From what I gather a truly talented military and political leader. Interesting to see how CK rates him.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd rate him as a fierce, but foolhardy, warrior with quite decent administrative skills but not much of a politician myself...
Very interesting, thanks, Norgesvenn...
I'd rate him as a strong leader, clever leader. He made sure his vassals stayed loyal and didn't get too much power and reduced the power of the church in Outremer to virtually nothing.
Built Outremer on looting and plunder to fill the royal coffers. He used the new crusader armies to great effect to expand the kingdom. In defence he took some serious gambles, but pretty much won them all (except Ramleh II) while always being horrendously outnumbered in all of them.
He was rightfully feared bvy his enemies, in my opinion one of the greatest leaders in history, although he did have some luck at crucial moments.
Built Outremer on looting and plunder to fill the royal coffers. He used the new crusader armies to great effect to expand the kingdom. In defence he took some serious gambles, but pretty much won them all (except Ramleh II) while always being horrendously outnumbered in all of them.
He was rightfully feared bvy his enemies, in my opinion one of the greatest leaders in history, although he did have some luck at crucial moments.
Not surprising coming from someone who's screen name is Count de Flande.
He seems more like a loose cannon. But he was competent.
Re: Re: Baldwin I
He seemed politically astute enough to position himself as Count of Edessa.
He seemed politically astute enough to position himself as Count of Edessa.
Re: Re: Re: Baldwin I
That didn't come from his political skills. He was asked to take it because of his reputation as a fierce warrior.Originally posted by Sonny
He seemed politically astute enough to position himself as Count of Edessa.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Baldwin I
I would think his main weaknesses would be weak foreign diplomacy (unless you consider scaring your neighbours pants off as diplomacy) and sometimes reckless behaviour in battle, putting both his army (Outremer couldn't spare a single knight), and even worse himself in serious danger on a couple of occasions.
btw Sonny why is it logical I would support Baldwin I, he wasn't really Flemish.
Still he managed to get the support of almost all the nobles in Edessa even before he could prove his worth in battle. btw in the middle ages a strong warrior was considered a strong politician. And as king he managed to reduce the power of the church.
I would think his main weaknesses would be weak foreign diplomacy (unless you consider scaring your neighbours pants off as diplomacy) and sometimes reckless behaviour in battle, putting both his army (Outremer couldn't spare a single knight), and even worse himself in serious danger on a couple of occasions.
btw Sonny why is it logical I would support Baldwin I, he wasn't really Flemish.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baldwin I
So you mean he had never fought in a battle before going on a crusade?
So you mean he had never fought in a battle before going on a crusade?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baldwin I
By downgrading him as a diplomat I was referring to foreign diplomacy, yes. Internal affair is administration
It is a fact that without him there is a good chance the Kingdom of Jerusalem had never been born - no less survived for almost 200 years. When he acceded to the throne the realm was only scattered islands of possessions in a sea of enemies. He organised the nobility, wrested enough power away from the church to have a kingdom to rule and conquered large swaths of land to tie the crusader lands together.
It is also a known fact that it was only with extreme luck he survived to do so
Originally posted by Count of Flande
Still he managed to get the support of almost all the nobles in Edessa even before he could prove his worth in battle. btw in the middle ages a strong warrior was considered a strong politician. And as king he managed to reduce the power of the church.
I would think his main weaknesses would be weak foreign diplomacy (unless you consider scaring your neighbours pants off as diplomacy) and sometimes reckless behaviour in battle, putting both his army (Outremer couldn't spare a single knight), and even worse himself in serious danger on a couple of occasions.
btw Sonny why is it logical I would support Baldwin I, he wasn't really Flemish.
By downgrading him as a diplomat I was referring to foreign diplomacy, yes. Internal affair is administration
It is a fact that without him there is a good chance the Kingdom of Jerusalem had never been born - no less survived for almost 200 years. When he acceded to the throne the realm was only scattered islands of possessions in a sea of enemies. He organised the nobility, wrested enough power away from the church to have a kingdom to rule and conquered large swaths of land to tie the crusader lands together.
It is also a known fact that it was only with extreme luck he survived to do so
With the heavy reliance on essentially random (?) family trees, what are the chances that Baldwin I, or any other particular historical personality, will make an appearance in a given game?
As I understand it 100% if the personality exists at scenario starting date. 0% else.
Let's allow some room for the occasional error... maybe 95-98%?Originally posted by Nikolai II
As I understand it 100% if the personality exists at scenario starting date. 0% else.
In the case of Baldwin I'm sure it's a 100%. He was AFAIK 7-8 years old in 1066
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baldwin I
Of course he had, but how could the armenians have known about that? CNN didn't exist back then you know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baldwin I
Rumors and reputations had ways of getting about, it was the day to day happenings that were lefts as blanks.
In this case a small (large) force of armored knights could have been a quick and easy evidence of military prowess
Originally posted by Count of Flande
Of course he had, but how could the armenians have known about that? CNN didn't exist back then you know.
Rumors and reputations had ways of getting about, it was the day to day happenings that were lefts as blanks.
In this case a small (large) force of armored knights could have been a quick and easy evidence of military prowess
I think he was driven by a simple ambition, at least at first. His two older brothers had already split the family inheritance, Eustace getting the paternal County of Boulogne and Godfrey the maternal Duchy of Lower Lotharingia.
Therefore, Baldwin needed a fief. His actions in Edessa show that this was probably on his mind more than defending the faith. Since it was only Godfrey's death which made Baldwin the real founder of the kingdom, I wonder what wouldve happened had Godfrey survived? Judging by his performance in Germany & Italy before the Crusade, he was a great warrior.
Therefore, Baldwin needed a fief. His actions in Edessa show that this was probably on his mind more than defending the faith. Since it was only Godfrey's death which made Baldwin the real founder of the kingdom, I wonder what wouldve happened had Godfrey survived? Judging by his performance in Germany & Italy before the Crusade, he was a great warrior.
Last edited:
Godfrey was indeed a great warrior, and commanded the respect of his troops as such, but I think he was a poor administrator and strategist/tactician.
As to administrator: he was over his head in debdt before he left on Crusade, he had to sell his castle and "aqcuire" some money from the local Jews to fund his army.
As to strategist/tactician: whenever important strategical/tactical decision were made there is little mentionning of Godfrey. (whereas when there was some headbashing to be done he was on the first row)
Proof of his tactical incompetence is when he decided to charge the walls of Constantinople and, of course, failed. Only thing pro him here was how he handled the battle of Ascalon with a surprise attack that cought the much bigger Egyptian army completely off guard.
His diplomacy would be hard to rate, he wasn't king long enough. But he did handle the little conflict with the Hungarian King very diplomatically on his way to Constantinople.
@nikolay: I don't really believe in the rumours part (they hadn't been there long enough to be many rumours), but you do have a point: a man accompanied by even a small number of knights would be deemed a man of some significance. (I suppose the Armenians saw some pilgrim knights before and knew these guys were not to be trifled with.)
As to administrator: he was over his head in debdt before he left on Crusade, he had to sell his castle and "aqcuire" some money from the local Jews to fund his army.
As to strategist/tactician: whenever important strategical/tactical decision were made there is little mentionning of Godfrey. (whereas when there was some headbashing to be done he was on the first row)
Proof of his tactical incompetence is when he decided to charge the walls of Constantinople and, of course, failed. Only thing pro him here was how he handled the battle of Ascalon with a surprise attack that cought the much bigger Egyptian army completely off guard.
His diplomacy would be hard to rate, he wasn't king long enough. But he did handle the little conflict with the Hungarian King very diplomatically on his way to Constantinople.
@nikolay: I don't really believe in the rumours part (they hadn't been there long enough to be many rumours), but you do have a point: a man accompanied by even a small number of knights would be deemed a man of some significance. (I suppose the Armenians saw some pilgrim knights before and knew these guys were not to be trifled with.)