Return to Primary and Secondary Sources Return to Book Reviews
Thomas Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098-1130. Woodbridge
(Boydell Press, 2000), 233 pages . Reviewed by Vince Ryan of St. Louis University
When the First Crusade succeeded in capturing Jerusalem, a kingdom was established to administer and defend this celebrated conquest. However, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was not the only state established in the Levant in the first decade of the twelfth century. The county of Tripoli, the county of Edessa, and the principality of Antioch were also created during this period, comprising (along with the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem) what are traditionally known as the Crusader States. In The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, Thomas Asbridge examines the origin, foundation and initial development of this critical crusader territory.
After an eight-month siege, with the assistance of a traitor, Antioch fell to the crusading army. Bohemond of Taranto claimed dominion over the city, since he had secured the services of the traitor Firuz and was now in possession of many of the key citadels. His claims, though, violated the previous pledge that he the other crusade leaders had made to return former territories of the Byzantine Empire to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus. Bohemond’s actions here would have momentous ramifications. The principality of Antioch, which he established, would become the second most important Latin polity in the region and also the source of frequent Byzantine-Latin conflict for the next century.
Following the conquest of Jerusalem in the summer of 1099, the remaining crusaders began to establish themselves throughout the region. After consolidating his control over Antioch, Bohemond expanded his authority over the surrounding area. Port-cities such as St. Simeon and Latakia were taken from the Byzantines, while Muslim disunity allowed Antioch to expand its eastern borders. Byzantines and Muslims, though, were not the only groups affected by the principality’s expansion. The Norman lord also seized land from his coreligionists, most notably Raymond of Toulouse – further damaging relations between Antioch and the county of Tripoli.
Bohemond may have been critical in the initial creation of the principality, but his nephew Tancred was central to its growth and vitality. As regent during his uncle’s captivity, Tancred guided the state through a particularly fragile period. When Bohemond went to Europe in 1106 to promote a crusade against Byzantium, Tancred essentially became ruler of Antioch – a position he held until his death in 1112. He took advantage of Muslim weakness to secure yearly tributes from Aleppo and Shaizar. Asbridge points out that these tributes were critical not only in providing resources for the new principality, but also in weakening those of its chief Muslim rivals. However, the precarious position of this crusader state is seen in the rapid loss of territory it suffered after defeats to Muslim forces at Harran in 1104 and especially at the Field of Blood in 1119.
Besides these setbacks against the Muslims, poor relations with the Byzantine Empire continued to hamper the principality. Still stewing from the fact that his Norman enemy had established a domain in Asia Minor, Alexius Comnenus regularly threatened Antioch. His defeat of Bohemond and the subsequent Treaty of Devol in 1108 appeared to fulfill his desire of returning the region to the Byzantine fold, but the provisions of the treaty were only partially achieved. Asbridge posits that the treaty failed in part because it lacked a clause securing fealty from Bohemond’s successors. Once the Norman prince submitted to the agreement, he went back to southern Italy instead of returning to Antioch to rule the region as a vassal of Alexius. However, it seems unlikely that Tancred would have submitted to Alexius even if there had been a clause in the treaty pertaining to Bohemond’s successors. The author is even less credible when he argues that the influence of the Treaty of Devol on future Byzantine-Antioch relations has been exaggerated by historians. After all, John Comnenus – Alexius’ successor – twice lead an army to northern Syria to enforce the vassalage of Antioch’s Latin ruler.
Asbridge is on much better footing, though, when he describes the internal dynamics of the principality. The rulers of Antioch successfully maintained their authority over the region through feudal claims. The key landholders in the principality were primarily of Norman descent. However, the author convincingly demonstrates through an extensive prosopographical study that Norman lineage was not as uniform a trait as previous scholars have claimed.
Asbridge never really explains his reasons for ending his study in 1130 – especially since the principality of Antioch continued well into the thirteenth century. In fact, a monograph that covered at least through 1187 would have been useful, particularly in describing how Antioch dealt with an increasingly unified Muslim foe. The abrupt ending along with the occasionally disjointed narrative and repetitive style is reflective of the overall dissertation origins of the book. Still, despite its various limitations the work does adequately describe how the creation of the principality of Antioch was molded by a combination of crusader, Norman, Byzantine, and Muslim influences.
(c) Vince Ryan- 2008- Permission is granted for electronic copying and distribution in print for educational and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use.