Favourate Monarch

[Albatross_Viking]

Heres some (list doesnt mean anything about who i like most etc.):
Atilla and Ghengis Khan, as earlier mentioned.
Svend Tveskæg, danish king who conquered Sweden, Norway and England.
Palnatoke, not really a "monarch", but leader of the almost invinsible Jomsborg-vikings.
Albatross Viking, captain of the danish cow-cavalry

A_V

[Maedhros]

Svend Tveskæg, danish king who conquered Sweden, Norway and England.

Conquered Sweden...? Saying that he conquered England might have some truth in it but he really didn't have much to do with the ruling of Sweden (which in that era wasn't Sweden as we see it of course) and he wasn't sole ruler of Norway either. Definitely an interesting person living in an interesting era though!

[CastleLord]

Svend Tveskæg, danish king Norway and England.
Palnatoke, not really a "monarch", but leader of the almost invinsible Jomsborg-vikings.
Albatross Viking, captain of the danish cow-cavalry

A_V

Conquered Norway ya say? Well i haven't heard about this. And i live in Norway!
But as ye olde man Maedhros said he might have conquered Britton.

Ye olde Viking Lord CastleLord.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

I think the issue with Sven (Forkbeard for us English types) is in large part the sources. Several are very specific in saying he took over Norway and some of Sweden. Of course it is not what we think of as Sweden... In reality, no medieval country then is really the same as our current modern nationalized organizations. That said it is beside the point to make modern Sweden or any country to its medieval predecessor the same as governments, boundaries and cultures are in a phase or phases of great fluidity. For the medieval peoples of the time he took over these Swedish lands and that is how they are judging and seeing it. I suppose you have to also think if someone took enough lands in any region how much does he have to have before he is king of it…. The point ultimately is he took over parts of Sweden and much of Norway according to several period sources. Since the selfsame period sources do not agree to the exact amounts he conquered it is rather a red herring to push it much further. If you try then you are dealing with volumes of arguments and counter arguments which to date remain unresolved and will until further info appears I’d guess. Even Canute, his son, who has many more sources around regarding him has much of the same contested issues such as, how much of Sweden, Norway etc. he had and the large amount of grey areas between his actually lordship and theoretical lordship.

Regarding Sven and England… it seems he did rule here for a while, likely about a year as he died shortly after he established himself here. He seems to have been raiding England for much longr. His son Knut certainly was involved in political struggles in England and elsewhere but that was just part of the times. It seems many if not most thrones were contested in the early medieval period. A very interesting period. I took several of the ‘old’ languages thinking someday I’d make them a primary study but in the end went with the late medieval period.

Heir

[Maedhros]

Of course it is not what we think of as Sweden... In reality, no medieval country then is really the same as our current modern nationalized organizations. That said it is beside the point to make modern Sweden or any country to its medieval predecessor the same as governments, boundaries and cultures are in a phase or phases of great fluidity.

I was mainly pointing that out referring to the quite big difference in Swedish "boundaries" from now compared to the others. While "countries" such as Denmark, Norway and England pretty much occupied the same lands as they do now the Swedish regions were drastically smaller in that age.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

OK. I see what you mean. Fair enough.

Heir

[Albatross_Viking]

Well, i meant parts of what is those countries in these times. Sorry for my incorrectness

A_V

[HerBlockHighness]

Wow, my first post! I'm ususally a lurker and a non-poster but this thread just spoke to me!

BlueandWhite, Heir of Black Falcon, King John got a bad rap, because he was a bad king. The Magna Charta only happened during his reign because he was such a bad king (therefore it shouldn't be used as justification for him being a great king.) John so grudgingly signed it, that afterwards he sent word to the pope, who was of course against it and laid an iterdict on the whole country until they all agreed to forget the charter. In case you don't know, that means no one was allowed to worship in the church, no dead person could be buried in holy ground (so basically no one who died was buried gross!) etc. John never upheld the Magna Charta.
He was also just as responsible as his brother Richard for leaving the country bankrupt, but at least Richard had the decency to be taxing the people for what was then viewed as a just cause, the crusades! In fact John was worse about taxes than Richard ever was. He found new and outrageous ways to tax everyone. In fact he caused the tax situation to explode by declaring England a vassal of the pope. This meant that beyond your average taxes, beyond what you gave to the church you were also now being taxed for the sake of the pope.
He also kidnapped the fiance (Isabella of Angoulême) of Hugh of Lusignan and married her himself for his second wife. Despite being married to this ravishing beauty he was known for his lechery, even going so far as to sleep with the wives and daughters of his barons and having many many illegitimate children (although that was common at the time, his father Henry II is quite guilty of it.)
John also destroyed the morale of his people by losing insane amounts of land to the French. Up until his reign the Angevin Empire was quite large thanks to his father Henry II.

By 1206 all that was left was Enland, Gascony, and Ireland.
And probably the worst thing, in my mind, that John did was order the starvation of his nephew Arthur (who many people believe had more right to the throne than John, his father being the middle child Geoffrey) of Brittany.
When he died the country was basically at war with him. So despite anything good he might have done, I'd have to say he was England's worst king.

I'm sure you're all asleep now. That or saying, this isn't who is your least favourite monarch!

My favorite Monarch is Henry II due to his exciting life. He married Elinore of Aquitaine (Former Queen of France) the most beautiful woman of that time, he ruled the Angevin Empire, three of his sons were King of England, etc. During his reign he created the Royal Magistrate courts which allowed court officials to hand out justice on behalf of the king. He also instituted trial by jury. And we all know how fair and important that is!
Of course when he died he was at war with his sons, who were not content to wait for the succession. He had Elinore locked in a tower because of her support of their sons. And there is that whole Thomas Becket murder thing, which wasn't entirely his fault but some blame does rest at his door. Of course if Becket hadn't been martyred he couldnt' have been sainted!
So all in all, while there were mistakes and some problems, over all I'd say Henry II had an exciting reign (fun to read about for sure) and is My favorite Monarch!

And yes I do love reading about the Plantagenet kings! And I hope no offence was given by my long reading of King John's wrongs.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Welcome to the CC!

Fun post you have for your first.

I am/was certainly not pushing John as a paragon of kingship by and stretch of the imagination. I am very familiar with what you are stating as his problems and agree he certainly did not make them better but still contend most, if not all, stem from Richard and even Henry II's short comings. Henry II by the fact most of his reign was full of war, insurrection and rebellion that was never fully quenched left Richard to deal with them.... and since he was only perhaps in England 6 months this only increased and fell nearly completely in John's lap. That said John did not make these issues better but he certainly did not create them, he just failed to fix them. He may have given the context needed by the French King or the English Nobles but the issues were already there just waiting for a fuse.

If you like books on the Medieval English Kings maybe you'd like the Three Edwards by M. Prestwich. A very good and interesting read.... though I still think Edward II was the worst English King...

Heir

[gormadoc1]

I think that Edward II was a realy bad king too. He just made a mockery of his fathers dreams and didnt realy care about English polotics or the affairs of other country's/nations/states. The only thing he actualy liked or cared about was his boats,not ships but small wooden rowing boats . Although his son Edward III was more like his grandfather Edward I, he actualy cared for his country and did things like claim land in france, but he plunged both England and France into the hundred years war, that actualy lasted 116 years. beside all of this though, Edward III was a hero to the people of England.

[ColonelHawk]

Can't say as how I admire a monarch of any time period. I find it fascinating to read of their lives and histories. I don't romanticize what they did but in many ways what some of them did was amazing. As someone pointed out, Genghis Khan did something incredible from a sheer willpower and dominance standpoint. Formed an amazing army and an empire. But the results of what he did weren't so amazing and weren't something to be proud of in terms of our modern thinking.

But looking at what they did from our viewpoint is always going to differ from what people of that era thought of the monarch or emperor or whatever they were. They thought differently than most of us do and viewed things vastly different in some ways.

And to take it a step further, what would some of us do if we were thrown back to that time period and forced to live out say Genghis Khans life? if we tried to impose our modern sensibilities, how long would we stay alive?

Didn't mean to take it too far off base from the original intent but I saw some others did as well so I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in as well. Plus I just finished working a 16 hour shift, haven't slept and have to go back in 4 hours and work another 16 hour shift so I hope I can get a small pass for sliding off topic a bit.

If we can throw presidents in there, in some ways they are an American version of a king so i hope they can be included since America wasn't around in medieval times, then I have to throw Lincoln and FDR in there as "monarchs" I admire. Lincoln saved a nation with his decision making and strength of purpose. As did FDR, but to a much larger and more global scale. People can question their tactics and motives as much as they do medieval leaders but as an American I am proud of them both.

[Evil Ben]

Yay! Go Henry II! Glad somebody else remembers something other than the business with the archbishop...

[gormadoc1]

[quote="ColonelHawk"]If we can throw presidents in there, in some ways they are an American version of a king so i hope they can be included since America wasn't around in medieval times, then I have to throw Lincoln and FDR in there as "monarchs" I admire. Lincoln saved a nation with his decision making and strength of purpose. As did FDR, but to a much larger and more global scale. People can question their tactics and motives as much as they do medieval leaders but as an American I am proud of them both.[/quote]

Well, if you want to throw presidents in then you can, but do not forget this is medieval history not 1800's. You say that America did not exist at the time, well you could have chosen one of the great Inca or Aztec leaders, you know something like that. And technically a President is not a Monarch because a President is just the head figure of a political party when A monarch from medieval times is a ruler who is advised by a counsel but in effect they can do what they want, where-as a President must decide matters with a political party.

[quaraga]

well he's not from the correct era but napoleon bonnaparte was really cool.
as for the correct time period, edward iii.
T.R.
ps wasn't edward ii the guy who sighned(well stamped) the magna carta?

[Hound Knight]

My favorites are King Robert Bruce of Scotland and Richard Cœur de Leon.

ps wasn't edward ii the guy who sighned(well stamped) the magna carta?

That was King John, of Robin Hood fame.

"Too late to be known as John the first,
He's sure to be known as John the worst!"