Who's Who: Were The Worthies Worthy? Quiz

Answer: Bertrand du Guesclin

Before he became involved in the Hundred Years' War and was appointed Constable of France, Bertrand du Guesclin convinced some of the mercenaries who were causing problems in France at the time to travel to Spain with him. There he was in the service of Count Henry of Trastámara, who was involved in a dispute with Pedro I of Castile. Bertrand engineered many victories for Henry and was generously rewarded. While Bertrand was laying siege to a castle inhabited by Pedro, he took a bribe from Pedro which was to result in his escape. Instead, Bertrand informed Henry of the plot, who promised him more money than Pedro paid if he would take Pedro to his tent after the planned "escape". Subsequently, when the two men were involved in a heated hand-to-hand battle, it appeared that Pedro won the upper hand against Henry. Bertrand grabbed his ankle, which caused him to be turned over on his back. Henry killed Pedro and subsequently become King of Castile.

What did Bertrand du Guesclin have to say about this? "I neither put nor remove a King, but I help my Master". This sealed the alliance with Spain, giving France a needed ally in the war.

Answer: Godfrey of Bouillon

Godfrey of Bouillon famously became the first ruler of the of Jerusalem after the Christian army was victorious during the First Crusade, declining the title "King" because Christ was the only King. But at what cost did the Christians take the holy city? It was written that Godfrey's army took Jerusalem with such vengeance that absolutely no one - Jews, Muslims, soldiers, civilians - survived. These people were either burned or had their stomachs sliced open. When some Jews fled to the sanctuary of a synagogue, Godfrey had the building burned with the people inside. Even those who fled the city were hunted and killed. At the end of the battle, it is said that Godfrey walked barefoot in the streets, ankle-deep in blood.

What, then, was accomplished? Godfrey's knights did reach their goal which was the Christian recapture of the holy sites and the city of Jerusalem. Eight more Crusades would be fought over a period of almost 200 years, and the Christian army would NEVER again take Jerusalem. While it is very difficult to estimate the number of casualties, and every source states a different number, conservative estimates would put the total death toll at about 1 million.

Answer: Arthur

According to Sir Thomas Malory in "Le Morte d'Arthur", Arthur decided to act upon advice given to him by Merlin, who gave him a prophecy that a May Day baby would one day grow up to overthrow him. Arthur consequently had all of the male babies born on May Day gathered up and put on a ship that was sent out to sea. All of the babies perished in a shipwreck, except for Mordred, who was found, saved, and eventually grew up to be Arthur's enemy, murderer, and successor.

This sounds very much like Herod's killing of the innocents, doesn't it? There is also the episode with the sentencing of Guinevere to burn for treason to think about as well. Perhaps the story of Arthur was written to teach us about human failings? Or give the people a hero to emulate? While later stories about the king show him as more of a hero, the earlier ones by Malory and Geoffrey Monmouth show him in a much different light.

Answer: Charlemagne

Charlemagne apparently tried to send missionaries to the pagan tribes before conquering them and forcing them to become baptized. That didn't necessarily mean, however, that people who had baptism forced upon them became Christians. Charlemagne's army had an especially difficult time subjugating the Saxons, and he decided that a campaign of terror might be the ticket for getting the job done. Saxon nobles were bribed to identify those who had returned to paganism. At the Massacre of Verdun 4500 were beheaded. New laws were also enacted that taxed a tenth of each Saxon's income and demanded that every two out of 120 people had to be given to the church as slaves. Anyone who would not be baptized would be executed.

Did Charlemagne really believe that Christianity made life better - or was he greedy for empire?

Answer: David

After seeing the beautiful Bathsheba in her bath, David found that she was married to one of his military men, Uriah the Hittite. Even so, he sent for her and pursued a relationship. When she discovered that she was pregnant, David arranged for Uriah to come home on leave, hoping that he would sleep with his wife. He stayed away from her, however, because his men were still at the battlefield. After it became apparent to David that his first plan didn't work, he made a second plan. Uriah was to be placed on the front line, the most dangerous part of the battlefield. After her husband was killed in battle, Bathsheba gave birth to a son.

Is the fact that the baby died soon after a sign that God was not pleased with David's action? The prophet Nathan clearly thought so. Even though David repented and asked for forgiveness, future sons also had early deaths.

Answer: Joshua

There is no doubt that Joshua had a lot on his plate. Moses had left him in control, but after returning from Egyptian slavery, the Hebrew request of Canaan wasn't easy. Jericho had been won, but then Joshua's army suffered the terrible loss of thirty-six deaths; it was decided that Achan had taken an "accursed thing" (the spoils of war were for the Hebrews - Achan had apparently taken things for himself) from Jericho. He and his family were stoned to death to make things right with God. Then at Gibeon, the Hebrew army stood against an alliance of five Amorite kings. Joshua asked God to allow the sun and moon to stand still until all had been defeated. "There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel." (Joshua 10:14)

I supposed the comment here should be that God was obviously on the side of the Hebrews - not only doing what Joshua asked, but also hurling hailstones from the sky while the Hebrews slaughtered the Amorites.

Answer: Judas Maccabeus

There has been much speculation as to how Judas received the name "Maccabee". Perhaps it was derived from the war cry used to motivate his troops, or an acronym for his father's name, which was "Mattityahu Kohen Ben Yochanan". It also could have been derived, however, from the Aramaic "maqqaba", which means "hammer or sledgehammer". Knowing that he would not be able to defeat the Seleucid army in a direct confrontation, Judas resorted to guerilla warfare with his small army, estimated to contain about 50 men at first. Many examples of the attacks of the growing group of guerillas were recorded. In 2 Maccabees 8 it was written that Judah had an army of 6,000 that led an attack on Nicanor, killing more than 9,000 people, and also led an attack against the forces of Timothy and Bacchides and killed more than 20,000 of them.

While there are many who would condemn the zealotry of the Maccabees, acting outside of the law to kill and bring about change, there are others who would agree their actions were necessary to free the Jews from the anti-Semitism of the Seleucids.

Answer: Alexander the Great

After the death of his father, Phillip II, Alexander traveled to Greece, where Philip had made an alliance called the League of Corinth. According to the agreement, the Greeks would remain independent, but had to provide troops and accept Philip's advice and leadership. Alexander wanted to make sure that the Greeks would continue to honor the agreement and accept him as king. The city-state of Thebes was blamed for apparently circulating a rumor that Alexander had been killed; together with Athens there was talking of the two seceding from the League. When Alexander heard, his army marched 300 miles in two weeks, and conquered the polis. He ordered that the Thebans who resisted him should be killed, and the rest sold into slavery. The city was then burned to the ground with the exception of the home of the poet Pindar and the temples.

The reason? Alexander had to make a statement regarding his tolerance level, and the statement was that he would tolerate no rebellion. That might be understandable, however, many more examples of Alexander's "unworthy" side exist. He ordered that Persepolis be burned to the ground to avenge the Persian treatment of Athens during the Persian Wars, he impaled his chief officer of the Companions in a fit of drunken rage during a drinking bout, he allowed his mother to execute his father's other wives and children in cruel fashion - the list can go on and on.

Answer: Julius Caesar

Caesar was appointed Governor of Gaul in 59 BC, which was a good thing for him. He had just completed a year as consul, and needed money to pay his debts. The conquest of an area twice the size of the then Roman empire might fill his coffers. After the Gallic tribes were partially subdued, Caesar found that he also had to be concerned about Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine and coming into Gaul. The Usipetes and Tencteri claimed that they had crossed the Rhine with an army of 430,000 because they had been forced against their will; after doing so they attacked a Gallic tribes called the Menapii, and massacred them. Now the Menapii had been one of Caesar's toughest opponents, and so the question arises as to just how upset Caesar was by having the Germans in his territory. As he had agreed to an armistice and appeared to be attempting to negotiate with the Germans (as told in his "Commentaries on the War in Gaul") his army attacked them (he explained that he was provoked), massacring women, children, everyone. When news of the atrocity reached the Senate of Rome, Cato the Younger, always in conflict with Caesar, demanded that Caesar should be handed over to the Germans. Always the wise, conniving general, Caesar proceeded to build a bridge across the Rhine to invade Germany and invaded Britain as well. While the Senate might not have agreed with Caesar overstepping the boundaries of his power, they went on to other matters.

Why did Caesar do that? After the subjugation of the Gauls, the Germans were the next big opposition to the growing Roman empire. Remember that the Germans continued to be a thorn in the side of the Romans until - in part - Germanic invasions could no longer be contained and Rome fell. That was, of course, going to happen in another 500 years. Nevertheless, according to Caesar, he was provoked. Those who write history can write it in whatever light they want.

By the way, according to the ancient Roman historian, Velleius Paterculus, Caesar's war in Gaul resulted in the deaths of 400,000 Gauls; in Plutarch's "Life of Caesar", it was written that out of the 3 million Gallic soldiers who fought in the wars, a million were killed and another million was captured as slaves. War is hell for the losers and sometimes also for the winners.

Answer: Hector

It is well documented in the "Iliad" that Hector was a peace-loving family man; others have called him a "martyr to loyalty". He was the oldest son of King Priam and the greatest Trojan warrior. When his brother, Paris, brought Helen to Troy, Hector did not approve. So what did he do? He fought against the Greeks for ten long years, eventually giving his life for a cause in which he did not believe. He fought in spite of the fact that he anticipated the downfall of Troy. And what happened? The Greeks built the horse, and infiltrated the city, killing all but just a handful of its occupants and burning it to the ground.

While one might think that is evaluation is a bit hard on Hector, it must be noted that someone needed to have sense in the midst of all the chaos. Why wasn't it the "ideal warrior and the mainstay of Troy"?