who was the greatest crusader?

celtman · Jul 17, 2006

who was the greatest crusader?

The greatest is in my opinion Richard I , even if some think that Raymond IV of Toulouse or Godfrey of Bouillon fit better in this title's description, because they succeeded in conquering Jerusalem, I think that Richard is close to the ideal image of a Crusader, noble and brave, of course I'm not saying that he didn't had bad parts also.

Ymeto · Jul 17, 2006

I would have to go with Godfrey. Not only was he a very good leader, but he was also not in the crusades for any personal gain, he did it for his religious beliefs. He was actually offered the title of King of Jerusalem, but would not take that title because he claimed Jesus was the only King.

The main problem with deciding who the greatest crusader is, is trying to deal with the fact that the Church at the time exaggerated everything.

Nikd · Jul 18, 2006

Ballian of Ibelen and Baldwin I, according to R. Grousse and Amin Manouf and historians in his time.

Melisende · Jul 25, 2007

Agree with Balian and Baldwin - however, as controversial as this may sound, Reynald of Chatillion.

He "aquired" two great fortresses and principalities, survived many years in an Aleppo dungeon, and was the scourge of Islam.

Belisarius · Jul 25, 2007

Melisende said:
Agree with Balian and Baldwin - however, as controversial as this may sound, Reynald of Chatillion.

He "aquired" two great fortresses and principalities, survived many years in an Aleppo dungeon, and was the scourge of Islam.

How does Reynald qualify? What were his good points?

Comet · Jul 25, 2007

I don't really consider any of the crusaders great...but I think if I had a choice I would go with Richard. His battles with Saladin are well known. Definitely a warrior.

I know Saladin wasn't a crusader, but I think he was the greatest individual during the crusades. He took Jerusalem without much bloodshed and was an excellent opponent to the crusaders.

Nikd · Jul 25, 2007

Comet said:
I don't really consider any of the crusaders great...but I think if I had a choice I would go with Richard. His battles with Saladin are well known. Definitely a warrior.

I know Saladin wasn't a crusader, but I think he was the greatest individual during the crusades. He took Jerusalem without much bloodshed and was an excellent opponent to the crusaders.

Agree with Saladin, he was without doubt the greatest man in this period.

bluestocking · Jul 26, 2007

Nikd said:
Agree with Saladin, he was without doubt the greatest man in this period.

I third the saladin vote. the crusaders as a whole behaved disgustingly.
my exception would be the children's crusaders - they'd be my favourites (mainly cos I wrote a thesis on them!

)

Melisende · Jul 26, 2007

Reynald was a survivor, and an opportunist. And succeeded in united Islam - against himself.

The First Crusade was the only successfuly crusade in that Jerusalem was recovered, though at a great cost, for Christianity. The Second and Third Crusades were failures, and the others, don't bear mentioning.

What about Baldwin IV - the "Leper King" - his reign was short and marred by a debilitating disease - yet he still managed to inspire.

Serathus · Sep 24, 2009

my favorite Crusaders by order

1 Richard the Lionheart. (yeah! he is the picture of a true crusader.)
2 Balian of Ibelin
3 Godfey of Bouillon
4 Baldwin of Jerusalem
5 Frederick Barbarossa (tho his success was outside the crusade.)

vera · Sep 24, 2009

celtman said:
who was the greatest crusader?

The greatest is in my opinion Richard I , even if some think that Raymond IV of Toulouse or Godfrey of Bouillon fit better in this title's description, because they succeeded in conquering Jerusalem, I think that Richard is close to the ideal image of a Crusader, noble and brave, of course I'm not saying that he didn't had bad parts also.

Out of curiosity, how do you define "brave and noble" in a crusader?

Chookie · Sep 24, 2009

vera said:
Out of curiosity, how do you define "brave and noble" in a crusader?

Greedy Bastard?

Labienus · Sep 24, 2009

For me, definitely Richard I. Probably the greatest warrior of the middle ages.

Serathus · Sep 24, 2009

Melisende said:
Reynald was a survivor, and an opportunist. And succeeded in united Islam - against himself.

The First Crusade was the only successfuly crusade in that Jerusalem was recovered, though at a great cost, for Christianity. The Second and Third Crusades were failures, and the others, don't bear mentioning.

What about Baldwin IV - the "Leper King" - his reign was short and marred by a debilitating disease - yet he still managed to inspire.

I also like baldwin IV... in the movie Kingdom of Heaven he mentioned that he beat Saladin when i think He was 15? is it true?

Melisende · Sep 24, 2009

Baldwin did succeed when still a young man - in his teens - though would need to check dates, etc as to how old he actually was when he was successful in his battles against Saladin.

gaius valerius · Sep 25, 2009

vera said:
Out of curiosity, how do you define "brave and noble" in a crusader?

Perhaps the number of infidels he slaughtered? I wonder also...

Ymeto said:
I would have to go with Godfrey. Not only was he a very good leader, but he was also not in the crusades for any personal gain, he did it for his religious beliefs. He was actually offered the title of King of Jerusalem, but would not take that title because he claimed Jesus was the only King.

This is simply wrong.

Godfrey had lost all at home, you know his title? Godfrey of Lorraine, well sadly Godfrey of Lorraine was bad in politics and had made himselve and enemy of the pope, in political terms that is, by giving support to what we can call 'the losing side', so the thing was, Godfrey of Bouillon as you also know him, had lost kinda everything at home, so no, he had a sort of personal gain outside his religious believes, it was a good way to redeem him in the eyes of the papacy and... there was nothing to go back to anyway.

Efendi · Sep 26, 2009

I think Frederic Barbarrossa was the Greater Crusader. He was the less harmfull one.

None of the warriors are greath. Because they are simply shame for humanism. (except for defensive attacks)

gaius valerius · Sep 27, 2009

Efendi said:
None of the warriors are greath. Because they are simply shame for humanism. (except for defensive attacks)

I think we should judge them by contemporary standards to the fullest extend possible: I can't expect to find humanistic values in "pre-declaration of the rights of men"-people.

Likewise however, I see no point in having a thread about the "greatest crusader", there was nothing particularly great about the crusades, and if you think there was, you should all go home, sit in corner, and feel very much ashamed.

What'll be the next topic? The greatest war criminal?

merged · Sep 27, 2009

A nobel crusader?

I think purifying the holy city of jeruslaem with the blood of infidels?

Of course the crusades are critizised, however you must remember that in centuries pervious the muslims didn't hesitate to wage ..... against europe. In the 700s the muslims did in fact declare a ..... against the franks as they had the nerve to defeat the all conquering muslim armies who had previous subjugated spain and portugal.

Also note that the many of the crusaders from the first crusade came from areas previously attacked by muslims, toulouse, taranto,

So the crusades was in a sense of the muslims getting a little bit of their own medicine back at them.

No need to feel any shame

gaius valerius · Sep 27, 2009

Celticguy said:
A nobel crusader?

I think purifying the holy city of jeruslaem with the blood of infidels?

Of course the crusades are critizised, however you must remember that in centuries pervious the muslims didn't hesitate to wage ..... against europe. In the 700s the muslims did in fact declare a ..... against the franks as they had the nerve to defeat the all conquering muslim armies who had previous subjugated spain and portugal.

Also note that the many of the crusaders from the first crusade came from areas previously attacked by muslims, toulouse, taranto,

So the crusades was in a sense of the muslims getting a little bit of their own medicine back at them.

No need to feel any shame

One doesn't need to be ashamed for it, but there is simply no reason to glorify it. And that the muslims waged ..... on Europe is also not really a reason to be proud of the crusades, one has nothing to do with the other in terms of moral judgements. This isn't about excuses.

Where the crusaders come from doesn't make any sense though. 300 years had past since the last muslim stronghold had been crushed north of the pyrenees. Crusaders came from all across Europe and there is no correlation between the earlier muslim invasions and the 1st crusades in terms of origins of the crusaders. There were a great deal of Germans and French that didn't hail from southern France and as far as Taranto is concerned: it were the Normans of Bohemund, invaders that had been around for only a generation or so. So this argument doesn't cut wood.

On another note 'holy war' wasn't new at all. The crusade wasn't the first holy war for christianity and remember also that the term crusade is an invention from another time, the word was never used by contemporaries. Even Charlemagne was waging holy war against the muslims on his Spanish campaign, the crusade in essence is a particular kind of holy war.

Search

Search

who was the greatest crusader?

celtman

Ymeto

Nikd

Melisende

Belisarius

Comet

Nikd

bluestocking

Melisende

Serathus

vera

Chookie

Labienus

Serathus

Melisende

gaius valerius

Efendi

gaius valerius

merged

gaius valerius

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions