Strenuitas. The Life and Times of Robert Guiscard and Bohemond of Taranto: Norman Power from the Mezzogiorno to Antioch 1016 – 1111 A.D. Kindle Edition

I bought Strenuitas after reading Stephen Runciman’s three volume history of the Crusades. Apart from a good historical read during a holiday in southern Italy, I wanted to learn more about the Normans in Sicily and in particular Bohemond of Antioch, one of the outstanding figures of The First Crusade.On both counts Chaplin delivers the goods. Strenuitas starts with background on how the Normans came to be in Southern Italy, and details the increasing role they played in 11th century Italian politics. This culminates in one of the major characters of the period, Robert Guiscard. The book details Guiscard’s rise to power and the tumultuous politics – not to mention ruthless leaders - of famous cities such as Capua, Salerno, Bari, Taranto, and Palermo. The lengthy low-intensity war to take Sicily from the Saracens is richly detailed.Strenuitas provides broader context through references to the ever changing fortunes of the two superpowers of the time, The Holy Roman and Byzantine Empires. Similar to how the United States and Russia intrigued in the Third World during the Cold War, both medieval powers played lively, sometimes pivotal, roles in Guiscard’s Italy.The various Popes and anti-Popes of that time also come into play. Sometimes the Pope had the upper hand over Italy’s fractious Normans, but often Rome was subject to the will of Guiscard.Upon Guiscard’s death, the focus shifts to his son, Bohemond, and traces the vicissitudes of his career. Strenuitas follows Bohemond from his first abortive war against the Byzantine army in modern day Albania, and then along the long march through Anatolia. Chaplin’s narrative about the crusaders’ two-year siege of Antioch, and Bohemond’s ultimate ascendancy over that exotic city, is probably the best part of the book. Strenuitas goes on to recount Bohemond’s fall from grace, culminating in his second attempt to attack the Byzantine Empire in Albania.Strenuitas is well researched and, perhaps more importantly, an enjoyable read. It is an excellent companion volume to Runciman’s History of the Crusades, and the latter volumes in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

I've been retired for 3 years now, and started working more on my genealogy. I wanted to learn more about Robert Guiscard d'Hauteville, who is my 29th great-grandfather. I also wanted to learn about the Rogerian 'Golden Age' of Sicily, and the part the Hautevilles played in it, specifically, that of Robert Guiscard's brother Roger d'Hauteville, my 30th great-uncle.

Absolutely spectacular! Mr. Chaplin brings to life one of the most fascinating yet little-known periods in history. I would give it 10 stars if I could.

More in depth review coming soon. 5 starts is based on what I know of the authors knowledge of European history and his ability to piece events together to explain not only what events occurred, but why.

very well written

10-12th century Byzantine history is my hobby. I am always on the lookout for new, interesting books on related topics, so this was a natural buy. However, I soon began to be put off by a number of different issues.First, the style of writing is occasionally childishSecond, there are too many errors, each of which is perhaps minor, but when taken together, they begin to grate.The first time I encountered the Salic Law referred to as Sallic, I thought it was one mistake, these things happen. but when it is repeated, you wonder whether it's ignorance or bad proofreading.The Byzantine noble family Scleros or Skleros is referred to as Schleros.A reference to fighting between the sons of one Lombard ruler (Pandulf Ironhead) refers to them as ancestors instead of descendants.We are told that the Saxon housecarls used a "fearsome double-bladed battle axe". Well, no - it was single-headed, which we know not only from contemporary descriptions but also from, e.g., the Bayeux Tapestry.The 'Capuan yoke' is referred to as the 'Capuan yolk' - either due to bad proofreading or ignorance on behalf of the author.Similarly, we find formerly instead of formally, as in "led to Gregory VII formerly confirming" etc.The Emperor Constans II is said to have preferred Syracuse to Rome as a capital - but Rome never was his capital. He moved the capital to Syracuse from Constantinople.Muslims are generally referred to as Mohammedans, a style which went out of use long ago and should not occur in a book published in 2015.We are told that there were two rebellions in the Byzantine Empire in 1077, "In the east, the Governor of Durazzo" - Durazzo was about as far west as you could get in the Empire.Chaplin tells us that the Byzantine guides assigned to the First Crusade did not lead the Crusader armies "due east, directly towards the next objectives of Antioch and Jerusalem, but instead southward in the direction of Antioch-in-Pisidia so as to parallel and shadow the rapid Byzantine gains being made to the west." A glance at a map would have shown Chaplin that both Antioch and Jerusalem are in fact south-east of Nicaea and that marching due east would have taken the Crusaders to what is today northern Iraq.We are also told that Baldwin and Tancred both moved on "from the Armenian cities they encountered and pacified, rather than staying put to secure or maintain their ownership position in those settlements." In fact, the latter is exactly what they did - and Chaplin knows this because later on he makes this point himself.Chaplin claims that the Principality of Antioch was the first Crusader state established - not true, it was the second, after the County of Edessa, established by Baldwin.The writing style is occasionally - far too often - childish, with suppositions along the lines of "As to the cruel and bloody retribution and the fiendishly imaginative tortures that Pandulf must surely have exacted on the leaders of the city's resistance, we can only pass over this subject in judicious silence." In other words, we don't know but we fantasise about it.In a battle between Byzantines and Muslims we read that the Norman vanguard charged the enemy while the Byzantine general "Maniakes's cowardly Greeks" swept down from the rear and seized the enemy baggage train". Note - we are not told that the Normans thought the Greeks were cowardly; it is Chaplin who thinks they were.On Maniakes, we are told that he was recalled to Constantinople due to a a court intrigue - very true - and was castrated. He then returns to Sicily and proclaims himself Emperor. But one of the very clear rules in the Byzantine Empire was that a eunuch could not be Emperor. So if Maniakes had been castrated, he could not aim for the imperial throne; and if he aimed for the imperial throne, he could not have been castrated. In fact, since he did proclaim himself Emperor, and since no other source mentions the castration, we have to assume that Chaplin invented it.Army numbers are frequently given with no suggestion that they might - as was usually the case with medieval chroniclers - be vastly exaggerated.The Lombard princes of Benevento are suddenly referred to as kings.All in all: Very interesting, but this writer and his book do not do it justice. If this is what you want to read about, spend your money on John Julius Norwhich's or Stephen Runciman's books instead. They are far better value.