Talk:Bohemond I of Antioch

message: What does this statement mean?
"This early hostility to Alexius had a great influence in determining the     course of his between Bohemund (whom his father had destined for the throne of 
Constantinople) and Duke Roger."
Tbarron 21:28 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
I was wondering the same.
It may refer to the dispute in succession of Apulia, i.e between Bohemond and his half-brother Duke Roger. Or if meaning Roger of Sicily (who was not Duke: he was count, or II firstly count then king), it may refer to long-term political positoon, from the time of Bohemond to the time of king Roger II. 217.140.193.123 00:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: I decided the be bold and move this and similar pages.  There are two reasons for such a move.  First, our hero (of course) was a Norman Italian and both the French and Italian Wikipedias use the "o" spelling.  Second, "Bohemond Antioch" shows twice the English language Google hits as "Bohemund Antioch".  Thanks, MapMaster 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary...this isn't the French or Italian Wikipedias, we don't have to adopt their spellings. Adam Bishop 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is the Bohemond is the standard English spelling.  It has twice the Google hits and is the spelling used by standard sources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Encarta.  Amazon.com offers 499 books containing "Bohemond" and only 207 books containing "Bohemund".  I bring the French and Italian Wikipedias into this because it gives us a clue as to how the real Bohemond spelled his name.  If there is a reason to use the incorrect spelling of "Bohemund", please state so on this page.  MapMaster 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked more carefully and you are right, Bohemond is the more usual English spelling. I guess I was just used to seeing it here as -und. (However, -und is not really incorrect, we don't necessarily have to use the spellings adopted by other encyclopedias, and he probably spelled his own name in a multitude of ways - in Latin it appears as Boamundus, for example). Adam Bishop 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support Bohemond. Britannica is still (how long?) the most authoritative source for encyclopedias. Good. --Attilios 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Though it's good to see that this issue was solved pretty easily, I'll toss my (requested) two cents in anyway. My experience says that Bohemond is more common in English than Bohemund, though, of course, neither is wrong and spelling wasn't standardised any European language of his day. Thus, I support the current spelling and it should probably be the standard for all other figures of the same name. (In fact, I had created several other "Bohemond" pages a while ago even though "Bohemund" was used here.) Srnec 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Bohemund to Bohemond 

message: "The Norman monarchy he founded in Antioch survived those in both England and Sicily." - I assume this regards the English monarchy as ceasing to be Norman with the Plantagenets. Though surely when quoting from a book, a page reference should be given ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Beardo, I actually added that piece, but I see I neglected to add the page number. If you give me a few days I'll be with my book and I'll add it. Alternatively, I think it was the 2nd edition paperback, if you have a copy yourself. I think its good to include though, showing how stability in different parts of the world was changing! Cheers --Tefalstar (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, uh, how's looking up that page number going? May 12, 2021, and the link is still just a book title. 147.226.231.30 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Norman monarchies 

message: From my understanding of the First Crusade, Bohemond was not a particularly good guy, especially in comparison to Raymond of Saint Gilles. It seems like he was mostly out to get wealth and power for himself rather than help ensure Christian access to holy places or protect the Byzantine Empire. Expert opinion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgind (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: Sources calling him Bohemond of Taranto outnumber those using Bohemond of Otranto by an order of magnitude. It is obvious why he is called the former, but is there a reason behind the latter or is it perhaps an error? Srnec (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "of Otranto"? 

message: Did he speak French like his father and other Normans in France and England, or had he adopted local Italian language of the place he was born?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.150.142.207 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightwisely, you should mean the Normans in Normandy NOT “in France” Anyway, a great deal of socalled ‘Normans’ in England had Breton and Flemish has their mothertungs. Other than the aforesaid, they spoke Latin and Anglo-Norman. Furthermore, William the Conqueror/Bastard (also known as William the “Mamzer” in Normandy) was a crypto-Jew and likely spoke/chanted in an Afro-Semitic tongue like his mother. 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:80E7:F9A:3EEB:5E7B (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the language he spoke?