Bohemond VI of Antioch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bohemond VI of Antioch (c. 1237 – 1275), called the Fair (le Beau),[1] was the Prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli from 1251 until his death. The city of Antioch was captured in 1268 and he was thenceforth a prince in exile. He is best known for ruling during a time that Antioch was being squeezed between the warring empires of the Mongols and the Egyptian Mamluks. Under the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum I of Armenia, Bohehond formally allied, or submitted, to the Mongols in 1259, and his troops probably participated in the Mongol conquest of Aleppo and Damascus. However, he paid for this by being excommunicated, and then having Antioch targeted for revenge by the Mamluks when they forced the Mongols back out. In 1268, Antioch was effectively eliminated.
Contents |
[edit] Biography
Bohemond VI was the son of Bohemond V of Antioch by Bohemond V's wife Luciana of Segni, niece of Pope Innocent III. Bohemond V died in January 1252. Since Bohemond VI was only 15 at the time, he succeeded under the regency of the Dowager Princess, Luciana. However, Luciana never left Tripoli, and instead handed over the government of the principality to her Roman relatives. This made her unpopular, so the young Bohemond VI gained the approval of King Louis IX of France, who was on Crusade at the time, to get permission from Pope Innocent IV to come of age a few months early. The Pope agreed, and the young Bohemond traveled to Acre where he was knighted by King Louis, and took power in Antioch. Through the efforts of King Louis, a truce was also negotiated between Antioch and Cilician Armenia. At Louis's suggestion, in 1254 the 17-year-old Bohemond married Sibylla of Armenia, which ended the power struggle between the two states that had been started by Bohemond IV, his grandfather.[2]
[edit] War of Saint Sabas
Bohemond was also overlord of the Genoese Embriaco family. This involved him in a dispute between the Genoese and the Venetians, the War of St. Sabas, which started in 1256 and drew in many of the nobles in the Holy Land, wasted valuable resources and cost tens of thousands of lives. The Embriaco lords of Gibelet (also known as Jebail or Byblos, a small nearby territory) were resolute opponents of the princes of Antioch. Bohemond tried to persuade the Genoese to support the Venetians, but the Embriaco family rebelled against him in 1258[3] and escalated the situation to a civil war which lasted off and on for decades.[4] Bohemond was able to achieve some measure of peace by having the leader of the revolt, Bertrand Embriaco (a cousin of Guy I), murdered by some serfs, but the bitterness continued.[3]
Bertrand's son Bartholomew Embriaco became Mayor of a Commune set up by the Embriaco family. Bartholomew's brother William, along with his cousin the lord of Jebail, an area in what is modern Lebanon, were eventually defeated by Bohemond's son, Bohemond VII,[5] and then completely driven out by the Muslims.
[edit] Mongol relations
The main conflict affecting Bohemond's reign was that of the conflict between the Mameluks and the Mongols. The Mongol Army had been approaching steadily from central Asia, with Cilician Armenia and Antioch directly in its path. The Mongols had a deserved reputation of ruthlessness -- if settlements in their path did not surrender immediately, the inhabitants were slaughtered by the tens of thousands. The Christian country of Georgia had submitted in 1236, and Hetoum I of Armenia, Bohemond's father-in-law, allied with them in 1247.[6][7][8]
After the Mongols took Baghdad in 1258, Bohemond too allied with the Mongols,[9][10][11][12][13] or, according to some historians, submitted to their authority[14][15] in 1259, and then he and his forces participated in the Mongol conquest of Aleppo, just a few miles east of Antioch.
The Mongols rewarded Bohemond for his allegiance, and returned to him various areas that had been lost to the Muslims under Saladin in 1243, such as Lattakieh, Darkush, Kafar-dubbin, Laodicea, and Jabala. Bohemond was able to re-occupy them, with the assistance of some Templars and Hospitallers.[16][17] In return for the lands, Bohemond had to install the Greek patriarch Euthymius at Antioch, in place of the Latin patriarch, since the Mongols were trying to strengthen ties with the Byzantine Empire. This earned Bohemond the enmity from the Latins at Acre,[18] and Bohemond was excommunicated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Jacques Pantaléon (who later lifted the excommunication, when Pantaleon became Pope Urban IV).[19][20][21] Alexander put Bohemond's case on the agenda of his upcoming council (as well as the cases of Hetoum I of Armenia, and Daniel of Russia),[22] but died in 1261, just months before the Council could be convened. For a new Pope, the choice fell to Pantaléon, who took the name Pope Urban IV, and after later hearing Bohemond's explanation for his submission to the Mongols, suspended his excommunication sentence.[23]
Bohemond and his forces fought under the Mongol general Kitbuqa, a Nestorian Christian, and took Aleppo and Damascus in Syria. A famous scene described in many history books is that of three Christian leaders, Hethoum, Bohemond, and the Nestorian Christian Kitbuqa, riding in to Damascus in triumph on March 1, 1260.[24][2][25][26]
After taking Damascus, the Mongol Army had to cease their westward push, due to internal troubles in the Mongol Empire. The bulk of the army left Syria, with a smaller force left under Kitbuqa to occupy the territory. This provided an opportunity for the Egyptian Mamluks, who negotiated a pact of neutrality with the Franks of Acre that allowed the Muslim Mamluks to pass through unmolested. The Mamluks were thereby able to defeat the Mongols at the historic Battle of Ain Jalut in September 1260. With the Mongol army removed, the Mamluks then proceeded to conquer Syria and Iran, which had been previously ravaged by the Mongols. The Mamluks, under their leader Baibars, also began to threaten Antioch, which (as a vassal of the Armenians) had supported the Mongols.
In 1263, Bohemond and Hethoum tried various methods of regaining control of the situation. They kidnapped the Greek patriarch Euthymius, and carried him off to Armenia, replacing him with the Latin Opizon. They also attempted to gain some financial leverage over the Mamluks. For example, Bohemond and Hethoum controlled the forests of southern Anatolia and Lebanon, which wood was needed by the Egyptian Mamluks to build ships. Hethoum attempted to use this as a bargaining chip to obtain a truce with the Mamluks. However, the attempts at blockade merely further incited the Mamluk leader, Baibars.[27]
In 1264, Bohemond also sought assistance from the Mongols. At the age of 27, he traveled to the court of Hulagu, trying to obtain as much support as possible from the Mongol rulers against the Mamluk progression. His presence is described by the Armenian saint Vartan:[28]
"In 1264, l'Il-Khan had me called, as well as the vartabeds Sarkis (Serge) and Krikor (Gregory), and Avak, priest of Tiflis. We arrived at the place of this powerful monarch at the beginning of the Tartar year, in July, period of the solen assembly of the kuriltai. Here were all the Princes, Kings and Sultans submitted by the Tartars, with wonderful presents. Among them, I saw Hetoum I, king of Armenia, David, king of Georgia, the Prince of Antioch (Bohemond VI), and a quantity of Sultans from Persia.
—Vartan, trad. Dulaurier.[29]
However, Hulagu was unhappy with Bohemond for replacing the Greek patriarch with a Latin one, as the Byzantine alliance was important to him, against the Turks in Anatolia.[30]
[edit] Destruction of Antioch (1268)
In 1266, Hethoum too set out for the Mongol court, pleading for assistance. But while he was gone, the Mamluk army attacked the Armenian army, which was being commanded by Hethoum's sons at the Battle of Mari. The Muslim Mamluks were victorious. They killed one of Hethoum's sons, took the other prisoner, and laid waste to Cilician Armenia, reducing the capital to ruins. After destroying Cilicia, the Mamluk army then turned its attention towards Antioch. But the generals had taken their fill of loot from Armenia, and were not eager for another battle. Bohemond was thereby able to bribe them to keep them from attacking.
The Mamluk leader Baibar, was angry at his generals' weakness, and returned to the attack. In May 1267 he attacked Acre, and in 1268 he started the Siege of Antioch, taking the city while Bohemond was away in Tripoli. All of northern Syria was quickly lost, leaving Bohemond with no estates except Tripoli.
[edit] Besieged in Tripoli (1271)
Baibars attacked again by starting the Siege of Tripoli (1271), sending a letter to Bohemond threatening him with total annihilation and taunting him for his alliance with the Mongols:
"Our yellow flags have repelled your red flags, and the sound of the bells has been replaced by the call: "Allâh Akbar!" (...) Warn your walls and your churches that soon our siege machinery will deal with them, your knights that soon our swords will invite themselves in their homes (...) We will see then what use will be your alliance with Abagha"
—Letter from Baibars to Bohemond VI, 1271[31]
Bohemond begged for a truce, so as not to lose Tripoli as well. Baibar mocked him for lack of courage, and asked him to pay all the expenses of the Mamluk campaign. Bohemond had enough pride left to refuse the offer, but Baibars offered him a truce anyway in May. By this time, the Mamluks had captured every inland castle of the Franks, but the Mamluks had heard reports about a new Crusade, this one from the prince who would later be Edward I of England. Edward had landed in Acre on May 9, 1271, where he was soon joined by Bohemond and his cousin King Hugh of Cyprus and Jerusalem.
Bohemond died in 1275, leaving a son, Bohemond VII, nominal prince of Antioch (though both Antioch and Cilician Armenia had ceased to exist) and count of Tripoli, and three daughters: Isabeau de Poitiers, who died unmarried and without issue, Lucia I, countess later titular of Tripoli, and Marie de Poitiers (d. 1280), married to Nicolas de Saint-Omer (d. 1294).[citation needed]
The rancour of the Mamluks regarding Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols would remain until 1289 with the final Fall of Tripoli. According to Le Templier de Tyr, the Sultan Qalawun had some deep-rooted enimity against the House of Antioch and Tripoli, because Bohemond VI had entered into combined operations with the Mongols against the Mamluks in 1260:[32]
"He (Qalawun) had a great enimity towards Tripoli because of the Prince (Bohemond VI) who went to Damascus when it was captured by the Mongols"
—Le Templier de Tyr, Chiprois, par. 474[33]
[edit] Notes
- ^ Grousset, p. 824
- ^ a b Runciman, p. 278
- ^ a b Marshall, p. 43
- ^ Tyerman, pp. 727-728
- ^ Runciman, p. 404
- ^ Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55).
- ^ Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
- ^ Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267).
- ^ Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55).
- ^ Jonathan Riley-Smith describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136.
- ^ Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, describes Bohemond VI's involvement with the Mongols.
- ^ Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
- ^ Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267).
- ^ Morgan, David. The Mongols, p. 154. "The Crusader rule of Antioch and Tripoli hastened to make his submissiona nd to join forces with the all-conquering Mongols. He earned excommunication for this traffic with the infidel."
- ^ Tyerman, p. 806. "[In 1260] the Franks were divided how to respond. Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli, briefly one of Outremer's most important power brokers, had already accepted Mongol overlordship, with a Mongol resident and battalion stationed in Antioch itself, where they stayed until the fall of the city to the Mamluks in 1268. The Frankish Antiochenes assisted in the Mongols' capture of Aleppo . . . and had received lands in reward. By contrast, the Franks of Acre saw no advantage in submission to the Mongols."
- ^ Jean Richard, p.425
- ^ Tyerman, p. 806. The Frankish Antiochenes assisted in the Mongols' capture of Aleppo, thus in part achieving a very traditional Frankish target, and had received lands in reward."
- ^ Runciman, pp. 306-307. "To the Latins at Acre Bohemond's subservience seemed disgraceful, especially as it involved the humiliation of the Latin Church at Antioch."
- ^ Online Reference Book for Medieval studies
- ^ Runciman, p.307, "Bohemond was excommunicated by the Pope for this alliance (Urban IV, Registres, 26 May 1263
- ^ Saunders, p. 115
- ^ Jean Richard, p.423
- ^ Jean Richard, p.426
- ^ Runciman, p. 307
- ^ "Histoire des Croisades III", Rene Grousset, p581
- ^ "The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the military camp of the Tatars, and they all went off to take Damascus". - The Templar of Tyre. Quoted in "Histoire des Croisades III", Rene Grousset, p586
- ^ Runciman, p. 322
- ^ "Grousset, p565
- ^ Quoted in Grousset, p.565
- ^ Runciman, pp. 319-320
- ^ Quoted in Grousset, p.650
- ^ Grousset, p.727
- ^ Quoted in Grousset, p.727
[edit] References
- "Histoire des Croisades", René Grousset, Editions Perrin (Paris), ISBN 226202569X
- Runciman, History of the Crusades, Vol. 3
- Venegoni, L. (2003). "Hulagu's Campaign in the West (1256-1260)". Transoxiana: Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.
- Richard, Jean (1999). The Crusades: c. 1071-c. 1291. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62566-1.
| Preceded by Bohemund V | Prince of Antioch 1251–1268 | Succeeded by conquered by Baibars |
| Count of Tripoli 1251–1275 | Succeeded by Bohemond VII |
fr:Bohémond VI d'Antioche nl:Bohemund VI van Antiochië pl:Boemund VI

