Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy — Story, Setting & Ideas

The Chroniclers' Contradictions

The excerpts reveal David's primary method: juxtaposing medieval accounts to expose their biases. For the invasion of 1101, Ordericus describes a chivalric scene where the brothers meet 'remotis omnibus arbitris,' exchanging 'sweet kisses,' while English sources like Eadmer portray Robert as deterred by the threat of excommunication and the loyalty of English subjects. David notes that Ordericus's noble envoys 'turned out to be base traitors, who desired war rather than peace,' a detail absent from other records. The author does not simply harmonize these versions; he declares one unreliable, citing Ordericus's 'fundamental disagreement' with the English tradition. This forensic approach extends to small details: Wace's chivalric anecdote about Robert refusing to attack Queen Matilda in childbed is checked against Ramsay's chronology, which shows the child was not yet born. David treats even picturesque stories as evidence to be tested.

Robert's Character Through Action

Rather than offering direct psychological portraits, David lets actions and contemporary judgments speak. William of Malmesbury's assessment is quoted: Robert 'trusted more in the perfidy of others than in his own industry.' The duke's decision to abandon battle at Alton is presented through multiple lenses—Eadmer mentions Anselm's threat of excommunication, while Ordericus blames treacherous intermediaries. David's own voice emerges in footnotes that weigh probabilities, as when he dismisses Freeman's attempt to reconcile the accounts. The reader sees a leader who 'destitit praelio, descivit a negotio' (withdrew from battle, desisted from the enterprise), a pattern that the sources attribute variously to piety, prudence, or weakness. David does not resolve the ambiguity but instead highlights how each chronicler shaped Robert's image to serve their narrative—Ordericus favoring Norman honor, English writers emphasizing Anselm's authority and Henry's legitimacy.

The Weight of Scholarly Apparatus

The text is embedded in a thick web of citation: the excerpts alone reference Ordericus, Florence of Worcester, Henry of Huntingdon, Eadmer, William of Malmesbury, Wace, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, often with multiple page numbers per note. David engages with modern historians like Freeman and Ramsay, correcting or rejecting their interpretations. The footnotes sometimes run longer than the main text, as in the extended discussion of the 1101 peace negotiations. This apparatus serves a dual purpose: it demonstrates the evidentiary basis for each claim and reveals the gaps and contradictions in the record. For readers accustomed to narrative history, the density of citation may feel obstructive, but it is integral to David's project of reconstructing Robert's career from fragmentary, partisan sources. The work is as much about the craft of historical writing as about its ostensible subject.

Readers should approach this biography as a case study in source criticism rather than a straightforward life story. David's meticulous footnoting rewards those who follow the arguments into the apparatus, where the real drama of conflicting evidence plays out. The book assumes familiarity with Norman and Anglo-Norman history; newcomers may benefit from first consulting a general account of the period. Pay particular attention to how David handles Ordericus—his most colorful source and his most suspect.

Sometimes, shelving Robert Curthose beside Vahram's chronicle of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia, during the time of the Crusades. — Reading Companion, I think of how both men watched their fathers’ certainties crumble. One duke, one chronicler—each left standing at history’s edge, holding a frayed thread of legacy. Quietly, they share that loneliness of being remembered only sideways.