Canada: The context

What historians eventually publish inevitably represents a small part of the research that they have undertaken. While researching Three Rebellions I drafted a series of papers that contributed, some more than others, to the published work. [1] This was part of the process of honing drafts of the book into a form that combined a narrative of the key events, their causation and consequences with a critique of that narrative through examining linkage and remembrance. Some of the papers were simply sketches of ideas and issues that I explored in greater depth in the published work while others from the outset were more substantial pieces. This collection of essays brings together some of those jottings, with their inevitable repetition, and considers various aspects of the history of Lower Canada from its creation in 1791 and after 1841 when it became Canada East in the United Province of Canada. I have taken the opportunity to rewrite most of the original papers in the light of further research and, to afford them a coherence that they lack individually by grouping them into seven broad areas and providing each with a brief introduction.

During the sixteenth century, following the discovery of the rich fishing banks off Newfoundland France became the first European nation active in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. In 1604, France created a permanent settlement there, laying the foundations of a country that would develop its own culture, a blend of French roots, Aboriginal customs and adaptations to the new land. Within two generations, the French settlers in the St. Lawrence Valley had become ‘Canadianised’, blending their European heritage with traits borrowed from the Aboriginal world. Aware that they enjoyed far more freedom than their counterparts in France, they referred to themselves as habitants rather than paysans. Driven by a spirit of egalitarianism, they usually proved resistant to the social constraints of hierarchy. They were commonly called ‘Canadians’ to distinguish them from French sojourners in the colony who had not joined settler society. The French colonial authorities, civilian, military and religious alike, complained regularly of the rebellious spirit of the Canadians. In 1763, England was convinced, mistakenly, that it was inheriting a French society but the new colonial authorities did not fully understand the reality. The former subjects of the king of France already formed a distinct people, more North American than European and they wanted to remain that way. [2]

After 1763, under English rule, Canadians continued to maintain their customs, ensuring a French presence in North America. [3] Although unquestionably a source of insecurity, the Conquest in 1760 changed little in the daily lives of most French Canadian inhabitants. For the small shopkeepers and artisans of the towns, it was even a change for the better, since prices dropped and money began to circulate again after the scarcity of the war years. Over the long term, however, the Conquest introduced the British into Canada and gave them political and economic power and in the eyes of French Canadians, the British became ‘les Anglais’, a symbol of their ills and oppression. This notion of ‘the other’ would begin to be expressed politically at the turn of the nineteenth century, but it was already deeply rooted in the popular mind. Phrases such as ‘something the English won’t swallow’ expressed the feelings of French Canadians about the British presence in Canada. Nationalist feelings, already mildly evident under the French regime, were stirred further by the arrival of the British and flowered in the following century.

In 1763, the Royal Proclamation expressed the British government’s intention that Canada should serve the well-being and might of the mother country, whose institutions the colony would replicate. The equivocal status accorded to the Catholic Church under Britain’s religious policy reflected the intolerance of the period. Although British law permitted the practice of Catholicism in its lands, the people were reminded that this was only a pragmatic form of tolerance, since the law did not allow for a Catholic Church hierarchy in a territory ruled by the Crown. From the start, governors of the colony frequently received instructions stressing the promotion of Anglicanism and Protestant institutions and encouraging the conversion and anglicisation of Catholic Canadians who could not aspire to senior administrative positions, since anyone in the service of the king had to take the oath of the Test Act. By instituting British civil law, the new rulers eroded the foundations of French Canadian society. The assimilationist policy was unacceptable to the French Canadians, who sent a stream of petitions to London denouncing it resulting in important cultural concessions in 1774 when the political structure of the colony was reformed. [4] In practice, Britain’s inability to draw English-speaking immigrants into its new colony fast enough and in sufficient numbers made the anglicisation of the province of Quebec impracticable. Only a small number of merchants initially settled in the towns, hoping to gain some political influence through their economic activities. As well, with the threat of revolt in the American colonies growing ever more serious in the early 1770s, the colonial authorities had to secure French Canadian support against the future rebels. The move away from assimilation was arguably taken further in 1791 when French Canadians were given what they regarded as ‘our province’ with the creation of Lower Canada. ^[5]

In the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, the growth of capitalism brought far-reaching change to the Lower Canadian countryside. It was not a sudden transformation, but rather an evolution that took place faster in some areas than others. In fact, tradition and change coexisted, sometimes in the same area. Capitalism took several forms. In some places, the arrival of merchants encouraged farmers to become more productive and market-oriented, a process that generated social differentiation. Inequalities between farmers existed from the early days of New France, but now they took on a new dimension. Some had more land, more capital, more means of production, more money and fewer debts. At the other extreme, there were agricultural workers who had no land at all or had to content themselves with tiny plots on which they grew vegetables and kept a cow or pig. At the same time, the growth in trade, linked to population increase, along with the development of the Church and sometimes the growth of rural industries, encouraged the development of a network of hamlets and villages, both in the seigneuries and in the townships. While there were only about thirty of these settlements at the end of the eighteenth century, in 1831 they numbered more than 200 in the seigneuries alone.[6]

Economic and social change and the vagaries of colonial policy resulted in the emergence of an increasingly oppositional attitude by the French Canadian deputies who dominated the Legislative Assembly. [7] By the mid-1800s, a Parti Canadien had emerged and this metamorphosed into the more aggressive and increasingly radical Parti Patriote by the mid-1820s. It took on the role of champion of civil liberties, notably the freedom of expression and the rights of assembly against the sometimes arbitrary measures of the colonial administration. In economic policy, some Patriotes called for the building of canals on the Richelieu to encourage north-south trade, for local manufacturing to reduce dependence on British imports and for free trade with the United States instead of the system of colonial preferences in the British market. But they were quicker to promote agricultural interests than commercial ones that they associated with the anglophone oligarchy. The economic arguments of Patriote leaders were far from precise and sometimes contradictory reflecting the ambiguous social position of the French Canadian petty bourgeoisie. Control over colonial finance and patronage became the main areas of disagreement between the assembly and the executive. The struggle had colonial, national, social, and individual implications. It was colonial because finance and patronage reflected a power struggle that pitted British representatives (the executive) against representatives of the colony (members of the assembly). It was national because the bureaucrats were mostly anglophone: French Canadians who represented almost 90% of the Lower Canadian population held fewer than 40% of government jobs. It was social because the British who supported the colonial administration held most of jobs and the French Canadian petty bourgeois wanted more posts for themselves. Finally, it was individual because, if they could gain control over finance and patronage, members of the assembly would be able to develop their own political clientele and work the system of patronage to their own financial advantage.[8]

By the early 1830s, the debates had reached an impasse. Each group was in a position to prevent the other from achieving its goals but not strong enough to achieve its own within the existing political structures. The French Canadian- dominated Assembly could pass radical legislation only to see it blocked by the British-dominated Legislative Council and the Assembly could block passage of supplies or the Civil List proposed by the British governor. The Parti Patriote increasingly argued for greater accountability of colonial government to the electorate calling especially for an elected Legislative Council to remove a constitutional obstacle to their demands but only later for the independence of Lower Canada. With slogans such as ‘Our institutions, our language, our laws’, they galvanised habitants especially in the Montreal district and Richelieu valley. As the Patriote leaders became more radical, expectations of change became more inflamed. There is no doubt that they had mass support. No fewer than 80,000 people signed the 1834 petitions in favour of the Ninety-Two Resolutions. However, the Patriotes were never an independent political force. Their grassroots support became increasingly vocal and neither the middle classes nor ultimately their leaders were able to moderate their fervour. What began as a dispute within colonial institutions increasingly turned into an extra-parliamentary mass movement over which the Patriote leadership in Montreal had dwindling control. By threatening their opponents, harassing them into resigning their posts and creating their own militias, Patriote farmers were able to establish parallel governments in some parishes.[9] They also made life difficult for British settlers in the rural counties outside Montreal, whom they boycotted, harassed and intimidated in various ways especially in 1837 through politically-motivated charivaris. In some cases, intimidation turned to violence and although the armed uprising was confined to the Montreal region, pro-Patriote sentiments were more widespread. The rebellions, when they came, were quickly quelled and this perhaps explains why these wider Patriote sentiments were not acted on. In the rural areas of the district of Montreal, at least 5,000 people were directly involved in taking up arms in 1837 and more appear to have taken part in 1838. In Nicolet, the Beauce region, Kamouraska and Charlevoix, people took little active part but rather waited to see what happened. In Quebec City, as in Montreal, labourers were involved in large numbers at Patriote meetings though it was only in 1838 that they played an active role in rebellion. The motives that roused the habitants, artisans and labourers of the Montreal region to revolutionary action existed elsewhere in the province to differing degrees.

---

[1] Brown, Richard, Three Rebellions: Canada 1837-1838, South Wales 1839 and Australia 1854, (Clio Publishing), 2010.

[2] Galloway, Colin G., The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America, (Oxford University Press), 2006, illuminates this neglected subject.

[3] Neatby, Hilda, Quebec: The Revolutionary Age 1760-1791, (McClelland & Stewart), 1966, pp. 6-29 and Lawson, Philip, The Imperial Challenge: Quebec and Britain in the Age of the American Revolution, (McGill-Queen’s University Press), 1989, pp. 3-41 deal with the Conquest and military rule.

[4] Harlow, Vincent T., The Founding of the Second British Empire 1763-1793, Vol. II: New Continents and Changing Values, (Longmans), 1964, pp. 664-714, discusses the Act. Coupland, Reginald, The Quebec Act: a study in statesmanship, (Oxford University Press), 1925, especially pp. 69-122 provides a detailed analysis of the legislation. However, it can be supplemented by Metzger, Charles H., The Quebec Act: A Primary Cause of the American Revolution, (The United States Catholic Historical Society), 1936, and Neatby, Hilda, The Quebec Act: Protest and Policy, (Prentice-Hall of Canada, Ltd), 1972.

[5] Ibid, Harlow, Vincent T., The Founding of the Second British Empire 1763-1793, pp. 714-773, and Ehrman, John, The Younger Pitt: the Years of Acclaim, (Constable), 1969, pp. 354-371, remain the only detailed consideration of the making of the 1791 Act; ibid, Neatby, Hilda, Quebec: The Revolutionary Age 1760-1791, pp. 249-263 provides a Canadian perspective.

[6] Altman, M., ‘Land Tenure, Ethnicity and the Condition of Agricultural Income and Productivity in Mid-Nineteenth Century Quebec’, Agricultural History, Vol. 72, (1998), pp. 708-762.

[7] Greenwood, F. Murray, Legacies of Fear: Law and Politics in Quebec in the Era of the French Revolution, (Osgoode Society), 1993.

[8] It is symptomatic that the first major political crisis under the United Provinces in 1843 concerned patronage and over who should dispense it: the governor Sir Charles Metcalfe or the elected administration of Lafontaine and Baldwin.

[9] See, for example, Laurin, Clément, ‘Administration parallèle du comté de Deux-Montagnes par les Patriotes, en 1837’ Cahiers d’histoire de Deux-Montagnes, Vol. 5, (2), (1982), pp. 25-28.

A graduate contribution is still a tax!

I’m going out for a meal this evening with a friend.  The decision we have to make is who pays. He earns more than I do and will end up paying more for the meal than me under the meal contribution so it makes sense for me to pay and then we split the difference.  Ridiculous isn’t it.  If I pay for a service, I expect to pay the same amount as another person who has used the same service.  Yes, I can go to a different provider of that service and may have to pay more or less as a consequence but I still pay the same amount as anyone else using that service.

If one applies the same principle to graduate contributions, the same conclusion can be reached.  Just because I earn more than you, why should I pay more for the university education that we both had?  Certainly, if I go to a different university or follow a different course then it may be justifiable for me to be charged more or less for the service I received.   The argument that I earn £100,000 more in the course of my working life than someone who doesn’t have a degree seems to me specious.  Why should I spend three or more years in higher education and not expect to earn more?  Today few people go to university for its own sake, they go because they expect to have better life chances than people who don’t.  And, of course, because they earn more, they will pay more income tax anyway. 

Although a graduate tax (calling it a contribution is simply using weasel words) may appear to be fairer than student loans and, from a populist perspective, may be politically popular, but in reality people will end up paying considerably more under it than by taking out a loan.  There are, however, political problems with it.  Let’s say that the contribution is set at 3 per cent, there is no stopping a future government deciding to increase it to 5 per cent or more or reduce it or abolish it.  No government can guarantee that once a figure is set for you that that is what you will always pay: no government can make decisions that bind subsequent governments.  What about individuals who can afford to pay tuition fees up-front or who go abroad to take their degrees, will they also have to make the contribution?  iIf so, this would be grossly unfair since you would be paying twice for the same service. 

The current loans system is in need of reform, especially the need for loans to be at commercial rates but it is still a better system than a progressive graduate tax that will be seen as unfair from the outset.  If you take out a loan, you know what has to be repaid each month and also know when it will be paid off.  A graduate tax, whether for 25 years or longer, will simply become a mill-stone round individuals’ necks. 

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.

Three Rebellions

Three Rebellions: Canada 1837-1838, South Wales 1839 and Victoria, Australia 1854 was published on 30 January 2010. Copies of the book are now available from Amazon.uk and Amazon Canada. See my interview about the book and its development on the Chartist Ancestors website.

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.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book IV, lines 73-184

The duke’s heart was much grieved by the outrage done to his son-in-law and daughter who had been driven from the imperial throne[1]. [75] Many felt this to be a grave injury done to the duke, and he wished to take vengeance for it. An old man called Nicephorus[2] had undertaken the reins of government. He was ignorant of war, and although cunning, ingenious and watchful for hidden dangers, he was cowardly and more fearful than to be feared. [80] He was supported by the commander-in-chief Alexius, a mighty warrior and a man of great astuteness, distinguished both by his courage and by his illustrious ancestry. He had from the first flower of his youth [85] passed most of his life under arms, and never failed to undertake any enterprise, however difficult, if the holy empire ordered. This general had defeated the empire’s enemies Basiliakos and Bryennius[3], illustrious Greeks distinguished by their courage and wealth, over both of whom he had been victorious. [90] Bryennios had fought a pitched battle with him not far from the city [Constantinople], and been defeated and captured. Basiliakos had been defeated by a trick of Alexius. As the two advanced to meet in battle, they pitched camp late in the day very close to each other. [95] That night the cunning Alexius simulated flight. He abandoned his camp, but without taking all his baggage and leaving some of the tents standing. [100] Next morning the abandoned baggage and tents, and some horses left behind, made it seem that he was in flight. Seeing nobody arrayed for battle against him and the camp unpeopled, [105] Basiliakos sent out his men to scout around and report back to him if they found any noise from horses or men. But no voices from troops talking, no sound or neighing of horses could be heard.[110] Basiliakos thought that everything was safe and believed that his enemy had been terrified by his forces and fled. He dined and fell into a drunken sleep, and his whole army lay quietly in their camp. Alexius arrived secretly and fell upon his enemies who were terror-stricken. [115] Since they were [also] hindered by the darkness of the night, nowhere appeared safe to them and they had no hope of flight. They were captured and killed. Sleep and over-indulgence in wine made them slothful, and they were unable either to run away or stand to arms. Basiliakos was blinded and sent to you, Nicephorus, against whose rule he had dared to rebel, to see him who was now unable to see. [120] So Alexius was, through his energy and cunning, victorious over the empire’s many enemies either through force of arms or by trickery.

Wishing to cross the sea, the duke instructed weapons to be made ready and ordered his soldiers to muster at Otranto.[4] [125] He had ships built, while he himself stayed at Salerno, levying contributions everywhere and unceasingly sending on recruits. He requested his trusted troops to come with him on the ships that had been prepared. It seemed to many that this expedition was an unfair and burdensome matter, and in particular those who had wives and much-loved children at home were reluctant to fight such a war. [130] But the duke reinforced his gentle persuasions with threats and compelled many to go. All mustered as he ordered at Otranto. The duke chose transport vessels from Dalmatia[5], which the people there had, on his request, sent to assist him. [135] He filled these with arms, horses, supplies and men, and despatched them to Corfu, an island not far from the city of Otranto. The journey was speedy thanks to favourable winds. The duke’s knights disembarked on the island [140] and made a ferocious attack, striking fear into all who lived there.[6]

At the same time the old man[7] mentioned earlier was driven from the imperial throne. The gallant Alexius, who had so strengthened the empire and secured so many victories over its enemies, [145] drove him out, furious over the injury which had been done to his brother.[8] Accompanied by all the imperial forces and finding the City ungarrisoned, he had an easy task in overcoming the old man who was forced to become a monk. [150] For three days the general allowed the invaders to plunder the City. The fierce Persians[9] dared to violate holy places with their impious hands (Alexius had brought them to the City that he might be the more feared). Once he had seized the government of the empire by force of arms, this sophisticated soldier showed [155] no little honour to Robert’s daughter, for he had heard that the duke wanted to come there and he strove to pacify him and to turn his mind away from such schemes. But the duke was sternly resolved and refused to abandon his plan.

[160] He remained for some time at Otranto awaiting the arrival of his wife and of many of the counts whom he expected to accompany him on the forthcoming expedition. An imposter claiming to be Michael had arrived claiming to have been unjustly deprived of the imperial power and tearfully lamenting his flight[10] [165] The duke received the wretched man and treated him honourably, showing him favour and kindly respect. The credulous populace rushed to him and bowed to him in greeting. [170] The duke welcomed this associate and took him with him when he set off, the better to justify his expedition.

A little while before his crossing he received messages from that king whom the pope had declared deprived of his kingdom, requesting him to assist him against the pope and those proud citizens [175] who had unreasonably rebelled against him (for the king had at this time come to besiege Rome)[11]. Although the duke gave a kindly and favourable reply, the envoys returned without any concrete result. He made known to Pope Gregory, whose sincere supporter [180] he was, all the messages of the excommunicated king. He assured him that he would never have set this expedition in motion if he had foreseen the enemy’s attack, but he said that since the preparations were now so far advanced it would be impossible to abandon the enterprise.

---

[1] An alliance with Guiscard, both matrimonially and politically, was sought after, as much by the German Emperor as the Byzantine emperor. Emperor Michael VII had suggested a military alliance and the marriage of the Emperor’s brother to Guiscard’s daughter Helen and also bestowed high Byzantine honours on Guiscard’s family. Taking advantage of a period of political anarchy and troubles in Byzantium, which had lasted since 1076, Guiscard, ostensibly seeking to restore Michael VII, who had been overthrown in favour of Nicephorous Botaniates in 1078, and with his daughter confined to a convent, decided to attack Byzantium. To guarantee Apulia against attack from the new rulers of Byzantium, Robert wanted the territories on the Adriatic coast of the Balkan Peninsula, and he began to build a large navy.

[2] Nicephorus III Botaniates, who was in his sixties was Byzantine emperor from 1078 to 1081 and belonged to a family which claimed descent from the Roman Fabii; he rose to be commander of the troops in Asia. In 1078, he revolted against Michael VII, and with the connivance of the Seljuk Turks marched upon Nicaea, where he made himself emperor. In the face of another rebellious general, Nicephorus Bryennius, his election was ratified by the aristocracy and clergy. With the help of Alexius Comnenus, he drove Bryennius and other rivals out of the field, but failed to clear the invading Turks out of Asia Minor. Nicephorus ultimately quarreled with Alexius, who used his influence with the army to depose the emperor and banish him to a monastery. In the years of his reign Nicephorus had entirely given himself over to debauchery.

[3] Basiliakos and Bryennius, successively dukes of Dyrrachion were both pretenders to the throne. Alexis defeated and took Nicephorus Bryennius prisoner in Thrace. After his defeat, Basiliakos took refuge in Thessalonica but he was delivered by its citizens to Nicephorus Botiantes who had him blinded.

[4] Crisis within the Byzantine Empire in the late 1070s enabled Robert Guiscard to undertake an audacious enterprise against a weakened state. In 1081 he, assisted by his son Bohemond crossed the Adriatic Sea with a considerable navy and invaded mainland Greece. The first campaign in 1081-1082 saw a series of victories on the Dalmatian coast and in Macedonia. The Norman leaders benefited from papal support for their success at Durazzo in 1081 whereas at Hastings in 1066 they had the papal banner: William I received his from Pope Alexander II and Robert Guiscard from Pope Gregory VII. Initially, he had some success but a combination of Norman revolts in Apulia and Alexius Comnenus becoming emperor in 1081 compelled him to return to Italy to reassert his authority in April 1082.

[5] The Ragusians and Dalmatians who played an important role in the naval fighting at Durazzo were subjects of King Demetr Zvonimir, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. Whether there was a formal alliance between Demetr Zvonimir and Guiscard is a matter of some debate though Croatian historians maintain that there was. The inhabitants of Ragusa sent two galleys and those of Spalato one.

[6] Malaterra stated that a vanguard of fifteen ships landed on Corfu while Bohemond took Valona, Iericho and Kanina.

[7] Nicephorus Botaniates was dethroned by Alexius Comnenus in April 1081.

[8] Constantine Ducas, son of Michael VII and Mary of Alanie, the adoptive mother of Alexius Comnenus who Nicephorus Botiantes had disinherited. Alexius was the lover of the Empress Maria Bagrationi, a daughter of king Bagrat IV of Georgia who was successively married to Michael VII Ducas and his successor Botaniates and was renowned for her beauty. Alexius and Maria lived almost openly together at the Palace of Mangana, and Alexius had Michael VII and Maria’s young son, the prince Constantine Ducas, adopted and proclaimed heir to the throne. The affair conferred to Alexius a degree of dynastic legitimacy, but soon his mother Anna Dalassena consolidated the Ducas family connection by arranging the Emperor’s wedding with Irene Ducaena or Doukaina, granddaughter of the caesar John Ducas, head of a powerful family and the ‘kingmaker’ behind Michael VII. Alexius’ involvement with Maria continued and shortly after his daughter Anna Comnena was born, she was betrothed to Constantine Ducas and moved to live at the Mangana Palace with him and Maria. The situation however changed drastically when John II Comnenus was born: Anna’s engagement to Constantine was dissolved, she was moved to the main Palace to live with her mother and grandmother, Constantine’s status as heir was terminated and Alexius became estranged with Maria, now stripped of her imperial title. Shortly afterwards, the teenager Constantine died and Maria was confined to a convent.

[9] These were the Turkish mercenaries in the army of Alexius Comnenus.

[10] Gregory VII announced the arrival of Michael VII to Italy to the bishops of Apulia and Calabria on 25^th July 1080 who sought the support of the Holy See and the Normans to restore him to the imperial throne. Most of the contemporary sources recognised him as an imposter though the Lupus Protospatharius and the Annals of Bari saw him as emperor. Anna Comnena recounts two stories about him: either that he was a monk named Rector who passed himself off as Michael or that Guiscard set up an imposter to justify his war.

[11] Henry IV began his siege of Rome on 21^st May 1081. Interestingly, Guiscard’s response to the imperial embassy was oral but he wrote to Gregory VII.

The Deeds of Robert Guiscard: Book IV, lines 1-72

At this time Michael was cast down from his throne and became a monk.[1] He was the man who had treated the innocent Romanus so cruelly and unworthily. His brother, who was associated with him, was also driven out. [5] Robert’s daughter lamented the downfall of her spouse. This wretched man was forced into exile.

After making the towns and castra everywhere subject to him, the duke left Apulia and started to travel to Salerno. Raymond, the distinguished count who ruled over Barcelona, came to the city from Spain, seeking a daughter of the duke in marriage. [10] He was given the eldest of these. Another married a distinguished and well-born count of the French called Ebles, a man who never knew defeat by the enemy. Experienced in leading troops to battle, [15] he was also eloquent, as skilful with his tongue as with his hand.[2]

At this time Pope Gregory came to Benevento, a city that was subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman pope. The pope had taken offence because the duke had besieged the city.[3] [20] Robert hurried to the town to seek the pope’s pardon for his offence.[4] He was received (such a mighty man seemed worthy of this honour) and as a suppliant kissed the pope’s feet as he sat in judgement. They discussed matters for a long time, out of the hearing of everyone else present [25] and then the pope summoned his fideles and revealed what had been secretly discussed. A Gospel book was brought, and the duke swore to the pope that while life was left him he would observe his oath of eternal fealty to the Holy Church [30] to which all the world is subject.[5] It was said that the pope had promised him the crown of the Roman kingdom[6], since King Henry[7] had been damned by him because of the numerous sins he had committed, for he was not afraid to sell holy churches, [35] following the perverse doctrine of Simon, and he would only confer the episcopal dignity on those who had brought him large presents[8]. He had also dared to indulge in wicked incest and adultery. He led a life of [40] iniquity, sacrilege and debauchery, shunning the society of decent men, but choosing always the company of the wicked. The virtuous pope Gregory hated these vices and judged him deposed from his kingship.[9] [45] He ordered the Saxons not to obey the king further, but rather to resist him with all their might, and he sent instructions to Dukes Welf and Rudolf[10] telling them to fight Henry on behalf of [Saints] Peter and Paul, against whom another Simon had arisen. It was believed that he granted the crown to Rudolf. [50] The latter, joined by the Saxons and with a large army, declared war on the venerable pope’s enemy. Many of the people remained faithful to the damned king, remembering his hereditary right and reluctant to install anyone else as heir to the kingdom. [55] There was a great battle between the two. This race is a stern one and unwilling to give ground, [and so] mighty blows were exchanged, Lotharingarians on one side and Saxons on the other, both attacking fiercely and rendering wound for wound, standing their ground and striving to resist the other. They claim that thirty thousand men were slain here. But although neither people were defeated, both sides retired exhausted and [60] Rudolf was killed. After he had heard of Rudolf’s death, Henry rejoiced as though he had won a victory. He strove to attack the pope whom he knew to have deposed him from his kingship, and [65] marched with a huge army to besiege Rome. Learning of this, the wise pope sought aid from the duke, [asking] that the latter take up arms to assist him and destroy the forces of his enemy.[11]

After concluding their treaty of perpetual peace at Benevento, [70] Gregory had returned to Rome and the duke to Salerno. He constructed a church[12] of marvellous beauty for you, Matthew, in this city, and for himself built a magnificent palace.

---

[1] Michael VII was deposed by Nicephorus Bontiates in March 1078. William of Apulia does not identify the fiancé of Helena with any precision. In Book III [503-4], he stated the betrothal was with the son of Michael VII though here it can be argued that he implied the betrothal was with Michael’s brother. Michael’s son Constantine Ducas was later betrothed to Anna Comnena but died in his teens.

[2] Raymond Berenger II of Barcelona married Mathilda and Ebles II, count of Roucy married Sybille. Anna Comnena stated that the double marriage took place in Salerno after the arrival of the pseudo-Michael and around of time of the interview of Guiscard with Gregory VII. This would place them in the summer of 1080.

[3] Guiscard besieged Benevento from 18^th December 1077 to April 1078. Gregory VII excommunicated him in May 1078.

[4] The repeated excommunications of Guiscard by Pope Gregory VII, in 1074, 1075 and in 1078, after Robert’s attempt to seize the principality of Benevento, led to a sudden deterioration in the relations between the Normans and the papacy. During the investiture quarrels, the Pope, in serious conflict with Emperor Henry IV, who himself had been excommunicated, could not manage without Norman support. Thus in 1080, in Ceprano, Robert Guiscard, whom the Pope had called ‘a small humble Norman’, a few years earlier, solemnly swore allegiance to the Papal power, who would soon call for his help against the invading German emperor in Rome.

[5] The formal investiture by the Pope took place on 6^th June 1080: Guiscard was invested with all his conquests apart from Salerno, Amalfi and the lands of St Peter. Gregory VII’s sermon of idelity followed on 29^th June.

[6] Peter Crassus stated in a document written between 1080 and 1084 in defence of Henry IV that Gregory had promised the kingdom though not the empire to Guiscard.

[7] In Milan a popular party, the Patarines, dedicated to reforming the city’s corrupt higher clergy, elected its own archbishop, who was recognised by the Pope. When Henry countered by having his own nominee consecrated by the Lombard bishops, Alexander II excommunicated the bishops. Henry did not yield, and it was not until the Saxon rebellion that he was ready to negotiate. In 1073, he humbly asked the new pope, Gregory VII, to settle the Milan problem. The King having thus renounced his right of investiture, a Roman synod, called to strengthen the Patarine movement, forbade any lay investiture in Milan. After this, Gregory regarded Henry as his ally in questions of church reform. When planning a crusade, he even put the defence of the Roman Church into the King’s hands. But after defeating the Saxons, Henry considered himself strong enough to cancel his agreements with the Pope and to nominate his court chaplain as archbishop of Milan. The violation of the agreement on investiture called into question the King’s trustworthiness and the Pope sent him a letter warning him of the fate of King Saul (after breaking with his church in the person of the prophet Samuel) but offering negotiations on the investiture problem. Instead of accepting the offer, which arrived at his court on January 1^st 1076, Henry, on the same day, deposed the Pope and persuaded an assembly of 26 bishops, hastily called to Worms, to refuse obedience to the Pope. By this impulsive reaction he turned the problem of investiture in Milan, which could have been solved by negotiations, into a fundamental dispute on the relations between church and state. Gregory replied by excommunicating Henry and absolving the King’s subjects from their oaths of allegiance. Such action equalled dethronement. Many bishops who had taken part in the Worms’ assembly and had subsequently been excommunicated now surrendered to the Pope, and immediately the King was also faced with the newly aroused opposition of the nobility. In October 1076, the princes discussed the election of a new king in Tribur. It was only by promising to seek absolution from the ban within a year that Henry could reach a postponement of the election. The final decision was to be taken at an assembly to be called at Augsburg to which the Pope was also invited. But Henry secretly travelled to northern Italy and in Canossa did penance before Gregory VII, whereupon he was readmitted to the church. For the moment it was a political success for the King because the opposition had been deprived of all canonical arguments. Yet, Canossa meant a change. By doing penance Henry had admitted the legality of the Pope’s measures and had given up the king’s traditional position of authority equal or even superior to that of the church. The relations between church and state were permanently changed. The princes, however, considered Canossa a breach of the original agreement providing for an assembly at Augsburg and declared Henry dethroned. In his stead, they elected Rudolf, duke of Swabia, in March 1077, whereupon Henry confiscated the duchies of Bavaria and Swabia on behalf of the crown. He received support from the peasants and citizens of these duchies, whereas Rudolf relied mainly on the Saxons.

[8] Robinson, I.S., Henry IV of Germany 1056-1106, (Cambridge University Press), 1999.

[9] At a synod in March 1080, he prohibited investiture, excommunicated and deposed Henry again, and recognised Rudolf. The reasons for this act of excommunication were not as valid as those advanced in 1077, and many nobles who had so far favoured the Pope turned against him because they thought the prohibition of investiture infringed upon their rights as patrons of churches and monasteries. Henry now succeeded in deposing Gregory and in nominating Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, as pope at a synod in Brixen. When the opposition of the princes was crippled by the death of Rudolf in October 1080, Henry, freed of the threat of enemies to the rear, went to Italy to seek a military solution to his struggle with the church.

[10] William is referring to Welf IV, duke of Baveria and Rudolf of Saxony.

[11] Henry IV entered Italy at the end of March 1081. The previous February, Gregory VII demanded that Desiderius of Montecassino seek assurances from Guiscard that he would come to the aid of the pope after Easter is necessary.

[12] The cathedral was begun in 1080 and a letter from Gregory VII to archbishop Alfan dated 18^th September 1080 urged Guiscard to honour the dignity of St Matthew.