Whose your favorite Pre-1900 Monarch and why?
What about them makes them your favorite?
What about them makes them your favorite?
Last edited:
Favorite Pre-1900 Monarch?
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
Assuming by the monarch you meant "king/queen/kingship-based ruler" (rather than monarch which is more precise : basically, a king in the XIIIth century couldn't be so, but rather in the XVIIth century with the affirmation of royal power over political structures)...
I'm not sure I've ONE that interests me more, but rather lines.
- Peppinids/Carolingians
Really, an interesting dynasty that may have too much spotlight on Martel/Peppin III/Charlemagne (although for good reasons). There are rulers as Peppin II or Charles III that deserves as much interests, to say nothing of minor lines such as Guilhemides.
The most interesting thing is that they're more of a door between the last stage of the post-Imperial post-classical Late Romanity from one hand, and the classical Middle-Ages when they systematized some features as vassalisation.
-Asturo-Cantabrian Dynasty
Trough study for my TL, essentially. It's a really interesting take compared as the Visigothic anti-dynastic kingship, which may have kept influence but is still a largely regional take (influenced by Cantabrian uses, probably) on it.
- House of Wessex
Mostly because its interesting background in Early Middle-Ages, with at least a Brythonic influence and a regularly constant dedication to increasing its dynastical power. While Northumbrians or Mercians were the first to form cyclical chiefdoms in England, Wessex managed to get it slowly but firmly.
- Robertians/Capetians/Valois
While I'm not that interested on Bourbons (I can appreciate the interest they get, but I'm not really passionated by their history, and actually find the Late Bourbons to be a bunch of degenerates), Robertians/Capetians/Valois really fit the same thing than the Wessex House.
Namely a really dedicated dynasty with one goal : being the hegemonic power in France. They didn't start as clear winners (while they had much more advantages than commonly admitted) but eventually did the best they could with what they had. (It means a serious dedication to Magnificent Bastardy, granted).
I know that some people there put luck as explaining a large part of success, but I think there's more than just randomness (even if luck can play : John I was skilled, but gambled on a battle and lost almost all he worked for)
Giving we're talking of a big dynasty there, if I had to restrain my choices I'd say : Robertians, Main Capetian Line, Courtenay, Second Angevines, Main Valois and succeeding houses (such as Valois-Angoulême).
- Raimondins
Less so that the houses aboves, but let's say I'm more interested on them than other regional dynasties, would it be only to make sense of the political mess in southern France in Middle-Ages.
I'm not sure I've ONE that interests me more, but rather lines.
- Peppinids/Carolingians
Really, an interesting dynasty that may have too much spotlight on Martel/Peppin III/Charlemagne (although for good reasons). There are rulers as Peppin II or Charles III that deserves as much interests, to say nothing of minor lines such as Guilhemides.
The most interesting thing is that they're more of a door between the last stage of the post-Imperial post-classical Late Romanity from one hand, and the classical Middle-Ages when they systematized some features as vassalisation.
-Asturo-Cantabrian Dynasty
Trough study for my TL, essentially. It's a really interesting take compared as the Visigothic anti-dynastic kingship, which may have kept influence but is still a largely regional take (influenced by Cantabrian uses, probably) on it.
- House of Wessex
Mostly because its interesting background in Early Middle-Ages, with at least a Brythonic influence and a regularly constant dedication to increasing its dynastical power. While Northumbrians or Mercians were the first to form cyclical chiefdoms in England, Wessex managed to get it slowly but firmly.
- Robertians/Capetians/Valois
While I'm not that interested on Bourbons (I can appreciate the interest they get, but I'm not really passionated by their history, and actually find the Late Bourbons to be a bunch of degenerates), Robertians/Capetians/Valois really fit the same thing than the Wessex House.
Namely a really dedicated dynasty with one goal : being the hegemonic power in France. They didn't start as clear winners (while they had much more advantages than commonly admitted) but eventually did the best they could with what they had. (It means a serious dedication to Magnificent Bastardy, granted).
I know that some people there put luck as explaining a large part of success, but I think there's more than just randomness (even if luck can play : John I was skilled, but gambled on a battle and lost almost all he worked for)
Giving we're talking of a big dynasty there, if I had to restrain my choices I'd say : Robertians, Main Capetian Line, Courtenay, Second Angevines, Main Valois and succeeding houses (such as Valois-Angoulême).
- Raimondins
Less so that the houses aboves, but let's say I'm more interested on them than other regional dynasties, would it be only to make sense of the political mess in southern France in Middle-Ages.
I have a few:
Alp Arslan (1029-72), Seljuq Sultan. Defeated the Byzantine Romans at Manzikert, 1071.
Darius the Great (550-486 BC), Persian Shahanshah. Conquered much of the Middle East, bringing the Persian Empire to its maximum extent. My namesake.
Timur Lang (1336-1405), Emir of the Timurid Empire.
Alp Arslan (1029-72), Seljuq Sultan. Defeated the Byzantine Romans at Manzikert, 1071.
Darius the Great (550-486 BC), Persian Shahanshah. Conquered much of the Middle East, bringing the Persian Empire to its maximum extent. My namesake.
Timur Lang (1336-1405), Emir of the Timurid Empire.
Umar, the Second Rashidun Caliph. Nearly the perfect monarch. He embodied the ideal Muslim ruler, humble, benevolent, generous and merciful. Still had his flaws, and made mistakes like sacking Khalid (although it was a reasonable action), but made up for it in spades.
To name a few:
* Henry II and Edward I of England
* Majorian
* Byzantine emperors - Maurice, Justinian II, Tiberius III, all the Isaurian emperors except Irene, Basil II, Romanos IV Diogenes, Manuel I Komnenos, all the Laskarid emperors, Andronikos III Palaiologos.
* Ivaljo of Bulgaria.
* Henry II and Edward I of England
* Majorian
* Byzantine emperors - Maurice, Justinian II, Tiberius III, all the Isaurian emperors except Irene, Basil II, Romanos IV Diogenes, Manuel I Komnenos, all the Laskarid emperors, Andronikos III Palaiologos.
* Ivaljo of Bulgaria.
Alternate History
Banned
Aww, posting this was literally the only reason I clicked on the thread.
Okay, admittedly he was pretty cool too.
hah! Right?
The massive debt, the famine in Paris, disenfranchisement of the French Army
All part of the plan..
Tamar the Great of Georgia. If you really must have a monarch, have one who's both a badass and a saint.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
His Imperial and Royal Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Empire, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederatio
Don't forget the show trial and staged execution.
Don't forget the show trial and staged execution.
Last edited:
Lol! for an overly imaginative person such as myself, the ridiculous thought of Louis XVI pulling off the greatest Jacobin conspiracy of all time is blowing my mind right now
Last edited:
My favorite is Meiji and a close second Charles XII of Sweden.
Meiji because he tried to make the Japan into a modern country in his lifetime and almost succeeded.
Charles XII because he was an underdog whose chances of successfully beating Russia were infinitesimally small, yet he made a spirited attempt.
Meiji because he tried to make the Japan into a modern country in his lifetime and almost succeeded.
Charles XII because he was an underdog whose chances of successfully beating Russia were infinitesimally small, yet he made a spirited attempt.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
I hope you don't aussume that I think Louis did something like this.
Though, it would be very flattering for him. Instead of being known as the last (yes, not really the last) King of France and the one being executed, he would be the one staging a crisis, a revolution and at last his own execution out of a never revealed democratic conviction.
Hm, your version is right for the first years of the Empire. But after that... I'm pretty sure he changed his title at some point.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Could write a book about it. Dan Brown style. Or a TL. But I think this would be prohibited on the board.
Sejong the Great, who invented Hangul--for an argument that he did it *alone* see http://www.academia.edu/1289570/Was_the_Korean_alphabet_a_sole_invention_of_King_Sejong This was a writing system much more suited to the Korean language than the Chinese script which had previously been used. Its simplicity--Sejong said that "a wise man can acquaint himself with [the Hangul characters] before the morning is over; a stupid man can learn them in the space of ten days"--may have helped to contribute to modern Korea's high literacy rate. No modern monarch has invented anything remotely as useful (the vast majority of course have not invented anything at all).
