Greatest Medieval European King
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=2564
Printed Date: 10-May-2024 at 09:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Greatest Medieval European King
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Subject: Greatest Medieval European King
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 11:45
|
Who is the Greatest Medieval European King? ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Replies:
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 12:46
|
I see you do not like French??? And I have no idea of Ottomans in Medieval, could you be more precise. And it is seen that you like Byzanze. Question, isn't it simpler to ask The Greatest Medieval Ruler??? For not all rulers were kings, and Charlemagne wasn't a king aswell - he was an emperor. Ottomans had Sultans. And William was originally a Duke, so the question is a bit missed, i'd say. Holy Rome, and Byzanze aswell had Emperors. And I'd submit ......(thinking).....Henry I for England he set up an major economical system for England, Barbarossa (Red Beard) for Holy Rome, Phillipe II Auguste for France, Wladyslaw II Jagiello for Poland, Jarl Birger for Sweden, Archduke Leopold for Austria, Innocentius I, II or III, (i do not remember his number) and Valdemar I for Denamrk. ------------- |
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 14:08
The word King could mean very different things, in this context it could mean Sultan or Emperor. For example QUEEN Victoria was called the EMPERESS of India. And the the German king was called a Kaiser which means Caesar is German. The word King is fine for a thread like this. Also, its debatable when the medieval period ends, some say around 1350, others say 1500. I decided the cutoff to be around 1450 and that's why Mehmet the Conqueror is listed and he deserves to be. ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 14:44
|
Because he finished the Byzanze?? I see you have not listed the slav who killed Western Rome! But let us not be offensive. ------------- |
Could you freshen my memory with things that Basil II and Heraclius did? I do not remember, but i rmeember that Jusitian tried to conquer Southern Italy which he did.Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 15:53
You can find all the information you need on this website. Its very general, but very useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Posted By: RED GUARD
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 16:05
|
Vive la William! Vive la Normans! ------------- Quotes by your's turly: "I came, I saw, and I conquered... but only for the weekend" "This is my tank, this is my weapon, and this is my pride." "Power comes from a barrel of a gun." |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 00:43
|
None of the above probably btw Richard coeur de lion (aka Lion heart) or Philip Augutus. Lion heart better than Augutus since the struggle of the Angevin empire vs Capetian kingdom, the Angevin/Platagenet was winning. When Lion heart died, suddenly Augustus defeated John and took all the possession of the Angevin. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 02:11
|
Richard the Lionheart?
Probably the most overrated king in English history. Spend most of his life in France, wasn't really interested in England apart as a source of finance for his adventures. Didn't achieve much on his crusade where he quickly became despised by everyone for his arrogance and cruelty. His only achievements was the short-term regain of English territory in France. So, the mystery is, why has he become such a cult figure in English folklore? I blame Robin Hood. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 14:59
|
I like him, what a nice char. And probably because he could hold off the french. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 21:54
|
It would have been better if he had won, he already inherited 1/3 of France. If he had triumph over Augustus he would have become king of France, and the kingdom of France and England united. He was probably more french than Philip Augutus ever was. By the way France here mean the duchy of France which is actually ile-de-France. The previous king of France didn't have a lot of power outside that region and king of France title is a vague title meaning he was overlord in the region whichis define as Francia occidentalis. But if he wandered somewhere in powerful duchy Aquittaine, Anjou, normandy or burgundy he can actually be captured by the duke and ransomed. THe Lion heart if he had not been wasting his time with futile crusade, he would have probably strated an empire that would have unified europe. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 04:57
What facts do you base this rather wild speculation on? Unifying Europe, gimme a break! This is pure crystal ball gazing! I'm sure the Germans, Italians, French and all the others would have had to say in word in this. I think the most succesful period of Richard's reign was the couple of years he spend as a prisoner, thus giving his brother the first opportunity to annoy the English nobility who forced him later to sign the Magna Charta which laid the foundations for the English constitutional monarchy. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 12:11
|
Speculation yes, wild not so wild. He did say Uniting England and France not uniting Europe. I'm not so sure it would have been better. As Komnenos said the changes caused by John to the English way of governing wher of great importants. They may not of come about and that would be aloss. Could Richard have pulled it off maybe, maybe not who knows. His family would still have caused trouble either way. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 17:45
|
And what the hell do you know about the Lion Heart actually, probably nothing. The man was master of defensive warfare, pushed to a new high by Lion heart and Augustus. No where in europe anyone were capable of such abilities to hold conquered land through a network of stronghold. The Lion was actually winning slowly but surely. My point is the if he had won against Augutus (which was almost an impossibility considering Augutus was very competent) then I see no one in Europe than could stop the unification of the Duchy of France (ile-de_france), the entire France and England. What would have been next would have been either burgundy and further expansion into the holy empire or expansion into the netherland. Europe would have belong to the Angevin/Plategenet. And dude history is about speculation, what do you think this is exact science. Lot that is written is actually bullsh!t.
------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 19:20
|
No need to get so exited!
I rest my case.
No, it isn't. History should be the investigation into and re-telling of events past, with as scientific and objective methods as it is humanly possible. Speculations, such as yours, may be great fun, but belong into the realm of fantasy and are not worth the paper they are written on.
Yup! ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2005 at 01:15
|
You should have rest your case even before trying to give an answer to a statement based upon an alternative possibility; which actually never took place.
It is in the realm of fantasy for those deprived of imagination, everything start with speculations. History is never accurate at best it is also speculations from the POV of the historians. How many different versions of the battle of hastings do you have? Specualtion is certainly widely used by historians .
------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2005 at 14:57
best king is Emperor Frederick II. Stupor Mundi, no question tot hat, Barbarossa is just overhyped, as well as the lion heart, too bad he got captured in Austria by the Austrian duke and was forced to plege vassalage to the Emperor Henry VI...who ever heard of Henry VI?  ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2005 at 10:27
|
Never heard such cra* from you before...Henry VI, maybe in England at the 1520's but Lionheart pledge vassalitie to him, this goes out of mind, science and FANTASY so this can be just a rumour. And the Austrian duke, was The Archduke of Austria, Leopold... ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2005 at 15:27
Do some reading before you insult anybody! Temujin is of course talking about the German King and Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich VI ( Henry in English) (1190-1197), son of Frederik I Barbarossa. Richard I was captured on his return from Palestine by Leopold of Austria who later passed him on to his liege King Henry VI, who held him prisoner in various castles in Germany from 1192-1194. Henry used Richard successfully as a hostage in his struggle against his main rival in Germany, Henry the Lion, who was married to the sister of Richard. Richard was set free after a huge ransom was paid and he had to swear allegiance to the Emperor, thus becoming vasall to Henry. Not fantasy, it's called history! ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |