You know, Roger, that I have written this song for you. The poet has joyfully done his best to fulfil your instructions. Authors always deserve kindly benefactors. You, my duke, are worthier than the Roman duke Octavian. So I ask you to give me hope of reward, as he did to Maro.[8]

---

[1] Roger Borsa.

[2] William of Apulia distinguishes between this camp (on the north of the island of Cephalonia) and the other camp of Roger Borsa (Book V: 359). According to Anna Comnena, Guiscard died at Cape Atheras and this tradition, established since the 12^th century, places his death at the most southerly point of the island.

[3] Guiscard had anchored his ships at Vonitsa and then embarked for the island of Cephalonia. He was taken by fever at cape Atheras, in the north of the island and died six days later. Sichelgaita arrived just before Guiscard died and found her son, presumably Guy, in tears at his deathbed. William of Apulia situated Roger also at his father’s deathbed.

[4] Roger Borsa was fully aware of the pretensions of his half-brother Bohemond. On his father’s death, Bohemond left Salerno and took refuge with Jordan of Capua who assisted him in his rebellion against Roger Borsa.

[5] The siege of the town of Cephalonia

[6] Interestingly, Anna Comnena makes no mention of this nor of Normans entering Byzantine service at this time in her Alexiad though this is not unlikely. Many Normans passed into Alexius’ service following the capture of Castoria in 1083 and following Guiscard’s death Alexius wrote to the defenders of the citadel at Durazzo in an attempt to persuade them to surrender.

[7] William, Drogo and Humphrey.

[8] Maro in this context means the Roman poet Vergil.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book V, lines 210-284

[210] An unusually cold winter led the people quartered near the River Glykys to sicken. A great many of them suffered from cold and hunger, and disease spread so rapidly that almost ten thousand men died in less than three months. [215] Nor did the rest of the army escape this deadly peril. In a very short period disease killed five hundred knights; and a large number of the common people also died. Neither knight nor sailor nor anybody [220] else could avoid death striking them down.

However, no misfortune could depress the duke, who remained brave and resolute whatever the circumstances. His son Bohemond[1] fell sick and requested his father to allow him to return to Italy, [225] a country where doctors and medicines were to be found in abundance. The duke reluctantly allowed him to go, since he wanted his distinguished offspring to recover his health. He gave him everything he needed for the journey. After his departure the duke ordered Roger to go with his troops to Cephalonia, [230] to conquer and tame this island, which had been in rebellion for a long time. He knew that when this island had been captured all the other Greek cities would be terrified. Roger obeyed his father’s orders, hastened to the town[2] with the duke’s forces and laid siege to it.[3]

[235] The duke [meanwhile] returned to the ships stationed in the River Glykys. He wanted to refloat these, for he was anxious to tame the proud Greeks at sea as well as on land. He worked ferociously to prepare both his cavalry [240] and his fleet for battle, to terrify the islands by bringing out his ships and to force them to pay the tribute owed to the empire into his ducal fisc. With the return of summer the water level was very low, and the river was too shallow for the sailors to re-float their ships. [245] The duke’s ingenuity made a difficult task easy. When he saw that the river lacked its usual flow of water - in fact only a trickle ran through a narrow channel - he ordered a large number of stakes to be brought up and fixed to both banks of the river, joined together with osiers. Then he had a lot of branches cut [250] and [from them] built hurdles which were filled from above with sand, and the water which had been widely spread was concentrated together in one pool. The river became fuller and deeper, and thus a navigable channel was created through which the ships could return unharmed to the sea.

[255] It was at this time that Pope Gregory died in Salerno. He was a venerable man, never influenced in any way by either personal considerations or love of gold, but always acting with just severity. Good things never made him rejoice unduly, nor did unhappy events render him downcast. [260] He was the consolation of the afflicted, the way of light, the teacher of the honest; he restrained the proud with his laws and protected the humble. He was the terror of the impious, but the shield of the just, and scattering the seed of the Saviour’s Word, and never ceased to summon the faithful away from evil [265] and towards that moral behaviour which leads to Heaven. His life was led according to [Holy] doctrine, nor was he unstable and swaying like a reed. Hearing of this great man’s death the duke could not restrain his tears. [270] He could not have cried more for the death of his father, nor if he had seen his son or his wife about to breath their last. His grief at the pope’s death was great, because in life great love had bound them together. Once their mutual peace treaty [275] had been confirmed, neither of them had cast away their love for the other.

The pope was buried in the church of St. Matthew, and enriched the city with the great treasure of his body. Since the translation of the Apostle Matthew[4] had already given this town a great reputation, [280] and this was further enhanced by the pope’s burial there, the duke had chosen it [as his residence] in preference to all other cities, if life had been granted to him. But in fact after the death of Pope Gregory he was not to return to the Italian lands which he had left.

---

[1] Orderic Vitalis said that Sichelgaita sought to have her doctors poison Bohemond. His statement, written some years later, should be treated with caution but concerns by Bohemond might well explain his return to Italy. Either way, he was not present when his father died in mid-1085.

[2] Hagios Georgios, medieval capital of the island is near to modern Argostoli.

[3] The capture of Cephalonia could have acted as the first stage of an attack on Constantinople.

[4] The body of St Matthew was transported to Salerno in 954 by prince Gisulf II and is found in the crypt of the cathedral.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book V, lines 80-209

[80] Meanwhile, after repairing their ships, the Venetians[1] returned to the city of Durazzo and gained entry there without resistance. Indeed hardly anybody remained in the city, for a terrible famine had led the citizens to migrate to all sorts of other places. The Venetians remained at [85] Durazzo for fifteen days and looted it of anything which might be of use to them, but the citadel[2], in which the duke had left a garrison, resisted them. Once they realised that it was impregnable and hearing news of the arrival of the duke’s son[3], [90] they withdrew. Boarding their ships, they all constructed roofs over them, and made a sort of small city. They built a wooden fortress, and as a precaution furnished it with all the war-engines of their fleet. So they remained at sea throughout the winter, [95] protected from the cold and damp by their little houses. Once winter was over and the gentle breezes of spring blew, they hastened with all their ships to Corfu (a destination agreed by everyone). Mavrikas[4], [100] the commander of Alexius’s fleet had [already] arrived there. Many of the sailors then wished to return to Venice, It was agreed that their fleet should withdraw and that everyone should go home. They decided this because Robert had been away for such a long time, and matters were dragging on to such an extent, [105] that all their property was being neglected in their absence.

Throughout this period Robert had been very busy, above all in waging war against Jordan.[5] He did not want to return from Italy leaving anything there undone. [110] Prince Jordan had been terrified by news of Henry’s arrival, and had not taken up arms to resist him in defence of his territory and of his own person. He had instead submitted to him, concluded a peace treaty and surrendered his [115] son as a hostage.[6] Along with his son he had given him a large sum of money as a present. He had done this because he was afraid that if the king should enter southern Italy he would be deprived of the lordship inherited from his father. Because Jordan had capitulated in this manner the duke ravaged his lands with fire and sword. [120] His nephew then sought peace [from him] and was granted it.

After peace had been re-established, and before he once again sought the shores of Greece, the duke begged Pope Gregory to dedicate the church which he had built in honour of St. Matthew. That gentle man granted his request. [125] When that had been done, he turned his attention once more to fulfilling the plan which he had long had in mind.[7] He therefore ordered picked sailors and the men whom he knew to be most fit for military service to go with him to Taranto. There he gathered his entire as well as his army. [130] Both fleet and army were prepared on a magnificent scale; the ships were filled with weapons and supplies. He and his forces then went to the port of Brindisi which seemed to be safer. They were reluctant to set off from Otranto, from which the crossing was shorter, [135] since autumn had already arrived and the good weather of summer had finished. Because of this he was afraid that if his ships stayed at Otranto they would be damaged by storms that could blow up quite suddenly. Thus he transferred his fleet to a more sheltered port, where it could stay in safety until the winds were more favourable. [140] Then, saying farewell to his wife and to those who remained on shore with her, he set off from the land of Italy, to which he would not return. He crossed the Adriatic with one hundred and twenty warships, accompanied by his son Roger[8] who made every effort to imitate his father’s courage in war as well as his affability and kindness towards all. [145] The duke also brought merchant ships, filled with horses, supplies, arms and all those things needed at sea. The fleet crossed the sea and joined the army commanded by the mighty duke’s other son. [150] They spent nearly two months on the coast, forced to refrain from warlike activities by furious storms.

Once good weather had reappeared, they left port and prepared for a naval battle against the ships of the Venetians and the galleys [kelandia] of the Greeks.[9] [155] The duke commanded five triremes, he placed five more under Roger’s command, and the same number each to the latter’s brother Robert[10] and to Bohemond.[11] These were accompanied by smaller ships in a supporting role. [160] The Greeks brought a very large number of galleys to this battle. The Venetians put their trust in nine tall triremes that they knew were ideally designed for combat. When they saw the lower freeboard of Robert’s ships, [165] they joined battle with them and put up a very gallant fight. Supported by the Greek galleys, they showered arrows from on high onto their enemies, and threatened them with heavy iron weights which were hurled down upon them to stop them getting too close. In the ship carrying Roger during this battle scarcely a man could be found unwounded. Roger himself, wounded in the arm but unwilling to surrender, remained fighting the enemy, his wound forgotten. [170] The desire for the honours given to those victorious in battle spurred him on. His father, who was so often himself decorated by the insignia of victory, summoned him and ordered him to separate the [Greek] galleys [175] from the rest of the fleet. He hurried energetically to execute his father’s instructions, and with the five triremes which had been entrusted to him attacked these galleys. The Greeks were quite unable to resist this attack and fled in confusion, [180] as do birds that dare not resist a hovering eagle, or hares which are forced to sprint away in terror, lest they be seized in its talons and become food for its voracious beak. After their flight the Venetian fleet remained alone. [185] Seeing that the Greek ships had fled and that the triremes were unsupported, Robert and his sons attacked them fiercely with their ships. So savage was the impact of their attack that the Venetian fleet could not hope to escape. [190] Seven ships were sunk, and the two that remained were unable to continue the battle on their own. All [on board] were forced to surrender to the enemy, and the duke was as usual triumphant. He and his victorious fleet brought back two thousand of the bravest warriors, [195] who had posed the fiercest resistance, to port, along with five hundred others who had [also] been made prisoners. During this battle seven Greek ships were taken as they fled.

Those who had faithfully guarded the citadel of Corfu [200] for him were freed from the siege which they had undergone while the duke whom the enemy feared was away. He then placed all the ships, both his own victorious one and those which had been captured, in sheltered moorings to protect them from the cold of winter, which was approaching. [205] It was for this reason that he prudently brought them into the River Glykys, stationing the boats and sailors there, and instructing them to remain until the fine weather of summer returned. He led his cavalry to winter at Vonitsa[12], and stayed there with them himself.

---

[1] The Venetian fleet had left Durazzo when the city fell to Guiscard according to William of Apulia (IV: 501) or before it fell according to Anna Comnena. Though the chronology is hypothetical, it is likely that this refers to the winter of 1083-1084 while Bohemund was away in Valona.

[2] This remained in Norman hands until after Guiscard died in 1085.

[3] It is unclear who this refers to but Bohemond seems the likely explanation and refers to the beginnings of the second Norman expedition to the area in mid-1084.

[4] Michael Mavrikas.

[5] Guiscard besieged Capua in the summer of 1083 and took it in July. Henry IV’s expedition to Italy may well have been provocked by Alexius and certainly he had received letters from Herve, bishop of Capua.

[6] Jordan of Capua had been invested with his lands by Henry IV at Easter 1082.

[7] Guiscard assembled his fleet at Otranto in September 1084 and Geoffrey Malaterra (III: 40) said that he crossed from there. Anna Comnena and William of Apulia said that he crossed from Brindisi, a much shorter route than Otranto to Valona. This seems highly plausible.

[8] Roger Borsa and Guy, another of Guiscard’s sons crossed first and occupied Valona and Butrinto where Guiscard joined them after landing at Valona.

[9] The Norman naval victory off Corfu occurred in November 1084.

[10] Robert II Guiscard, son of Robert Guiscard.

[11] Anna Comnena stated that Bohemond was in Italy in 1083 but she makes no mention of his contributions to the second expedition.

[12] Guiscard had taken Vonitsa in May 1081.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book V, lines 1-79

When Alexius learned that Robert had crossed the sea[1], he strove to regroup his battered forces and to destroy the camp of the absent duke, which was guarded by the latter’s son Bohemond [5] and Brienne, two men who were mighty both in battle and in counsel. Alexius’s army established its camp not far from Janina, a city of no little renown. He protected it with several rows of wagons drawn up on the side facing the plain, [10] which was the easiest way of approach. He obstructed all the access routes with iron calthrops to pierce the hooves of their enemies’ horses as they charged along with the reins loose. But the Greeks’ vision was ruined by fog, and the Normans arrived there unseen through difficult paths filled with [15] vines and dense with sedges. Alexius came to grips with them and for a while fought back, but could not resist their attack for very long. He sought flight and retired defeated. [20] Vanquished in a second battle, he retired to a famous town in Thessaly, called Salonika by the vulgar. However, since he knew that the fortunes of war are changeable, he prepared to return once more to the fray.[2]

Bohemond[3] rejoiced at having an army more brave than numerous, and exulted [25] in the capture of Tziviskos. He besieged Larissa[4], a celebrated place, which he knew to be filled with riches since the imperial treasury had been brought there. It was the birthplace of Achilles, the destroyer of Troy. The siege of this town concerned [30] Alexius[5], and he came there with a very large force and valiantly gave battle to the Normans. The troops of Brienne resisted him but were defeated. Seeing the hills swarming with this great army, Bohemond realised that the empire’s ruler was present in person. [35] He charged [against him] and pursued his craven enemies, as a hawk does larks. The Greek army turned tail in the face of his men, but a dust storm enveloped both sides so thick that neither could see where the other was. [40] The defeated Greeks sought refuge in the depths of the forest, while the conqueror, after killing some of them, returned to the mountains, there to wait in case further battles were to be levied against him.

Learning that his enemies had moved off, Alexius went to the [45] camp at Larissa with a large force. The infantry who had been left in the camp were unable to fight off the enemy who so outnumbered them. Most of them were killed; a small number managed to flee. Alexius captured the booty which the victorious army had brought there from all sorts of places. [50] A messenger hastened to the hills to bring news of the disaster to Bohemond, who (having believed himself the victor) lamented the destruction of part of his army. However, he was not the least afraid and strove to rally his disorganised troops. No setback could sap this man’s courage. [55] But he was annoyed to have to raise the siege of a town which was almost conquered and ready to submit. Night fell and reminded men tired out by battle to compose their limbs for sleep. Bohemond went to a sheltered valley not far from there which furnished all that was necessary for him and his men, and [60] there they abandoned their bodies to sleep.

After three days two noblemen led out a very large force of Greeks ready to do battle [65] against Bohemond; one of these was the emperor’s brother Adrian, the other his brother-in-law Melisianos.[6] Recovering their usual courage the Normans rushed to their arms; the Greeks, accustomed to run in coward flight, hastily returned to the walls of the city of Larissa, where Alexius had taken refuge. [70] They had been defeated so many times that they did not dare to stray far from these. The Turks too took flight and were trapped in the city. But the Normans could not remain besieging them for very long since the land there had been so ravaged that it could no longer feed them, and their supplies had been lost when their camp had been captured. Dividing his army, [75] Bohemond[7] went to Valona to find food, while Brienne went to Castoria. Alexius left most of his troops at Salonica, but he himself returned to his capital city which bears the name of its founder, Constantine.

---

[1] Alexius left Constantinople in May 1082.

[2] Bohemond arrived at Janina from Castoria. He defeated Alexius in two battles before Janina who then returned to Constantinople to get new troops.

[3] Bohemond occupied Albania and Thessaly in the summer of 1082. He then moved with all his army to besiege Trikkala and sent a detachment to occupy Tziviskos.

[4] Anna Comnena said that Bohemond took Larissa in the autumn of 1082 with the intention of wintering there. The siege lasted six months according to her account. However Chalandon argued that Bohemond wintered before Larissa but did not actively besiege it until the spring of 1083.

[5] Alexius, alerted by Leo Kephalas governor of Larissa arrived to relieve the siege. Bohemond gave command of part of the army to Brienne while Alexius gave command to Nicephorus Melissenos and Basil Kourtikios and ordered them to retreat. This stratagem worked and Bohemond split his forces and Alexius was able to defeat the divided forces and take their camp.

[6] Nicephorus Melissenos was married to Alexius Comnenus’ sister Eudocia.

[7] The Norman counts, bribed by Alexius, demanded that Bohemond go to Italy to get their pay. He left Castoria under Brienne’s control, a town occupied after the fall of Durazzo by Bohemond’s troops. Alexius then returned and took Castoria in October or November 1083. The Normans who surrendered transferred their allegiance to Alexius apart from Brienne who was freed on condition that he did not take arms again against the Byzantine Empire.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book V, commentary

In the final part of his work, William of Apulia deals with events around Durazzo during Guiscard’s absence in Italy: the pillage of Durazzo by the Venetians and the role of Adrian, Alexius’ brother in the campaign against Bohemond. He also gives details of the naval battle off Corfu in 1084 after Guiscard’s return. There are also details of the role played by Roger Borsa during the campaign: he remained in Italy supported by Gerald (probably Buonalbergo) during the first part of the campaign but his active involvement in the second part of the campaign between Guiscard’s return to Durazzo in 1084 and his death the following year. He also deals with the panic following Guiscard’s death and the number of desertions that followed it.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book IV, lines 450-573

[450] There was at Durazzo a distinguished man who had come from Venice, called Domenico.[1] He hated another man, said to be the son of the Doge of Venice[2], because he himself was not allowed to be part of his council, entry to which was given to many other people there. [455] Domenico sought to deprive him of his command. He summoned one of the deserters to him, a man from Bari who was dear to him and in whose good faith he trusted. He instructed him to go to Robert’s camp by night and inform the duke that he wished to reveal to him certain things to his advantage, and tell him to [460] come to a place called Petra[3], which was near the church of St. Nicholas. Robert went there with a small escort. [Meanwhile] the deserter had returned and summoned the Venetian, who came to the duke and promised that he could easily surrender Durazzo [465] to him if the latter would give him what he sought. The duke swore on oath to grant him what he wanted and to give him his niece in marriage[4]. Both went home in secret after this meeting, having previously decided [470] when the duke would return and Domenico then hand the city over to him.

When the day that they had both decided upon came, the duke chose the men of Cosenza, whom he knew to be fleet of foot, and to accompany them some picked knights, [475] then in the stillness of the night he marched on the town. He took the precaution of sending the deserter on ahead, to tell him from the town what needed to be done. The Venetian had been watching for him for much of the night and had fallen asleep, but the Bariot deserter [480] promptly woke him up and told him of the duke’s arrival. The Venetian told him to bring his trusted men into the city, and not to be afraid. The messenger returned and had the duke’s infantry go in first, and to them he handed over the walls of the tower, which was unguarded. [485] During the night they made not a sound. At daybreak the whole town realised from all sorts of noise that their enemies had gained entry. All the Venetians seized their weapons, [490] except those whom the fifth columnist had brought over to Robert’s side. With their enemies on the ramparts all the inhabitants dug a ditch inside the walls, to make it difficult for the enemies to climb down into the city.[5] The duke had ordered his troops to leave camp on the double. When he heard their voices he ran to them, and despatched them through every gate. [495] Seeing themselves attacked both from within and without the inhabitants loudly denounced the treachery of the Venetians, and as a result the whole Venetian garrison fled. Some were killed, others captured, while some of them fled to the sea, boarded their ships and thus escaped across the Adriatic. [500] Every Venetian who stayed to fight was made prisoner during the city’s capture, including the Doge’s son, while their fleet sailed away. So the duke secured Durazzo for himself. Being unable to conquer it by force of arms alone, he secured victory through a stratagem. The Venetian rejoiced, because after the surrender everything that had been [505] promised to him was fulfilled.

Meanwhile the people of Troia and Ascoli revolted, the former refusing to pay the customary tribute, the latter lamenting the destruction of their walls.[6] They combined together to attack Roger, [510] the duke’s noble heir, who was distinguished for his good sense and skill at arms. Trapped in the citadel at Troia, he defended himself as best he could, until at last some of his and his father’s allies hurried to his aid. Leaving the citadel [515] he threw himself furiously on the rebellious townspeople and inflicted all sorts of punishments upon them. He had one man’s hand cut off, and another’s foot, a third lost his nose, another his testicles; he deprived other men of their teeth or ears. Thus a captive tigress is accustomed to hide her anger while she is a prisoner and unable to give vent to her rage, [520] but if she happens to break out of her cage and escape then she shows a quite unusual fury, seizing and devouring all whom she sees. Even a lion avoids the ferocious beast, although she is the smaller and he the stronger of the two.

Robert returned to Apulia once more after a year away, crossing the Adriatic with two ships, [525] and entrusting his men to his eldest son, called Bohemond, and Brienne[7]. Learning that Cannae had rebelled against him the duke besieged it, [530] and after its capture he raised it to the ground. Herman[8] had ruled this town. He was born of the same mother as Abelard, son of Humphrey[9], but they did not however share the same father. Both brothers were distinguished soldiers, but they both yielded to the power of Robert, [535] to whom scarcely anyone in the world was equal.

After the destruction of Cannae, he set out for Rome against Henry, the enemy of Gregory, the Roman pontiff. Henry had been besieging the city for some two years with a great crowd of barbarians. He had breached the high walls with his stonethrowers [540] and destroyed many of the undaunted city’s towers. The Trastevere district had already surrendered to him, and Gregory was trapped in a citadel[10] that was however well-protected. Indeed so excellently was it constructed that it was impregnable, [545] and the pope had provided it with a faithful garrison.[11]

When King Henry learned of the great army [550] with which Robert was preparing to march against him, he fled, terrified of the duke’s bravery and power, already renowned throughout the world[12]. Fearing to wait for him he retreated to safety. Robert hastened to Rome and stormed the walls of that famous city, with the aid of just a few of Gregory’s partisans. [555] He fired some of the buildings, violently freed the pope who had been under siege for so long, and brought him most honourably back with him to Salerno. After the duke’s departure [560] the greedy citizens yielded once again to Henry. He had given to them as pope Guibert of Ravenna[13], a man who had wickedly risen up against the Holy Father and dared to seize the Apostolic See, being known by the mob as Clement. Returning to Salerno[14] from the city of Romulus the duke dismissed his troops. Never had he possessed an army such as this for [565] he had led to Rome six thousand knights and thirty thousand infantry. So it was that he defeated at one and the same time the world’s two greatest rulers, the German king and mighty ruler of the Roman Empire.[15] [570] The latter had rushed to battle and there had been conquered, the other had been overcome merely by fear of his [Guiscard’s] reputation.

---

[1] The Doge of Venice was also Domenico Silvio.

[2] The son of the Doge was defeated by Guiscard in the naval engagement off Corfu in 1085.

[3] Petra is today Shkamm or Sasso Bianco.

[4] According to Malaterra [Book III], Guiscard promised Domenico the daughter of his brother William of the Principate.

[5] The resistance by the citizensh of Durazzo lasted three days according to Malaterra after which they surrendered.

[6] A conspiracy developed in the two towns in the absence of Guiscard, an action possible provocked by the intrigues of Alexius. He had written to Herman de Cannae in June 1081 encouraging him to rebel against Guiscard.

[7] The constable Brienne.

[8] Herman de Cannae, brother of Abelard and nephew of Guiscard. He had been a hostage in Constantinople in 1064, rebelled in 1073 with Peter de Trani and freed from captivity at the beginning of 1076. He later seems to have been reconciled with Guiscard’s sons and accompanied Bohemond on the First Crusade.

[9] Humphrey de Hauteville had married the sister of the duke of Sorrento.

[10] The Castel San Angelo.

[11] Gregory had been besieged in Rome since October 1081 and had long called for Robert’s assistance. In 1083, Henry had occupied the Transtevere district and the pope was shut up in the Castel San Angelo.

[12] On 21^st May 1084, Henry IV, told by Desiderius of Montecassino of the imminent arrival of Guiscard, left Rome. Guiscard freed Gregory and burned the city from the Lateran to the Castel San Angelo. Cowdrey, H. E. J., The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the Papacy and the Normans in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries, (Oxford University Press), 1983 is the best study of Desiderius. The chief source is the Chronicon Cassinense, in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., vol. VII, reprinted in Patrologia Latina, vol. 173; some autobiographical details can be found in his own Dialogues in Patrologia Latina, vol. 149. Ibid, Mann, H. R., The Lives of the Popes, vol. vii, pp. 218-244 remains useful.

[13] Born c.1025 of noble birth in Parma in Lombardy, Guibert served at the German court (c. 1054-1055) and became imperial chancellor for Italy (1058-1063). As such he supported the election of Bishop Peter Cadalus of Parma as antipope Honorius II (1061). His appointment by Henry IV of Germany as archbishop of Ravenna was confirmed by Pope Alexander II (1073), but he later clashed with Alexander’s successor, Gregory VII. When Guibert became the Italian leader of the imperialist faction opposing the Gregorian reform, Gregory excommunicated him. He was elected antipope on June 25^th 1080, by a synod called by Henry at Brixen, which declared Gregory deposed. He was enthroned when Henry finally seized Rome (March 24^th 1084), and on March 31^st he crowned Henry emperor. Clement remained antipope throughout the succeeding pontificates of Victor III and Urban II and died September 8^th 1100.

[14] Guiscard and Gregory arrived back in Salerno at the end of June 1084.

[15] This double victory over Alexius Comnenus and Henry IV became legendary in the literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book IV, lines 325-449

[325] In addition he ordered Basil Mesopotamites to lead the advance guard of two thousand picked cavalrymen to reconnoitre Duke Robert’s camp. Mesopotamites was a battle-hardened veteran, and carried out the orders he had been given. He was close to the city of Butrinto[1] when it was rumoured that the duke’s cavalry were riding nearby, [330] bearing with them a lot of baggage. Although a large number had already been wounded by arrows from the Turks whom Basil commanded, all resolved rather to die in battle than to retreat in cowardly fashion from the Greeks. [335] Drawing up their ranks as best they could, they turned towards their enemies. The Turks were terrified by the sight of their enemies turning on them, resisting fiercely and striking hard. They fled, and Basil was unable to prevent this. He himself was captured as he fled. The Norman forces hastened to bring their prisoner to the duke. [340] Robert questioned him thoroughly, about what Alexius planned against him and wanted to accomplish, and how many troops he was bringing up for battle.[2] Learning that the enemy’s arrival was imminent and that Alexius would attack him with very substantial forces, [345] the duke summoned all his leading men, told them everything he had learned and discussed with them what should be done. The most warlike of them wanted to launch an audacious sortie from the camp and make a resolute assault on the advancing enemy, to terrify them by this attack. [350] The duke replied that it would be better not to go too far from the camp until the imperial forces were seen to be close, and declared that it was vain to seek to triumph through a stratagem when there could be no victory except through [the favour of] heaven. [355] Although he knew the bravery of his soldiers, he wanted no rash undertakings. Not only had he been told of the vast numbers of the enemy but he knew nothing of the sort of men they were. [360] So he sensibly counselled his people to be cautious, and prepared for every possible eventually. He did not want to wait for the enemy troops very far from Durazzo.[3]

The latter suddenly arrived, covering the hills and plains like locusts. The sun was already sinking down to the sea, and so neither side wanted to start the battle then. [365] They abandoned themselves to sleep. Alexius ordered the people of Durazzo to attack the enemy in the rear, that they might be safe neither in the front nor behind. [370] At daybreak the the duke prudently burned his camp, to prevent anybody attacking it once he had marched out. He was the first to lead his troops out to battle. Alexius moved out a great many units and attacked him. The Calabrians and Lombards were terrified [375] and almost all the sailors the duke commanded took flight. Even the duke’s knights were scared by the first attack of the enemy crashing down upon them. After crossing the river they came heedlessly into an area where space was very restricted. (The duke had had the bridge demolished to prevent anyone from the town making a sortie against him or anybody entering the town). [380] The narrowness of this area hindered his men’s advance, and a furious cloud of missiles covered them from every side - it was said that nobody had ever seen a greater storm of arrows. Since there was no place of safety, for they could neither fight nor retreat, they tried to deploy, and threw themselves into the sea [385] because the press was such that the Normans were getting in the way of their own men and hindering them just as much as the enemy was. So perilous a position seemed to panic the Normans.[4] Thinking them to be vanquished and retiring, and with the Venetian fleet cruising nearby and hoping to capture the defeated, [390] the imperial army, eager for booty, started looting. They captured the horses and other baggage which the duke’s army had abandoned when they had rushed out to fight.

[395] Meanwhile a crowd [of Normans] managed to wade out of the sea and rejoined the duke who had, being in the lead, been among the first to escape from this very dangerous spot, albeit with considerable difficulty. The original deployment which he had laid down for his troops had disintegrated, for the appalling constriction of the field had changed everything. [400] But the duke rejoiced that his men were present and he promptly gave them a few words of encouragement, telling them that they would find safety only in their weapons, and threatening them that if they turned their backs on the Greeks they would all be slaughtered like sheep. [405] He told them that a prisoner’s life was just the same as death. With these exhortations he fired his men’s courage. Even though he saw the vast numbers of Alexius’s army coming [towards him], he trusted in the banner[5] given him by the pope in honour of Peter, the prince of shepherds, and in the merits of St. Matthew, [410] for whom he had built a church. He charged boldly on the enemy and engaged in a ferocious battle not far from the besieged city. Alexius was defeated and his men turned tail, for more than five thousand of the Greeks were killed in this engagement. [415] A huge number of Turks perished with the Greeks. All sorts of splendid arms, horses and standards were captured from the Greeks. Barely thirty knights from the duke’s army were reckoned to have been killed. [420] Alexius wept to have been defeated by an enemy inferior both in numbers and in wealth. He himself was wounded and retired. The man who had vainly hoped to celebrate a spectacular triumph was forced instead to make a tearful and inglorious return.

[425] During this battle Robert’s wife had been wounded by a chance arrow. Terrified by her wound, and with no hope of assistance, she had very nearly fallen to the enemy and, afraid that she was in imminent danger of death, had wanted to embark on one of the ships. [430] But God, who did not want to embarrass so noble and worthy a lady, had rescued her. Constantine[6], who had previously been stripped of his royal rank, died in this battle. He was buried with the proper ceremony. The Greeks lost many of the leading men of Durazzo, [435] whose bodies lay unburied and rotted on the battlefield.

The duke was careful not to remain very long in Alexius’s camp because of the stench of corpses there. The faithful Venetians garrisoned Durazzo on the emperor’s orders. [440] The duke moved away from the city and came to a river, called the Di(e)valis. There he built a castle and established the men with him in a number of different places where they could remain in shelter during the winter frosts. The Venetians inflicted all sorts of punishments on those who had crossed with the duke but then deserted [445] rather than following him into battle. These they condemned to servitude; some they sent back home where they were cast into prison, others they handed over to the Greeks.

---

[1] Butrinto was the first place taken by Bohemond and Guiscard’s major base.

[2] This incident is only told by William of Apulia.

[3] Alexius wanted to attack immediately when he arrived in October, against the advice of Palaeologus and other officers. Guiscard, through spies, knew Alexius was coming and moved his army away from the city to prepare for battle; he attempted to negotiate with Alexius, but it was a stalling tactic only, as he demanded impossible terms which Alexius would never agree to: Anna Comnena does not elaborate on the details. He divided his army into three, with himself commanding the centre, his son Bohemond on the left and Count Amicus of Giovinazzo on the right. Alexius did the same, personally commanding his centre (where the Varangians were positioned), with Gregory Pacurianus on the left and Nicephorus Melissenus on the right. On October 18^th 1081, as Alexius marched forward, a contingent of archers was placed behind the Varangians, who occasionally moved away, allowing the archers to shoot at the Normans, and then closed back in to protect them. Guiscard tried to dislodge the Varangians with a cavalry charge, but they were repulsed by the archers. Count Ami then charged both the centre and left wings; the Varangians held their position, and Pacurianius charged forward and defeated the attack. Ami’s troops fled in panic towards the sea, pursued by the Varangians, until they were gathered up and rallied by Guiscard’s wife Sichelgaita, whom Anna describes as a second Athena. In the heat of battle, the Varangians had forgotten one of the most important Byzantine military tactics - never to pursue fleeing troops, as the pursuers will then be cut off and vulnerable to a separate attack. This is indeed what happened. Guiscard sent his infantry against the Varangians, who, now tired after their pursuit, had heavy casualties inflicted upon them. The survivors hid in a church, which the infantry set on fire, killing everyone. Although both sides had lost a whole flank, Guiscard still had his heavy cavalry in reserve, and now sent it against Alexius’ centre. The Turkish and Bogomil mercenaries deserted, and Alexius was forced to flee and barely escaped with his life, as Amicetas himself pursued and attacked him. Although he successfully fought off Amicus, Alexius was pursued further by Norman spearmen; according to Anna Comnena only divine intervention saved him (Anna then apologises to her readers that she has devoted so much space to the suffering of her father). He lost about 5,000 men, including Constantine, the son of the former emperor Constantine X and the Normans captured his camp and its riches. Norman casualties are unknown, although they claimed to have lost only thirty men, which is surely impossible. This was a serious defeat for Alexius. The former Byzantine heartland in Anatolia had recently been overrun after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, and now the Balkans were on the verge of being lost as well. Guiscard captured Durazzo and over the next few months took most of northern Greece as well. Alexius negotiated with Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to attack Norman allies in Italy, but while Guiscard returned home to deal with this, Bohemund defeated Alexius twice more. It was not until 1083 that Alexius forced the Normans out of the Balkans.

[4] It is Sichelgaita who rallied the retreating Normans.

[5] This refers to the ‘vexillum Sancti Petri’ that Guiscard had received from Gregory VII ar Ceprano signifying his investiture.

[6] Constantine Ducas, brother of Michael VII.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book IV, lines 185-324

[185] Meanwhile his wife and the counts who had been summoned arrived. With a great crowd looking on, Robert called his fine son Roger[1] and, in the sight of all, designated him as his heir and placed him in charge of all over whom he ruled. He was a most worthy heir of his great father, showing the good qualities of both his father and of his uncles. [190] His character was such that from an early age he had shown his love of virtue. The duke gave Roger full authority [ius proprium] over the whole of Italy: everywhere in Apulia, as well as Calabria and Sicily. [195] He entrusted him to Count Robert[2] and to Gerard[3], the former was his brother’s son, the latter his most faithful friend; both were lovers of virtue and honour. He requested them not to deny the pope what aid for him that they were able to provide. [200] He himself was in haste to undertake the expedition which had been prepared. He crossed the Adriatic with fifty ships[4]. The island of Corfu trembled at the arrival of this great prince accompanied by his picked troops. The men who had gone before him had taken the town of Butrinto, he himself received the surrender of Corfu, [205] a city strongly furnished with both natural and man-made defences. Hostages were given and the whole island paid tribute. His sailors stormed Vonitza and plundered it.

[210] The duke placed Bohemond, his other son, born of his first wife, a knight of great bravery, in command of the force of cavalry and infantry which he had brought with him. [5] He ordered all his men to obey the latter’s orders. They besieged Durazzo[6], the father on one side and the son on the other, seeking to overcome it by siege from land and sea.[7] [215] George[8] had often urged the duke to come there, because he had heard that Nicephorus, who had entrusted the town to him, had been dethroned. But during the summer the duke’s journey was interrupted by shipwreck[9], [220] and the ship in which he was travelling was holed all over by the stormy seas. It was only with difficulty that he survived. The bread carried for the men’s sustenance was ruined, soaked by the water and crumbled to pieces, and the corpses washed up by the sea lay rotting on the shore.

[225] The duke was depressed at being unable to accomplish the journey which he had undertaken, but with the sea and sky still wracked by storms there was a long delay [during which] Paleologus led many Greeks to Durazzo, from which George was expelled through a stratagem. Alexius rejoiced to have his enemy sent to him.[10] [230] The duke was however reluctant to abandon his enterprise now he knew that the moment had come. The island of Corfu had already surrendered. After capturing Valona and other towns along the coast, he laid siege to Durazzo [even though] he knew this to be well-fortified. [235] This was a city which had once been very wealthy, and was surrounded by walls made principally of brick. Pyrros, the king of the Epirots, had ordered this to be called Epidamnos. He did not hesitate to wage a fierce war against the citizens of Rome [Quirites] in alliance with the people of Taranto. The city then suffered from a number of conflicts and other disasters and was deprived of inhabitants and reduced to nothing. [240] Later Zetus and Amphion rebuilt the destroyed city on a reduced scale and ordered it to be called Durazzo. The duke invested it on all sides. The citizens of the besieged town were very much afraid, [245] but they posted sentries, placed reliable guards throughout the city and notified the emperor that the duke had laid siege to it, sending envoys to request his help. The duke strove with all his might to storm the city. He had a very ingenious wooden tower constructed, [250] on which he had a huge catapult placed, which hurled great rocks to batter down the city walls. Seeing his camp growing ever larger, everything round about being plundered and vast booty being brought in, as well as houses being built to ward off the winter’s cold, [255] the citizens began perforce to abandon the vain hope with which they had been deceiving themselves, that their enemy would retire. They realised that the duke would stay and not willingly withdraw until he had forced their town to submit to him as he had made others surrender to him. They sent envoys to him who asked why he had come there. [260] The duke replied that he had come to restore Michael to the throne from which he had been so unjustly driven. They promised that they would not deny him the entry to the city which he sought if they might see Michael. [265] The man who pretended to be Michael was brought out, crowned as emperor, to the sound of horns, trumpets and lyres, surrounded on every side by chanting crowds. But when they saw him all the citizens burst out laughing, and mocked him saying, [270] ‘this man used to wait on tables with jugs of wine - he was one of the butlers, of the lowest rank!’

When Alexius learned that Robert had seized his towns, and fearing that he would also capture Durazzo, he prepared to march against the duke with a big army. [275] He summoned a people to whom he was allied, to fight against him [Guiscard] and engage [his forces] in combat on the sea. [11] These people were brave and well-versed in naval warfare, for the imperial request was sent to Venice, a coastal city both rich and populous, which is washed by the last northern waves of the Adriatic. [280] These peoples’ walls are entirely surrounded by sea; they cannot move from one house to another without going by boat. They live always on the water [285] and no person surpasses them in naval battles and in navigation at sea.

Alexius urged them to bring help to the besieged citizens and send their ships to fight with those of the duke, so that by defeating his enemies at sea and thus weakening the duke’s forces they would make it easier for him to fight a land battle. [290] They obeyed the emperor’s instructions and hastened to attack the duke’s fleet with their ships. However evening was approaching. The duke’s ships sailed out, but since night was falling [295] the two sides avoided combat. Next morning, as dawn dispersed the shadows, both fleets prepared for battle. The Venetians, who were much more experienced in this sort of warfare, attacked impetuously. The duke’s fleet was terrified and fled back to port. The battle thus ended. [300] Three days running the Venetians attacked the harbour at daybreak and challenged Robert’s ships to battle. The men from Ragusa and Dalmatia who accompanied the duke covered the sea with flights of arrows, [305] but did not dare to take their ships very far from the harbour.[12] The port was protected by the nearby camps.[13] The Venetians cut the cables of some ships and dragged them away from the shore, but this did not affect the duke’s undaunted courage. He thought of another plan [310] and decided to make more effective preparations for battle than hitherto, by bringing other ships here of greater size that would be able to inflict greater damage [on the enemy].

Alexius rejoiced when he heard of the exploits of the victorious fleet.[14] The islands which had previously paid tribute to Robert rose in fierce revolt when they heard of the damage which his ships had suffered, and acclaimed the emperor. [315] At the emperor’s orders all the river crossings and mountain passes were guarded to prevent the enemy being forewarned of the coming danger and taking steps to meet the attack.[320] Alexius hoped thus to surprise his enemy and to defeat the invincible duke by an unexpected offensive. He brought a vast number of troops with him, for he was accompanied by a huge force of barbarians as well as Greeks.[15]

---

[1] Anna Comnena said that Guiscard gave his authority to his son Roger Borsa at Otranto but that he later changed his mind and Roger accompanied him.

[2] Robert de Loritello, son of count Geoffrey de Capitinate, Guiscard’s brother. In February 1081, Gregory VII had asked Guiscard to stop the attacks by his nephew on the lands of St Peter. Robert was an important figure in northern and central Apulia and the Abruzzi and his lands extended from Bovino to Ascoli.

[3] Ibid, Chalandon, F., Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, vol. I, p. 268 identifies him as Gerald de Buonalbergo. However, he may be the Gerald who fought with Guiscard at Civitate [Book II: 218].

[4] Anna Comnena alone argues that Guiscard went from Otranto to Brindisi from where he left for Durazzo. She said that he decided against the crossing from Otranto to Nicopolis because it was the beginning of winter. Guiscard landed at Valona already captured by Bohemond who he rejoined at Butrinto.

[5] Yewdale, R. B., Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch, (Princeton University Press), 1924 remains essential on Bohemond though it should be supplemented by Cardini, F., Lozito, N. and Vetere, B., (eds.), Boemondo. Storia di un principe normanno, Bari, 2003 and Flori, Jean, Bohémond d’Antioch: Chevalier d’Aventure, (Payot), 2007, pp. 19-38.

[6] Durrës (Italian Durazzo) is today a city and seaport in western Albania, administrative centre of Durrës District, on the Adriatic Sea near Tirana. The city is in a fertile region in which corn, grain, sugar beet, and tobacco are grown, and livestock is raised. An important commercial and communications centre serving central Albania, the city has a power plant, a dockyard, and factories producing bricks, cigarettes, leather goods, and soap. Exports include grain, hides, minerals, and tobacco. The city is linked by rail with Tirana and Elbasan. Durrës is the seat of a Greek Orthodox metropolitan (archbishop) and, since the 5^th century, of a Roman Catholic archbishop. There are remains of Byzantine and Venetian fortifications outside the city. Durrës was founded (c. 625 BC) as Epidamnus by the Corcyreans, who were the ancient inhabitants of the island of Corfu and by the Corinthians from the Greek city of Corinth. The Romans seized the city in the 3^rd century BC and changed the name to Dyrrhachium. Durrës was under Byzantine rule in the 8^th century AD; Venice took Durrës in the 14^th century but in 1501 the Ottoman Turks captured the city and held it for 412 years. In World War I, Durrës was occupied by the Italians but in 1916 the city was taken by the Austrians, subjected to Allied naval and air attacks, and later reoccupied by the Italians. In 1939, Italian troops used Durrës as a disembarkation point for the invasion of Albania. During an Italian invasion of Greece in World War II, the city suffered heavy damage.

[7] In June 1081, Guiscard marched on Durazzo, the regional capital, and lay siege to it; its inhabitants, however, were not impressed by the false Michael. The city, which lay on a peninsula jutting out into the Adriatic Sea, was well-prepared for a siege from both land and sea. The Venetians sent a fleet to help Alexius and blockaded Guiscard’s ships in the harbour; Guiscard sent his son Bohemund to deal with them, and when they refused to acknowledge the false Michael, instead insulting Bohemund, he attacked them. His ships were destroyed in a brief naval battle, while at the same time, the garrison of Durazzo, led by George Palaeologus, defeated the Normans outside the city and destroyed their siege tower. Soon afterwards the Norman army was afflicted with disease, which, according to Anna Comnena, may have killed up to 10,000 men. Nevertheless, Guiscard continued the siege and Alexius marched out from Constantinople to meet him. According to Anna Comnena, Guiscard had 30,000 men with him, and Alexius had somewhat less than that, perhaps about 20,000 - the Thracian and Macedonian tagmata, the elite excubita and vestiaritae units, a force of so-called Manichaeans (Bogomil heretics organised into military units), Thessalian cavalry, Turkish and Frankish mercenaries (the Turks commanded by the eunuch general Taticius), Balkan conscripts, Armenian infantry, some of the Varangians, and other light troops. While Alexius was marching, Palaeologus destroyed another of Guiscard’s siege towers.

[8] George Monomachatos was appointed duke of Illyrica in 1078 by Nicephorus Botaniates but did not directly support Alexius in his revolt in 1081. Anna Comnena accused him of having negotiated with Guiscard.

[9] This probably occurred at Cape Glossa to the south of Durazzo.

[10] Anna Comnena said that George Monomachatos sought refuge with Constantine Bodin, prince of Serbia but he returned to Constantinople when Alexius agreed to an armistice.

[11] Alexius had written letters the doge of Venice in which he asked, in exchange for privileges that they send their fleet to Durazzo to protect the town and to fight against Guiscard’s fleet.

[12] Malaterra [Book III] said that the Normans were attacked by surprise and refused to fight. The Venetians then occupied Durazzo in the course of the night battle and then pursued the Normans back as far as Guiscard’s fortified camp.

[13] Guiscard’s camp was situated between the lagoons and the walls of the town.

[14] According to Anna Comnena, the Venetian ambassadors informed Alexius of their victory and the chrysobulle of 1082 confirmed their privileges because of their exploits at Durazzo.

[15] Alexius left Constantinople in August 1081 with an army of between 70,000 and 170,000 that included Varengians, Normans, Turks, Macedonians and Manicheans.