• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hello folks! Thank you all for you’re the attention you are paying my little yarn and for your comments. I’m going to address them individually right away, but before doing so I want to cast some light on the failed conspiracy from Bohemond’s side, to fill in details Serlo could not have known.

Bohemond had known for certain that there was a plot, but not what it entailed. His information was that his brother-in-law had on some errand for the Queen travelled in utmost secrecy to Africa and had sought a very clandestine meeting with the Duke of Leptis Magna, and that all participants had kept the very fact of this meeting secret. And Bohemond had also learned that Sancha was since about that time trying to improve her relations with many Norman lords in Italy. In view of these facts the in itself slightly unusual but nonetheless innocouus fact of Berenguer Ramon taking part in the campaign in Africa took on a sinister meaning.

It was very clear that a conspiracy aginst the King was underway, that Sancha was the instigator and that Berenguer and Serlo were somehow involved in it, and the preeminent position of Serlo in Africa and the presence of Berenguer Ramon made it likely that it was intended to come to fruition in Africa. Bohemond knew that moving against the foreigner Berenguer would not be met with any objections, but with the Queen and the highly respected Duke of Leptis Magna it was different matter. Bohemond would have to draw Serlo out to get irrefutable proof.

When the King accused his cousin of wanting to murder him, he was not at all sure of the truth of this claim, but he knew that it might be true and that it would put pressure on Serlo. If Serlo had remained calm, denied the accusation and then proceeded to give a rational and believable explanation for the meeting with Berenguer, Bohemond would have been inclined to believe him. But Serlo was under immense stress, and as many of you have said yourselves he was never good at lying. And so he was bluffed by the King and folded.

Scavenius: I’d say that the previous chapter has vindicated both of your assumptions, the one about Serlo’s high moral and his willingness to do stupid things for a woman. :)

Eams: You really don’t like Bohemond, do you? :D

While I wouldn’t call the plot outright stupid it still had a few fatal weaknesses, like underestimating the great cunning of the King and his spymaster Yolanda, and most of all its choice of the hitman, just like you said. It’s just not that there had been much choice at all.

You have btw a strange penchant for mangled prophecy; more on that (much) later. It might just be that your eyesight isn’t that bad after all. ;)

phargle: I am very pleased that I managed to mislead you. When a reader can’t second-guess an author it can be a good sign of the author’s freshness – or of him writing completely implausible thrash. I shall leave this decision to my readers and hope for the best. :rolleyes:

And I’d say that your catchword ‘chivalry vs. ruthlessness’ does pretty much sum up Serlo and Bohemond. And when ruthlessness is coupled with high ability, chivarly is pretty much doomed.

General_BT: To me, Serlo's a warrior. He doesn't hesitate a moment to kill, even slaughter, on the battlefield and to do necessary gruesome deeds, but cold-blooded and not entirely mitigated murder of his relative, companion, former pupil and liege are a different matter. Serlo's not the type with whom this kind of treachery would sit easy. Which I think is part of why so many of you do like him.

And you are going to see wether the King keeps his word or wreaks his vengeance soon. Be assured that whatever it’s going to be, it’ll be in style – Bohemond’s style, that is. :D

Enewald: Your assumption about me not killing Bohemond is not quite correct. It’s true that I won’t do it just for the story’s sake, but then I do nothing for the story’s sake – the story does rather follow the gameplay as closely as I can manage (which is presently still very close). So if the gameplay of the current African campaign would have resulted in Bohemond being killed in battle, I might easily have chosen to interpret this as the result of a conspiracy to murder the King and blame it on him running afoul of Muslim scouts.

Tarnor: I wouldn’t quite say that Serlo knew or even suspected that Bohemond knew of the conspiracy. I have written the piece as Serlo having doubts, but my intention behind this was not that these should be real doubts, but merely tricks played by his nerves, the kind irrational fears of discovery one has when doing something that is dangerous and forbidden. Usually, such fears are a result of stress and entirely unfounded – in this case they weren’t, but Serlo couldn’t exactly know that.

Jalex: Hello Jalex ! It might well be that I do now embarrass myself and reveal myself for the fool I am, but I think you are a first-time commenter and do thus welcome you. Hello and glad to have you!

I concur that we are getting a subjective view of Bohemond, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it highly prejudiced. Serlo’s opinion is of course not objective, but he’s also neither fanboy of Bohemond nor a his enemy. I think that Serlo holds a rather balanced view – the King’s ruthless and does a great many questionable things, but he’s certainly not downright evil, and he is a diligent and able monarch.

And then he is after all the anointed King ordained by God to whom he has sworn fealty.
 
The_Guiscard said:
Eams: You really don’t like Bohemond, do you? :D
Whatever gave you that idea, my repeated demands that he should be seriously injured? I read him as a bully and a tyrant, which makes him an effective villain. And my dislike of him is fuelled by the absence of any better alternative.
The_Guiscard said:
While I wouldn’t call the plot outright stupid it still had a few fatal weaknesses, like underestimating the great cunning of the King and his spymaster Yolanda, and most of all its choice of the hitman, just like you said. It’s just not that there had been much choice at all.
The plan just struck me as too desperate. A good conspirator should work in the long-term, slowly reinforcing his/her own position while weakening the opposition. I would have had more respect for Sancha's effort if Bohemond had posed a real threat to her life.
The_Guiscard said:
You have btw a strange penchant for mangled prophecy; more on that (much) later. It might just be that your eyesight isn’t that bad after all. ;)
If Bohemond loses a limb I shall squeal like a little girl.
 
phargle said:
If Eams squeals like a little girl, I shall squeal like a little girl.
It's statements like this, along with your zealous training for a future zombie war, that makes you such a perfect gentleman.
 
Chapter Eighteen: In Which A Duke Does Battle

Dozens of flint-hard Norman eyes followed the three Hammadid envoys as they were traversing the sun-flooded courtyard to where Bohemond’s throne-like seat had been placed. King Hashmaddin had sent an officer to lead his embassy, and from Serlo’s place immediately to the right of his cousin’s regal chair both the mail-clad fighting man and his two companions in civilian dress seemed confident enough. And why not indeed, the Duke of Leptis Magna thought. The Norman advance had been smooth and successful, but Hashmaddin had not yet been beaten in a major battle.

After the fall of Mahdia, the eight thousand strong Norman main host had immediately advanced upon the large and prosperous city of Kairwan in the interior. Bohemond had conquered the town already once twelve years ago, but had lost it again after not quite two years, and now he was determined to retake it. The Normans had found the immense city to be defended by no more than a citizen militia, and they had soon learned why: King Hashmaddin, reluctant to risk confrontation with formidable Bohemond before his own armaments were complete and his host fully assembled, had ordered Sheik Jawhar Hamid, the town’s governor, to bring Kairwan forces north, to the staging fields near Tunis. The Hammadids had not thought it possible that the Normans would overrun the towns of Sfax and Mahdia so quickly and then advance upon Kairwan with barely a day of rest. That the Norman host should appear before Kairwan already by mid-May, merely six months after crossing into Hammadid territory, had greatly upset Hashmaddin’s careful and methodical strategy.

Nonetheless he had been unwilling to change it and had refused to come to Kairwan’s aid and to meet the Normans in battle before his own forces were fully assembled. But Kairwan’s governor Sheik Jawhar had been unable to sit by idly while his town was conquered. Against his King’s orders he had taken his two thousand five hundred warriors south again, not to do battle with the three times as large Norman host before Kairwan, but merely to pester the besieging forces with highly mobile Muhammadan warfare and to delay the siege until King Hashmaddin might arrive with the full Hammadid host.

But Jawhar hadn’t reckoned with the experience in this kind of warfare Serlo had gained in long years of fighting elusive desert nomads. With his critical help Bohemond had devised a tactic to utilize the Norman numerical superiority to lure Jawhar into a net flung far across the countryside. The plan had been quite similar to Serlo’s ambush of the rebels at the oasis of Ghomrassen, only on a much larger scale. When Norman contingents had completed their miles-wide encircling sweeps into his army’s back, Sheik Jawhar had suddenly realized that his enemy had learned to deal with his people’s highly mobile way of fighting and was interdicting it. The Hammadid commander had ordered the retreat just in the knick of time to avoid complete encirclement and had thus saved four fifths of his host.


Jawhar had thus learned that the Normans were now able to counter the Berber way of fighting, and he had to concede that his army was much too small to stand a chance against the Christians in open battle. Accepting the futility of futher delaying action against the Normans he had retreated north, to rejoin his King at Tunis, and had left Bohemond to besiege Kairwan unmolested. After five more weeks of resistance the town had finally lost hope that a relief force would arrive in time to save them and had thrown their gates open to the Normans. For the second time, Bohemond had taken possession of Kairwan.


Throughout this time, Bohemond had treated Serlo with cordial courtesy, never once bringing up the matter of his involvement in the plot. The Normans had applauded the the King’s leniency in having his wife merely seized and confined to a nunnery, and they hailed the Duke of Leptis Magna’s apparent loyalty. It made Serlo sick when he thought about it. He was a man torn. It upset him how he had allowed himself to be used not only by his cousin, but also by Sancha, of all people, but at other times he loathed himself for failing both his liege and Sancha. And he was revolted by how his fellow barons used to praise his virtue and his honour. Serlo had found work to be the best remedy for his troubled mind and had immersed himself deeply in the campaign, labouring from dusk till dawn, taking on even minor task himself and plunging recklessly into the thick of fighting whenever the opportunity presented itself.

While Hashmaddin’s envoys and his cousin greeted each other by means of translators, Serlo cast a look around the colourfully tiled, collonaded courtyard. Ten years ago this stately enclosure had run red with the blood of the Norman defenders under Ranulph de Montbray, but now it was once again lavishly decorated with Norman banners, and a host of rapacious Christian lords were arrayed to witness their conqueror-king’s negotiations with the Muhammadan embassy. Serlo knew them all, but those he was close to became fewer with every passing year. A new generation of barons was coming into power, men to whom Normandy was either only a distant memory of early childhood or who had been outright born in the south.

One of these men and the youngest among those present was Silvester de Hauteville. Even though this surname was never used officially it was an open secret that the King had fathered the boy on carried off Elisa Orsini, and Serlo’s cousin would have been hard pressed to deny it even if he had wanted to. Silvester might be half Italian by his mother, but the fair-haired boy looked more like his father as any of his legitimate half-brothers. Though not yet fifteen Silvester was as tall as a grown man and built almost as powerfully, and underneath the melting chubbiness of youth his features did already show the square jaw and angularity of his father. Serlo looked from young Silvester to his cousin and back again. What would be this bastard son’s fate, and the kingdom’s fate? Bohemond did not display the least intention of elevating his bastard son, but neither had his own father when he himself had been that age, and now he was King. But Bohemond was still in his prime, not yet forty, and would God willing sit many more years on the throne.

Serlo snapped his attention back to the envoys who were now finally talking business. The translator rendered the Muhammadan’s throaty words into comprehensible Norman French: “With speed you have conquered, but you cannot now complete your campaign. You cannot advance past Tunis without taking it, and you cannot take it when it is defended by the ten thousand warriors my King will soon have assembled there.”


King Hashmaddin’s envoy

Despite knowing fully well that the ambassador had given a truthful assessment of the situation, Bohemond smiled with derision and replied: “And so King Hashmaddin expects me to flee back across the sea, quaking in fear of him sitting behind the impregnable walls of Tunis?”

After he had received the translation of the King’s words the envoy scowled and made a lengthy reply, translated thus: “You will find the walls of Tunis most impregnable, and you will find them strongly defended, Lord King. And while maintaining a host the size of yours so far from your own lands will soon exceed your treasury’s means, my King can supply his army from his own lands indefinitely. Your host will dwindle, and before the summer is up the three thousand men my King has recalled from Egypt will arrive. Then, when your own army is undersupplied and starving and outnumbered by our forces, my King will come over you and drive you from his lands.”

The Hammadid officer waited for Bohemond to make a reply, but the King’s only reaction was a bored glance and an impatient wave of his large hand. Serlo saw that the Muhammadan’s suppressed frustration as he talked again and believed at first that he was annoyed with Bohemond, but when the translator repeated his words in Norman French the Duke realized that it was the message he had to relay that vexed the officer.

“My King wishes to avoid unnesessary bloodshed and the ravages on war being visited upon his fertile country”, were the translator’s words. “If you, Lord King, will not advance any further and pledge to cease hostilities, King Hashmaddin is therefore prepared to recognize your possession of both Mahdia and Kairwan.”


King Hashmaddin’s peace offer

A rush surprised exclamations arose from the throats of the gathered Norman lords, dying down into an excited murmur. Serlo himself could hardly believe it, and Bohemond looked no less surprised. Hashmaddin would cede half the most fertile and populous region of his realm without having fought a battle? Bohemond’s reputation as a warrior was of course formidable whereas Hashmaddin had none at all, but could the Hammadid King be truly as craven as to give away vital parts of his realm just to avoid confrontation? It was hard to believe.

Bohemond sat back in his carved seat and cast a glance at his cousin and his Marshall standing on his left-hand side. In a subdued a voice he said: “What do you make of this, my Lords?”

Serlo stooped a bit to reply in similiarly hushed tones: “Either Hashmaddin’s offer is serious or he is bargaining for time until his troops form Egypt have arrived and is intending to retake Kairwan and Mahdia then. But at any rate the envoy is right. If Hashmaddin mans the mighty fortifications of Tunis we cannot take the town, even though there is no way how the Hammadids can have a full ten thousand men there. It might be politic to accept the offer and to fortify your new lands strongly in preparation of a treacherous assault by Hashmaddin.”

“I concur, my Lord King”, where Charles’ equally subdued words. “With Hashmaddin’s strong army defending Tunis we would have to starve the town into surrendering, and that would take half a year at the very least. The war chests are drainign quickly and cannot sustain a host of the current size in the field for much longer.”

Bohemond nodded once, his face set and grim but breaking into the hint of a grin as he addressed the envoy once more: “King Hashmaddin’s offer is a generous one. But I am not in the habit of accepting alms, what I want for myself I simply take. King Hashmaddin is going to learn this for himself when I come to Tunis and take it from him. You are dismissed.”


Another murmur went through the assembeld Norman barons and captains. Their King had turned down the Hammadids’ generous offer and wouldlead them against the fabled walls of Tunis.

* * *

Two weeks later, by late July, the Norman host from Kairwan was well on his march towards Tunis. Bohemond had given his men time to rest and to recover from wounds sufferd during the assaults on the city, and he had together with Serlo and Marshall Charles reorganized his forces. A thousand men fromMahdia had been transferred to Kairwan to Sfeguard the town from the contingency of a Hammadid surprise attack from the west, and five hundred men had been left behind at Mahdia to retain Norman control of the coastlines. The Norman main host, seven thousand five hundred men strong, was advancing over the mountains towards Tunis, and far to its east a second host of three thousand men, led by the King’s Greek son-in-law Lord Demetrios, was advancing along the coast.


The Norman deployment for the assault on Tunis

The King’s plan was audacious. Serlo’s cousin wanted to avoid a drawn-out and prohibitively expensive siege of a well-defended Tunis at all costs, but the same seemed to hold true for Hashmaddin, who was probably mindful of the devastation a siege of Tunis would mean for this most fertile and prosperous part of his realm.Bohemond was playing on this reluctance of his enemy to draw him out of Tunis. To do so, he deliberately offered himself and his main host as a bait. Demetrios Zarides had been instructed to depart from Mahdia late, to delay his advance and to time his arrival at Tunis to be at the very least a full week after the King’s. Seeing the Normans thus divided, King Hashmaddin would sally forth from Tunis to disperse the main host in open battle before Demetrios could arrive with his reinforcements. The tactic was sound, but it had one weakness: The King’s army would actually be outnumbered by Hashmaddin’s forces at Tunis, which by reliable accounts might number as much as nine thousand, and it would be exhausted from the march, whereas the Hammadid troops would be fresh and well-rested. In spite of this the King was nonetheless confident that h would be able to defeat Hashmaddin in an open battle.

* * *

When Serlo and the Norman host were leaving the mountains interior and descending into the lush coastal plain around Tunis it became abundantly clear that Hashmaddin had fallen for the King’s ruse. The Hammadid monarch had already advanced half a day’s march south of his capital and was encamped right across the Norman route of advance, clearly intent on interdicting his enemy access to the fertile coast and affording the Christians no opportunity to recover from the hardships of the march through the summer-dry mountains. Hashmaddin had moved to swallow the bait – now the bait would have to survive.

The Hammadids had chosen their deployment with care and were in control of all substantial supplies of water in the region, whereas the Normans were limited to a few very minor brooks in the mountains. The water was suffiecient for the men, but not enough for the horses, and so the Normans could not afford to dally on the high ground and rest – while the men would grow stronger, the horses would grow weaker. The Norman host camped out in the security of the mountains above Hashmaddin’s forces and held a council of war. All the barons and captains knew perfecty well that their only options were either retreat or advancing with slightly fatigued men into the jaws of well-rested Hammadids who did also enjoy a slight numerical advantage, being estimated at about eight thousand.

A few captains, Marshall Charles most prominent among them, advocated no to fight at such unfavourable odds, but the Serlo and the vast majority of the barons were of one mind with the King. While the Normans were outmatched in regards to footmen, they had the clear superiority in cavalry, especially in knights, who were varyingly estimated to outnumer the Hammadid ghulams by two or three to one. The Hammadids had deployed on ground broken up by many ditches and irrigation channels and thus favouring the infantry over the cavalry, but that also meant that their deployment and entire battle plan had to be rather static if they did not want to lose this protection. In some ways the Hammadid deployment was similar to that of Hashmaddin’s late uncle al-Nasir at Malta some fifteen years earlier. And like at Mdina Bohemond devised a plan to draw out the Hammadids by use of a flanking maneuver of the cavalry.



* * *

Clad underneath his colourful silken tabrad head to toe in mail, the ghulam horseman came at Serlo in full gallop, the African sun glinting off his lance tip, a bright promise of death. No different from Serlo’s own lance tip the Hammadid slave warrior’s wove an unsteady, unpredictable pattern into the air, dancing and bobbing ceaselessly to mislead the enemy as to where it would strike. But Serlo was veteran of many battles, and where less experienced men might have stared in abject terror at their enemy’s lance the Duke’s gaze was fixed firmly on the Muhammadan’s dark eyes – it was the eyes that gave away a man and his intentions, and this man’s intention was clearly on Serlo’s right shoulder. Half a beat of his pounding heart the Duke dropped his shield an inch, inviting the elite cavalryman’s thrust, while he did at the same time array his own lance’s weaving, aiming to strike the ghulam squarely in the shield-protected chest to unhorse him with the sheer force of the impact.

But when the bone-shattering impact came, the Duke’s shield was suddenly fimly in place over his shoulder, directing the murderous force of the ghulam’s lance away by letting its tip slide off harmlessly. Still, the torque impated by the hit was enough to wrench the veteran knight around in the saddle, but sufficient to ruin Serlo’s carful aim. In the very last moment he had lifted his lance ever so slightly and its tip had struck home no more than a mere finger’s breadth above the enemy’s shield’s rim. The Muhammadan had tucked his dusky head deep behind the shield and only just peeked over its protection, and so he took Serlo’s lance straight in the eye, the unstoppable power of the impact forcing it all the way through his skull.

For a grotesque instant, the ghulam’s unhorsed corpse dangled by its mangled skull from Serlo’s lance, then its armoured weight tore the shaft from the Duke’s hand. Amid the mad whinnying and the poundng hoovebeats, the clash of impacts and the screams of death and triumph Serlo slipped his horseman’s axe free from his saddle bow. The naked teror preceding every charge had fallen away from him and he was now firmly in the grip of the mad rush and the elation of battle. Swinging his axe, Serlo spurred his destrier mercilessly forward, right into the thick of the fray.

It had been the King’s Marshall who had opened the Battle of Tunis. Upon his liege’s command Charles had led the almost one thousand light horsemen, in part Norman squires and in part Muhammadan mercenaries, against the light Berber horsemen Hashmaddin had concentrated on his left flank to guard it against encirclement. The free-whelling battle of the horsemen had raged fro quite some time, but it had eventually become apparent that the superior numbers of the Normans and the bravely inspiring leadership of their Marshall would triumph over the many centuries of Berbers’ tradition as light horsemen.


King Hashmaddin could not have let the battle on his left flank be lost, as any such occurrence would have exposed his entire army to encirclement by the Normans, and so he had committed himself and his ghulam heavy horsemen to reinforce his crumbling flank. Hashmaddin had charged at the Norman light horse, and Bohemond and all his knights, Serlo among them, had in turn charged at Hashmaddin. With the knights thus engaged, the Hammadid infantry had finally surged forward at the Christian footmen. If Hashmaddin could hold his left flank long enough, his rested, professional and well-equipped infantry would carry the field.

The sound of a horn bellowing penetrated dimly into the deep throes of Serlo’s battle fury. The Duke broke off his pursuit of the fleeing ghulam and sharply reined in his foaming roan stallion. He cast a look around the fields ploughed by many thousands of hooves. Everywhere, other Christian horsemen were coming to as well, breaking off their individual pursuits of the routed enemy. Serlo realized that they had pushed the Hammadid horse back and had then broken them completely. The standard of Hashmaddin was nowhere to be seen, and everywhere infidels were in madcap flight. Some distance to his right the Duke make out the bulky frame of his royal cousin through the clouds of upturned dust, rallying his men to his banner.


King Bohemond rallying his men during the Battle of Tunis

Serlo cantered his exhausted warhorse over to the King, more and more of his own vasslas falling in all around him. As usual, not all of the hot-headed, battle-lusty Normans had heard the rallying call or deemed to heed it, but within a few short minutes hundreds of knights had gathered around the King’s standard all the same. All around the assembling knights the trampled fields were littered with dead or dying men and horses, the agonized screams from throats both human and beastly drowning out the din of the distant footmen’s clash. The line of the fighting infantry was distant, details of how which side was faring obscured by dust and the haze of the August heat, but no matter who might be winning at the moment the real decision was only to come, with ranks of iron-clad Norman knights about to charge into the backs of the Muhammadans.

* * *

The Battle of Tunis had ended in a great and glorious victory for the outnumbered and weary Normans. The Hammadid army had been broken and scattered, full half of them remaining either on the field right away or else being slain by Norman horsemen pursuing them over many miles.


Some of the broken enemies had made it back into the deceptive safety of Tunis, but many, King Hashmaddin among them, had fled west, where they hoped to regroup and to raise new fighting men to eventually strike against the Normans anew. This should turn out to be a hollow, idle hope – no other Hammadid army large enough to challenge the Normans could be raised. Instead, Lord Demetrios did arrive with his three thousand men of reinforcements, and the almost ten thousand Normans did lay siege to Tunis.

Even now, with the wealthy Hammadid capital bereft of the majority of its defenders, the siege of a city as strongly fortified as Tunis was a drawn-out affair, and taxing for the King’s already strained treasury. It had only been with some difficulty that Bohemond had manged to raise sufficient funds to sustain the siege at all.


After two long months of preparing the assault on Tunis a mine dug underneath it had finally collapsed a stretch of the wall and allowed the Christians access into the city. In a long day and night of bloody street fighting the Normans had eventually carried the prosperous Hammadid capital.


Bohemond would have liked nothing better than to continue his conquests, but his treasury was already more than depleted, and on top of everything else armed native rebellions were once again springing up all across Leptis Magna, requiring immediate attention. Gnashing his teeth in anger and vowing in private that the Hammadids should not yet have seen the last of him, Bohemond did therefore send to King Hashmaddin for peace. With his army shattered at Tunis, the Hammadid King had little choice but to accept Bohemond’s demands and to cede the Normans the richest parts of his realm in exchange for the much-needed peace.




The Norman kingdom at the very end of 1096


Edited to re-upload picture.
 
Last edited:
That was brilliant, shame that Serlo has lost himself in his work, but I guess being a good guy, what else would he do? Bohemond reminds me of Attila the Hun in a way, or perhaps Alexander. How old is he now?

And seriously... how OLD is Serlo?!

Who is the heir as well? I don't remember reading anything about the actual heir to Bohemond!

I only wish mine had lived :(
 
Serlo is in his 50s I believe, and Bohemond in his 40s. Pretty impressive displays of courage on both of their parts. I am glad Serlo and Bohemond have found common cause, but he must work through his predicament. Bohemond's rule is not held together simply because Serlo is popular and well-regarded, and Serlo no longer has anything the king needs, especially since Bohemond has seen his cousin's tactics applied. Serlo must find a way to make himself indispensible - to match usefulness to his loyalty.

A man of his character may find it sufficient merely to speak to Bohemond. Bohemond knows Serlo's mind, so his word may be enough. Otherwise, Serlo has to prove himself in some way. Victory in battle may not be enough.

One possibility is that Serlo is viceroy of Africa, and that job just got expanded a lot. In a practical sense, Bohemond might know how to do the duke's job, but trust nobody else to do it as well. And that is important considering the addition of Tunis to the kingdom.
 
Eams: Hm, Bohemond a villain. Now I can’t really see that. Sure, he cares for nobody but himself and the realm, has a megalomanic streak, is utterly ruthless and is at times a tad cruel, but to me that doesn’t make him a villain. Let me explain:

Bohemond, with his attributes and traits and the real historical accounts of him, affords me the opportunity to make a very personal statement about history’s great conquerors and empire-builders. From what I read in the sources I’m quite convinced that people like Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Justinian, Charlemagne, Basileios II., William the Conqueror and others were all complete and utter bastards who had no second thoughts about stabbing their friends in the back, subjugating entire people, or carrying out coup d’etats. I think, or rather am afraid, that it is this very ruthless that is one key trait to achieve real historical greatness. There have always been many highly talented people, but to succeed on a grand, historical scale, that seems not to be enough; what’s also needed is luck and the willingness to walk the path to glory on lesser men’s backs.

That is my take on Bohemond. I imagine him as a deeply unpleasant person, but no more a villain than his equally-unpleasant contemporary William the Conqueror, for instance. To be a real villain, he would need a few other traits. To me, a villain on the throne is General_BT’s excellently portrayed Emperor Thomas. Like Bohemond, he is ruthless, courageous and has a high opinion of himself, but unlike Bohemond he is of only average talent at best, and he is also sadistically cruel and does actually like to terrorize and even torment people in positions of less power than himself (virtually everybody). Where Bohemond bullies people to achieve some end, Thomas bullies them for the sake of seeing them cringe. I guess the reason for this is that Thomas isn’t sure of himself, and because of this insecurity has to constantly remind himself of his power by megalomaniacally telling himself how grand he is and by terrorizing those around him. Bohemond doesn’t need to do this, because he is almost pathologically sure of himself. In the end, that’s probably the core of why I see Bohemond as a highly questionable character, but not a villain, unlike Emperor Thomas.

And as to the conspirators’ plan: I agree that the plan wasn’t sophisticated, but then not every plot has to be drawn-out and sophisticated; most aren’t. If Serlo would have slipped the knife into Bohemond, it would have worked just fine. If one discounts the fact that the conspirators have failed to keep their preparations secret from Bohemond, that is.

kadvael56: Ah, at least one friendly voice for Bohemond! But the Jews had it really bad back then. They were dependant on the protection of people in power, and that made them valuable instruments. If they displeased their protectors, their protection would be withdrawn. Sancha made use of this, as did Bohemond.

Maver1ck: The past two chapters took place in 1096, meaning that Bohemond was 39 and Serlo 52. The King’s still in his prime, but Serlo’s becoming an old grey wolf. And a sad one as that. It’s not a happy Serlowe are seeing in these years. He’s unhappy with his young wife, ceaslessly having to put down native rebellions also doesn’t agree to him, he’s against his will been dragged into a conspiracy in which he has lost his King’s trust and his self-esteem, and he is still without heir – and will most likely remain so. The past decade hasn’t been kind to our hero.

Speaing of heirs – Bohemond’s is Herman de Hauteville, born in 1081. He will soon come into his own. The reason why we haven’t seen anything of him is twofold: He’s holds a county in Sicily and has been mostly with his mother, the Duchess of Sicily and thus his liege, and he has had a courtly education.

The decision for this may seem very unlike Bhemond, but it’s actually a side of the King we have not yet seen up close and personal, and probably never will in the story as Bohemond keeps it weel hidden. He himself has grown up rough and wild, a bastard. This has made him strong and self-reliant, but he does also feel that something has been missing in his upbringing, and he wants his son and heir to know something else apart from constant struggle. That’s why he has had him brought up in court, and that’s why he wants to leave him a stable and unassailably strong kingdom. Has Herman turned out the way Bohemond has hoped? We’ll learn.

phargle: Well, neither Bohemond nor Serlo have ever been lacking in courage. Serlo might be growing old, but he has still a lot of bite in him. I see him as a lean grey old wolf.

And recently also a sad one, with personal tragedy and the unfortunate plot. Now, Bohemond’s mind as to Serlo is divided. Serlo has been involved in a plot to murder him, but he had it not in him to betray his King. Does this mean that he is to be trusted less, or is he now actually to be trusted more?
 
The_Guiscard said:
Eams: Hm, Bohemond a villain. Now I can’t really see that. Sure, he cares for nobody but himself and the realm, has a megalomanic streak, is utterly ruthless and is at times a tad cruel, but to me that doesn’t make him a villain. Let me explain:

Bohemond, with his attributes and traits and the real historical accounts of him, affords me the opportunity to make a very personal statement about history’s great conquerors and empire-builders. From what I read in the sources I’m quite convinced that people like Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Justinian, Charlemagne, Basileios II., William the Conqueror and others were all complete and utter bastards who had no second thoughts about stabbing their friends in the back, subjugating entire people, or carrying out coup d’etats. I think, or rather am afraid, that it is this very ruthless that is one key trait to achieve real historical greatness. There have always been many highly talented people, but to succeed on a grand, historical scale, that seems not to be enough; what’s also needed is luck and the willingness to walk the path to glory on lesser men’s backs.

That is my take on Bohemond. I imagine him as a deeply unpleasant person, but no more a villain than his equally-unpleasant contemporary William the Conqueror, for instance. To be a real villain, he would need a few other traits. To me, a villain on the throne is General_BT’s excellently portrayed Emperor Thomas. Like Bohemond, he is ruthless, courageous and has a high opinion of himself, but unlike Bohemond he is of only average talent at best, and he is also sadistically cruel and does actually like to terrorize and even torment people in positions of less power than himself (virtually everybody). Where Bohemond bullies people to achieve some end, Thomas bullies them for the sake of seeing them cringe. I guess the reason for this is that Thomas isn’t sure of himself, and because of this insecurity has to constantly remind himself of his power by megalomaniacally telling himself how grand he is and by terrorizing those around him. Bohemond doesn’t need to do this, because he is almost pathologically sure of himself. In the end, that’s probably the core of why I see Bohemond as a highly questionable character, but not a villain, unlike Emperor Thomas.

And as to the conspirators’ plan: I agree that the plan wasn’t sophisticated, but then not every plot has to be drawn-out and sophisticated; most aren’t. If Serlo would have slipped the knife into Bohemond, it would have worked just fine. If one discounts the fact that the conspirators have failed to keep their preparations secret from Bohemond, that is.

The difference between us then is that I see most of those whom you've mentioned as villains, and I would classify them as people who have achieved historical notoriety rather than any greatness.
Real historical greatness, in my view, belongs to the likes of Bonhoeffer, Gandhi, Franklin etc.
The world wouldn't have been worse off if William the Conqueror fell off the boat and drowned while crossing the Channel or if Caesar had been boiled by pirates.
And based on your description of the latter, I would put Bohemond up as more of a villain than BT's Thomas.
Thomas appears to be immature, pathetic and quite possibly mentally ill, while Bohemond on the other hand is a fully sane person who most likely knows when what he is doing is evil, yet does it anyway.
It is this ability to see that what you're about to do is fundamentally wrong, and yet do it anyway, that is the defining characteristic of what a villain is in my view.
And when, as one could argue is the case with Bohemond, you combine that ability with the view that the evil you do is necessary in bringing about something good, then that becomes all the more villainous.
To summarize, I view a villain as someone who would agree on principle with Himmler's "decent jew", that the murder of innocent, good people might be tragic and wrong, but that it is a needed step in the creation of something bigger.
 
Interesting, Eams.

Another possibility is this: if Bohemond were a weak monarch, it would invite other bad men to come along and invade his lands, kill his people, kill his family, and kill him. He is therefore faced with two bad choices. The first is to not be ruthless in a ruthless world and die, or to be ruthless in a ruthless world and save his family. Maybe there is a third way, but consider this: if people believed Bohemond would just negotiate and forgive when they rose up against him, how many revolts would Bohemond have to put down? The notion that the hero of the story is an evil man requires a belief that evil at large would go away if only Bohemond weren't evil.

Bohemond is in a classic prisoner's dilemma.

I also note that Serlo knows even more than Bohemond that what he is doing is cruel, but I don't think that makes him more evil than the king.
 
I think Bohemond is a great man, very capable ruler when ruling people from three religions, creating a kingdom and keeping nobles in their place.
Just normal norman 'cruelty', but cruelty for aiming peace and prosperity.
Being hard for the well-being of the realm.
 
phargle said:
Interesting, Eams.

Another possibility is this: if Bohemond were a weak monarch, it would invite other bad men to come along and invade his lands, kill his people, kill his family, and kill him. He is therefore faced with two bad choices. The first is to not be ruthless in a ruthless world and die, or to be ruthless in a ruthless world and save his family. Maybe there is a third way, but consider this: if people believed Bohemond would just negotiate and forgive when they rose up against him, how many revolts would Bohemond have to put down? The notion that the hero of the story is an evil man requires a belief that evil at large would go away if only Bohemond weren't evil.

Bohemond is in a classic prisoner's dilemma.

I also note that Serlo knows even more than Bohemond that what he is doing is cruel, but I don't think that makes him more evil than the king.
And an equally interesting reply, phargle.
He might be in a classic prisoner's dilemma, but you neglect to mention that he has helped construct his own prison. For how many noblemen feel forced to either rebel against openly or be ready to support a rebellion as a result of the ruthlessness against both nobility and church that Bohemond has shown?

I must also protest to your use of weakness as the only alternative to ruthlessness, and argue that there are other options, such as justness; which in this context would mean to endeavour to treat both subjects and vassals fairly, while being prepared to defend the rule of law with swift force if necessary. The question of why anyone would fight to defend a tyrant (which Bohemond is) is as apt here as the one of why anyone would fight against a just king.

Closely linked to the question on justness is that of whether or not Bohemond's countless wars has actually benefited the kingdom. I would argue that a few of them have, but that a lot of them have cost far more than they have gained wealth for the kingdom. How much of the gold spent on conquering swats of useless desert populated by Muslims (the subjugation of which is not only immoral, but also means that the cost rises further as they must either be constantly oppressed or converted by priests who might just hold it that the right to do is not to convert heathens for Bohemond but to stab him in the scrotum) and giving glory to Bohemond would have been better used improving the financial infrastructure of the provinces? Such a move would also have strengthened the central power's position in relation to the nobles, and left more Christian soldiers alive.
But if "good" and "glorious" are words which signify the amount of peasants that you've managed to get slaughtered in needless wars, then Bohemond is gloriously good/goodly glorious.

The last point that I want to bring up is this; Bohemond has just left a few rebellious vassals alive and reasonably well, in part perhaps due to the fact that he can't afford to weaken his own position further by attempting to punish them, particularly not since they are part of his own dynasty.

And lastly, I'm fully aware of the irony that a Lutheran like myself is arguing in favour of the rebels :p

Edit: And the reason for me writing such a long reply is this; when it comes to debating I have the stamina of an overweight chainsmoker, meaning that if this was a real marathon I would collapse in a puddle of sweat, urine and vomit after barely ten yards, so I'm hoping to scare you off so I can claim to have won ;)
 
Last edited:
Eams said:
And an equally interesting reply, phargle.
He might be in a classic prisoner's dilemma, but you neglect to mention that he has helped construct his own prison. For how many noblemen feel forced to either rebel against openly or be ready to support a rebellion as a result of the ruthlessness against both nobility and church that Bohemond has shown?

I must also protest to your use of weakness as the only alternative to ruthlessness, and argue that there are other options, such as justness; which in this context would mean to endeavour to treat both subjects and vassals fairly, while being prepared to defend the rule of law with swift force if necessary.

I confused the situation by mentioning rebellions. To clarify, I perceive the prisoner's dilemma in which Bohemond exists, pertinent to The_Guiscard's story, to be relative to power-hungry neighbors. Certainly, his own subjects are part of the equation - and he's treated them poorly with shows of force designed to cow them. It's a practical and Machiavellian approach, considering that Bohemond is an outsider, and was definitely an outsider to a greater degree when he inherited Robert's realm. I suppose the "just" response would have been to go back to Normandy and let the people rule themselves (that's code for "let the people get slaughtered by someone else" ;-)).

With Bohemond, I see his dilemma being with regards to the Tuscans, the Germans, the Byzantines, and the Muslims. He must strike them hard before they strike him hard. Cooperation would be superior and more just, but it would require both sides to pick that option, with the side that does not pick it getting the edge. Hence the prisoner's dilemma. Demonstrating the sort of strength as a king to deter would-be aggressors makes Bohemond appear to be an an unjust tyrant.

And justice in a medieval world, especially the complicated world portrayed by The_Guiscard, would be like not throwing low blows in a boxing match and expecting to win without a referee being present. It's why Bohemond is king and Serlo is not - nobody is awarding points for honor.

It's not all black and white. Bohemond could be less tyrannical. . . but we're readers, and it's easy for us to second-guess the life-and-death decisions he is making. :)
 
Wow, great discussion here, guys!

To clarify: When I wrote that people like Charlemagne were “great”, it was not to endorse their deeds. The greatness I’m talking of is free of ethics, merely an expression of how much somebody achieved and how lasting his achievements were. Looking at his achievements and the impact they had on Europe, William the Conqueror was thus a great man, even if I totally agree that Europe would have been better of with him falling off a boat and drowning.

I’d say that you, Eams, are viewing Bohemond with too modern, post-Age-of-Elightenment eyes. From this viewpoint, Bohemond is to be judged harshly – but I think that people can only ever be judged by the standards of their own time and age and their own social group. One can’t compare a king of the violent 11th century with Mother Teresa, one has to compare him with other monarchs of his time and age. By this comparison, Bohemond is surely a tyrant, but apart from being a tyrant he is no more villainous than the majority of his fellows. Placing your own interest above everybody else’s was the catchword of the day, and doing your neighbours in wherever you could is all within a good day’s work. Here, I have to agree with phargle – for Bohemond, it’s doing in the others before they do in him.

The Norman realm that Bohemond has inherited was claimed by many other realms. Byzantines, Germans and Arabs do all view Sicily and southern Italy as theirs. It’s not that these people wouldn’t sooner or later come knocking.

So Bohemond wants to be prepared. He could have strengthened his realm by building and improving his infrastructure, but Bohemond has chosen the path of conquering a realm that’s so large that enemies will think twice challenging it. The reasons for this are threefold:

Bohemond is steeped in medieval xenophobia, meaning that he doesn’t care one whit about the foreigners he and his father have subjugated. He doesn’t want to see them starve, because that would weaken his realm, but he hasn’t the slightest interest in seeing them prosper. This view is shared by the vast majority of his fellow Normans, both in Italy and in England regarding the Saxons.

The Normans are a minority in the Mediterranean, and immigration is an important factor for them to replenish their ranks – we’ve seen that spelled out clearly in the very first chapter, where Robert Guiscard gives it as the reason for his war against Richard d’Aversa. Conquest enriches the Normans already in Italy (something Bohemond is interested in, I part because they are his people and also because he realizes that they will put up with his harsh rule as long as he laces their pockets) and it does also draw new Norman immigrants from back home – “There are land and riches to be had in the service of King Bohemond! Who’s a fifth son of a smallholder in Normandy can be a baron in Tunisia!”

So this is the rationale for Bohemond doing what Bohemond does – strengthening the realm and the Normans, in the way he deems best. On a more personal level, Bohemond, like most knights, just plain likes waging wars. And he likes being powerful and holding sway over a vast realm.
 
Yeh, the norman realm is like some fantasy realm, you fight so that you earn more and become more, in cash and prestige.
You need to earn yuor place, and that can be done under Bohemond. It's like a safe haven for everone in europe, you don't need to be of noble descend to become something.

There shall be allways wars, the kingdom shall allways profit, and so do small mans also.

Just like America of 19th century, is the the Sicily under normans.
And the indians are muslims. :eek:o
 
Really in depth discussion going on here!

I'd like to echo some of The_Guiscard's points - here's how I think on it.
With respect to his function in the story, Bohemond serves as a great occasional antagonist to the PoV characters, and does sometimes display villainous traits, but I don't think that's enough to make him a full-fledged villain. I almost think in order to judge whether Bohemond is a villain or not, we need to know how successful he is. Do his measures create a strong foundation for Sicily to build upon for decades or centuries to come, or do they lead to the Norman Empire's fragmentation. That will go a long way to determining Bohemond's status in my eyes.

The perfect ruler is a just ruler, true. But who is the more just ruler? The ruler that brings out his army and meets the enemy on the battlefield where thousands are injured or killed, or the ruler who slips poison in his enemy's drink killing only one? What is right and just can hugely vary depending on the circumstances. Looking back at medieval (or even more modern) leaders and rulers, its easy use the standards and mores of our day against them, but we have to remember that their time was COMPLETELY different from ours in so many ways that such a judgment serves little use. If Bohemond is successful, he used underhanded means, yes, but he secured a better place for his people in the long term. If his policies lead to discord, civil war and the destruction of the kingdom, it'd be far easier to argue he's a villain...
 
Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, this is going to take a while.
phargle: No, justice in a medieval world would be to train harder than the other guy and then spend the first ten rounds hanging on the ropes and letting him beat your ribs until he’s exhausted, after which you knock him out with one punch. It worked for Muhammad Ali. And you fail to deal with the fact that Bohemond keeps on starting wars after making it perfectly clear that he’s willing to do so. He’s not doing it merely to protect his own kingdom, and that was apparently never the reason.

the_guiscard: I understood what you meant by the term great, and it was that which I took issue to simply because I see no greatness in changing the outlook of the map.
I have considered the post-Enlightenment charge earlier, when we discussed Serlo’s fooling around, and this time I can’t agree with you, particularly not when what I written above is taken into consideration.
However, let’s go back to before the enlightenment and try to interpret how Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would judge Bohemond:
Augustine would, judging from his “Reply to Faustus the Manichaean”, take issue with Bohemond on two accounts. The first is that that there seems to exist no heavenly sanction for most of the wars that Bohemond has started. The second is more important, and more damning for Bohemond, and that is that “the real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance and the lust of power”. Would you like to argue that Bohemond has displayed none of those qualities?
Now, on to Aquinas. Bohemond certainly holds the authority to declare war, the just cause is tricky at best (it could be argued to be true about the Muslims, but fellow Christians?) and he hardly seems to be waging war to promote good. Of course, it could be argued that Bohemond’s wars are just in that they aim to avoid an evil peace, but it could also be argued that any peace which leaves the Norman invaders in power is an evil peace.
I can argue that you on the other hand view Bohemond with a far too postmodern outlook, in which all morality is reduced into relativism and where you essentially disenfranchise yourself from making a verdict on his character. While it is useful and educational to try and see the context in which Bohemond is acting, you can not ignore your own perception of right and wrong when judging the character of his actions.
One final note on Augustine is that he was arguing from the Old Testament, thus connecting my arguments back to BCE days, although OT has been used by plenty of thinkers up to this day, including old Marx, who it can be claimed was subconsciously carrying on the Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition (quick, someone go tell ComradeOm that I’m echoing Derrida’s take on Marx, I’m not debating with enough people yet!)

General_BT: Let me counter your question with one of my own: whose prettier, the girl with the black teeth and a beard or the one with a wooden leg, an eyepatch and breasts which hang down to her knee? Even if you pick one, they’re both still ugly.
Our definitions of what makes a villain are different, although I’m slightly put back by the dominance of utilitarianism on the CK fora ;)
 
Last edited: