Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Baldwin I

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Originally posted by Count of Flande
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.)
Click to expand...

I think he was heavily in debt because of the mini-war it took to secure his uncle's inheritance against Matilda and her partisans (Margravate of Antwerp, Duchy of Lower Lotharingia, County of Verdun, etc). But yes, every example I can think of demonstrates his personal prowess but not necessarily leadership abilities.

At the Battle of the Elster (1080), he cut the Anti-king Rudolf's sword-hand off, wounding him so severely he died shortly after, which turned Henry IV's tactical defeat into a strategic victory and literally won him Germany at a stroke. He ended Henry's 3-year siege of Rome by personally leading the imperial troops over the walls (1084), and fought with the Emperor in Italy again in 1090-. He was in charge of the fighting in Lotharingia 1076-1089 against the Count of Namur, Bishop of Verdun, and Matilda's other partisans, but I dont know any details except that he eventually won...
 
Thank you Barbarossa, I had no idea why he was in so much debt. But let me ask you, didn't he get the title of Duke of Lorraine after he gave good military service to the emperor? (he was only Margrave oif Antwerp before).
There is always one big problem with Godfrey in the crusades: he was made a legend by the church. The church needed a shining example a pious christian knight for its "propaganda". He was bBombarded as one of the three heroes of medieval times (the others being Charlemagne and Arthur IIRC). This has as an effect that many of the legends/written histories were seriously exeggerated (not sure about the pre-crusade ones though).
Problem is he became this hero by lack of better candidates: Bohemund was a Norman and as such still viewed as a brutal barbarian by the Church, Raymond of Toulouse wasn't very well liked, Robert was too young and lacked dedication while Godfrey seemed to have been a real pious man.
 
Originally posted by Count of Flande
Thank you Barbarossa, I had no idea why he was in so much debt. But let me ask you, didn't he get the title of Duke of Lorraine after he gave good military service to the emperor? (he was only Margrave oif Antwerp before).
There is always one big problem with Godfrey in the crusades: he was made a legend by the church. The church needed a shining example a pious christian knight for its "propaganda". He was bBombarded as one of the three heroes of medieval times (the others being Charlemagne and Arthur IIRC). This has as an effect that many of the legends/written histories were seriously exeggerated (not sure about the pre-crusade ones though).
Problem is he became this hero by lack of better candidates: Bohemund was a Norman and as such still viewed as a brutal barbarian by the Church, Raymond of Toulouse wasn't very well liked, Robert was too young and lacked dedication while Godfrey seemed to have been a real pious man.
Click to expand...

Godfrey III, Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Margrave of Antwerp, & Count of Verdun, also had claims to Upper Lotharingia (held by his father & grandfather) & the Matildine lands in Italy. His father, Godfrey II, married Matilda's mother, while Godfrey III married Matilda. Since this marriage was childless, he named his nephew Godfrey IV his heir.

Matilda & the Pope opposed this, since the Godfreys supported Henry IV. Her papist partisans in Lotharingia, Count of Namur, Bishop of Verdun, etc., fought Godfrey IV for the inheritance. This, and the fact that Godfrey IV was only 15, prompted Henry to keep Lotharingia himself until the lad proved old or capable enough to control it. Godfrey got the family castle at Bouillon & the March of Antwerp, but not the Duchy, which was temporarily bestowed on Henry's young son Conrad pending settlement of the dispute.

Godfrey now fought with Henry against the Anti-king in Germany, killing him at the Elster (1080); in Italy, he helped deprive Matilda of Tuscany (1081), and personally ended the siege of Rome (1084). With the Pope & Matilda temporarily neutralized, Godfrey squashed resistance in Lower Lotharingia, enabling Henry to force a settlement: Godfrey finally got his uncle's Duchy, but the County of Verdun (in Upper Lotharingia) was given to its Bishop.

So its actually funny that he went down in history as a hero of the church, since he'd spent his youth fighting for Henry IV, killing the Anti-king, driving the Pope from Rome, and kicking Matilda's ass. Had he not gone on the 1st Crusade, he probably wouldve ended up excommunicated!
 
Last edited:
I personally think it's interesting that Bohemond is the only one of the crusaders that Anna actually respected in her writing, seeing as he was the enemy of the Byzantines and spent most of his life chopping up Italians and Greeks in Sicily and Southern Italy.
 
Originally posted by cato
Bohemond was not a 20th-21st century push button general , but a King who led from the front. One can admire his courage, if nothing else.
Click to expand...
Bohemond was probably the greatest leader of his time, and a dazzling persona too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back