Medieval Kings

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

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"!"

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.

What would you like to discuss about them, to kick off the topic, I'll choose Basil II.

He didn't pluck them out, he blinded them, by passing a hot piece of metal near the eye, still extreme and painful.

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Penelope - 02-May-2007 at 23:27

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.

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.