need urgent advice on research (+)

[unmerged(9428)]

Err... "Snatched"? Godfrey was elected by the other lords - I wouldn't call that a betrayal...

I doubt you know the whole story my friend. First Raymond was asked to to become king of Jerusalem. He however (thinking he it was clever move) denied the title because only God could be king in the city of God. He had hoped thereby to deny the others of the title as well and finally taking the title in an act of "self sacrificing piety".
But Godfrey cleverly didn't take the title of King of Jerusalem but took the title of regent to the crown of Jerusalem, thereby avoiding Raymond's trick. Raymond was furious and left immediately. You might say he fell in his own trap.
As for Damascus: it surely wasn't hostile at the time the lords decided to attack it. Unur of Damascus was allied with both Jerusalem and Nuradin (so his stance was neutral) and he tried to keep it that way.
You are right on this: why they decided to attack Damascus isn't entirely sure but there are strong indications that many (powerfull) local lords were against it but were "forced" to march against Damascus anyway.
It was a very stupid move since they didn't have the resources to take the city and Damascus now turned to Nuradins side completely.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Count of Flande
I doubt you know the whole story my friend. First Raymond was asked to to become king of Jerusalem. He however (thinking he it was clever move) denied the title because only God could be king in the city of God. He had hoped thereby to deny the others of the title as well and finally taking the title in an act of "self sacrificing piety".
But Godfrey cleverly didn't take the title of King of Jerusalem but took the title of regent to the crown of Jerusalem, thereby avoiding Raymond's trick. Raymond was furious and left immediately. You might say he fell in his own trap.

Well... On this the sources are not very clear... it was, in the words of Riley-Smith "a shadowy affair". He continues that the formal decition of arranging an election was made after a discussion between the leaders of the crusaders in the precence of the entire army, and that the choice fell on Godfrey, to Raymond's irritation. I know Runciman claim that Raymond was offered the throne first, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting that.

Why they chose Godfrey over Raymond is not known. Raymond was rich, but also old (closing in to 60 at the time) and chronically ill, while Godfrey had the financial backing of his brother Baldwin in Edessa and clearly a rising star. Many of the men supporting Raymond in the early period of the crusade now supported Godfrey instead.

There are no evidence to the assertion that Godfrey assumed the title of "Advocatus Sancti Sepulchre" (Protector of the Holy Grave). He himself appears to have titulated himself 'price' or 'duke'.

I guess we are not the only two that don't know the whole story then...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Count of Flande
.................
But Godfrey cleverly didn't take the title of King of Jerusalem but took the title of regent to the crown of Jerusalem, ..............

Godfrey is credited with taking the title of Advocatus Sancti Sepulcri instead of the King of Jerusalem.
It is doubtful that he acutally had that title. It is just one of those things in history where someone says it and from then on everyone believes it.

Since I had used that title (before the Ugly one changed it) I will say that I believe Godfrey didn't use the title but save it for me.

 

[unmerged(9428)]

Is there something opposite as an "idle" lord then. If so I think Baldwin I (maybe even Tancred) would fit the bill perfectly. A bold, high-risk taker which yielded very high profits in the end. I think we can safely say that Baldwin I strategy of bold raiding to fill up the kingdom's coffers and using the temporary crusader armies for expansion while taking big risks (and having some luck, like after the second battle at Ramleh) in defence of the kingdom gave Outremer a chance of survival against all odds. As his tombstone sums it up:

a second Judas Maccabaeus, whom Kedar and Egypt, Dan and Damascus dreaded.

 

[unmerged(11201)]

what about Louis V (the Do-Nothing)

986 - 987 Louis V (the Do-Nothing)

LOUIS V. (967-987), king of France, succeeded his father Lothair in March 986 at the age of nineteen, and finally embroiled the Carolingian dynasty with Hugh Capet and Adalberon, archbishop of Reims. From the absence of any important event in his one year's reign the medieval chroniclers designated him by the words " qui nihil fecit," i.e. " le Faineant " or " do-nothing." Louis died in May 987, his mother Emma being accused of having poisoned him. He had married Adelaide, sister of Geoffrey Grisegonelle, count of Anjou, but had no issue. His heir by blood was Charles, duke of Lower Lorraine, son of Louis IV., but the defection of the bishops and the treason of Adalberon (Ascelinus), bishop of Laon, assured the success of Hugh Capet.


As read on :
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_emma_franks.htm

In fact he didn't do a thing because he didn't have time to do anything...
What is more funny is that he set up a meeting in order to judge the treason of Adalberon but dieda few day before (how strange). The meeting took place anyway but instead of judging Adalberon they elected Hugues Capet as King of France...