She dispels the idea that Alexios took the Latin dukes and counts hostage or forced their oaths under duress; instead, she insists that the Latins were too talkative and that the 'infallible Alexius was not at fault in their delay (258). The Alexiad makes no mention of Alexios taking an oath, nor that the earls and dukes contested the oath as it was presented as a customary and expected part of the crusade. This connects to Comnena's motivation to exonerate her father from wrongdoings during his reign by showing him as a man of his word and contrasting him with those who are not. Motivated by prejudice for her father, Comnene displays relatively detailed knowledge of Bohemond and the siege of Antioch. From the first moment Bohemond is mentioned in the Alexia, Comnena displays great distrust and animosity towards him. This animosity parallels Alexia's earlier books in which Comnena foreshadows the conflict between Alexios and Bohemond during the First Crusade with tales of battles between Alexios and Bohemond's father. He highlights the unreliable way in which Bohemond secured the city and how he had always intended to take it for himself (279). Using this, Comnena justifies Alexius not coming to the aid of the crusaders by detailing his fear of the Turks.