Talk:Godfrey of Bouillon

message: I removed the biased comments against Raymond IV of Toulouse in the very last sentences of the "First Crusade" section. These views of Raymond as an angry, arrogant old man are not confirmed by the sources and are recognized by historians today as distortions popularized by now outdated authors like Steven Runciman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryOfTheCrusades (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against Count Raymond IV of Toulouse 

message: It is said that Godfrey found a "Order of Sion" in Holy Land.
Is it true ?
User:Siyac 11:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see Priory of Sion. Adam Bishop 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: "In 1100 Godfrey was able to impose his authority over Acre, Ascalon, Arsuf, Jaffa, and Caesarea. "
I have a source that says that in 1101 Baldwin I conquered Arsuf, Caesarea, in April, May and May respectively, and Acre in May 1004.
This source would be Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, II. viii. 1-4 [Ryan, pp. 151-2]
What is the truth of this?
:That should be clarified I guess...those cities were not actually conquered until Baldwin I's reign, but they sort of paid tribute to Jerusalem when Godfrey was still alive (Fatimid Egypt had basically abandonded them). Adam Bishop 20:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godfrey's Conquests 

message: Is anything known about his personal life? Was he ever married and did he have any children?
As cited in the article, many people believe that he was not married and had no children, among them Steven Runciman, the historian of the Crusades. However, the authors of "Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists who Came to America before 1700", 8th Edition, by Frederick Lewis Weis argue that he was in fact married to de Mandeville and had a son named William of Boulogne. They believe that Geoffrey de Boulogne cited in the English records is in fact Godfrey and that it was common, especially during the 1st Crusade, not to take wives and children along. It's not inconsistent with the practice of the day to leave the wife and children at home, especially given the treacherous traveling conditiond. The Weir genealogy source is cited often on Wikipedia. 75.192.132.190 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read footnote #2? The whole thing was just speculation with no documentary basis, only the fact that Geoffrey and Godfrey, as names, share a common origin, and so maybe the Godfrey in Jerusalem and the Geoffrey in England were the same person. Murray directly addressed this name equivalence and showed that in the same English documents that name Geoffrey of Boulogne, other men named Godfrey also appear, demonstrating that contemporary scribes distinguished between the two names. Likewise in the documents naming Godfrey, there appear Geoffreys, showing that Crusader sources made the same distinction.  Clearly the two names were not the same at the time.  Further, it is not just that there is no evidence for Godfrey having a wife or children. Rather his unmarried state is explicit. It is unreasonable to throw out this direct testimony in favor of woulda, coulda, shoulda speculation that is entirely without foundation, except for the supposed identity of the names, now known to be flawed. Agricolae (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Some IP repeatedly posts this into the article under trivia:
"His descendance has strong footholds in the Golden Triangle limited by the cities of Bruxelles, Charleroi and Liege. Many settled in Lodelinsart, a small city near Charleroi. Genetic resemblance is also found in central Limousin, France, in a small town called Belzannes. This emigration may have been caused by the troubled history of Belgium ever since it seceded from the French Kingdom. Waves of emigration occurred especially after the two World Wars."
What does post-world war emigration has to do with Godfrey? What is descendance supposed to mean, when Godfrey had no offspring? How far is the Golden Triangle in Belgium? (If it is then edit the disambig page I linked to). Str1977 (smile back) 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Triangle

message: In the last paragraph is the phase "According to the controversial book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which provided much of the basis for The DaVinci Code."  I thought it was proven in court that DaVinci Code did not take its basis from the earlier book.
:Not quite, though maybe I could have worded that better (how about "provided much of the background for The DaVinci Code"?). The ruling was a little narrower than that. The court basically ruled that the heart of the book was the fictional adventure of the characters, and the background material was not enough of the book that they could claim copyright infringement, and also that the claims about the Priory of Sion and Mary Magdalen have been published elsewhere, though HBHG is the most prominent publication. Brown has acknowledged that the book was one of the sources. There's more information about the whole Priory claim in that article. Fan1967 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the reference to "one of the sources for the background of The DaVinci Code," which I think is cleaner. Fan1967 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Grail controversy 

message: is there any credence given to the assertion that the term bullion, as in Gold bullion, derives from his name? __meco (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No...why would it? One of the Latin words for bullion and Bouillon happen to be the same (bullio), but if they are related, it's either a coincidence, or the name of the town is derived from the word. Nothing to do with Godfrey specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold bullion 

message: This is my first post here so apologies for any mistakes.
"Once inside, the Crusaders killed many of the city's inhabitants; at the time, it was common practice with any captured city."
Fist of all this sentence needs a reference in my opinion. Secondly, it gives the impression that it was also acceptable morally. 
Why should one justify such an act by saying it was common no something out of normal at that time. We have in Saladin an example 
that it really want a common practis everywhere.
Zaigham16 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no doubt that sacking a city was commonplace if the besieged resisted. The reason that Saladin didn't allow his troops to sack Jerusalem was because the city was given up to him and he sold many of the inhabitants into slavery. The Muslims did the same thing as the Christians in Jerusalem on many occasions. For example, Baybars in Antioch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.102.176 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Medieval rules of engagement allowed the attacker to basically slaughter everyone in a fortress who refused to surrender once the castle was captured. However, here we also have another twist: Infidels who, according to then current theological thought, were sons of the devil. The slaughter in Jerusalem of Jews and Muslims was terrible. Christians (Syrians and Armenians) were not harmed. Current accounts talk of blood flowing up to men's ankles and horses' fetlocks. 75.192.132.190 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They killed everyone, but the Muslims had expelled all the Christians at the start of the siege, as they had let the Crusaders into Antioch, and to save the water supply. So they just weren't there; but everyone inside the city who they found was apparently killed. No one knows how many, but everyone had been aware for several months that the Crusaders were heading for Jerusalem & no doubt many had left the city before the siege. Crusaders were notoriously unable to distinguish between (bearded) Eastern Christians and Muslims, as other episodes showed. The slaughter was considered exceptional by contemporaries, and deplorable by many, especially as it was the holy city of Jerusalem. It is far from clear if it was ordered by the commanders. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was killing a common practise? 

message: I have removed the undocumented supposed connection with the Kingdom of Heaven character, Godfrey of Ibelin.  Other than the name, the two have nothing in common - date, place of origin, manner of death, social position, etc. Agricolae (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Heaven 

message: French nobility? He was a subject of the Roman Emperor, the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire (East Franconia, HRE of the German Nation, Germany).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.50.144 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: "After the liberation of Jerusalem in 1099"
If the entire Fatimid Garrison and 40,000 civilians of the city (heavily depopulating it) were steamrolled by the crusaders,can that hardly be called a liberation?
Somebody please re-word that part.It was just a Siege gone really rough  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.82.83 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberation of Jerusalem?

message: Though befuddlingly bearing Frenchified/Latinfied names and titles, guess Godfrey didn't speak 'Frankish' (or any other kind of German?)so what is meant where it reads: "was a Frankish knight" ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.237.140 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of a blanket term in the history of the crusades to describe crusaders and the people who lived in the crusader states. They described themselves that way too, sometimes. It's more of an acknowledgement that they shared a cultural/political history as descendants of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire, not that they were themselves Franks (or even French). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also what the other side called them all, understandably finding further distinctions unnecessary and too confusing. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Crusader' is one of the definitions given on the Frankish disambiguation page.  Maybe it would help to pipe it there: Frankish. Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

text: It's absolutely not confusing to call in him Frankish. He was totally Frankish in the broad ánd narrow sense of the word. He was a direct(!!) descendant of Charlemagne! Please guys. I start to be tired of this discussion being ruled by some people clearly having no idea what they are talking about. 2A02:A03F:67F3:8800:B937:5AA5:7A40:9CEF (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Original Franks are absolutely not the same as French. Franks are from Germanic origin, French only very limited 2A02:A03F:67F3:8800:B937:5AA5:7A40:9CEF (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't see why you consider Godfrey of Bouillon not being Frankish. He was from Frankish and even royal Carolingian (which were Frankish) origin. So not only as in the meaning of a French crusader. It's a total misconception he didn't see himself as Frankish. 2A02:A03F:67F3:8800:B937:5AA5:7A40:9CEF (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is meant by "Frankish knight"? 

message: This article, and recent edits on it, are being discussed at a template talk page here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogical charts 

message: , Hi. I guess I would have to say I see the point of the IP editor here. I can't see any reason to call him Franco-Norman? There is a sort of technical argument for calling him "ancestrally" French (Flanders and Boulogne were technically in France, as was Normandy, but this is a period where we tend to refer to the semi-independent regions like Normandy in ways which are careful about treating them as part of "France" in any simplistic way). So it is not about saying the source is technically wrong as such, but only whether this is the best way for us to summarize. He is mainly associated with Lotharingia and the crusader states. His status as a crusader probably complicates these things as I think crusaders are sometimes still called French in the sense of "Frankish" in this period, but this also does not translate well as "French" today. Frankish or Lotharingian might be acceptable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd stick with French. His father fought at Hastings & was close to William I (and was married to William's ?cousin), so for English purposes he was "Norman-French" enough.  I don't think anyone born in Europe should be called Frankish or Lotharingian at the start of their bio - Frankish is useful in the Middle East only. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can accept the second sentence, but I have to disagree about the first one. So unless I am missing something perhaps the best solution if we can not say "Frankish" is not to try to create an "ethnic" designation at all? I understand the Flemish and Breton nobles and knights who went to England are sometimes referred to in English contexts as being among the "French-born" (Francigeni) in England after 1066, but not Norman. Calling them French in that context is a way to contrast them with the locals, and such terminology is relative to that context. In any case their connection to this category was by choice, and not transferable to family members who never came to England. They were adventurers seeking new power in a new place, and Godfrey's English step-mother was clearly part of that project, and in any case not a reflection of Godfrey's "roots"? Godfrey was not involved in any of this as far as I am aware. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't think he can or should be called "Flemish". I think he's too early to be a Walloon (first documented 1465), and anyway his ancestry comes from various parts of northern Europe.  I see the French & another wiki call him a Frank like Clovis, but in English usage he is surely too late for that. If you leave off any ethnic/national description people will keep putting ones in, & he will be Belgian before long. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no point trying to call him Flemish (or Walloon, but no one is proposing that). And while we're at it I think trying to base his identity on Boulogne would be weird. Of course there is a temptation call him Belgian (which I can sympathize with) but French is IMHO a more controversial and potentially confusing choice than Belgian. Personally I could handle Frankish. I can understand the "technical" concern, but I think it is less problematic. The question about whether it is anachronistic is quite subtle and most people would find it hard to even follow. It is easier to justify given not only his crusader status but also his cross-border importance in his homelands. Anyway, I don't think French (or German) would be a good choice. That's my two cents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I can sympathize with this, but we know he has to be given some denonym at the top, or one will just be added. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. If we can't use Frankish, can anyone think of any other term we could use? To me Frankish still seems the "least worst".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, Crusades#Terminology doesn't cover the term. If it did (as it should) that might be ok, although he only became a crusader at the age of about 35, for the last 5 years of his life. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the combination of words "Frankish crusader" (in order to make it clear what type of Frank we mean? What about connecting him to the Low Countries? (Boulogne and Bouillon both arguably part of the Low countries.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially with nowhere to link it to, I don't know that "Frankish crusader" will make it any clearer for many readers. According to Wikipedia, neither Bouillon, Belgium (in the Ardennes) nor Boulogne-sur-Mer (in the Somme not Nord departement) are in the Low Countries. I'd like something like "who inherited lands in several parts of northern France and the Low Countries..." but I don't think that would survive in the first sentence. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so as not to give up yet, 2 remarks: 1. I guess that if WP has a problem helping readers understand what a Frankish crusader is, then this may represent a problem anyway, given that it is a pretty common concept? I see that our dab article for Frank does have an entry for this concept, and the article for it is supposedly Farang. OTOH, we also already have this article section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Crusaders_and_other_Western_Europeans_as_%22Franks%22 Not really finished work, but WP is never finished and the question here is whether we need to wait for that to be done first. I don't think there is any question about the fact Godfrey would have been considered a Frank. 2. Concerning the low countries, Bouillon is in Belgium which is normally enough to make it technically part of the low countries. A bit less convincing is Boulogne but was in the Burgundian netherlands for a time and long connected to Artois and Flanders in various ways.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  French? Norman 

message: It seems unlikely that this would be a depiction of Manfred I of Saluzzo (d. 1175) from 1420. It seems to be from a cycle of the Nine Worthies, which would mean it was intended to represent Godfrey. Obviously it is not a likeness, although I have no problem with it as a lead image. It won't fool anybody. Srnec (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: any suggestions? FWIW I suppose this is one person for whom there is no shortage of much later images. This is a rather attractive one I suppose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I stuck it in the Manfred article. The image from the cover of the latest book about Godfrey is in the article, just not the infobox. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: I read the above discussions about Godfrey regarding his "French" nationality with full attention.
I see many people know some parts, however many seem, in my opinion, miss the full picture.
Godfrey is a descendant of the house of Flanders (as member of their cadet branch the house of Boulogne). The history of the house of Flanders dates back to Baldwin I, first count of Flanders, who checkmated Judith, the daughter of Charles the bald, founder and king of West Francia, later also emperor of the Carolingian empire and king of Italy. Therefore, through Judith of Flanders, Godfrey's ancestry dates back to Charlemagne. The original territories of the Frankish empire(s) go back to a territory that lies mainly in Belgium (first capital of Frankish empire was eg in Doornik, today BE, before it moved to Paris).
Franks were a Germanic tribe. French is a Latin language. It's a bit ironic and confusing France and their language is called after the Franks cause the biggest part of the population does not have a Frankish ancestry, and French is not a Germanic language at all. The nation is just called after their rulers, being Franks. Probably the first Franks spoke a Germanic language that is closest to what is called today's Flemish.
Some connection is made with the invasion of William of Normandy. It is true that the house of Flanders supported William, also military. This is very logical since his wife Mathilda of Flanders was the daughter of the count of Flanders. So that's the main reason why Flemish troops fought with William and not that they were all "French".
Godfried his ancestry is clearly very mixed, however the biggest part of his ancestry clearly comes from what's historically called the low countries (today's Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg), some being rulers in historical France (West Francia) and some in the Holy Roman Empire (eg duchy of Lower Lorraine and county of Holland). On top, the territories he ruled were not at all in historical France. They all were in the Holy Roman Empire. 
All the above makes he clearly had a very strong connection with the low countries through his ancestry and esp with the (what's today called) Belgian part.
Therefore, I absolutely don't agree to call him French. It creates too much confusion cause the connection between "French" and today's France is simply too strong and would be a totally incorrect association: his ancestry doesn't go back to today's France (but today's Belgium), through his house of Origin from father's side and through his house of Origin from mother's side, because of which he ruled as a duke (his principal titel) in today's Belgium as well as some other minor titles (eg lord of Bouillon) in today's Belgium. On top of all of this, although historians start to speak about France starting from the end of the 10th century, historically only in 1190, and officially from 1204, so basically 100 years after Godfrey lived, Francia was used for the first time as the name for the country.
Calling him Belgian would then even be better, cause it matches from a today's perspective, however to be avoided as well since Belgium as a nation did not exist in that time (historically). 
I agree Frankish was used during the crusades in a broader sense (eg also including for English people and basically each crusader). However, he clearly is from Frankish and Carolingian origin through his ancestors, also in a narrow sense as explained above. I understand that some people have a misconception of what Frankish actually means. However I think that's rather cause some people simply don't have any idea of the definition of Frankish/Franks, which in my opinion therefore doesn't give an argument to start using other terms than historical correct ones. 
In my opinion Godfrey was totally Frankish ánd Carolingian, an important reason why the house of Flanders had so much weight in getting the most important territories conquered during the crusades (eg also the Latin empire during the fifth crusade went to a member of the house of Flanders, as well as the county of Edessa).
Consequently my preference goes to call him Frankish, however if the alternative is to call him French (which is by far much more off than calling him Flemish or Belgian, being called absurd by some, while strangely enough finding "French" more correct) then better to just avoid each reference to any nationality whatsoever.
Buce
:FWIW I think most editors familiar with this topic accept that he was Frankish, in the way the term was then used, and also in the way many specialists would use it today. I think the practical concern is whether the term will be misunderstood by our readers, who might associate the term Frankish with the ways in which it was used in other periods. My own position is that we'll have to eventually make sure we help our readers understand how the term evolved. Otherwise we will be distorting reality in order to make the story easier to tell, and this is not our policy on WP. So I have tried to adapt out Franks article a bit, and over time we should keep this in mind. HOWEVER, I think it should be emphasized that in this specific case there is no urgent problem. We do not really need to give everybody on Wikipedia some kind of ethnic designation and where there is a possibility of misunderstandings a simple solution is just to avoid the problem in the lead and make the more complex reality clear in the article body.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Andrew. The lead here should probably mentioned the kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire to better situate the territories with which he was associated. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  French - Norman - Flemish - Belgian