Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Winterhaze13
Colonel
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Medieval Kings Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 15:50 |
For those of you who are interested in medieval history, I would like to discuss in this thread the great medieval Kings
Here is my list of great European Kings in the Medieval period (450-1450):
1. Charlemagne 2. William the Conqueror 3. Charles Martel 4. Justinian 5. Basel II
|
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.
-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
|
|
Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Colonel
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 557
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 12:49 |
Having studied him more than the others, I must confess to finding William the Bastard's life and activities especially interesting.
Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
|
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,
I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."
--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 00:40 |
I wonder why poeple call him william, his real name was Guillaume .
|
|
Dawn
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 11:07 |
Tradition
"Readers will have noted the change in spelling of "Guillaume" to "William", and this brings us to so many of the changes made in England to Norman names as the result of the Anglo-Saxon scribes putting into written form the sounds being heard out of Norman mouths.
Not just the King's name was Anglicised but so also were such others as de Brionne, which became "de Bryan"; Mortaine that ultimately became "Martyn"... and de Berthelot that became "de Bartelot"!"
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 12:47 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
I wonder why poeple call him william, his real name was Guillaume .
|
We don't call him William - we call him Wilhelm (and "Guillaume" is a Frenchification of Wilhelm anyway...) Royal names have a tendency to be translated - I'll bet my pension Karl XI is called "Charles" in France.
Edited by Styrbiorn
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 15:02 |
It is... I know, and that is what for it can be really confusing. As Karl V was called Carlos I in Spain and abroad. He was Duke Guillaume, Duke of Dukedom of Normandy, and after 1066 he was King William the I of England. It is just that way.
|
|
Jorsalfar
Shogun
Joined: 08-Jan-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 205
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 11:30 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
I wonder why poeple call him william, his real name was Guillaume .
|
I'll bet my pension Karl XI is called "Charles" in France.
|
and almost everywhere else for example CharlesXII instead of Karl XII
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 18:00 |
What would you like to discuss about them, to kick off the topic, I'll choose Basil II.
|
|
Ponce de Leon
Caliph
Lonce De Peon
Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 18:14 |
Basil II who brought about the last greatest achievments of the Byzantine empire through the Macedonian dynasty. Nicknamed the Bulgar slayer because according to legend he plucked out the eyes of 10,000 Bulgarians and when their leader (I forgot his name) saw this terrible sight he died from shock, or cardiovascular failure, or something...
I know you guys already learned this stuff but I am still learning it, and to keep it in my memory I feel like I should recite at least some of it
Edited by Ponce de Leon - 01-May-2007 at 18:15
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 18:20 |
He didn't pluck them out, he blinded them, by passing a hot piece of metal near the eye, still extreme and painful.
|
|
Ponce de Leon
Caliph
Lonce De Peon
Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 18:27 |
Well when I say pluck I also mean blinded. But not to get into technical terms about either plucking or blinding (plucking being to take your fingers and grabbing the person's eyeballs out of their sockets, or blinding which you es bih so elaborated on.) So when I say "plucking" I believe it is universally understood as just "blinding"
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 20:05 |
We had a really fascinating discussion before on the moral "rightness"
of the reign of Basil II, it ended up being a very detailed and long
discussion.
But let's get back to the original topic, I would like to compare each
of the five kings mentioned to one another to evaluate their abilities
as rulers:
Originally posted by Winterhaze13
Here is my list of great European Kings in the Medieval period (450-1450):
1. Charlemagne
2. William the Conqueror
3. Charles Martel
4. Justinian
5. Basel II |
What I find most interesting about all these rulers is that the grand
nation they built would soon after crumble. William the Conqueror is
the exception, as well as Martel who is more noted for defeating the
Muslims than for building a strong nation.
Charlemagne's empire was broken up and soon fell prey to infighting and
the Vikings. Justinian's reconquest so stretched the resources of his
empire that in half a century it was brought to the brink of its
destruction. Basil's near flawless management was undone, but it took
half a century and a succession of very poor rulers.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 01:05 |
Constantine,
Remember that William's Continental possessions were evetually lost - only England (Britain, British Isles, etc) remained - so even his Empire "crumbled crumbled".
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 01:22 |
Originally posted by Melisende
Constantine,
Remember that William's Continental possessions were evetually
lost - only England (Britain, British Isles, etc) remained - so even
his Empire "crumbled crumbled". |
Considering that William's continental possessions really only included
Normandy at that time, I don't consider that an empire which crumbled.
Aquitaine was a later addition, as I'm sure you know. If anything, the
state that William built continued to expand vigorously for up to 100
years after his death, taking Aquitaine and consolidating itself
westwards and northwards across Britain also - not to mention beginning
the invasion of Ireland. The sound administrative and military basis
for a comeback in the 14th century was also laid thanks to the Norman
conquest.
By contrast, Justinian's, Basil II's and Charlemagne's empires were all
disappointing shadows of their former selves barely 50 years after the
deaths of their respective rulers.
|
|
Jagiello
Consul
Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 13:59 |
Are we talking only about kings,like a catholic king or all medieval rulers.If so i would say Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.They both fought for their religion and both had great succeses.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 23:19 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
We had a really fascinating discussion before on the moral "rightness" of the reign of Basil II, it ended up being a very detailed and long discussion.
But let's get back to the original topic, I would like to compare each of the five kings mentioned to one another to evaluate their abilities as rulers:
Originally posted by Winterhaze13
Here is my list of great European Kings in the Medieval period (450-1450):
1. Charlemagne 2. William the Conqueror 3. Charles Martel 4. Justinian 5. Basel II |
What I find most interesting about all these rulers is that the grand nation they built would soon after crumble. William the Conqueror is the exception, as well as Martel who is more noted for defeating the Muslims than for building a strong nation.
Charlemagne's empire was broken up and soon fell prey to infighting and the Vikings. Justinian's reconquest so stretched the resources of his empire that in half a century it was brought to the brink of its destruction. Basil's near flawless management was undone, but it took half a century and a succession of very poor rulers.
|
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the statement you made about Charles Martel. A common misconception is that Charles' only major accomplishment was defeating the Muslims, when in fact, his more important accomplishments included strengthening the Frankish state by consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, including the "heathen" Saxons. He DID indeed build a Strong, and Secure nation.
Edited by Penelope - 02-May-2007 at 23:27
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 23:44 |
He did not subdue the Saxons, Charlemagne subdued them through slaughter, and repression. He didn't defeat a real invading Islamic army either. However, he did strengthen the Frankish kingdom as its virtual ruler, and made it possible for his son Pipin to take the title of King.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2007 at 00:01 |
Originally posted by es_bih
He did not subdue the Saxons, Charlemagne subdued them through slaughter, and repression. He didn't defeat a real invading Islamic army either. However, he did strengthen the Frankish kingdom as its virtual ruler, and made it possible for his son Pipin to take the title of King. |
Exactly, which is my point. The defeat of the Muslims was not his most important accomplishment.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2007 at 00:15 |
Originally posted by Penelope
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the statement you made about
Charles Martel. A common misconception is that Charles' only major
accomplishment was defeating the Muslims, when in fact, his more
important accomplishments included strengthening the Frankish state by
consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of
hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, including the
"heathen" Saxons. He DID indeed build a Strong, and Secure nation. |
Charles did use his power to begin the centralisation which would
ultimately lead to Charlemagne. I am tempted to ponder that the
emergency of the invading Muslims may have played a role in
accomplishing this. Their invasion destroyed the rival dukedom in
Aquitaine and Gascony, while repelling the invasion was Martel's big
chance to meld the Franks into one force to face a common enemy.
Even so, I have never considered Charles to be quite in the same league
as the other four, the range of his power just wasn't all that grand.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2007 at 00:33 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Originally posted by Penelope
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the statement you made about Charles Martel. A common misconception is that Charles' only major accomplishment was defeating the Muslims, when in fact, his more important accomplishments included strengthening the Frankish state by consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, including the "heathen" Saxons. He DID indeed build a Strong, and Secure nation. |
Charles did use his power to begin the centralisation which would ultimately lead to Charlemagne. I am tempted to ponder that the emergency of the invading Muslims may have played a role in accomplishing this. Their invasion destroyed the rival dukedom in Aquitaine and Gascony, while repelling the invasion was Martel's big chance to meld the Franks into one force to face a common enemy.
Even so, I have never considered Charles to be quite in the same league as the other four, the range of his power just wasn't all that grand.
|
Fair enough.
|
|