Just cause I liked Imperator Invictus' poll layout I thought 'd be a copy cat.

 Edward I - Firm establishment of Parliment , conquered Wales

Henry II- Many legal reforms led him to be seen as founder of English common Law. Very able millitary commander.

Richard I - lion heart - Brave military man. Lead crusade that regained much in the holyland. No intrest in administration of his country.

Alfred the Great - Although never king of all England he was regarded as overlord to the english,able military lead and scholar

William I- the Conqueror - Conquered England and imposed a fudal society ruled by handful of Norman barons,constructed towers all over England including Tower of London, Ordered the survey,the Doomsday Book.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.

As to if he was brave or not I guess there maybe some room for discussion. Saladin claimed to be find him brave but rash. The name lionheart was given him by his contemperaries it was ment to refer not only to valour and prowess in war but to his notorious temper tantrums.

I personally have gained a small bit more respect for him after reading some more about him but I thik he was still a poor excuss for a King of England considering he spent only six months there in his entire rein and he thought of it as nothing more than a place to raise funds.

 When was William the conqueror a frenchman an English knight. William was the son of a frenchwoman and another french norman who has like a small scandinavian ancestry. Even the lion heart wasn't English blood but of French decent.

Edward I

He conquered Wales, and called the Model Parliament to session. He temporarily subdued Scotland, thus, even for a brief period, united the island of Britain under one rule.

You are correct to make the distinction. The Normans where not French then. The King that gave me pause was Alfred. I couldn't deside if saxon blood was English.

 What a nonsense, Normans were all french just like anjou and Aquittaine. I'll agree Burgundy and britanny weren't but the rest were more of Franco-gallo origin. With the exception of normandy which has a small scandinavian input but after 3 generations they were all but assimilated.  All have french names and was speaking french. You are confused. Ile-de-France was the royal domain and the Franks stronghold that's why they are referred historically as french to avoid confusion especially when they have top confront burgundians or Gascons, but France(western Francia) englobed normandy and Aquittaine but exclude burgundy and britanny. By such everyone in this region are culturally french. That's why during the invasion of england, the normans were referred as French (Franci) rather than Normans. Guillaume (William) was 100% french from the region of normandy, his scandinavian ancestry was negligible. Anyway to be french one need not be only of Franks or Gallic.

 Lion heart wasn't norman, Lion heart was the duke of Aquittaine and the son of Eleanor of Aquittaine. He was of norman-Gascon decent and spent most of his life in Toulouse and Poitiers. He coundln't speak a word of English.

 French is not a nationality it started with a culture including origin (Franks and gallic) rather than a nationality. Pretty much like the germans, they were referred as German despite not being united at the time. The normans never referred to themselves as normans the Franks called them Norsemen and the name sticks to the region.But afterward the Franks didn't quite view them as anything other than french. Normandy became a region and the french living there were referred as normans and they have huge autonomy. You can argue succesfully the Burgundians weren't french (despite nowadays they are) but the normans were certainly french beyond any doubt. That's why they are my ancestors to start with and I know the history better than anyone else here.

 Again french is not a nationality but more a culture usually associated with a region in this case Francia occidentalis and the language associated with it as well as the origin of the races. Out of modern France, anything that wasn't French during the Medieval, were Burgundy, Britanny, Alsace, Lorraine, and north Pas-calais(Flemish) all the rest are in the realm of the french culture and are certainly french and especially normandy who spread the culture in England. Pretty much like Germany you can't say the federation of rhine and the bavarian arent gerans because they were not united.

 Again below you have the tapestry which give you the exact description of the normans. First in the latin text the normans are not referred as normans but french and it said "here died the French and English" (Franci and Angli). Clearly there was a notion what the french was and what the English was at the time. Second to show the the Normans were really french and nothing else, look at the 2 fighting armies, one have moustache and beard which are the English. Whereas the Normans like the Franks don't have moustache and they've adopted exactly the same hair cut as the Franks. Not to mention they've adopted more than that. It's beyond doubt that they were infact the same as the Franks and therefore french.

not only, part of the deal to release him of that rison in Austria was that he had to become vasall of the Imperial crown (HRE). it was however never really applied, since the ruling dynasty was in a constant struggle with counter-kings and the Pope, ad the dynasty itself declined fast therafter and leading to their extermination...

wow, it's the second time i've read that within a week or so, where's that comign from? Bavaria was not less part of the Rhine confedercy than any other southern or Western German state at that time...

 THe Viking root is exaggerated. The norseman (not to confuse with norman as people from Normandy) were defeated at Chartre. But the viking were fast and mobile so unstoppable. So the Frank king gave the Norseman normandy in exchanged they helped stopping the viking raid. So they settled there, the vast majority were single men. Eventually they married into the much larger Gallic population and were thoroughly assimilated. 150 years, no trace of viking whatsoever, only story remains and some local tradition. But these people were more french than the Franks themselves, same language, same law, same architecture, same hair cut, same habit. These are the normans as Norman from normandy, the norsemen had long gone.

 Well we don't call ourselves French but Francais which is translated from latin Franci which literally means Franc (Frank). More like french are german because Germany/poland/Danube region was the heartland of europe, even the celt came from  there and the Teutons weren't for sure a Germanic tribe but more likely a Celtic tribes that ride along with Germanic tribe. Charlemagne was the king of the French (French) and emperor of the Holy empire, they  can claim Charlemagne as there Emperor but not as their king.

 And what army was the tapestry of Bayeux, the Tapestry is about the Norman conquest mate. And how can you differentiate a "franci" from Normandy and a "franci" from ile-de-france, if they all have the same characterics Frankish hair cut, all shaven and spoke the same language. From the English POV, they are all the same.

 You are wrong the normans weren't "Francofied" they were french. Most normans king of England couldn't even spoke a word of English.

I voted for Alfred the Great for his brilliant diplomatic and military manuevering between the danes and the other saxon kingdoms, but Henry II was a very close second for his work with the common law.

I think you should have included King John I for the part he played in Magna Carta (though it was really done to curb his tyranny not with his assistance), King Henry for his brilliant victory over the french at Agincourt and the ensuing annexations, King Edward III for his victories at Crecy and Poitours (pardon the spelling, I take german), and King Richard III for his brilliant polital manuevering toward the end of the War of the Roses (He was an awful tyrant who was eventually overthrown, but he was a genius militarily and diplomatically)

Also, why do you have Henry III as one of the choices, i was'nt aware he really did anything?

Yes henry III was intended to be Edward III but after I posted it and was reading it through I discovered I could not edit it. (First time I made a poll) So you can either ignor poor old Henry or pretend that he is Edward and vote for him.

I'm not sure whether to pick Leopold(Or Leopard, depending on translation) of Austria, Edward Longshanks (The first), or Richard the Lion-hearted.

Longshanks was a good king because he noticed the power in the Welsh Longbow, and adapted it to his army. It made a huge difference (Can you imagine the English at Agincourt agains the French "Paladins" without longbows?), so he's worthy of it.

Richard the Lion-Hearted is possibly the most well-known of the three I like, so I won't bother to drill his life into your head.

Leopold had a much more modest reign, and I'm not sure whether it's Saxon-Austrian Pride that makes me vote for him or because of the way he tricked Richard, captured him, and handed him over to the German Emperor. He's somewhat insidious, but a good leader nonetheless.

Henry I.

I personally quite dislike Richard the Lionhearted. Despite being known as a capable commander, he was also known for his cruelty in battle.

I voted for Alfred.  As stated before, by others he acted as gardian of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and kept the Danes at bay.  There are many other very able Medieval English kings that could have been listed going further into Anglo-Saxon history.  Culturally speaking I feel that the Irish monastaries really should be given most of the credit for preserving knowledge and culture in the British Isles, not to mention the rest of western Europe.  Kings came and went like the ash and dust they were.  It was the early Irish, and later Anglish (sic) monks that should be given the most votes.  But then again if the Romans hadn't invaded in the first place, I'm sure British history would have been much different.  Nothing like a little civilization forced on you at gladius point, eh?  And why limit ourselves to Kings, and only England?  I personally find some of the greatest leaders to have been Welsh like Llywelln The Great, Llywelln the Last, and Owain the Great.  Of course who can compete with the Triovantes prince Caracatus who defied Rome itself?  Then you have Queen Elizabeth I, whom built and reigned over "A" (not the) Golden Age of England.

-Pytheas 

ahh the "Llywellns" They did give the  kings of the time a bad time. Tough suckers those guys. If you care to post some more info on them that would be Great.

As to ElizabethI(one of my personnal favorites) she was discounted because of the time frame she ruled in ,not medieval.

I liken Llywelln Fawr (The Great) to other Celtic, if I can loosely apply that term, leaders.  Of course Caracatus did not live in Medieval times, but many archaeologists and anthropologists (myself included in both camps), consider the definitions of time periods to be fluid and ill-defined.  Many of the cultural frameworks noted in Pre-Roman, Iron Age Europe, and specifically in Britain continued to grow and evolve.  The early Christian (Xpty) Church adopted MANY countless elements of pre-christian culture and religion into the Church's belief system.  One need only look at the Christian calander and research the Saints and the cult of the saints to realize that people worshiping a Holy Spring were only continuing in the tradition of the Celtic/Germanic forefathers.  Returning to the subject of the Llywellns and other Welsh princes, there are some great books to begin a search of the history of the great land of Wales.  Please refer to the list below.

1. Davies, John.  A History of Wales.  Penguin Books, 1993.

2.  Walker, David.  Medieval Wales.  Cambridge Medieval Books, 1996.

Also for some good fiction on the subject look up the author Sharon Kay Penman and the first of three books about Medieval Wales is entitled Here Be Dragons

"but many archaeologists and anthropologists (myself included in both camps), consider the definitions of time periods to be fluid and ill-defined" 

For sure, particularly when refering to the medieval period. The professionals can't agree when it started and when it ended how could the rest of us. The comment Queen E was just for the sake of this forum ( the time frame was limited to 1450 IIRC) and the poll. There are many features of the Tudor era particullarly the earlly part were Medieval.

As to the Penman books I have read them and liked them although I found her to be a little long winded at times. How accurate are they as far as the history goes?They seemed not to bad. The others you mentioned I have not read( my god a history book on Britian I don't have. My husband is not going to like this  Have to look for them.   

Dawn,

As for the Penman books, they were for the most part pretty accuarate concerning the overall history.  When she strays from the historical "truth", she has been pretty good about noting the fictionalized parts of the book at the end, citing poetic license, of course.  I too found her a bit long-winded, but aren't all of us interested in history/archaeology?

I understood where you were coming from with your remark about Queen Elizabeth, I just like to go off on tangents, especially when it comes to the Medieval-ness of something.  By the way, read you article on the Roman invasion of Britain.  Liked it.  Although I missed the famous show down between Claudius and Caracatus in Rome.  How magnaminous of Claudius to spare the poor barbarian!

Had to look up the exact quote of Caracatus facing off Claudius in Rome:

"Why," Caracatus siad taking in all the grandior of Rome, "with all these great possessions, do you still covet our poor huts?" (Potter & Johns).

Potter, T.W and Catherine Johns. Roman Britain.  Barnes & Noble books, 2002.

I am uterlly facsinated by the Iron Age (pardon the use of yet another flimsy temporal lable) and the interaction of these groups with the Classical World.  Not to mention the cultural continuity leading into the Medieval period.  I strongly believe we can not understand one period without taking the surounding eras into account.

Cheers. 

Your right I should have included it. Well i can always do a revision on it and add that part. I really am an amature at this particulairly writting but ever once in a while I get the urdge to(mostly in the winter).I'm thinking on doing one on the war f the roses but it will hae to wait until after the new year. There is another article around here somewhere that I wrote on the black death but I'm not sure where it got to.  Are you a writer? they love to post articles written by members. 

Dawn,

Yeah I write both fiction and non-fiction.  I got a univ. degree in archaeology and concentration in history, so I had to do research and write papers all the time.  Now I conduct research for my fiction writing based on history/archaeology.  Ive currently got two major fiction book projects going.  I have a fairly extensive personal library to work from, but also use the local university library for further research.  Luckily a couple of my friends are still students there so I can even do interlibrary loan, which helps tremendously.  My interests are wide throughout time and regions.  One topic close to me right now is prehistoric Spain--there's a forum in Ancient Civilizations that I wrote in response to a question regarding who was active in the region prior to the Romans and Carthaginians.

I would go for Athelstan, without him there would be no England. He reformed the law and for the first time played a major role in European affairs.

Got to say I can't see how Richard I gets into the poll - great warrior, awful king, or William - usurping the throne before starving 100 000 of your new subjects is not what great monarchs are made of