NationStates Jolt Archive

So the Greatest President Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582920) started turning into a discussion of which European monarch named Elizabeth was the best. So now I'm starting this one, who is/are the greatest Monarch(s) of Europe.

My picks

Louis XIV of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France) - Turned Versailles into a cool palace, Modernized the French army, Gave France a uniform law code, Helped turn France into a centralized, modernized state.

Peter I of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_I_of_Russia) - Peter the Great turned Russia from a backwater into a major European power.

Henry VIII of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England) - He was just cool, starting his own church and all that.

John of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England) - Signed the Magna Carta. Helped pay off England's debts after Richard I squandered the treasury on the Third Crusade and campaigns in France.

That's all I have right now.

Honourable Mention to Frederick I Barbarossa for leading an army of 100,000 men on Crusade, only to drown in a river in Turkey on the way.

Has there ever been a good monarch?

King Juan Carlos I of Borbón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Juan_Carlos)- for leading the final stand and rescuing Spain of Francisco Franco's dictatorship and for instituing the current Constitutional Monarchy that has been so good to his people.

Has there ever been a good monarch?

I never said "good". I said "Greatest and/or Favourite".

I never said "good". I said "Greatest and/or Favourite".

Not sure what you mean by 'great' then - was Henry VIII the 'greatest' wife murderer or something?

I'm a big fan of the Habsburgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg); family drama and politics galore. In particular Maximilian I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor), who probably has the most impressive family tree ever.

Honourable mention to George V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom), just for being possibly the most powerful man that ever lived, even though it ended abruptly.

Henry VIII of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England) - He was just cool, starting his own church and all that.

Cool? The guy who destroyed hundreds of monasteries and churches, and caused the legacy of forced conversion or death for those who disagreed that would continue through the next few monarchs? Killed his wives? Sure, cool guy...

John of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England) - Signed the Magna Carta. Helped pay off England's debts after Richard I squandered the treasury on the Third Crusade and campaigns in France.


That wasn't exactly voluntary. Plus he sort of lost all the French lands and was generally pretty bad at everything he tried.

I rather like King Christian X of Denmark. Despite officially complying with the Nazis, he acted personally as a powerful symbol of defiance and Danish unity.

I rather like King Christian X of Denmark. Despite officially complying with the Nazis, he acted personally as a powerful symbol of defiance and Danish unity.

He earned the title of "Righteous Gentile" for the whole of Denmark, AND when Iceland declared independence from Denmark, sent them a letter of congratulations.

I see you're almost all obsessed with post-medieval Western Europeans (the OP's nod to Peter the Great being the main exception).

I'll put in nods for several Roman/Byzantine Emperors, particularly Augustus, Trajan, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, Heraclius, Leo III, the triple whammy of Nicephorus II, John Tzimisces, and Basil II, Alexius I... and it tends to be downhill from there - but most of that list far exceed many of the inconsequential moderns you've been discussing so far in terms of their influence and importance.

And can I have Suleyman the Magnificent on the basis that half the Ottoman Empire was in Europe?


As to Henry VIII, he was clearly a bastard (in the figurative sense) with a vicious, nasty streak, but he was a consequential and important bastard whose influence on English and British history is hard to underestimate.

Charlemagne - Has to be my most favorite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

Alfred the Great - Very close second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

William I of England - If you force me to choose a third
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_England

Napoleon Boneaparte, Emperor of France and, for a time, All of Western Europe, a feat not manged before or since.

Cool? The guy who destroyed hundreds of monasteries and churches, and caused the legacy of forced conversion or death for those who disagreed that would continue through the next few monarchs? Killed his wives? Sure, cool guy...

well of course everything looks bad when you add facts. :p

I see you're almost all obsessed with post-medieval Western Europeans (the OP's nod to Peter the Great being the main exception).

I'll put in nods for several Roman/Byzantine Emperors, particularly Augustus, Trajan, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, Heraclius, Leo III, the triple whammy of Nicephorus II, John Tzimisces, and Basil II, Alexius I... and it tends to be downhill from there - but most of that list far exceed many of the inconsequential moderns you've been discussing so far in terms of their influence and importance.

And can I have Suleyman the Magnificent on the basis that half the Ottoman Empire was in Europe?


As to Henry VIII, he was clearly a bastard (in the figurative sense) with a vicious, nasty streak, but he was a consequential and important bastard whose influence on English and British history is hard to underestimate.

Sure why not, Suleiman was pretty good and the Ottoman Empire stretched all the way to Hungary. If we include Roman Emperors, I like Augustus best.

Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler)

Charlemagne - Has to be my most favorite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne


Good choice. If we're doing medieval or later Western monarchs, then he has to feature.



Alfred the Great - Very close second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

William I of England - If you force me to choose a third
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_England


I'd have to pick William over Alfred. Alfred was an important and influential Saxon monarch - and a good king in both senses of 'good' - who made a significant difference to English history, but his broader regional influence was minimal. William had the more consequential regional influence, even if he was a bastard in both the figurative and literal senses.


Sure why not, Suleiman was pretty good and the Ottoman Empire stretched all the way to Hungary

Hurrah! I was in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul about 6 months ago, and Suleyman definitely had exquisite taste to go with that all-conquering army.

Alfred The Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_great) - the only English king to be called Great. started a dynasty from Wessex that would unite England for the first time. i work in the small city where he had his capital (and which was capital until sometime after 1066), so i see his statues and stuff everywhere.

gotta have Henry VIII, so i agree there. the fake "King Arthur's Round Table" he had made hangs in the Great Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester#Winchester_Castle) in Winchester Castle.

also King Canute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_Great) for being a badass with the sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_Great#Ruler_of_the_waves). one of the sites he might have done his 'commaning of the waves' thing is supposedly my hometown of Southampton.

maybe we should have Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria, largely for what their leadership did for the country under their reigns.

i know that's a very anglocised list, but i don't know much about non-british royalty. hell, i don't know much about them :P

The only good monarch is a decapitated monarch

The only good monarch is a decapitated monarch

Treasonous Swine!! I'll have you drawn and quartered!!

Treasonous Swine!! I'll have you drawn and quartered!!

Drawn? Who will be the artist? And where will these living quarters you speak of be located?

@ FreeSatania and the one who mentioned Byzantines: Basil the Bulgar-Slayer. I'm also with Bonaparte guy; when someone's called "God of War", it speaks for itself. As for modern ones, the Shut The Fuck Up Dude (also known as Nanatsu's Big Guy).

Alfonso the Slobberer had the greatest nickname

1. Æðelstān (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athelstan)

2. Edward III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England)

3. George V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom)

4. Fredrick II of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrick_The_Great)

5. Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell)

well of course everything looks bad when you add facts. :p

On bright note Green sleeves likely came out at this time.

Here are some of my favourite monarchs

Queen Elizabeth I of England - she did a lot of good for England during her reign, setting them up for a future of Empire ruling. She also managed to counter many threats to her reign and life during her lifetime

Frederick the Great of Prussia - made the Prussian military a model of efficiency, and efficiently conquered new lands for Prussia

George III of England - to you Americans, he didn't seem that bad of a person, and in his younger years would have been an impressive monarch. Probably his most interesting aspect was how he declined in his later years, and how this decline helped set the scene for the modern British Parliament

Alfonso the Slobberer had the greatest nickname

I know of one called, roughly translated, "Weirdo".

I know of one called, roughly translated, "Weirdo".

I would be surprised if only one had that nickname.

1. Æðelstān (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athelstan)

2. Edward III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England)

3. George V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom)

4. Fredrick II of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrick_The_Great)

5. Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell)


Oliver is interesting. In Britain he was elected as one of the Top 10 Britons of all time in a 2002 BBC poll.

Everything I have read he was somewhat of a nasty guy as well.

Lolz @ Napoleon and Cromwell being named as Monarchs , cos of course Cromwell LOVED the Monarchy at the time him and 'two shirts' Charlie got on great guns :)

Oliver is interesting. In Britain he was elected as one of the Top 10 Britons of all time in a 2002 BBC poll.

Everything I have read he was somewhat of a nasty guy as well.

yeah and love the fact that he refused the throne yet still carried on with all the trappings of being a king and living it up in Hampton court

Elizabeth I of England - took an impoverished England and led it to prosperity. Walked a fine line between Protestantism and Catholicism and, for the most part, was religiously tolerant (for the times). Defended England against external enemies without resorting to all out war (except for the Armada thing).

Catherine the Great of Russia - basically set things up so Peter the Great had a good starting point.

Kamehameha of Hawaii - United the islands. (Not European, but hey, I like him).

I dont think many can top Napoleon Bonaparte I for his greatness to his people...


But, as for my personal favorite, George III just because he's interesting...

Good choice. If we're doing medieval or later Western monarchs, then he has to feature.





I'd have to pick William over Alfred. Alfred was an important and influential Saxon monarch - and a good king in both senses of 'good' - who made a significant difference to English history, but his broader regional influence was minimal. William had the more consequential regional influence, even if he was a bastard in both the figurative and literal senses.




Hurrah! I was in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul about 6 months ago, and Suleyman definitely had exquisite taste to go with that all-conquering army.

Yeah I have a hard time ranking those two Alfred and William.


If you think legacy + military conquest + not leaving the country in ruin.

Alfred the Great’s most enduring work was his legal code, called Deemings, or Book of Dooms (Book of Laws).

Nevertheless both the British Royal Navy and the United States Navy claim Alfred as the founder of their traditions.

Alfred is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church


William

Battle of Hastings one of the most famous battles ever.

William commissioned all his counselors for the compilation of the Domesday Book, which was published in 1086. The book was a survey of England's productive capacity similar to a modern census.

William also ordered many castles, keeps, and mottes, among them the Tower of London's foundation (the White Tower), to be built throughout England.

It really is very difficult to rank these two.

If you explore the legend that is where it becomes more interesting.

Alfred

Another story relates how Alfred disguised himself as a minstrel in order to gain entry to Guthrum's camp and discover his plans.


A popular legend originating from early 12th century chronicles,[5] tells how when he first fled to the Somerset Levels, Alfred was given shelter by a peasant woman who, unaware of his identity, left him to watch some cakes she had left cooking on the fire. Preoccupied with the problems of his kingdom, Alfred accidentally let the cakes burn and was taken to task by the woman upon her return. Upon realising the king's identity, the woman apologised profusely, but Alfred insisted that he was the one who needed to apologise.

Alfred's translation of The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius was the most popular philosophical handbook of the Middle Ages.

Justinian The Great, Charlemagne, Heraclius I, and, for me the greatest I can recall, Alfred. His defensive efforts against the Danes, legal codifications and educational reforms are, in light if what preceded him, and the resources upon which he could call, exceptional.

Henry IV of France: Ended the religious wars in France after converting from Protestantism to Catholocism. Just wish I could remember the phrase that he said, "Paris is worth a mass" or something like that.

King Wilhem I of Germany: He made Otto von Bismarck Prime Minister. That is all.

King Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont: Appointed Camillor Cavour as Prime Minister. Said minister played major role in Italian unification. Got to give the guy props for hiring competent people.

Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden: He made Sweden a major power and revolutionized warfare in little over 20 years.

And I'm going to give props to Emperor Norton. Sure someone would bring him up eventually

Lolz @ Napoleon and Cromwell being named as Monarchs , cos of course Cromwell LOVED the Monarchy at the time him and 'two shirts' Charlie got on great guns :)

I didn't think it were possible for the tone of NGS to be lowered. Congratulations.

Would you prefer monocrat then?

Edward VIII: I'm in your American wives saying balls to King and country!
King Arthur: apparently hes still at work waiting to save us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur%27s_messianic_return)

there is more but they've all been said :(

i work in the small city where he had his capital (and which was capital until sometime after 1066), so i see his statues and stuff everywhere.

ah Winchester how I despise thee

Oops, almost forgot William the Silent Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Silent)! Probably one of the better circumstantial nicknames ever.

The only good monarch is a decapitated monarch
Ah, we have many of those for you to choose from.

Lolz @ Napoleon and Cromwell being named as Monarchs , cos of course Cromwell LOVED the Monarchy at the time him and 'two shirts' Charlie got on great guns :)

They functioned as monarchs.


Oliver is interesting. In Britain he was elected as one of the Top 10 Britons of all time in a 2002 BBC poll.

Everything I have read he was somewhat of a nasty guy as well.
Yeah, did the whole, everyone has to be a strict puritan thing. Banned Christmas etc.

On a Welsh note, Hywel Dda (essentially a Welsh Alfred the Great) and say Henry II Plantaganet

ah Winchester how I despise thee

how come? :confused:

I feel Tassilo of Bavaria deserves a mention also, as does Charles V.

I've always liked Frederick II of Prussia ("Old Fritz") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II_of_Prussia) and Karolus Magnus (Charlemagne) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne).

Attila a.k.a. Flagellum Dei, Malleus Orbis (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/attila.html)

Hunyadi Mátyás (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mátyás_Hunyadi)

Attila a.k.a. Flagellum Dei, Malleus Orbis (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/attila.html)

Hunyadi Mátyás (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mátyás_Hunyadi)

After all, the Hunnic empire lasted all of what, a year, two years after his death?

Attila was a nomadic warrior, not a statesman. If you seek a Late Antique Barbarian of note, look to Theoderic in Italy, or, potentially, Clovis.

Catherine the Great of Russia - basically set things up so Peter the Great had a good starting point.

You have the order backwards.

The current British monarchy. There's really no better proof that greatness isn't genetic than that bunch.

You have the order backwards.

Oops. My bad.

Still, she did some interesting things in Russia like making it the dominant nation in southeast Europe.

After all, the Hunnic empire lasted all of what, a year, two years after his death?

Attila was a nomadic warrior, not a statesman. If you seek a Late Antique Barbarian of note, look to Theoderic in Italy, or, potentially, Clovis.

Attila has ruled an empire of many nations and was recognized king by neighbouring powers (such as the Gothic and Roman empires): that would make him a monarch.

Attila was born in present-day Hungary, where he (and the core of his nation) resided during times of peace: that would make him European.

Attila has accomplished things that make him my favourite European monarch, even compared to Clovis I or Theodoric. He was one of the major forces contributing to the great migrations which in turn accelerated the demise of Rome, his victories resulted in the population of an entire continent soiling themselves upon hearing his name (having "Scourge of God, Hammer of the World" added to his name might reflect that), his sole defeat was a strategically indecisive event, a mere tactical withdrawal which allowed him to ravage Northern Italy the following year. Clovis ruled for 2 years after which his kingdom devolved into several nigh-independent states. Theodoric does deserve my respect, but the way he became ruler (de jure only viceroy) doesn't appeal to me enough to consider him my favourite monarch over Attila.

So there. Attila is one of my favourite (greatest in my opinion) European monarchs. What's there to dispute?

Drawn? Who will be the artist? And where will these living quarters you speak of be located?

well, we have this tower in London. You can stay there until we find the, uh..."artist".

As for modern ones, the Shut The Fuck Up Dude (also known as Nanatsu's Big Guy).

Did the King of Spain really tell someone to 'shut the fuck up?' That's kinda badass...Dick Cheney did something similar here and everybody just about had kittens.

Richard the Lion-Heart: Bad-ass Crusader, as well as a mostly successful one, which was not always the case for the Crusaders.

Henry V: Took his father's throne, shook the haters off, led his army to France to pursue his claims to the French throne, whupped the French(but really, who hasn't?). Plus Shakespeare gives him a hell of a speech.

Gustav II Adolph of Sweden: 'Father of Modern Warfare' as well as arguably the first modern general. Won the battle of Breitenfeld.

I saw someone mentioned Norton I, Emperor of America. I read about him just recently in a book I got from my book-store girl. Interesting cat, I wonder if you could get away with that now.

@ FreeSatania and the one who mentioned Byzantines: Basil the Bulgar-Slayer.

That would have been Basil II, whom I did list.

But I did forget the subsequently-listed Justinian I, which was rather sloppy of me.


Oh, and I agree that Theodoric was a better 'barbarian' monarch than Attila. At its most brutally simple, the first built things, the second burned them down.

One should not forget King Zog of Albania.

Has there ever been a good monarch?
Yes, both of our Lizzies have been top.

The current British monarchy. There's really no better proof that greatness isn't genetic than that bunch.
We're about to have a Charles in. Give a dog a bad name and all that.

One should not forget King Zog of Albania.

Son of Jor-El, KNEEL BEFORE ZOG!

After playing Medieval Total War (both of them) several time over and over, I have to say ME.

We're about to have a Charles in. Give a dog a bad name and all that.

Except that he might well choose to call himself 'George VII' rather than 'Charles III'. He's on record as not being keen on 'Charles III' because neither of the previous holders of that name set a good precedent, especially the first. Of his other names, he doesn't want to call himself Phillip (which, quite apart from the Oedipal conflict, would also raise the question of whether Mary I's husband would count as Phillip I), and 'King Arthur' would be too risible for words. So George VII it probably is (or will be), unless we skip straight to William V.

Richard the Lion-Heart: Bad-ass Crusader, as well as a mostly successful one, which was not always the case for the Crusaders.


Richard the Lionheart basically scared off Saladin's army by being a scary SOB. He's like the Chuck Norris of his time!

my favourites:

l'Empereur (Napoleon Bonaparte, ça va sans dire!)
Tsar Pëtr Velikij (smelting down churchbells to make cannons B) )
Kaiserin Maria Theresa (the real one, Maria Theresa Walburga Amalia Christina von Habsburg)
Cesare Borgia (not a full-fledged monarch, ok, but the Pope's son)
Jiří z Poděbrad (he tried to build a sort of European Union in the XV century!)
Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus
Friedrich II von Preußen

Ludwig II of Bavaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II)

Totally bonkers, gay as a pink hanky, but at least he didn't kill too many people.

Ludwig II of Bavaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II)

Totally bonkers, gay as a pink hanky, but at least he didn't kill too many people.
He's Bavarian. By definition, that cannot make him great.

Attila has ruled an empire of many nations and was recognized king by neighbouring powers (such as the Gothic and Roman empires): that would make him a monarch.

Attila was born in present-day Hungary, where he (and the core of his nation) resided during times of peace: that would make him European.

Attila has accomplished things that make him my favourite European monarch, even compared to Clovis I or Theodoric. He was one of the major forces contributing to the great migrations which in turn accelerated the demise of Rome, his victories resulted in the population of an entire continent soiling themselves upon hearing his name (having "Scourge of God, Hammer of the World" added to his name might reflect that), his sole defeat was a strategically indecisive event, a mere tactical withdrawal which allowed him to ravage Northern Italy the following year. Clovis ruled for 2 years after which his kingdom devolved into several nigh-independent states. Theodoric does deserve my respect, but the way he became ruler (de jure only viceroy) doesn't appeal to me enough to consider him my favourite monarch over Attila.

So there. Attila is one of my favourite (greatest in my opinion) European monarchs. What's there to dispute?

Firstly, Attila's being born in Hungary is a chronological, and geographic, impossibility. Secondly, I'd havily dispute the deus ex machina role you ascribe to the Late Antique Huns; the migrations were the result of internal collapse and conflict as much as any dislocation caused by Hunnic predations.

Clovis ruled for a great deal longer than 2 years; the dates are somewhat apocryphal, but decades at least, and, frankly, no credible Late Antique scholar would equate Attila, a military leader whose state lacked all internal apparatus and was united by his person alone, to Theoderic, a figure of comparable military ability and success who also demonstrated great administrative and cultural perspispacity in decades of relatively harmonious rule over a Romano-Gothic population in Italy.

That would have been Basil II, whom I did list.

But I did forget the subsequently-listed Justinian I, which was rather sloppy of me.


Oh, and I agree that Theodoric was a better 'barbarian' monarch than Attila. At its most brutally simple, the first built things, the second burned them down.

Bloody right it was. Last Latin emperor Justinian, although Theodora would have been a far more effective ruler.

On comedic grounds, I feel Honorius deserves a mention also.

He's Bavarian. By definition, that cannot make him great.

Well, it does speak against him, but I'd still take the gay guy who's with the fairies most of the time over the militant, killing bastard.

Richard the Lionheart basically scared off Saladin's army by being a scary SOB. He's like the Chuck Norris of his time!

Iirc he died by standing in front of a besieged city without armour and daring them to shoot him. And they did. Scary but also pretty nuts.

Iirc he died by standing in front of a besieged city without armour and daring them to shoot him. And they did. Scary but also pretty nuts.

Well, its one hell of a badass way to go though; I bet there wasn't one Frenchman in that city that didn't go "This guy gives me the heeby jeebies!"

And he probably figured that if he could scare off an army of 40,000 Egyptian soldiers by standing in front of them with no armor and daring them to attack him, he could do it to the French. I mean they were French...

Otto von Bismarck, if he counts.

If Bismarck doesn't count... he still wins, he is that great.

Well, its one hell of a badass way to go though; I bet there wasn't one Frenchman in that city that didn't go "This guy gives me the heeby jeebies!"

And he probably figured that if he could scare off an army of 40,000 Egyptian soldiers by standing in front of them with no armor and daring them to attack him, he could do it to the French. I mean they were French...

Indeed they were, and, in 1199, they were probably the finest military force in the Latin west. Undoubtedly the finest knights, and I imagine they used Genoaese crossbowmen in numbers also.

Well, it does speak against him, but I'd still take the gay guy who's with the fairies most of the time over the militant, killing bastard.

Why not judge on statesmanship?

Well, its one hell of a badass way to go though; I bet there wasn't one Frenchman in that city that didn't go "This guy gives me the heeby jeebies!"

And he probably figured that if he could scare off an army of 40,000 Egyptian soldiers by standing in front of them with no armor and daring them to attack him, he could do it to the French. I mean they were French...

Wait, since when do you have to scare off the French? I thought they did that on their own? :tongue:

Richard the Lion-Heart: Bad-ass Crusader, as well as a mostly successful one, which was not always the case for the Crusaders.

Mostly? He didn't actually do a whole lot... especially not towards the goal, Jerusalem.

Now the four King Baldwin's, they are teh Crsuade pwns.

Indeed they were, and, in 1199, they were probably the finest military force in the Latin west. Undoubtedly the finest knights, and I imagine they used Genoaese crossbowmen in numbers also.

I'd have to argue that the Germans were coming into their own with knights by that time and eventually had better ones. But yes the French had a great army, its just fun to make fun of them.

I'd have to argue that the Germans were coming into their own with knights by that time and eventually had better ones. But yes the French had a great army, its just fun to make fun of them.

It's pathetic. Mocking the French is neither amusing nor intelligent.

It's pathetic. Mocking the French is neither amusing nor intelligent.
Says you. The French are the world's punching bag.

Says you. The French are the world's punching bag.

Yeah, right. Please, display your ignorance anyway; I'd welcome the entertainment.

Why not judge on statesmanship?

Because that's overrated, I find.

It's pathetic. Mocking the French is neither amusing nor intelligent.

I mock the French as often as I mock anyone else, and I bitch about it far less than others.

Because that's overrated, I find.

As opposed to judging on grounds of contemporary morality? Very professional of you.

I mock the French as often as I mock anyone else, and I bitch about it far less than others.

It's still not funny at all. Hur hur, they surrendered....hur hur.

As opposed to judging on grounds of contemporary morality? Very professional of you.

Hey, the question is who our favourite monarch is or was.
And I happen to like the guy best who is the most colourful person and responsible for the least amount of dead people.
I'm sure there are others with even better records than Ludwig II, but I don't know them, so they can't very well be my favourites.

And besides, it's hardly my profession to judge monarchs. It's a hobby, at best.

Alexander of Macedon
Gaius Julius
Charlemagne
Constantine
Napoleon Bonaparte

Mostly? He didn't actually do a whole lot... especially not towards the goal, Jerusalem.

Now the four King Baldwin's, they are teh Crsuade pwns.

Pedantry: There were five King Baldwins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_V_of_Jerusalem) (see also the complete list of Kings of Jeruselem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Jerusalem)).

Baldwin IV, while a capable monarch, has been the subject of considerable romanticisation over the years; his portrayal in Kingdom of Heaven, for example, is problematic.

That said, the First Kingdom of Jerusalem was remarkably lucky to have had several vigorous and capable monarchs in its early years. The problem came when the first genuine incompetent to take the throne (Guy de Lusignan) coincided with the rise of Saladin. The precarious position of the First Kingdom was underlined by the fact that it took just one bad loss in battle (Hattin) to lose virtually the entire kingdom. And Hattin was lost almost entirely due to Guy's catastrophic decision to abandon a secure water supply in a pointless and futile march to Tiberias.

It's still not funny at all. Hur hur, they surrendered....hur hur.

Here dude; take one of these
http://www.geocities.com/vibestothemax/chill_pill.jpg
and stop looking for reasons to be offended.

The also remember that the English were technically French too and now you have a large list a military achievements and brave victories to include.

And now on a slightly more serious note, the French aren't cowards, they are just smart enough to realize when they are defeated, unlike the United States who even though the entire British Army is running amok in Washington DC and burning it to the ground and or every Native American north, west, east, or south of the Mississippi is riding straight at you downhill with better weapons than you; will keep fighting.

Hey, the question is who our favourite monarch is or was.
And I happen to like the guy best who is the most colourful person and responsible for the least amount of dead people.
I'm sure there are others with even better records than Ludwig II, but I don't know them, so they can't very well be my favourites.

And besides, it's hardly my profession to judge monarchs. It's a hobby, at best.

Forgive me for being a history student then. How dare I evaluate a ruler on anything other than eccentricity.

Forgive me for being a history student then. How dare I evaluate a ruler on anything other than eccentricity.

So then post a Monarch you like rather than complain about what other people have to say.

Forgive me for being a history student then. How dare I evaluate a ruler on anything other than eccentricity.

Huh?
When did I try and force you to make Ludwig YOUR favourite monarch? :confused:

Huh?
When did I try and force you to make Ludwig YOUR favourite monarch? :confused:

Judging from his posts I think he's just in an aggressive mood and is looking for a way to stir something up

Huh?
When did I try and force you to make Ludwig YOUR favourite monarch?

After all, the thread title is 'Greatest and/or Favourite' monarch, and if Cabra's favourite monarch is a mad Bavarian with an overblown taste in architecture, then fine. She never tried to claim Ludwig was a history-shaking monarch of great and lasting individual achievement, did she?

After all, the thread title is 'Greatest and/or Favourite' monarch, and if Cabra's favourite monarch is a mad Bavarian with an overblown taste in architecture, then fine. She never tried to claim Ludwig was a history-shaking monarch of great and lasting individual achievement, did she?
Agreed. This thread needs to take a collective chill pill, as suggested above.

So then post a Monarch you like rather than complain about what other people have to say.

I'm a fucking historian. Bitching about other people's opinions is what we do.

Says you. The French are the world's punching bag.
Eh c'est pas vrai and all that.

So the Greatest President Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582920) started turning into a discussion of which European monarch named Elizabeth was the best. So now I'm starting this one, who is/are the greatest Monarch(s) of Europe.

My picks

Louis XIV of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France) - Turned Versailles into a cool palace, Modernized the French army, Gave France a uniform law code, Helped turn France into a centralized, modernized state.

Peter I of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_I_of_Russia) - Peter the Great turned Russia from a backwater into a major European power.

Henry VIII of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England) - He was just cool, starting his own church and all that.

John of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England) - Signed the Magna Carta. Helped pay off England's debts after Richard I squandered the treasury on the Third Crusade and campaigns in France.

That's all I have right now.

Honourable Mention to Frederick I Barbarossa for leading an army of 100,000 men on Crusade, only to drown in a river in Turkey on the way.

Lets see you swimming in those heavy armors...

Lets see you swimming in those heavy armors...
Really ought to have made a wee raft. Doesn't exactly take long :tongue:

how come? :confused:

there happens to be a certain army base their for phase one recruits (adults oddly enough even though I did it at 16)

flatten the Earth, salt the ground, mine the place and hit it with Project Thor!

Really ought to have made a wee raft. Doesn't exactly take long :tongue:

I'd of just put on some armbands if I wasn't a strong swimmer

I'd of just put on some armbands if I wasn't a strong swimmer
Platemail would need armbands filled with helium or something tbqh :p

I can't believe it took until post 25 for Frederick the Great to come up.

Rodger II of Sicily.

The fact that Im related to him has nothing to do with it :p

Rodger II of Sicily.
I'd posit King Rodger I, of the Rottentrolls.

JimJamYAHA!

William I of England - If you force me to choose a third
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_England

He was shit. And genocidal.

I choose Athelstan, because he united England, and beat the Irish, Scots and Vikings in one uber battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athelstan

and also Harold Godwinso, because he nailed the Welsh and the Vikings, and lost by the skin of his teeth to the Normans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

Firstly, Attila's being born in Hungary is a chronological, and geographic, impossibility. Secondly, I'd havily dispute the deus ex machina role you ascribe to the Late Antique Huns; the migrations were the result of internal collapse and conflict as much as any dislocation caused by Hunnic predations.
Since Attila's and Buda's predecessor, Ruga had already led the Huns well into Eastern Europe at Attila's birth, Attila being born anywhere east of the Urals would be impossible. In fact, Attila's birthplace is estimated to be around Zelemér, but definately in Pannonia. Where I might overrate the Hun's role in the migrations, you probably underrate it. Attila's long-time military success has however definately played a significant role in the flight of those Germanic tribes that didn't submit to him, to Roman lands.

Clovis ruled for a great deal longer than 2 years; the dates are somewhat apocryphal, but decades at least, and, frankly, no credible Late Antique scholar would equate Attila, a military leader whose state lacked all internal apparatus and was united by his person alone, to Theoderic, a figure of comparable military ability and success who also demonstrated great administrative and cultural perspispacity in decades of relatively harmonious rule over a Romano-Gothic population in Italy.
He ruled the Salians for circa 20 years, but the entirety of the Franks was only under his control for 2 years.
As for credibility, your motivation of taking preferences of other people personally enough to start a pointless pseudo-debate shows. As for the internal apparatus of Attila's state, it wasn't non-existant just because you're oblivious to it. The Huns have existed as unified tribes centuries before Attila and though his tribes were divided after his death, his tribal administrative system endured and evolved beyond the Huns (pre-christian Bulgars, Avars, Hungarians, etc.).
History, as a science, avoids subjectivity, such as comparisons of preferability of rulers. No credible scholar would ever make comparisons such as "I think he's the better one", because he'd lose his credibility. Thus your whole "credibility" point is void. I said I didn't like Theoderic's way of getting and preserving his power, so he's not my favourite monarch. And believe me, the question of who's my own favourite king is undebatable and solely up to me.

I'm a fucking miserable flamer. Bitching about other people's opinions is what we do.
No historian would discredit his area of expertise by deeming it a utility of nuisance instead of focusing on facts. Attacking subjective opinions in the name of a science you claim to be studying is the summit of idiocy.
You're not a historian. You may or may not be a history student. You are a troll however and a beginner at that too. Every word you write makes you look more of a fool than you looked like after your previous post, baffling everyone at its sheer possibility, with entertaining results. Prove me you have the intelligence normally required to attend university and be silent.

Lets see you swimming in those heavy armors...

Well, I'd take the armour OFF before I bathe in a river.

I'm a fucking historian.

:eek2:

Fucking...

...historian...

Why not Classical? Medieval? Modern-era? Why not going for history of science, industry, whatever? Were they too boring for you? Or did you opt for something unique? :confused:

I choose William III of England and stadtholder of the Netherlands. For being the leader against mostly everything that Louis XIV did. Oh, and for invading England and becoming king :)

Oh, and for invading England and becoming king :)

We invited him over and then fought for him, against King James and about 5 Irish people. It's not like he invaded and took over.

We invited him over and then fought for him, against King James and about 5 Irish people. It's not like he invaded and took over.

Man, did he have good spin doctors!