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

How would you rate the Lionheart as a general?

  • 5 stars

    Votes: 13 16.7%
  • 4 stars

    Votes: 23 29.5%
  • 3 stars

    Votes: 18 23.1%
  • 2 stars

    Votes: 6 7.7%
  • 1 star

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

    Votes: 15 19.2%

  • Total voters
    78

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,281
Brassicaland
#42
Richard and his opponent Saladin were essentially mirrors of each other; Saladin the rather poor battlefield commander, but excellent politician; Richard the poor politician, but rather excellent battlefield commander. This basically results in a wash.
Was Saladin really this bad as a battlefield commander, though?
 
Nov 2011
4,653
Ohio, USA
#43
Was Saladin really this bad as a battlefield commander, though?
He lost at Montgisard (in 1177), and badly, in spite of hugely out-numbering his enemy. Plus, his victory at Hattin had at least as much to do with crusader incompetence as it did with the things he did correctly there. To be fair, I won't knock him too much for losing at Arsuf, as he was facing Richard, after all.

I probably exaggerated a little bit for clever effect there, but I certainly don't see Saladin as any more than mediocre on the battlefield, on the whole of it.
 
Sep 2009
300
London, England
#47
Richard was the better tactician, which helped him win battles against Saladin.

Saladin was the better strategist, which helped him win the war against Richard.
 
Jun 2014
1,221
VA
#48
Richard was the better tactician, which helped him win battles against Saladin.

Saladin was the better strategist, which helped him win the war against Richard.
What part of John causing malcontent in England forcing Richard to come to a compromise agreement was Saladin responsible for? Saladin also found it was time to come to a truce.
 
Aug 2014
525
Northumberland
#49
Richard I is vastly over-rated and In my opinion was not as good a field commander as possibly Edward I, Edward III or the Black Prince.
He may have had the charisma to lead men, won some notable actions but strategically he lost his campaign in the Crusade and failed to take Jerusalem.
He was'nt interested in ruling England, only its revenue to support his ventures and eventually got himself killed by venturing into crossbow range of the castle he was beseiging!

1 star.
 
Apr 2011
58
Berry Province, rural France
#50
..."venturing into crossbow range of the castle he was beseiging!" ?????

That's not the story I heard! Richard was killed in a place north of Nontron, my mother's birthplace, in the French province of PĂ©rigord, in the realm of Aquitaine, Richard's mother's dukedom. I have often driven past that ruin of a castle where he is said to have been killed. The story which goes around is that he had been ruthless with the local peasants and some guy wanted a revenge... or something to that effect. The bowman who shot Richard was subsequently skinned alive.

Don't quote me on that. It's probably not terribly historical.
 

Similar History Discussions