Frederick Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart or Philip Augustus?

Frederick Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart or Philip Augustus?

  • Frederick Barbarossa

    Votes: 16 35.6%
  • Richard the Lionheart

    Votes: 14 31.1%
  • Philip Augustus

    Votes: 15 33.3%

  • Total voters
    45
Frederick Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart or Philip Augustus?

Three leaders of the Third Crusade most experienced Western commanders of their age. All three showed themselves skilled on the battlefield, in siege warfare, in the management of logistics and military strategy. Which of these three men do you think was the best and why? Curious in your thoughts, thanks.

Frederick Barbarossa: 2nd Crusade, Italian campaigns, Siege of Crema, Battle of Legnano, Victories over Byzantine Empire, Battle of Iconium

Richard the Lionheart: Revolt against Henry II, Conquest of Cyprus, Siege of Acre, Battle of Arsuf, Battle of Jaffa

Philip Augustus: War against Henry II, Third Crusade, Battle of Bouvines, Siege of Chateau Gaillard, Conquest of Normandy
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
The most inspiring and the one with the best title that fits-Richard the Lion heart. His military successes, political acumen and general awesomeness make him the greatest.
 

Red Orm

Banned
Philip Augustus, absolutely. Just look.

Territorial_Conquests_of_Philip_II_of_France.png


The most inspiring and the one with the best title that fits-Richard the Lion heart. His military successes, political acumen and general awesomeness make him the greatest.

He's overrated really. John gets a lot of shit, but the problems in his reign were a direct consequence of Richard overtaxing and bankrupting his nation to fund the pipe dream crusades. I don't deny that he was a successful tactician and even strategist, but politically it shows how deficient he was that it was so easy for Philip Augustus to seduce so many of his vassals and seize his land after he died. The effects of those high taxes, especially for ransoming Richard from the Duke of Austria whom he had thoughtlessly insulted, helped in John's demise when Richard died and his military prowess wasn't a factor anymore.
 
The best for what? For the Crusading efforts? For his country? Four his dynasty?
As comander? General? Leader?
Except for the first (and this is very conjunctual) Philip Augustus fulfils all criterias.
 
The best for what? For the Crusading efforts? For his country? Four his dynasty?
As comander? General? Leader?
Except for the first (and this is very conjunctual) Philip Augustus fulfils all criterias.

I thinking more from a military perspective. It can however be simply who would prefer of the three and why.
 
If it's for overall command of the expedition,I'd say Barbarossa would have the edge in political and diplomatic experience.Not to mention having a degree of seniority over the other two kings because A he's an emperor,B he's an old man.
 
Last edited:
Friedrich and Philip is tough. Philip managed a more lasting result, but Barbarossa and especially his eventual heir Frederick II were more glorious and capable at handling a massive empire (of course you could also say they overreached - F2 would probably have done better if he had focused exclusively on Sicily or one of his other realms).

In the end, I'll go for Barbarossa, because I believe the subsequent collapse of the HRE wasn't all his fault, and if his successors had done better his legacy would also be grander.
 
Being French, I'm a bit partial to Philip Augustus. Frankly though, I think he blows away the competition thanks to his achievements.

At the beginning of Philip Augustus' reign, royal power was extremely weak in France, a kingdom which was also more of a secondary power compared to the powerhouse that were Angevin England and the HRE. Philip spent his 43 years or rule consolidating royal power in France by expanding the royal demesne and doing a great number of reforms. He also brought France as the most powerful kingdom of the middle ages since he took back a lot of Angevin-held lands in France while he also defeated the HRE's armies at Bouvines: if you had to make a comparison to the other realms, France was without a doubt the dominant power of the XIIIth Century. As a bonus, Philip Augustus established quite the legacy since all the Kings of France that came after him were his descendants and none of them had to be crowned in their father's time since he had established a strong royal power. Philip Augustus is basically one of the reasons France became a major power in the world's history.

Richard the Lionheart is a bit overrated as a King. He probably was a great general and a great knight, but he was awful at politics: the failures of his brother John are partially blamable on the situation Richard left behind after his death. Richard also spent most of his time fighting and only spent 6 months in England in total. He also didn't really establish a legacy: he had no clear heir at the time of his death (no children, succession contested between his nephew Arthur and his brother John Lackland) and I don't remember any reforms he accomplished. Sure, there is the glory and legend that came with his participation at the Third Crusade, but that's because he mainly proved his qualities as a fighter and potentially a man. It could also be a glorified legend since Richard wasn't as perfect as he is sometimes portrayed.

In regards to Barbarossa, he's the one I know the least among the three. I would have no problem acknowledging him as a great emperor of the HRE and a grand figure of the Hohenstaufen dynasty... The trouble for me would be that he was Emperor of the HRE and that's a state that started out strong but kept falling apart more and more as the years went. I don't think Barbarossa contributed that much to the decline of the HRE, but I can't really think of something he accomplished that had a lasting impact. Again, he's the one I know the least about so maybe I'm missing something. Compared to Philip Augustus though, I don't think he can really compete.

So yeah, it's Philip Augustus without a doubt for me.
 
Frederick Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart or Philip Augustus?

Three leaders of the Third Crusade most experienced Western commanders of their age. All three showed themselves skilled on the battlefield, in siege warfare, in the management of logistics and military strategy. Which of these three men do you think was the best and why? Curious in your thoughts, thanks.

Frederick Barbarossa: 2nd Crusade, Italian campaigns, Siege of Crema, Battle of Legnano, Victories over Byzantine Empire, Battle of Iconium

Richard the Lionheart: Revolt against Henry II, Conquest of Cyprus, Siege of Acre, Battle of Arsuf, Battle of Jaffa

Philip Augustus: War against Henry II, Third Crusade, Battle of Bouvines, Siege of Chateau Gaillard, Conquest of Normandy

I chose Richard the lionheart because I understood your question was about military skills.

On the political level, my obvious choice would have been Philip Augustus who was a political genius as one does not encounter in two centuries. He was the man who turned France from a loose political entity into the superpower of latin Europe and his masterpiece lasted for no less than 600 years (until Napoleon's downfall).
Philip Augustus is probably the greatest of all french kings.
 
Richard I used to considered overrated generally, but more sober consideration has made me acknowledge he earned his military rep. He might even have somewhat deserved his overall praise had he not died when he did, but as it stands he left his brother and kingdom in a pretty bad way. I'll give him enough credit to suggest he had the measure of his opponent and would possibly/probably have kept the tide going in his direction had he lived, but...

Barbarossa I've kind of gone the other way...over time I'm less and less impressed with his actual accomplishments, though to be fair that only means I don't rate him among the greats as I did formerly. His mehness in Italy I'll partly blame on the ulcerous situation ever present there for non-Sicilian HREs, and I find him personally fascinating in the same ways I enjoy Stupor Mundi or Henry II of England, all of whom were a reductionist's dream-King but suffered from the Chinese curse of suffering interesting times, which they largely shaped. But I don't think his actual record lives up to his legend.

Which leaves us with Dieudonne. On paper, as a person, the least impressive of these giants...largely overshadowed by Richard's father early on and may well have faced the same fate if CdL ducked, but...the best career of the 3, in my mind, quite clearly. He has some parallels to Tokugawa Ieayasu to me, and can be said to have gained many of his greatest victories by virtue of time and patience...nod to Goldman here...but he still got them. England didn't really gain from Richard's reign...probably lost in every way except prestige...and the HRE was reshaped but not necessarily advanced by Redbeard's run...certainly he witnessed the rise of the Italian power that would put paid to the real notion of the Empire's Romanity...whereas France after Augustus was clearly a much greater and healthier power than when he assumed control. He got lucky where Frederick got plague and Richard got John, it's true, but Napoleon's maxim works fine for me here.

I'd much rather read a book or watch a film about either of the other 2, but I'll take Phillip's reign over theirs any day of the week.
 
Top