Medieval Kings

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.

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by elvain Philippe II. of France - the one who created France as 13th century "superpower" � How was France a superpower in the 13th century?

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



Edited by kasper - 03-May-2007 at 20:06

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

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.

Edited by kasper - 07-May-2007 at 19:46

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.

Originally posted by Penelope 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.

tough one... my top 5 would be

1)Richard III
2)Saladin
3)Genghis Khan
4)Charlemagne
5)William The Conquerer

Originally posted by Brynulf_The_Great 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: 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. 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.

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.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 06-May-2008 at 18:08

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.