Talk:Godfrey of Bouillon

Bias against Count Raymond IV of Toulouse

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old man are not confirmed by the sources and are recognized by historians today as distortions popularized by now outdated authors like Steven Runciman.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)

A question

It is said that Godfrey found a "Order of Sion" in Holy Land.

Is it true ?

User:Siyac 11:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, see Priory of Sion. Adam Bishop 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Another question: is there any source proving his birthplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.51.229 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Godfrey's Conquests

"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)

Personal Life

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)

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)

Golden Triangle

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)

More Grail controversy

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)

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)

Gold bullion

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)

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)

Was killing a common practise?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kingdom of Heaven

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)

Categories

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)

I responded to a different thread but it's relevant here What I believe is meant by Frankish knight in this context is a Western European who spoke French and identified as descendants of the Franks, it can be confusing since for a long time France in the middle ages was known as the Kingdom of the Franks and French kings were the Kings of the Franks, the first French King to style himself King of France was Philippe Auguste (Philip Augustus) in 1179. The language of the crusades was French because the majority of the knights and nobility who participated in the crusade and set up the crusader states were from France or of French ethnicity (as in a mix of Frankish and Gallo-Roman), this includes the Normans of England and Italy (little bit of Scandinavian mixed in with the Frankish for them) as well as a good portion of what was at the time the Holy Roman Empire, in fact a good portion of the nobility in the HRE were related to 'French' nobility and had claims and titles that crossed the border. This is mostly due to the fact that the divide between France and the HRE were in constant flux, basically an administrative mess and the result of artificially drawn borders after the fall of the Frankish empire. 'Frankish' is also misleading as it evolved, French is Frankish, so is Flemish, its the regional variations that evolved based on different influences. To wrap this mess up Frankish in this context means French and Belgian, Luxembourgish and German West of the Rhine. Godfrey spoke Old French, he was of the same ethnicity as those in the Kingdom of the Franks (France), he and the latter rulers of Jerusalem and the crusader states modeled themselves and their kingdoms on France, the only reason there is a debate is because at the time they lived the idea of nations didn't exist. Men followed men and because the region he inhabited wasn't within the borders of the Kingdom of France which we associate with the nation of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.238.179 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Liberation of Jerusalem?

"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)

Crowns of Gold and Thorns

I'm not entirely happy with my work, even though it's backed up by an RS source (Cambridge University Press), so I'm wondering could anybody improve on it, preferably by finding the original source or sources for the claim that "he would never wear a crown of gold where his Saviour had worn a crown of thorns".

I originally requested a citation for:"As was typical of Godfrey's Christian ethics he refused to be crowned king in the city where Christ had died.". Then I rephrased the sentence backed by the aforementioned RS source (Cambridge University Press), to say that "he would never wear a crown of gold where his Saviour had worn a crown of thorns".

The 'traditional' reason for his refusal to be King (dating back in English at least to the 17th century, judging by a quick look at Google, and quite likely back to his own time or even his own actual or at least reported words) is that 'He would not wear a crown of gold where his Saviour had worn a crown of thorns', which makes a lot of sense especially when it seems widely agreed (except by Robert the Monk) that he never used the title King. So it seemed quite likely that 'where Christ had died' is wrong or at least misleading, in the sense of misrepresenting his reasoning, and since it's unsourced, I've replaced it with something backed by a RS.

I first learned the tradition as a primary schoolkid in Belgium (which claims him as a sort of anachronistic Belgian national hero), and it's also in Wikipedia France (see below), so it's not just an English tradition. However I don't know how old the 'crowns of gold/thorns' tradition is, nor which sources, if any, quote it before the 17th century. It seems to me that the tradition needs to be mentioned, so I've done so with RS backing, but it seems strange that it wasn't already mentioned long ago, which makes me a bit suspicious about its historicity, despite my RS backing. So if it eventually turns out that most reliable sources doubt it, we should probably simply mention the tradition in a footnote while adding that most reliable sources doubt it.

Incidentally, French Wikipedia (here) asserts the tradition as fact, but unfortunately cites no source:

La couronne de roi de Jérusalem lui est proposée après la prise de la ville, mais il la refuse, arguant qu'il ne peut porter de couronne d'or là où Jésus Christ a dû porter une couronne d'épines. (The crown of King of Jerusalem was offered to him after the capture of the city, but he refused it, arguing that he could not wear a crown of gold where Jesus Christ had to wear a crown of thorns.) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ibrahim, Raymond (2022). "Duke Godfrey: Defender of Christ's Sepulchre". Defenders of the West. New York: Bombardier Books. p. 48. ISBN 9781642938203. “God forbid", said he, "that I should be crowned with a crown of gold, where my Saviour bore a crown of thorns.”

Ibrahim quotes cites the original source in his book. Democrituses (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Simon John's book

There is a new biography of Godfrey by Simon John, "Godfrey of Bouillon: Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Ruler of Latin Jerusalem, c. 1060-1100", which I expect would be very useful as a source for this article. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop: and @Borsoka: Hello everyone. I was thinking that we could add John's book to the article as a secondary source and use it where it is needed: John, Simon (2018) [2017]. "Ancestry and parentage". Godfrey of Bouillon: Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Ruler of Latin Jerusalem, c.1060-1100 (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315585345-2. ISBN 9781315585345.

Simon John is Lecturer in Medieval History at Swansea University. He previously taught at the University of Oxford, and held a Junior Research Fellowship at the Institute of Historical Research. Much of his work to date has focussed upon the Crusades and their socio-cultural impact in Latin Christendom. GenoV84 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is an excellent work. However, Simon John does not verify that Godfrey was a French nobleman. Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The cited chapter from John's book explains in detail the Frankish ancestry of his parents, as well as their lineage with the Count of Flanders and the Duke of Lower Lorraine. Perhaps, it would be more historically accurate to replace "French nobleman" with "Frankish nobleman"; or maybe we could just remove "nobleman" altogether and leave "Frankish crusader" alone as his main activity. GenoV84 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

See the long recent discussion of this at the bottom of the page. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Taylor DeWitt: could you refer to sources stating that Lower Lorrain was part of France not of the Holy Roman Empire? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Why have you added this to an unrelated 5-yo thread? Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The thread is not unrelated, since we are talking about the same reference that user Adam Bishop had proposed to use as a source for Godfrey's biography on Wikipedia in 2018.

It may be an old thread, but yes, I think that this reference is great, and it is still needed for the article. GenoV84 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• French is justified. John states that Godfrey was probably born in Boulogne (p. 56) and "could probably have communicated in the French he would have learned growing up in the county of Boulogne" before he learned German (58). In other words, he was born and raised in France. He was, on his mother's side, a Lotharingian and, apart from the crusade, he is best known as an actor in imperial German politics. Still, if not French what? Srnec (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• I read those words about his native language - "probably". Why do we need to introduce him as a Frenchman if his new biography does not verify it? Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the probably. I also think it is strange to equate language to identity in this period. Seems anachronistic to speak of French and Germans. Contemporaries talked about Franks, and Franks spoke various languages and lived in various political entities. Romance dialects were and are native outside of France.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So the lead was changed to "Frankish" and a link to Franks added. This is obviously not an improvement. We do not have an article on the term "Franks" that would explain how it applies to Godfrey. Srnec (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Franks article would be a better link as a next small step. That article does explain now how the term was used in different periods.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What is meant by "Frankish knight"?

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

What I believe is meant by Frankish knight in this context is a Western European who spoke French and identified as descendants of the Franks, it can be confusing since for a long time France in the middle ages was known as the Kingdom of the Franks and French kings were the Kings of the Franks, the first French King to style himself King of France was Philippe Auguste (Philip Augustus) in 1179. The language of the crusades was French because the majority of the knights and nobility who participated in the crusade and set up the crusader states were from France or of French ethnicity (as in a mix of Frankish and Gallo-Roman), this includes the Normans of England and Italy (little bit of Scandinavian mixed in with the Frankish for them) as well as a good portion of what was at the time the Holy Roman Empire, in fact a good portion of the nobility in the HRE were related to 'French' nobility and had claims and titles that crossed the border. This is mostly due to the fact that the divide between France and the HRE were in constant flux, basically an administrative mess and the result of artificially drawn borders after the fall of the Frankish empire. 'Frankish' is also misleading as it evolved, French is Frankish, so is Flemish, its the regional variations that evolved based on different influences. To wrap this mess up Frankish in this context means French and Belgian, Luxembourgish and German West of the Rhine. Godfrey spoke Old French, he was of the same ethnicity as those in the Kingdom of the Franks (France), he and the latter rulers of Jerusalem and the crusader states modeled themselves and their kingdoms on France, the only reason there is a debate is because at the time they lived the idea of nations didn't exist. Men followed men and because the region he inhabited wasn't within the borders of the Kingdom of France which we associate with the nation of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.238.179 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe the term "Frankish knight" can be very misleading, because the linked article doesn't define the term as a Western European crusader, but as a group of Germanic peoples, even though Godfrey of Bouillon was a French speaker and definitely not part of the old Germanic confederation from the Migration Period. I also believe that attributing nationalities to high medieval figure can be problematic, so I changed it to "Western European knight", although I think this might be too vague. A lot of articles about Crusaders do a great job at circumventing this need of assigning nationalities, perhaps we should take example on them. Qualcomm250 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• There a lot of nonsense above. As Crusade, and para 4 of Franks explains, "Frank" was the term used by the Levantine locals for all crusaders from Western Europe, which was then adopted by the crusaders themselves. English, Scottish and Italian crusaders were also Franks in this context. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It's still misleading; the article doesn't make it clear which meaning is used. A reader could stop at the opening paragraph of Franks and be led to believe that Godfrey of Bouillon was part of the 5th century Germanic confederation, even though it definitely wasn't extant anymore by the late 11th century. Taking this into consideration, we should aim for recognisability here and use Western European, or avoid assigning Godfrey to any particular group and be content with listing his places of birth and death--as is done in articles about other prominent First Crusade figures, such as Bohemond I of Antioch, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse, Robert II, Count of Flanders, and Adhemar of Le Puy. Qualcomm250 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Genealogical charts

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)

French? Norman

Johnbod, 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)

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)

@Johnbod: 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)

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)

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)

User:Johnbod I just reverted some edits which were inappropriate but the one central theme which I have some empathy for is that I find it a misleading to call this person simply "French". I guess this issue will keep coming back.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Have opened a discussion at Franks about it. [1]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

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)

I see that the Worthies are taken to represent the succession of marquis of Saluzzo. [2] I am not entirely sure what this means—or, rather, what the basis for the identification is—although there seems to be a good paper in English I cannot access. [3] Srnec (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: 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)

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)

French - Norman - Flemish - Belgian

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)

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)