Henry V Greatest English King?

Henry V Greatest English King?

Many people say Henry V was the greatest king in English history perhaps the greatest ruler in English history.

What does everyone think? Was Henry V the greatest English king? If their is someone better post in comments.

There has only been one English monarch who has been called "the Great", and he is not Henry.

Alfred the Great saved England and built up its institutions. Henry V committed England to French Wars and an empire it could not sustain. The first was a great defender and builder, the second an ephemeral conqueror.

9 Fanged Hummingbird said:

There has only been one English monarch who has been called "the Great", and he is not Henry.

Click to expand...

I didn't see this. You just pipped me to the post, as it were.

clem attlee said:

Henry V committed England to French Wars and an empire it could not sustain.

Click to expand...

And then died before he had an adult (& competent) heir to continue the work...

clem attlee said:

Alfred the Great saved England and built up its institutions. Henry V committed England to French Wars and an empire it could not sustain. The first was a great defender and builder, the second an ephemeral conqueror.

Click to expand...

Simreeve said:

And then died before he had an adult (& competent) heir to continue the work...

Click to expand...

While I could add more at length, these essentially sum up Henry V, further there were other monarchs who managed to build up institutions and campaign successfully abroad so not really in the leading pack of candidates either.

Better Kings/Queens:

Alfred the Great
Elizabeth I
William III

Not all of them get Shakespeare plays written about them but they were much better on the long run for the country.

King Edward III? He is noted for his military success and for restoring royal authority after the disastrous reign of his father, Edward II. Edward III transformed the Kingdom of England into one of the most formidable military powers in Europe. His long reign of fifty years also saw vital developments in legislation and government—in particular the evolution of the English parliament.

No, I'd lean more toward Edward I.

William the Conqueror, Henry II, Edward I and III, Henry VII and Elizabeth were all far better.

You know I have always thought that William III was too much overlooked as an effective king.

RousseauX said:

Better Kings/Queens:

Alfred the Great
Elizabeth I
William III

Not all of them get Shakespeare plays written about them but they were much better on the long run for the country.

Click to expand...

Velasco said:

William the Conqueror, Henry II, Edward I and III, Henry VII and Elizabeth were all far better.

Click to expand...

I think I would only agree with you on the Edwards, and perhaps Elizabeth I as being superior to H5 - the others you mentioned were particularly nasty pieces of work that the Kingdom could probably have been better without. Especially the Bastard.

My personal choice would be Aethelstan, who really does not get his proper dues and is very much overshadowed by his grandfather Alfred. He really was the closest the British Isles ever got to having a Charlemagne of their own.

Simreeve said:

And then died before he had an adult (& competent) heir to continue the work...

Click to expand...

Competent or not, any English king would have had his work cut out for him to try to control all that territory in France. England's resources were stretched too thin. The Plantagenets were trying to conquer a kingdom four times the size of England. I don't think the Hundred Years' War would have unfolded much differently with Henry V still alive. His early death may have saved his reputation from being spoiled.

I think you can make a strong case for Elizabeth I. She resolved the religious question peacefully (in a time of religious war all over Europe), conquered Ireland, laid the foundation for the union with Scotland, and of course was a great patron of the arts.

Edward I or maybe Edward III. Henry V was a great military leader but unlike their victories Henry's achievements in France were too transient. If he'd lived longer though....

No.

He (re)started a war essentially because of his fears over the legitimacy of his line. Granted, that war led to a significant victory and a treaty that essentially gave the Kingship of France to the House of Lancaster. Yet that rule lasted no longer than Henry himself. He introduced no legal changes, no changes to military tactics or strategy. He was feted by Europe, but not further abroad.

Whereas...
Alfred resisted and pushed back rapacious invaders, created burhs, altered laws and lands, and formed the idea of England
Athelstane formed England
Richard was recognised for his military skills by both Europe and the Arab States (as Melek Ric)
Edward I added Wales to the crown, introduced longstanding legal change and subdued Scotland (well, for a bit...)
Edward IIIs wars were the beginning of the switch from military main effort being caused by shock to it being caused by missile. He won a victory as great as Agincourt at Crecy, as well as the naval victory at Sluys, victories at Halidon Hill & Poitiers
Elizabeth faced down the superpower of the time
William III began the move to constitutional monarchy
Victoria oversaw the rise to the greatest Empire in the world.
George VI oversaw the defeat of Nazism
Elizabeth II has set the standard for constitutional monarch in the UK, and pretty much saved the monarchy.

In terms of actually having an impact on England,

In terms of actually having an impact, seems like Elizabeth I successfully overcame the greatest threats in a period when the monarch had real power and executive responsibilities.

Alfred presumably comes as a strong second, but I'd suggest EI faced a greater threat, and her leadership helped overcome it, at a time when women monarchs were as likely to be set aside as listened too...

Best,

In addition to the French Campaign, Henry V did put down the Welsh revolt so he should get some credit there.

It's difficult to compare the Mediaeval with the modern, but George V modernised the monarchy, linking it to the nation rather than the royal family (and all its inconvenient German relatives). He also did a lot to prepare the way for the Commonwealth, notably banning use of the N word ("native") on the grounds that all citizens of the Empire/British Commonwealth were equal.

Due to the lands taken from Germany at the end of WWI I believe he was also the Emperor of the largest Empire in history.

What he didn't do, but should have, was to give us a national anthem that actually mentions our country and its people (apart from those rebellious Scots).

Okay, I have to ask, what the hell did Elizabeth I do to get all this hero worship beyond having a cult of personality? Fact of the matter is that her defense against the Spanish deserved to fail on its own merits (weather being her guardian angel apparently), and was brought on by her blatantly antagonistic foreign policy, and her conquest of Ireland set precedent for four centuries of repression of the Irish people. In fact the very idea that her religious policies were bloodless is laughable given her vicious treatment of the Irish. All of her military actions that weren't affected by famously fortuitous weather or brutal scorched earth campaigns against disorganized resistance were utter failures.

Call me crazy, but a monarch who fails to produce an heir, antagonizes their largest neighbor, lacks the means to defend their kingdom when it is attacked by that neighbor, fails miserably in all offensive military campaigns, brutally represses a major ethno-religious minority, and is ultimately the plaything of favorites for their entire reign doesn't deserve to be on the short list of best English monarchs.

Winstanley said:

I think I would only agree with you on the Edwards, and perhaps Elizabeth I as being superior to H5 - the others you mentioned were particularly nasty pieces of work that the Kingdom could probably have been better without. Especially the Bastard.

My personal choice would be Aethelstan, who really does not get his proper dues and is very much overshadowed by his grandfather Alfred. He really was the closest the British Isles ever got to having a Charlemagne of their own.

Click to expand...

Henry V was kind of a nasty piece of work on his own; people tend to forget about the mass execution of the prisoners after Agincourt, which was decidedly morally questionable even by the standards of the day.

Whereas e.g. Henry VII used his nastiness to end a period of civil wars, build up the treasury and establish a stable, centralized government, Henry V used his nastiness to continue to prosecute a doomed war, and get lots of Frenchmen and Englishmen killed for no lasting gain.