Who was the better man, Robert Guiscard, or William the conqueror

[bigmeat]

I prefer robert guiscard, because when william started he was royalty, but robert was a lowly noble, yet he managed to create a great kingdom

 

[NBGreenDay]

Who's Robert Guisard?

 

[pawpaw]

Who's Robert Guisard?

Robert Guiscard was the 6th son of the count of Hauteville in Normandy (1015-1085 ) He arrived in Italy in 1047 where the normans had been mercanaries fighting for and against the Lombards and Byzantines. At this time they decided to carve their own kingdom out. Rising rapidly Robert became the count of Apulia in 1057. In 1059 the pope playing robert off againt the HRE made Robert count of Apulia, calabris & sicily. Campaigns in southern Italy sucured most of it for Robert. In 1081 robert warred with the Byzantine Empire winning sucess and would of taken constantinople but for troubles stirred up by the pope in Italy. He returned and sacked Rome in 1084. 1085 died.

 

[pawpaw]

I prefer robert guiscard, because when william started he was royalty, but robert was a lowly noble, yet he managed to create a great kingdom

William mite of been royality but he was William the bastard before he was the conqueror. He had to suvive and fight for his crown.

 

[YNCS]

Willy the Conk established a kingdom that has lasted for almost 1000 years. As NBGreenDay put it so well:

Who's Robert Guisard?

 

[North King]

Better? Probably neither were at all good.

Greater? Probably William.

Who would I like better? Well I hate William the Conquerer. Thus, probably Robert Guiscard.

 

[NBGreenDay]

Well, as Kafka put it earlier, the army that William fought, Harold Bethswalda(sp?) (Thanks BananaLee), would've been stronger if it had not been distracted by his own brother Tostig who took a couple of Picts and shook hands with Harald Hadrada and fought Britian's High King at Stamford bridge. Anyways, had the High King (the word for it begins with a B but I forget) not been distracted at Stamford, he would've had a much more significant force for The Bastard at Hastings and perhaps no Norman blood would've been English royalty.

But, Tostic and Haldrada did fight at Stamford bridge. And the High King did lose to Willie the Bastard, although it was rumoured, during the battle, that Willie had fallen to an arrow. And Willie then inherited what is England sans Wales and Scotland. And, as perviously stated by NBGreenDay that studly bastard, "Who is Robert Guisard?"

 

[BananaLee]

The High King's name was also Harold.


Well, Robert Guiscard didn't really do much. Sure, he started out small and ended up creating a cute lil' kingdom in Italy.
But no one but a historian, or someone who has researched deeply into the subject would know about Guiscard off the top of his head.

Using fame as a measure, WillConq wins hands down.

 

[Plotinus]

Willy the Conk established a kingdom that has lasted for almost 1000 years.

No, he stole one that was already perfectly well established. "William the Bastard" indeed. And how does being Duke of Normandy make him royalty anyway?

In any case, what does it mean to say that one historical figure was "a better man" than another? This sounds like something from "1066 And All That". William I was a Good Man but a Bad Thing, or possibly vice versa.

 

[bigmeat]

Better? Probably neither were at all good.

Greater? Probably William.

Who would I like better? Well I hate William the Conquerer. Thus, probably Robert Guiscard.

wwhy do you hate ol' willy

 

[NBGreenDay]

Perhaps he's English? Theres around 939 years of bad blood there donchaknow

 

[BananaLee]

Nah...
Bad blood only happens between the Saxons and Normans.

He's Michigan-ese by the way... Heh

 

[Kafka2]

Anyways, had the High King (the word for it begins with a B but I forget)

"Bretwealda".

 

[Kafka2]

William the Bastard was certainly not the "better" man, though he might have been the more effective. He certainly wasn't very nice.

He was also very, very lucky.

 

[Xen]

cant say really; my mommies blood line tells me to vote William though

 

[North King]

wwhy do you hate ol' willy

Because England would have been much cooler if it was aligned with the north and the vikings, as it was before, and not with the south, as it was after.

 

[YNCS]

No, he stole one that was already perfectly well established. "William the Bastard" indeed.

Except for the word "stole," I'll concede this point to you.

And how does being Duke of Normandy make him royalty anyway?

In 1051, William visited England. There he was probably promised the throne by his cousin, Edward the Confessor. In 1064, Harold, Duke of Wessex, was shipwrecked off the French coast and captured by the Count of Ponthieu. William compelled the Count to deliver Harold into William's hands. William forced Harold to swear he would support William's claim to the English throne. However, shortly before his death, in 1066, Edward made Harold his heir and Harold was crowned king. Having secured the Pope's sanction, William invaded England. On October 14, he defeated and killed Harold at the Battle of Hastings. William was crowned king of England on Christmas Day, 1066.

In any case, what does it mean to say that one historical figure was "a better man" than another? This sounds like something from "1066 And All That". William I was a Good Man but a Bad Thing, or possibly vice versa.

Who was "the best whatever" is subjective. That's why it's fun to argue about it.

 

[jonatas]

Well, Robert Guiscard didn't really do much. .

ugh.... so basically a free booting norman mercenary who arrived in southern Italy, and by the end of his life had conquered all of Southern Italy, founded "the Two Sicilies", sacked Rome, had ambitions on Constantinople and could have sacked it as well except he died of illness before, and was a key figure whom the Popes and Emperors feared, "really didn't do much" as you say?

are you aware of the "Two Sicilies" importance in history? how Frederick II the "stupor mundi' would later set up his palace and court there? how it was one of the richest and most fascinating kingdoms in all medieval europe?

this is what drives me crazy about anglo-history.... people often think that if it isn't commonly remembered or celebrated in the English language, it didn't happen, or is of no consequence... this is hardly the case, often the best and most fascinating portions of history have escaped anglo-history, or are part of another "version" of history

 

[pawpaw]

ugh.... so basically a free booting norman mercenary who arrived in southern Italy, and by the end of his life had conquered all of Southern Italy, founded "the Two Sicilies", sacked Rome, had ambitions on Constantinople and could have sacked it as well except he died of illness before, and was a key figure whom the Popes and Emperors feared, "really didn't do much" as you say?

How true, the amount of territory Robert held * Italy, sicily, parts of africa, greece, turkey * equaled the size of Williams domain of England/Normandy

 

[bigmeat]

ugh.... so basically a free booting norman mercenary who arrived in southern Italy, and by the end of his life had conquered all of Southern Italy, founded "the Two Sicilies", sacked Rome, had ambitions on Constantinople and could have sacked it as well except he died of illness before, and was a key figure whom the Popes and Emperors feared, "really didn't do much" as you say?

are you aware of the "Two Sicilies" importance in history? how Frederick II the "stupor mundi' would later set up his palace and court there? how it was one of the richest and most fascinating kingdoms in all medieval europe?

this is what drives me crazy about anglo-history.... people often think that if it isn't commonly remembered or celebrated in the English language, it didn't happen, or is of no consequence... this is hardly the case, often the best and most fascinating portions of history have escaped anglo-history, or are part of another "version" of history

that's why he's so great, he also won every battle he fought even though he usualy had an inferior sized force