Favourate Monarch

[gormadoc1]

After watching a few documentarys, I decided to ask people who there favourate monarch is between 1066-1485 these being the times when medieval times were at its height. I am actualy looking at English history because 1066 was when William the conquerer of Normandy took the throne of England and the Anglo-saxon times had ended.1485 because Richard III was killed and then started the tudor dynasty. If there are any other monarchs from other countries (especialy in Europe) that you would like to metion then please feel free to. Of course I am doing english Monarchs because I am from England. So please just say your Monarch there D.O.B and death also why you like them so much.

My favourate Monarch was Edward I because in his lifetime he invaded and took over Wales and Scotland a goal that had never been reached by his predesecors and truly a great acheivement for him. I'm not saying that I agree with him taking over these countries but he seemed a succesful king and was also liked cultural wise to. He managed to take over Edinburugh before he even arrived in Scotland. He was born on 17th June 1239 and died on 7th July 1307 aged 68 when he died he was on his way to Scotland. 68 was a respectable age at that time for there were not as many medicines as we have today although some people lived for longer in those times.

[Maedhros]

because in his lifetime he invaded and took over Wales and Scotland a goal that had never been reached by his predesecors and truly a great acheivement

I'd say be careful with saying such things. I'm not sure the Welsh and Scots considered it to be a truly great achievement....

[gormadoc1]

I did think of that when I was writing this post so I think I might edit it to him thinking it was a great acheivement. Thanks for the tip.

[outcast]

Is this only limited to England?

If not then Ghengis Khan. He managed to cut through centuries of tribes hating each other and band them all together. Then managed to face the skill of the Chinese, the power of Middle Asia and the might of Europe. He started out with a bunch of uncivilised horsemen who had no knowledge of siege weapons, castles, stone buildings, metal armour, crossbows, writing or religion. He finished with an empire stretching over two continents.

Thats an achievement if I ever saw one.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Eh... my family is Scottish and I do not think anyone really cares either way. We won in the long run anyways... sort of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

As for the Welsh. There is a great pride in some ways of Edward there. One of the few places that sided with Edward II, Edward I's son, during his deposition were the Welsh. A interesting turn of events I'd say. Of course they revolted against Edward I several times and continued after against several other kings but hey that’s what the welsh do.

The issue with these events is that nations as we think of them do not exist. Wales was a loose confederation of Welsh Princes and other nobles and Scotland was its own kingdom with a complicated and ancient feudal relationship to England. You have a great number of Scots and Welsh fighting for Edward I so it is questionable to look at them as a war of nations or people so much as a war between Edward I and some Welsh Prince or Scottish king.

The Mongols are interesting. Sort of the same situation with Alexander the great takes place. Powerful and charismatic people who make an empire but when they die no one can replace them so it breaks apart.

I agree Edward I achieved a great deal but do not forget that Edward III won 1/3-1/2 of France during the 100 Years War. While most of it was lost within his lifetime, Edward I lost Scotland during his lifetime as well, his only real permanent accomplishment was in Wales where he took the north of Wales as the south was already under the English by his reign. Edward III also really developed the military, legal and social administration in his day and began to establish English as the language of the court (English was to be used so that everyone could understand what was being said) and parliament (Somewhat the same thing but partially as propaganda against the French). Some fairly big accomplishments. He was born November 1312 and died June 1377. He was made king in February 1327-June 1377, a very long 50 year reign-one of the longest ever. He was a soldier, leader, diplomat, and other roles over that 50 years, sadly the last decade with the death of his wife and son really leave his reign on a low note.

Heir of BF

[Maedhros]

Eh... my family is Scottish and I do not think anyone really cares either way. We won in the long run anyways... sort of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

As for the Welsh. There is a great pride in some ways of Edward there. One of the few places that sided with Edward II, Edward I's son, during his deposition were the Welsh. A interesting turn of events I'd say. Of course they revolted against Edward I several times and continued after against several other kings but hey that’s what the welsh do.

The issue with these events is that nations as we think of them do not exist. Wales was a loose confederation of Welsh Princes and other nobles and Scotland was its own kingdom with a complicated and ancient feudal relationship to England. You have a great number of Scots and Welsh fighting for Edward I so it is questionable to look at them as a war of nations or people so much as a war between Edward I and some Welsh Prince or Scottish king.

Well of course speaking of battles of nations in this case is extremely anachronistic, but I was rather refering to later developments, including the steady decline of the indigenous cultures and the near annihilation of the Celtic languages - that's why I questioned calling it a great achievement. Then again that's not only due to Edward I but being a symbol of the conquering of those lands he also in a way becomes a symbol of their cultural loss.

As for favourite monarchs of the era I must confess having a hard time liking anyone from a modern perspective but I guess I do feel some admiration for Frederick II, if for no other reason than that he actually negotiated himself to getting Jerusalem from Al-Kamil instead of embarking on some meanless rampaging slaughter like most of his contemporaries. I do find his patronage of science and arts as well as his high level of education (possibly six languages - including Arabic) quite fascinating as well. Another leader while not techincally a monarch that I find fascinating if not admirable is the Doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice who despite his blindness and 90 years of age managed to steer a whole crusade in the direction of Constantinople (saying that he did it himself is a gross exaggaration of course but still...).

[gormadoc1]

[quote="outcast"]Is this only limited to England?

[/quote]
No but it may be a bit confusing so sorry if it is its just that im english.

[gormadoc1]

The battle of bannockburn was the Scott's greatest victory against the English.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

I do think Frederick II is an interesting Monarch as well. He had his fair share of military victories as well. Sad he lost the Battle of Parma, might have made his son Conrad's reign a bit easier... I think one of the mark of a good medieval ruler was the ability to balance force and diplomacy.

I think it rather unfair putting a modern spin on them, which sadly is the current mode of our contemporary world’s popular understanding of history. If you do that with any era, Ancient, Classical, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern, etc. you will find nothing positive, only negative, and it is very unlikely one can understand anything close to what actually happened. This is because they are trying to put it into a preconceived framework of ‘their’ modern thinking, which may or may not be correct as it is the current writer/thinkers own forced concepts, therefore completely arbitrary most often. I will not proceed further as do not wish to risk touching modern politics but one general history book by a well respected historian I just read put this issue very well in stating that much (or most-I cannot remember word for word) of the barbarity of the medieval period was put there within the last two hundred years...
It was not all flowers and cakes etc. but it was not the opposite either.


Heir

[Maedhros]

I think it rather unfair putting a modern spin on them, which sadly is the current mode of our contemporary world’s popular understanding of history. If you do that with any era, Ancient, Classical, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern, etc. you will find nothing positive, only negative, and it is very unlikely one can understand anything close to what actually happened. This is because they are trying to put it into a preconceived framework of ‘their’ modern thinking, which may or may not be correct as it is the current writer/thinkers own forced concepts, therefore completely arbitrary most often. I will not proceed further as do not wish to risk touching modern politics but one general history book by a well respected historian I just read put this issue very well in stating that much (or most-I cannot remember word for word) of the barbarity of the medieval period was put there within the last two hundred years...
It was not all flowers and cakes etc. but it was not the opposite either.

I do agree with that point, and trying to understand those ages from their own point of view is why I'm studying history and languages of the era. Trying to judge a man of the medieval by our standards is unfair but I do believe it's dangerous to defend their actions by saying "it was an other time and context" as well. It's just too easy to romanticise, to think of the brilliant strategies and what-not, but let us not forget the suffering, the fanaticism, the killings and the sheer greed behind those victories that to us just come out as numbers and shrewd anecdotes.

The times were different, but I say they should be understood - not admired.

[Foulques de Legoléon]

difficult question.

For emperors, Hohenstaufen are great!

In France our kings are quite clever until the Valois line at the end of 1330, but you have Charles V and Louis XI (1461-1483), perhaps the most clever king of the period who unifiate half of actual France, destroy Burgundy with Swiss.

And in Europa Mathias Corvin of hungary at the same period, great leader, great warrior and educated man.

[Blueandwhite]

This is an interesting topic if only because it is so difficult to qualify what makes a monarch worthy of one's admiration or respect. For a voyeur of medieval history military success might be strongly connected with one's preference. For a legal scholar however, King John of England might be considered a favourite because of his ongoing dispute with the nobility which in turn lead to the Magna Carta; one of the touchstones of common law. The fact that John was hopelessly unpopular with the Barons (and with many people today who think him the villianous cliche to Robin Hood) does nothing to underscore the imprtance of this event in English history. While I'm not the most informed person when it comes to medieval Kings (particularly outside of England), I do have a soft spot for King John.

And no, I'm not a legal scholar.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Maedhros,

I agree. My big issue is we have to promote the good not just point at the bad.



Foulques,

Charles V dealt with some very complicated situations very well didn't he? I tend to think of him as one of the best of late medieval French kings. It is amazing how fast the Capet line ends in the early 14th. Three brothers in just decades. Not sure how I feel about the spider king though... I think his father was wise not to trust him. Seemed to be dangerous to foe and often to friend.

B and W,

I think you are right John does get a bad wrap. A great deal of his misfortune was inherited from Richard's poor reign.

Heir

[Foulques de Legoléon]

In fact we have only two kings of Valois line (1336-1589) clever in medieval period.

For Charles V, he have many problems with Etienne Marcel, "prêvot des marchands" when he was young and the "jacqueries" (peasant revolt) and all the mercenaries and lord of war. In fact, his reign is a strong french reinstatement. His elder son, Charles VI was interesting when he haven't madness attacks but this situation broke all the reinstatement.

So, Charles V is quite forgotten in france; it's a king quite well known for historians, absolutely not known by peoples. For a medieval king, he wasn't in good health so it's not a warrior of the second fonction after Dumezil contrary to his father, Jean le Bon, not a very clever man but he give taste at his son for books and Charles V was a great collectionor and the founder of French national library.

In france we're more found of Louis XI because his reinstatement was durable and he was a great leader, complexe personnality; hated by many noblemans; so he was blacken by some historians and writters as in Quentin Durward, like a sort of french Ivan the terrible but in fact, his cruaulty was beyond compare with russian tsar or his foe Charles, duke of Burgundy. He finnished really war of 100 years.

It's a very simple man, superstitious with many religious medails in his hat, a great hunter but not a educated man at this end of middle age. His biography by Paul Murray Kendall is certainly the best.

Concerning his father Charles VII he was a weak dominated by his favorites, mistress and concilors for the good and bad things of his reign; Louis XI hate him!

So, I don't like very much your english kings especially during this period but they were brilliant compare to our stupids Philippe II;

[Attli35]

Attila the Hun. Scourge of Europe.

Attli is the Viking/Scandanavian/Germanic name for him . Which appears in the Poetic Edda.

Sorry he is neither English nor is he from the time frame listed.