Rather than include a comprehensive bibliography stretching to well over 2,000 books and articles, I thought it more useful to give some suggestions for starting points for the reader who would like to read more about the First Crusade in general, or about individual aspects of the expedition. Where possible, I have tried to list secondary works in English, though there are occasions when books and articles in other languages are unavoidable.
The Crusades have received a great deal of attention from historians, not least in recent years. Major volumes by Christopher Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (London, 2006), Jonathan Phillips, Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades(London, 2009), and Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land (London, 2010) take different approaches to the Crusades. Each provides a compelling overview and demonstrates that scholarship about the subject is in robust health. The doyen of Crusade historians is Jonathan Riley-Smith, whose The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986) is still indispensable. His many other works about the Crusades in general and about the first expedition to Jerusalem in particular are invaluable – not least The First Crusaders 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997). John France’s Victory in the East (Cambridge, 1994) provides a fine military history of the expedition to Jerusalem. Also see Thomas Asbridge’s very readable The First Crusade: A New History (London, 2005).
There are a number of edited volumes based on conferences held to commemorate the nine hundredth anniversary of the Council of Clermont with collections of papers by leading scholars. The best are Jonathan Phillips’ The First Crusade: Origins and Impact(Manchester, 1997), Michel Balard’s Autour de la Première Croisade (Paris, 1996), and Alan Murray’s From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies (Turnhout, 1998). Other edited volumes to recommend include Crusade and Settlement, edited by Peter Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), and The Experience of Crusading, edited by Marcus Bull, Norman Housely and Jonathan Phillips, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 2003). Also see Thomas Madden’s well-chosen collection of essays by leading scholars, The Crusades(Oxford, 2002). Alan Murray’s bibliography for the First Crusade is also invaluable.
Modern Byzantine and Arab historians have written surprisingly little about this subject. One exception is Jonathan Harris’ clear and useful Byzantium and the Crusades (London, 2003). Not to be missed is Paul Magdalino’s ‘The Byzantine background to the First Crusade’, in Canadian Institute of Balkan Studies (Toronto, 1996), pp. 3–38. Likewise Ralph-Johannes Lilie’s excellent study of Byzantine relations with the Crusaders, first published in German in 1981, available in a fine translation as Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096–1204 (tr. Morris and Ridings, Oxford, 1993). Carole Hillenbrand’s The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh, 1999) is extremely helpful in looking at the west from the east.
Sources for the First Crusade
Anna Comnena by Georgina Buckler (Oxford, 1929) is still the only major monograph on the Alexiad and is excellent on the mechanics of the text, though less so on its interpretation. An important paper from the Belfast colloquium on Alexios I is essential, raising difficult questions about the composition of the text. The article by James Howard-Johnston in Margaret Mullett and Dion Smythe (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos (Belfast, 1996) is important and should be read alongside a slim but invaluable collection of essays edited by Thalia Gouma-Peterson, Anna Komnene and Her Times (New York, 2000). John France’s ‘Anna Comnena, the Alexiad and the First Crusade’, Reading Medieval Studies 10 (1984), pp. 20–38 gives a western Crusade view of the text.
The best major deconstruction of the Alexiad’s chronology was done by Iakov Liubarskii ‘Zamechaniya k khronologii XI Knigi “Aleksiada” Anny Komninoi’, Vizantiiskii Vremennik 24 (1963), pp. 46–56, who examined the problems of Book XI of the Alexiad. This is reprised and advanced by Lilie in Appendix 1 of Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 259–76. The mistakes in the positioning of individual episodes elsewhere in the text have been noted by David Gress-Wright, ‘Bogomilism in Constantinople’,Byzantion 47 (1977), pp. 163–85; P. Gautier, ‘Discours de Théophylacte de Bulgarie’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 20 (1962), esp. pp. 99–103; J. Gouillard, ‘L’Abjuration du moine Nil le Calabrais’, Travaux et Mémoires 2 (1968), pp. 290–303. Liubarskii’s ‘Ob istochnikakh “Aleksiady” Anny Komninoi’, Vizantiiskii Vremennik 25 (1965), pp. 99–120 remains the best attempt to identify the range of sources available to Anna Komnene, as well as picking up on several other instances where the Alexiad is chronologically flawed. A major new study of Anna Komnene’s work is needed to identify the full extent of the problems of the history’s sequence of events.
For the western narrative sources for the Crusade, a good starting point is Colin Morris, ‘The Gesta Francorum as Narrative History’, Reading Medieval Studies 19 (1993), pp. 55–72. More recently, however, see John France’s ‘The anonymous Gesta Francorumand the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers and the Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere of Peter Tudebode: An analysis of the textual relationship between primary sources for the First Crusade’, in J. France and W. Zajac (eds.),The Crusades and their Sources: Essays presented to Bernard Hamilton (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 39–69. Also see France’s ‘The use of the anonymous Gesta Francorum in the early twelfth-century sources for the First Crusade’, in Alan Murray, From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies (Turnhout, 1998). pp. 29–42 and most recently, Jay Rubenstein, ‘What is the Gesta Francorum and who was Peter Tudebode?’, Revue Mabillon 16 (2005), pp. 179–204.
For Albert of Aachen, see Sue Edgington, ‘Albert of Aachen reappraised’, in Murray, From Clermont to Jerusalem, pp. 55–67. Also see Edgington’s ‘The First Crusade: Reviewing the evidence’, in Phillips, First Crusade, pp. 57–77, and Marc Carrier’s ‘L’image d’Alexis Ier Comnène selon le chroniqueur Albert d’Aix’, Byzantion 78 (2008), pp. 34–65. See R. Chazan, ‘The Hebrew First Crusade Chronicles’, Revue des Etudes Juives 133 (1974), pp. 235–54. Also Hillenbrand’s ‘The First Crusade: The Muslim perspective’, in Phillips, First Crusade, pp. 130–41.
The letter from Alexios I to Robert of Flanders has been roundly dismissed, Peter Schreiner, ‘Der Brief des Alexios I Komnenos an den Grafen Robert von Flandern und das Problem gefälschter byzantinischer Kaiserschreiben in den westlichen Quellen’, and Christian Gastgeber, ‘Das Schreiben Alexios I. Komnenos an Robert I. Flandern. Sprachliche Untersuchung’, both in Giuseppe de Gregorio and Otto Kresten (eds.), Documenti medievali Greci e Latini: Studi Comparativi (Spoleto, 1998), pp. 111–40, 141–85, though also see Carole Sweetenham, ‘Two letters calling Christians on Crusade’, in Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 215–18. Both however consider the Byzantine position in Asia Minor to be positively healthy in the early 1090s. Note therefore Michel de Waha, ‘La lettre d’Alexis Comnène à Robert Ier le Frison’, Byzantion 47 (1977), pp. 113–25.
The papacy and western Europe at the time of the First Crusade
There are any number of outstanding studies about Europe on the eve of the Crusade. For the papacy, H. E. J. Cowdrey’s Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998) and Alfons Becker’s magisterial Papst Urban II 1088–99, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1964–88) are essential. Cowdrey’s The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the Papacy and the Normans in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries (Oxford, 1983) is important, as is Josef Deér’s Papsttum und Normannen: Untersuchungen zu ihren lehnsrechtlichen und kirchenpolitischen Beziehungen (Cologne, 1972). Ian Robinson’s The Papacy 1073–1198 (Cambridge, 1990) provides a convincing commentary on Rome’s struggles in this period. The same author’s Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106 (Cambridge, 1999) is excellent on the crises in Europe in the late eleventh century. The collected works of Timothy Reuter, edited by Janet Nelson, Medieval Polities and Modern Mentalities (Cambridge, 2006), and Karl Leyser, edited by Reuter, in Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Gregorian Revolution and Beyond (London, 1994) offer much food for thought.
Steven Runciman’s Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Oxford, 1955) still provides a clear narrative of the events of 1054, though Henry Chadwick’s East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence (Oxford, 2003) puts the schism in a wider context. Also worth seeing here is Aristeides Papadakis and John Meyendorff, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071–1453(New York, 1994) and above all Axel Bayer’s Spaltung der Christenheit: Das sogenannte Morgenländische Schisma von 1054 (Cologne, 2002). Tia Kolbaba’s The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana, 2000) is helpful on the rivalry between the Eastern and Western churches. For the investiture crisis, see Ute-Renata Blumenthal’s The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia, 1988) and Gerd Tellenbach, The Western Church from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1993).
The Byzantine Empire in the late eleventh century
The Oxford History of Byzantium, edited by Cyril Mango (Oxford, 2002) and the Cambridge History of Byzantine Empire, c.500–1492, edited by Jonathan Shepard (Cambridge, 2008) provide introductions to the Byzantine Empire in general that are clear and often provocative. Angeliki Laiou’s The Economic History of Byzantium, From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century, 3 vols. (Washington, DC, 2002) is also excellent, if monumental.
There are some outstanding collections of essays on Constantinople. See Cyril Mango’s Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot 1993), and his Constantinople and its Hinterland (Aldershot, 1995) (with Gilbert Dagron). Paul Magdalino’s Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine Constantinople (Aldershot, 2007) offers much that is original and provocative. For a more general survey, see Jonathan Harris, Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium (London, 2007).
For the later eleventh century, the best secondary work is Jean-Claude Cheynet’s Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance 963–1210 (Paris, 1990). Alexander Kazhdan’s seminal work on the Byzantine aristocracy is available in an Italian translation, L’aristocrazia bizantina: dal principio dell’XI alla fine del XII secolo (tr. Silvia Ronchey, Palermo, 1997). Jonathan Shepard’s brilliant ‘Aspects of Byzantine attitudes and policy towards the West in the 10th and 11th Centuries’, Byzantinische Forschungen 13 (1988), pp. 67–118 is a fine introduction to Byzantine attitudes to foreigners. Also see the same scholar’s ‘The uses of the Franks in 11th Century Byzantium’, Anglo-Norman Studies 15 (1992), pp. 275–305, ‘“Father” or “Scorpion”? Style and substance in Alexios’ diplomacy’, in Mullett and Smythe, Alexios, pp. 68–132, and ‘Cross-purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade’, in Phillips, First Crusade, pp. 107–29. Krinje Ciggaar’s Western Travellers to Constantinople: The West & Byzantium, 962–1204 (Leiden, 1996) shows just how cosmopolitan the city was in this period.
The reign of Alexios I Komnenos
Ferdinand Chalandon’s Essai sur le règne d’Alexis I Comnène (Paris, 1900) is still the last major monograph on Alexios’ rule. It remains lucid and very helpful. The proceedings of the 1989 Belfast symposium which appear in the Mullett and Smythe volume,Alexios I Komnenos, are excellent and contain a series of thought-provoking and important papers, above all those of Magdalino, Shepard, Macrides and Angold. I have written challenging the view of the emperor’s family as the bedrock of Alexios’ rule, highlighting the disgrace of members of his inner circle on the eve of the Crusade, P. Frankopan, ‘Kinship and the distribution of power in Komnenian Byzantium’, English Historical Review 495 (2007), pp. 1–34.
For the army under Alexios and his successors, John Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081–1180 (Leiden, 2002), though Armin Hohlweg, Beiträge zur Verwaltunsgeschichte des oströmischen Reiches unter den Komnenen (Munich, 1965) still has much to say. Paul Magdalino’s The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143–1180 (Cambridge, 1993) is worth reading not only for Alexios’ successors, but also as a backdrop to the composition of the Alexiad. For this, also see Paul Stephenson, ‘The Alexiad as a source for the Second Crusade’, Journal of Medieval History 45 (2003), pp. 41–54.
On the economy, see Alan Harvey, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire (900–1200) (Cambridge, 1989) and his important piece on ‘The land and taxation in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos: The evidence of Theophylakt of Ochrid’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 51 (1993), pp. 139–54. Michael Metcalf’s Coinage in South-Eastern Europe (Oxford, 1979) is still essential, as is his article ‘The reformed gold coinage of Alexius I Comnenus’, in Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik, vol. 16 (1962), pp. 271–84. For the debasement of the currency in the eleventh century, see Cécile Morrisson, ‘La Dévaluation de la monnaie byzantine au XIe siècle’, Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976), pp. 3–29.
Byzantium and its neighbours
Claude Cahen’s seminal ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie Mineure’, Byzantion 18 (1948), pp. 5–67 dominated assessment of Asia Minor in the eleventh century, charting the rise of Turkish pressure before and after the battle of Manzikert. Jean-Claude Cheynet offered the first important corrective in ‘Manzikert: un désastre militaire?’, Byzantion 50 (1980), pp. 410–38. More recently, the same historian has gone further with ‘La résistance aux Turcs en Asie Mineure entre Mantzikert et la Première Croisade’, inEupsykhia: Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler 2 vols. (Paris, 1998), 1, pp. 131–47. Both provide crucial re-evaluations about the Turks and about Asia Minor. The importance of relying on archaeological evidence, as well as on the text, is clear from the work of Clive Foss, including ‘The defences of Asia Minor against the Turks’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 27 (1982), pp. 145–205. New material from sites such as Strobilos, Sagalassos, Ephesus and elsewhere continue to challenge accepted views about the nature, extent and timing of Turkish settlement in Anatolia. For the rising pressure on Byzantium to the north of Constantinople, see Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier (Cambridge, 2000) which has supplanted previous works by scholars from this region.
The Norman conquest of southern Italy is brilliantly set out by Hartmut Hoffmann in ‘Die Anfänge der Normannen in Süditalien’, in Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibiliotheken, 47 (1967), pp. 95–144, though Graham Loud’s pioneering work has moved this on in recent years, for example, The Latin Church in Norman Italy (Cambridge, 2007) and ‘Coinage, wealth and plunder in the age of Robert Guiscard’, English Historical Review, 114 (1999), pp. 815–43. Also see his The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (Singapore, 2000). Jean-Marie Martin’s La Pouille du VIe au XIIe siècles (Rome, 1993) remains the benchmark for surveys of south-eastern Italy. The recent article by Paul Oldfield, ‘Urban government in southern Italy, c.1085–c.1127’, English Historical Review 122 (2007), pp. 579–608 also offers interesting insights into Norman control of southern Italy, as does his book City and Community in Norman Italy (Cambridge, 2009).
For Byzantine relations with the Normans, see Huguette Taviani-Carozzi, La Terreur du monde – Robert Guiscard et la conquête normande en Italie (Paris, 1997). Articles by William McQueen, ‘Relations between the Normans and Byzantium 1071–1112’,Byzantion 56 (1986), pp. 427–76, and Matthew Bennett, ‘Norman naval activity in the Mediterranean c.1060–1108’, Anglo-Norman Studies 15 (1992), pp. 41–58 offer helpful examinations of the attacks on Byzantium.
The trade treaty with Venice is of crucial importance, and has been looked at exhaustively. Thomas Madden’s ‘The chrysobull of Alexius I Comnenus to the Venetians: The date and the debate’, Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002), pp. 23–41 is excellent; however, I have major doubts about the internal evidence in the text of the grant, not least about the date; see my article, ‘Byzantine trade privileges to Venice in the eleventh century: The chrysobull of 1092’, Journal of Medieval History 30 (2004), pp. 135–60. For concerns about other episodes in the 1090s, all stemming from problems with the chronology of the Alexiad, see pieces I have written on ‘The Fall of Nicaea and the towns of western Asia Minor to the Turks in the later 11th Century: The curious case of Nikephoros Melissenos’, Byzantion 76 (2006), pp. 153–84, and also ‘Challenges to imperial authority in Byzantium: Revolts on Crete and Cyprus at the end of the 11th Century’, Byzantion 74 (2004), pp. 382–402.
The First Crusade
In addition to the general works on the First Crusade noted above are added works that focus on specific aspects of the expedition. For the Council of Clermont and Pope Urban in France in 1095–6, see André Vauchez (ed.), Le Concile de Clermont de 1095 et l’appel à la Croisade: Actes du Colloque Universitaire International de Clermont-Ferrand (Rome, 1997). Many scholars cover the Crusade message very well, such as Penny Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land (Cambridge, Mass., 1991), though also see H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II’s preaching of the First Crusade’, History 55 (1970), pp. 177–88 and Robert Somerville, ‘The Council of Clermont and the First Crusade’, Studia Gratiana 20 (1976), pp. 323–7.
For the reactions and motivations of those who took part in the expedition, see Jonathan Riley-Smith, ‘The motives of the earliest crusaders and the settlement of Latin Palestine, 1095–1100’, English Historical Review 98 (1983), pp. 721–36; his ‘The idea of Crusading in the Charters of Early Crusaders’, in Vauchez, Concile de Clermont, pp. 155–66 is useful as well, as is Christopher Tyerman, ‘Who went on crusades to the Holy Land?’, in Horns of Hattin, pp. 13–26. Marcus Bull’s Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade: The Limousin and Gascony (Oxford, 1993) provides a compelling and meticulous view of one region of France. Also note John France, ‘Les origines de la Première Croisade: un nouvel examen’, in Balard, Autour de la Première Croisade, pp. 43–56.
For millenarianism in the late eleventh century, see Hannes Möhring, Der Weltkaiser der Endzeit: Entstehung Wandel und Wirkung einer tausendjährigen Weissagung (Stuttgart, 2000), and Brett Whalen, Dominion of God: Christendom and Apocalypse in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass., 2009). For more specialised studies on the impact and origins of the First Crusade, see Michele Gabriele, ‘Against the enemies of Christ: The role of Count Emicho in the Anti-Jewish Violence of the First Crusade’, in M. Frassetto (ed.), Christian Attitudes towards the Jews in the Middle Ages: A Casebook (Abingdon, 2007), pp. 61–82 and Robert Chazan, ‘“Let not a remnant or a residue escape”: Millenarian enthusiasm in the First Crusade’, Speculum 84 (2009), pp. 289–313.
Several recommendations can be made when it comes to practical issues to do with the expedition. Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, edited by John Pryor (Aldershot, 2006) is a good start. Also see Alan Murray, ‘The army of Godfrey of Bouillon 1096–9: Structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’histoire 70 (1992), pp. 30–29; Jonathan Riley-Smith, ‘First Crusaders and the costs of crusading’, in Michael Goodrich, Sophia Menache and Syvlie Schein, Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period (New York, 1995), pp. 237–57; Matthew Bennett, ‘Travel and transport of the Crusades’, Medieval History 4 (1994), pp. 91–101; John Nesbitt, ‘The rate of march of crusading armies in Europe: A study and computation’, Traditio 19 (1963), pp. 167– 82 all raise sensible questions, as do Karl Leyser, ‘Money and supplies on the First Crusade’, in Communications and Power, pp. 83–94 and Sue Edgington, ‘Medical knowledge in the crusading armies: The evidence of Albert of Aachen and others’ in Malcolm Barber (ed.), The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick(Aldershot, 1994), pp. 320–6.
For Peter the Hermit, see M. D. Coupe, ‘Peter the Hermit, a reassessment’ Nottingham Medieval Studies 31 (1987), pp. 37–45, Ernest Blake and Colin Morris, ‘A hermit goes to war: Peter and the origins of the First Crusade’, Studies in Church History 22 (1985), pp. 79–107, Jean Flori, Pierre l’Eremite et la Première Croisade (Paris, 1999), and Jay Rubenstein, ‘How, or how much, to re-evaluate Peter the Hermit’, in Susan Ridyard (ed.), The Medieval Crusade (Woodbridge, 2004) pp. 53–70. Biographical studies of the various Crusade leaders can be hit and miss and have been an unpopular genre in recent decades. Nevertheless, Ralph Yewdale’s Bohemond I: Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924) is enduringly charming. Jean Flori’s Bohémond d’Antioche: Chevalier d’aventure(Paris, 2007) is more up to date. For Raymond of Toulouse, John and Laurita Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse, 1962). For Robert of Normandy, William Aird’s recent Robert ‘Curthose’, Duke of Normandy (c.1050–1134) (Woodbridge, 2008). For Godfrey of Bouillon, Pierre Aubé, Godefroy de Bouillon (Paris, 1985).
The massacres of the Jewish communities are covered by Robert Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkeley, 1987) and Gerd Mentgen, ‘Die Juden des Mittelrhein-Mosel-Gebietes im Hochmittelalter unter besonder Berücksichtigung der Kreuzzugsverfolgungen’, Monatshefte für Evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes 44 (1995), pp. 37–75. Eva Haverkamp’s Hebräische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während des Ersten Kreuzzugs (Hanover, 2005) is now the seminal work on the pogroms of 1096.
For relations with Alexios in Constantinople, John Pryor, ‘The oath of the leaders of the Crusade to the Emperor Alexius Comnenus: Fealty, homage’, Parergon 2 (1984), pp. 111–41 is sensible, as is Ralph-Johannes Lilie, ‘Noch einmal zu dem Thema “Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten”’,Poikila Byzantina 4 (1984), pp. 121–74. Absolutely crucial, however, is Jonathan Shepard’s ‘When Greek meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemund in 1097–8’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988), pp. 185–277.
On Antioch, see Bernard Bachrach, ‘The siege of Antioch: A study in military demography’, War in History 6 (1999), pp. 127–46; John France, ‘The departure of Tatikios from the Crusader army’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 44 (1971), pp. 137–47; Geoffrey Rice, ‘A note on the battle of Antioch, 28 June 1098: Bohemund as tactical innovator’, Parergon 25 (1979), pp. 3–8. Randall Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare in the 12th Century (Oxford, 1992), is an excellent guide to siege warfare of this period and the efforts against Nicaea and Antioch in particular.
For the kingdom established in the east in 1099 Jerusalem, Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (New York, 1972); Jean Richard, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (London, 1979); Alan Murray, The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099–1125 (Oxford, 2000). For Antioch, see Thomas Asbridge’s excellent The Creation of the Principality of Antioch 1098–1130 (Woodbridge, 2000). Also see the important recent work by Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance (Philadelphia, 2008). For the patriarch of Jerusalem, see Michael Matzke, Daibert von Pisa: Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug (Sigmaringen, 1998).
For the Italian city-states, see Marie-Louise Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im Heiligen Land vom ersten Kreuzzug bis zum Tode Heinrichs von Champagne (1098–1197) (Amsterdam, 1988); for their relations with Byzantium, Ralph-Johannes Lilie’s Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und der Angeloi (1081–1204) (Amsterdam, 1984) is still hard to beat.
For the Bohemond expedition against Byzantium, see John Rowe, ‘Paschal II, Bohemund of Antioch and the Byzantine Empire’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 49 (1966), pp. 165–202. Also see Luigi Russo, ‘Il viaggio di Boemundo d’Altavilla in Francia’, Archivio storico italiano 603 (2005), pp. 3–42.
For the creation of the history of the First Crusade, see James Powell, ‘Myth, legend, propaganda, history: The First Crusade, 1140–c.1300’, in Autour de la Première Croisade, pp. 127–41, and also two outstanding articles by Nicholas Paul, ‘Crusade, memory and regional politics in twelfth-century Amboise’, Journal of Medieval History 31 (2005), pp. 127–41, and also ‘A warlord’s wisdom: Literacy and propaganda at the time of the First Crusade’, Speculum 85 (2010), pp. 534–66.