How would you rate King Richard I Lionheart as a general?

How would you rate the Lionheart as a general?

  • 5 stars

    Votes: 13 16.5%
  • 4 stars

    Votes: 24 30.4%
  • 3 stars

    Votes: 18 22.8%
  • 2 stars

    Votes: 6 7.6%
  • 1 star

    Votes: 4 5.1%
  • don't know enough to judge

    Votes: 15 19.0%

  • Total voters
    79

Salah

Forum Staff
Oct 2009
23,284
Maryland
#1
Of all the warlords who fought in the Crusades, Richard the Lionheart seems to have the best reputation - at least in terms of military ability. What are you thoughts on him?
 

Chookie

Ad Honorem
Nov 2007
7,628
Alba
#2
I give him one star as his main contribution was to get locked up in an Austrian castle. He also managed to damn near bankrupt England.

So, one star, and that only because I can't get any lower...
 

Labienus

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
6,479
Montreal, Canada
#3
He deserves the 1 star as a ruler. He was a horrible ruler. However, his generalship was brilliant, as he displayed it at Acre, Arsuf and Jaffa. Four stars here.
 
Dec 2009
19,933
#5
As stated on a related thread, the facts speak by themselves; he seems to have been a good tactician, but a lousy strategist.

His legacy was eloquent enough on that issue, particularly the treaty of Ramla; even if he got some nice victories over Salah ad-Din and Philip Augustus, on the long run both adversaries got the winning hand over him.
 

Labienus

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
6,479
Montreal, Canada
#7
As stated on a related thread, the facts speak by themselves; he seems to have been a good tactician, but a lousy strategist.

His legacy was eloquent enough on that issue, particularly the treaty of Ramla; even if he got some nice victories over Salah ad-Din and Philip Augustus, on the long run both adversaries got the winning hand over him.
Most historians agree that Richard could not win against Saladin: He had not enough men.
 
Dec 2009
19,933
#8
Most historians agree that Richard could not win against Saladin: He had not enough men.
Mostly because Richard had previously overtly clashed with the Germans and Frenchmen, not to tell the Roman Empire and even his own homeland; a lousy strategist indeed.
 

Labienus

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
6,479
Montreal, Canada
#9
Mostly because Philip Augustus got ill and returned to France with most of his army after Acre and that Frederick Barbarossa died crossing a river, removing about 15 000 men from the crusader's potential army.

That is the real reason he had a shortage of manpower.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2010
1,012
Cali
#10
Mostly because Richard had previously overtly clashed with the Germans and Frenchmen, not to tell the Roman Empire and even his own homeland; a lousy strategist indeed.
if anything that should give him the experience, plus it is not like Saladin was setting at home sipping on tea and enjoying the peace.
i believe sometimes when two great adversaries meet in battle or sport
they well take away from each others success. for example if Magic did not have to face Bird, he would have gotten couple more rings for sure. and i believe these two guys were so good that they got the best of each others

i would say 4 stars
 

Similar History Discussions