Medieval Kings
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2459
Printed Date: 28-May-2024 at 14:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Medieval Kings
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Subject: Medieval Kings
Date 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): ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Replies:
Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date 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. ------------- "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) |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 00:40
|
I wonder why poeple call him william, his real name was Guillaume . ------------- |
Posted By: Dawn
Date 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"!" ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 12:47
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. |
Posted By: rider
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Jorsalfar
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 11:30
and almost everywhere else for example CharlesXII instead of Karl XII |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date 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 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date 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" |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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:
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date 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." |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 01:22
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Jagiello
Date 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. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 23:19
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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 00:01
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 00:15
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 00:33
Fair enough.
|
Posted By: elvain
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 06:12
|
I think my list would be Basileios II. - we all know why Philippe II. of France - the one who created France as 13th century "superpower" William - the way he took over England and combined it's institutions with norman government Otto I. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 10:09
How was France a superpower in the 13th century?
|
Posted By: kasper
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 20:02
France was the superpower of the 13th century for several reasons (in no specific order): France had one the largest populations in Europe. When the Hundred Years War broke out in 1337, France had a population of about seventeen million, while England had four million. The 13th century saw some of the best kings in the history of France. Two of these kings were Philip II and Louis IX. One of the great achievements of Philip was conquering several lost territories from the "Angevin Empire", including Maine, Poitou, Normandy, Anjou and Touraine. King Louis IX, or St. Louis, was another great Capetian king. Due to Philip's success in stabilizing the country, Louis was able to let France's culture, economy and military power blossom. While King, Louis was able to provide his vassals with a fairer trial system, was able to keep the currency stable, and built Sainte Chapelle, while at the same time quelling rebellious nobles supported by England (such as Hugh Lusignan and his English wife). A third reason for France's power were the internal problems taking place in England. In the early 1200s, England experienced the revolts surrounding the creation of the Magna Carta and the First Barons' War. Following the signing of the Magna Carta, Henry III, one of the most incompetent rulers of England, was crowned king. Henry's long reign (1216-72) was subject to frequent rebellions, including the Second Barons' War led by Simon de Montfort. That's all I have time for, I hope most of this information is right 
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 00:47
| France was still a collection of royal lands, and loyal, as well as disloyal duchies. Europe in itself was nowhere near even political equality at this point in time with the East or the Far East or the North African States. France was an emerging state, nothing more nothing less. To call it a superpower of its day is a fallacy maybe not in localized terms where the world consists of the outlying provinces and Il de France. |
Posted By: elvain
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 03:25
|
superpower was perhaps a bit too much, but it was by far the most powerfull state in Europe (and north Africa except Egypt) the closest power was Mameluk Egypt in that time and in military also Golden Horde, but it's institutions etc. didn't provide no base for later growth compared to everything near France was almost centralized (during reigns of Philippe II and Louis IX most of local lords were directly subordinated to the king (as it was possible in feudal system) and the system appeared to be more effective than any contemporary middle eastern system and it was first step tu european effectivity of governance on contrary to static systems in the middle east. I can't speak about the far east, but it was Philippe II who started the process of centralization of european medieval states |
Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 17:29
|
Charles Martel was actually never a King, he was the Warder of the Palace/Majordomo or Prime Minister of the Franks. His actual name was actually Karl, but Charles Martel is the Latin Name for him, Martel means hammer in Latin (lit.). At his time, the Invading Moors had conquer Spain and all the Goths including King Roderick had been banished from Earth.He was famous for leading the Frankish troops at the battle of Poitiers/Tours, stopping the Moorish people from advancing to Europe. He also fought battles near Frankish border in order to conquer more regions. William the Conqueror was a Norman Duke who leads the Invasion to England, In 1066, when King Edward I "The Confessor'' died, his throne was zero, he had no hair, and William claimed the throne for him as Edward was a near Cousin of him. But the English nobles chose Harold Godwinson, a "Pure" Anglo-Saxon as King. After asking for Pope's Support and the Coastal North French (Bretons,Flemings,Flanders) Army support, he marched and the Battle of Hastings was fought. As he defeated and killed Harold I Godwinson he took the throne of England, Starting the Road of the Anglo-Norman Dynasty and the English started to invade French and many more.
Charlemagne is my favorite king (After Saladin).
Charlemagne was the King of the Franks since 768-808 (Before it he became joint ruler with his brother, Carlomann).
The first years of his Reign was started with many blood flood, he invaded the Saxons, the Avars, Bavaria, Central Germany, The Basque Mountain (Barcelona etc.) and accepted the Pope request of Destroying the Lombards (And it's Succesful!!). He pointed Count Roland as the Majordomo, but Roland Died when the Basques raid the Frankish army.
He was a fine king, he pointed Monks and Jews as his ministers and develop Schools and Business World. Finally, the peak is when at Christmas day 800, he was Crowned as the first Holy Roman Emperor.
Justinian was a great Byzantine Emperor, by the Constantinople "Fortune Position", he sent explorers to China and Far East, in return, the explorers introduced Silks and many other Trade Goods. Justinian started a Love Affair with the influential Theodora since he was a Prince. He brought Byzantine to a Golden Age since the Time of Constantine I once more with his wife Theodora, and he also rebuilt the Empire after the Barbarians gone.
*PS:Justinian Name was actually Peter Sabbiatus*
Basil II was a great Byzantine Emperor, like Justinian, he brought the Empire to Golden Age again, but as he had no heir, weak Emperors took power (Except the Komnenos Dynasty) of the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, Fall of Constantinople. ------------- "Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux |
Posted By: kasper
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 19:44
|
When I use the word superpower, I say it in context to the High Medieval period and to the rest of Europe at the time. Even though 13th century France had many rebellious regions (as did every other medieval kingdom), it still did not greatly affect the king's influence or his ability to muster large, effective armies. ------------- |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 08-May-2007 at 20:23
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: elvain
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 02:52
|
btw, when speaking about Charles Martell, his "glorious victory" against muslim invasion was just a skirmish of muslim plundering band and Martell's army which was sent against duke of Aquitaine. Later this unimportant skirmish was interpreted as a crucial battle that saved France from Islam. This myth was created one or two generations later by the pope and carolingians who needed to legitimize their claims to the Merovingian throne. all contemporary sources either don't notice this major event or refere to it as just marginal skirmish. All references to the battle of Tours/Poitiers 732 as major event that saved France come from times when "the Carolingians" were about to legitimize their power in cooperation with the popes. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 08:38
|
Charles Martel didnt care for titles of any kind, as long as he held the power. In fact, he was in all actuality an Emperor. He appointed Kings, and these Kings served him as his puppets.
In 719, he laid waste to the Saxons, but for some reason, the battle of Tours gets mentioned as if it was more important.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 20:46
Mostly because a genearation later his son, and after him his grandson needed to legitimize their throne, so records contemporary to them mention it as some civilization saving battle with clear religious undertones in order to rile up the populace behind the Vicars of Christ, the Carolingian dynasts.
|
Posted By: Efraz
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2008 at 01:20
|
I always respected Phillipe II (August) who have risen Capetian Dynasty and Kingdom of France to a great status, defeated multiple enemies despite much chaotic stance in feudal France. I find it needless to mention Charlemagne but I can't help but count King Clovis of Franks. Who can be considered as the founder of Christian kingdom of France. Great Canute one of the greatest Northern Royalty. Founded and ruled a vast Nordic empire. Boleslaw I the Valiant King of Poland his life story is a tale of great ascension John Hunyadi (Yanos) of Hungary. Wasn't a king but regent of throne. Was very successful against odds. If I am allowed to count Sultans as well my favorite is Baybars I (Malik al-Zahir) the Kipchak ex-slave Sultan of Egypt. Second maybe the Murad I of Turks. Real founder of the Ottoman Empire. If Khans are allowed too my favorite there is Kubilay Khan of Mongols. Tamerlane seconds him. These biographies are very interesting to me. |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2008 at 17:14
|
tough one... my top 5 would be
1)Richard III 2)Saladin 3)Genghis Khan 4)Charlemagne 5)William The Conquerer ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 23:45
Did'nt Charlemagne's empire got to his 3 sons which in turn attacked one of the brothers who was smack in the middle of the other twos? I think one had the part that is france now the other brother had what is now germany and the third brother had that little sliver between them that is belgium and italy.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-May-2008 at 02:03
Correct, Lothair's Kingdom was in the middle and as such it fell prey to the infighting with the other sucessors.
The two surviving Kingdoms also went into decline - weakened by attacks from enemies on the borders and also the loss of centralisation and control which instead devolved to feudal lords. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-May-2008 at 02:44
why did they attack their own brother in the first place? Was it for power? If so why did they not attack eachother?
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 06-May-2008 at 18:02
|
It was not Charlemagnes sons who fought. Charlemagne wanted to divide his empire between his sons, but as it happened, by the time he died, only one of them was still alive, Louis the Pious. Louis inherited all.
Louis was of a different opinion than his father, and wanted to keep the empire in one piece, the whole lot going to his eldest son, Lothair, and providing the others with a small kingdom of their own. His three younger sons objected however. Already during his lifetime (in fact it seems to have been the birth of his fourth son, and Louis' attempt to provide him with a piece of his own as well that spartked it off) they revolted agains their father, who only with difficulty kept his throne. The division into three (one son having died before his father) more or less equal portions after his death was a compromise, that statisfied none.
As I recall (but I might be wrong) Charles the Bald and Louis the German did not attack the middle kingdom until after their brothers death, seeing his dying without a strong heir as the perfect opportunity to seize the land for themselves. They attacked each other, not Lothair. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 00:35
| so then after the battle between charles and louis was the empire whole again under one of them or just as is now? |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 17:46
|
Charles got roughly waht is France today, Louis roughly Germany (hence his nickname). traditionally, this is considered as the earliest beginnings of the Kindom of France and the Empire of Germany, although it took some time for this to become fully so. The areas were never part of one empire again after this. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 10-May-2008 at 20:03
| Attacking ones own relatives was the norm in the ancient world. Ambition was just too overwhelming, especially when paranoia sets in, becuase then you come to the conclusion that your brother or sister wants you dead, so as to attain power, "glory" or your inheritance. Then there are the siblings who simply "think that they would be better at ruling a nation than you". This was definately inevitable. A good example would be Ethiopia, where every single male member of the royal family, had the right to fight for the succession, when the reigning Emperor died or was "near death". The entire country side would be literaly turned into an "arena", cleared of all civilians, so as to keep the number of deaths to a minimun, when the sons of the Emperor fought for the right to become the next Emperor. |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 04:45
|
I've always liked Alfred the Great of England. He was both a brilliant ruler and administrator who forged a unified Anglo-Saxon state and gave it institutions, such as the shire system, that were inherited and improved by the Normans and lasted until recently and were a major part of England's rise as a great power. He was also a bit of an intellectual; he encouraged literacy and the translation of classical texts into English. Alfred himself even did some of the translating, most notably he translated the philosophical work The Consolation of Philosophy by the last Roman philosopher, Boethus.
------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 23:33
|
Many of those mentioned are not Kings.
------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2008 at 10:50
I agree with that assesment. And adding that it was in the 13th c. that the kings of France 1) managed to get actual control over the south of modern France (not just nominal), 2) opening up the Med to the political ambitions of the kings of France. This turned France from a small northern kingdom with regional ambitions around the Low Countries, the Rhine and the Channel, into a major player in Mediterranean politics. So, you get a situation when French nobles, often as not vassals of the kings of France, occupy the thrones of places like Jerusalem, the Latin Empire of the East (Byzantium), and culminating with the conquest of Sicily (including half of Italy proper) by Charles of Anjou, brother of king Louis the Holy. I'd say that's the pinnacle of French medieval power, before the HYW, when the better organised English kingdom gave it a run for its money. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2008 at 22:40
It is a very difficult question, who conquered the Saxons. It is correct, that Charlemagne subdued them at least. It is not clear if they were an independent nation before that, it is even clear if they were a nation or only one nation before Charlemagne. It seems as if the saxones were part of the frankish regnum since about 531. Charles Martell, Karlmann and the Franks led campaigns against saxones in 718, 720, 722, 724, 738, 743, 744 and later under Pippin III. in 748, 753 and 758. It is not unlikely that the problems the karolingian "Hausmeier" (maior domini) had with the saxones resulted from the opposite between the Merovingian kings and the Karolingians. In these conflict the saxones or just saxones stood at the side of the Kings. So neither Charles Martell nor Charlemagne subdued the Saxons to the Franks but the Merovingians after there victory over the Thuringians.
|
Posted By: Turenne
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 16:04
|
I would say that the most interesting King would be the one who, in a way, was the first renaissance type king, Louis XI of France, also knowned as the Universal Spider. A real political genious who ended the state of feodality in France, ended the threat of England and destroyed the Burgundian power. ------------- "Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack." Ferdinand Foch |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 15:18
|
look up your last few posts for further instructions, this type of trolling is not welcome ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 07:59
|
If this was solely a "dark ages" thing, then Charles The Great would be a very huge contendor for the title of "greatest king of the dark ages". ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: Berengina
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 15:52
|
Almost a king - John of Gaunt (Ghent) is very interesting! ------------- |
Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 21:54
A fascinating character, indeed. Love his approach to politics and unusual devotion to the women around him (apart from his second wife, obviously - she would fit under the politics part
 ). |
Posted By: Berengina
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2008 at 13:49
Second Wife? Do you refer to Katherine Swynford? I thought that marriage was a love match, not a political one. ------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2008 at 07:17
|
Katherine was his mistress then third wife - his first wife was Blanche of Lancaster - then he married Constance / Constanza of Castile. Then Katherine.
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |