I realize that there are lots of "greatest" threads, but because the Middle Ages tend to be the least well known of the ages, certain rulers from other periods tend to dominate the discussion without proper consideration of the many remarkable medieval rulers. I think the list just about covers all the genuine candidates, although great kings of small kingdoms, like Roger II of Sicily for instance, are excluded due to the limit of 20.

Ancient (for the purposes of the thread): 476 - 1520 AD

Here is some info for all the candidates:

King Chlodovech/Clovis (481-511?) [Franks] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I)

Emperor Justinian (527-565) [Roman Empire] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I)

King Khusro I Anoshirwan (531-579) [Persia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrau_I_of_Persia)

Prophet Muhammed (lived: 570?-632) [Umma/Arabia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad)

Emperor T'ai-Tsung (600-649) [China] (http://www.warriortours.com/intro/history/tang/taizong.htm)

Emperor Heraclius (610-641) [Roman Empire] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius)

Empress Wu Zetian (625-705) [China] (http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/heroine6.html)

Emperor Hsüan-tsung (713-755) [China] (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/H/Hsuantsu.asp)

Emperor Carolus Magnus (768-814) [Franks] (http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~rgrosser/karolimagni/)

Caliph Al-Mamun (813-33) [Abbasids] (http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons4_n2/almamun.html)

Emperor Otto I (936-972) [Germany] (http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/OttoGreat.html)

Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) [Papacy] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm)

Chingiz Khân Temüjin (1206-1227) [Mongols] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan)

Emperor Frederick II (1212-1250) [Germany, Sicily, Jerusalem] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor)

Khan Tamerlane (1363-1405) [Chagadai Khanate] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur)

Prince Henry the Navigator (lived: 1394-1460) [Portugal] (http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/phenry.html)

Sultan Mehmed II (1451-1481) [Ottomans] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_II)

Grand Prince Ivan III (1462-1505) [Russia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_III_of_Russia)

Emperor Charles V (1519 - 1556) [HRE, Spain] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor)

Muhammed came the closest in history to forming a truly theocratic government that adheered to its founding principles. I also voted for Charlemange.

Basil II of the Byzantine(Roman according to you...)empire

Originally posted by Xen
Basil II of the Byzantine(Roman according to you...)empire

Research has shown that the "Byzantines" considered themsleves Roman long after the fall of the Western Empire, even though their capital was always Constantinopolis. The term Byzantine was a derogatory term used by the West (Franks, et al) who were jealous of the East's relatively much higher standard of living.

Tokugawa Ieyasu.

Originally posted by Magnus


Research has shown that the "Byzantines" considered themsleves Roman long after the fall of the Western Empire, even though their capital was always Constantinopolis. The term Byzantine was a derogatory term used by the West (Franks, et al) who were jealous of the East's relatively much higher standard of living.

:goodjob:


BTW, it's a multiple vote guys, you've all voted only one each so far.

I voted for my namesake...

When I think Mediaeval, I think of Charles the Great!

Roger II of Sicily, Justinain and Basil of the Byzantine Empire.

That may be true, but considering we our selves are not byzantines who consider ourselves roman then tough luck to 'em, 'cause there byzantines according to history now.

not to say i dont like em though, they are by far the coolest medievil empire around, but england is a close second though

Would have to say Ivan the Terrible.

Genghis Khan :) Honestly, would I have voted for another

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Genghis Khan :) Honestly, would I have voted for another

Not Tamerlane as well? :)

Charlemagne I guess. As Magnus said, when I think about medieval times, I think on him. BTW, Prince Henry was no ruler.

Originally posted by MCdread
Charlemagne I guess. As Magnus said, when I think about medieval times, I think on him. BTW, Prince Henry was no ruler.

Well, a prince is a ruler. But he wasn't a monarch, which is why his dates are marked "lived"

Originally posted by calgacus


Well, a prince is a ruler. But he wasn't a monarch, which is why his dates are marked "lived"

No, a prince is the son of a ruler. he didn't rule anything.

Ivan III? He was a madman, how could he be great!

Originally posted by Souron
Ivan III? He was a madman, how could he be great!

:confused: :confused: :confused:

"Ivan III Vasilevich (January 22, 1440 - 1505) also known as Ivan the Great ruled from 1462 - 1505. Ivan has been referred to as the "gather of the Russian lands" and united most of the areas of Russia under his control. Ivan's greatest conquests were the annexation of Moscow's long rival Tver and the conquest of Novogorod with its important fur trade and massive northern territorial holdings. Ivan defeated Lithuania in a long and costly war that finally ended Lithuania's long expantion and pushed it into an alliance with Poland that would eventually end Lithuania's independence. Ivan is even more famous, however, for finally freeing Russia from the Tatars. The Mongol army of Khan Akmad moved into Russia attempting to demand more tribute from Ivan. The two armies met at the Ugra River, but no battle was fought. Neither ruler was willing to risk their forces, and eventually the Khan retreated back to his territory. The Mongol's never again attempted to enforce their control over Russia. Ivan the Great was the first national sovereign, but not the first Tsar. He married Sophia, niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI. Sophia introduced the customs of the Byzantine court, and the idea of Moscow as a “third Rome” (Rome and the Byzantine Empire being the 1st and 2nd) became popular. "


So...why the query? :confused:

again....can u place the starting adn ending points of ur 3 threads? i can get ancient and middle age leaders confused..

Just take 1500 or 1520 as the break-off point. The original break-off point was going to be 1500, but Charles V is so famously the "last medieval monarch" that it would have been inappropriate to exclude him.

Charles comes to power in 1519 and suleiman in 1520. The break-off lies between.

calgacus wrote:

Ivan has been referred to as the "gather of the Russian lands" and united most of the areas of Russia under his control.

Funny thing about that though was his definition of "Russian lands". Essentially, Ivan's definition of "Russian lands" was any lands he wanted. Between Poland and Russia were a mass of Slavic, Finnic and Iranian peoples, most of whom had been conquered by the Lithuanians, and few of whom considered themselves Russians. Ivan simply declared all of these peoples Russians, and said they were his alone to rule. Many lands that today we consider traditional Russian lands in this region only became so when conquered by Russia by Ivan, or by his successors. The Soviets in the 20th century, as they "recovered" many of these lands from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania simplified matters by declaring all the Slavs in these areas to be either Ukrainians or Byelorussians - no matter that many spoke various Slavic languages now extinct. Red Ruthenians, Black Ruthenians, Lemko, etc. - all disappeared to simplify Soviet ethnography and justify Russian land claims.

As for the great leaders of the Middle Ages - anyone who could succeed should be considered a great leader in such a vicious age. Samo, the reportedly Frank or Slav who founded the first Slavic state in what is today the Czech Republic; Mieszko I, who brought Poland into Christendom and single-handedly integrated the country's political and social structure into Europe, or Boleslaw Chrobry ("The Brave") who defeated Kiev and Prague for Poland (and was the grandfather to the Danish-English king Canute), Wladyslaw Lokietek and Kazimierz "Wielki" ("The Great") who reunified Poland in the early 1300s after 150 years of fractionalism, Jogaila (Jagiello) and Hedwig (Jadwiga) who together in 1386 created the Jagiellonian dynasty in Poland that would last almost 200 years and ignite Poland's golden age and whose exploits included defeating and conquering the Teutonic Knights, incorporating Prussia as a Polish fief for two centuries; István I who (with his father Géza) forcefully brought Christianity to Hungary, János and Máttyás Hunyadi who would both repeatedly successfully defeat the Ottoman Turkish invasions of Hungary (prompting Pope Calixtus to order all church bells to ring at noon forever) and northern Serbia (with Máttyás conquering Vienna at one point and making it Hungary's capital until his death in 1490); Mindaugas of Lithuania who created Europe's largest land empire at the time stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea or Vytautas who later preserved Lithuanian independence during its integration into Christian Europe and growing union with Poland; Vaclav Premyslid of Bohemia (known to the English as 'Good King Wencelas" in a Christmas carol) who established Bohemian power and preserved Czech autonomy within the Holy Roman Empire, or Jan Hus (disciple of John Wycliffe) and his general Jan Zizka who successfully created the first Protestant state in Europe almost exactly a century before Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door, or Karel IV (the Holy Roman Emperor) who made Prague/Vysehrad his capital; Stefan Dusan or Nemanja of Serbia who also created successful states in the Balkans in extremely difficult conditions; Skander-bey of Albania who led one of the most widespread revolts against the Ottomans; Bohdan Khmyelnitzky who led his people (Cossacks) into revolt in a vain attempt at freedom from Poland and Russia; Khan Krum of the old Bulgarian empire who repeatedly defeated the Byzantines and had himself entitled in Greek Romai-okthonos ("Killer of the Romans") in revenge for an earlier Byzantine defeat and eye-gauging of a Bulgar army after which Byzantine emperors called themselves Bulgar-okthonos. the list goes on; the Middle Ages were a very exciting time... ;)

Originally posted by calgacus
Not Tamerlane as well? :) My thought exactly, which proves Calgacus and I can agree on SOMETHING. Timur-Links was closer to a force of nature than anyone in history. I also have to give thought to the rise of the western culture and the unification of Germany has to rank, hence Frederick. My personal favorite was not listed, Gustav II Adolph.

J

PS Justinian? Please, he nearly bankrupt what was left of the empire building his cathedral.

"Not Tamerlane as well? :)"

Well I gave him a vote too, but he was no where near as good as Genghis Khan so I only gave Genghis a mention. Tamerlane was not Mongol (and despite what historians will tell you, he NEVER claimed to be or to be descended from Genghis Khan) just tried to re-establish the dieing legacy of the Great Khans.

PS: onejayhawk, Gustav II Adolph is in the best Modern Ruler thread, how do I know - I voted for him

Genghis Khan

King Athelstan of England should certainly be on the list- the reason why he isn't is that for some reason he fell from fashion. He's certainly Britain's greatest king, surpassing his grandfather Alfred the Great.

Under Athelstan, the last serious threat to English supremacy was crushed at the battle of Brunnanburh. He was also a noted patron of the arts and passed a number of humane statutes (notably humane for the 10th century, at any rate).

He was also a brilliant diplomat- just check out how many major European monarchs of the time married on of his sisters.

What about Willem the Conqueror or what´s that Normandy King´s name?

W/out a doubt - Mohammed.

He may be the single most succesful human being in recorded history.

Ghengis Khan definetly. I'm not sure, but didn't he have the largest empire in the history of the world?

Originally posted by Magnus


Research has shown that the "Byzantines" considered themsleves Roman long after the fall of the Western Empire, even though their capital was always Constantinopolis. The term Byzantine was a derogatory term used by the West (Franks, et al) who were jealous of the East's relatively much higher standard of living.

Not true! A fairly common misconception it seems, but it is false. The emperors claimed to derive their power from the Roman line of succession, this much is true. However, most of the Eastern Empire's residents considered themselves Greek, not Roman. Greek was the scholarly language ofthe East, not to mention many of the inhabitants were, in fact, of Greek descent. While the Roman Empire was still functional, many in the East did not like Roman rule, but they kept their mouths shut and endured it, due to the protection from the Roman army, as well as the high standard of living. Not to mention, several emperors before Constantine's time had extensive public works projects that greatly improved the infrastructure in the East.

However, the fact remains that Greece, not Rome, was the country of identity for most in the Byzantine Empire, and would probably have been deeply insulted to be called Roman.

Oh, and guess who I voted for :cool:

Justinian wouldn't have been so great if he didn't have the amazing general Belisarius doing all his dirty work for him...

Originally posted by metalhead


Not true! A fairly common misconception it seems, but it is false. The emperors claimed to derive their power from the Roman line of succession, this much is true. However, most of the Eastern Empire's residents considered themselves Greek, not Roman. Greek was the scholarly language ofthe East, not to mention many of the inhabitants were, in fact, of Greek descent. While the Roman Empire was still functional, many in the East did not like Roman rule, but they kept their mouths shut and endured it, due to the protection from the Roman army, as well as the high standard of living. Not to mention, several emperors before Constantine's time had extensive public works projects that greatly improved the infrastructure in the East.

However, the fact remains that Greece, not Rome, was the country of identity for most in the Byzantine Empire, and would probably have been deeply insulted to be called Roman.

Oh, and guess who I voted for :cool:


Your misconception is that Greece and Rome were mutually exclusive. In fact, the Rhomaioi were a nation defined by civilization and culture, and Byzantine culture was Roman, just as all the "Greeks" living in the Roman Empire from the beginning of the Principate were Romans. The Byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi until the late 12th century; the "Hellenes", were pagans. For them, Christian civilization and Roman civilization were one and the same. Christianity and Roman Culture were the two pillars of Byzantine civilization. The Syriac, Coptic, Latin and Coptic speakers of the Byzantine Empire were all Romans and Christians; that's what held them together. THe later Roman Empire was an Ecumenical State headed by God and his chosen rerpresentative on Earth. This was exactly the same as Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire was not just the heir to the Roman Empire; it was the Roman Empire. Too many folk like to see the Roman Empire in the form it held in the Late Republic and Early Principate. Instead, look to the Roman state of Late Antiquity.

Originally posted by calgacus



Your misconception is that Greece and Rome were mutually exclusive. In fact, the Rhomaioi were a nation defined by civilization and culture, and Byzantine culture was Roman, just as all the "Greeks" living in the Roman Empire from the beginning of the Principate were Romans. The Byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi until the late 12th century; the "Hellenes", were pagans. For them, Christian civilization and Roman civilization were one and the same. Christianity and Roman Culture were the two pillars of Byzantine civilization. The Syriac, Coptic, Latin and Coptic speakers of the Byzantine Empire were all Romans and Christians; that's what held them together. THe later Roman Empire was an Ecumenical State headed by God and his chosen rerpresentative on Earth. This was exactly the same as Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire was not just the heir to the Roman Empire; it was the Roman Empire. Too many folk like to see the Roman Empire in the form it held in the Late Republic and Early Principate. Instead, look to the Roman state of Late Antiquity.

The method of rule and pillars of society in the Byzantine Empire were certainly a continuation of Roman rule, until the 7th century. At the beginning, the Roman contitution of the Empire is undeniable. However, once the Arab influence began to rise, this shifted, and Greek culture really took over. Formerly Roman power centers dwindled, and except for Constantinople, all but disappeared from the map. Everything, from the language to the architecture to the composition of the army diverged from their Roman predecessors and the Byzantine Empire became markedly different from Rome, which by that time was beginning what would be its fairly short-lived attempt at a comeback.

Roman culture and Christianity provided the structure and legitimacy of rule to allow for the transition of power from West to East, but once the new State was well established, the Roman influence dwindled, and the heritage of the people inhabiting the region took the Empire in a new direction. These people were Roman in name only, most likely at the insistance of the Emperors, who identified with Rome much more strongly than any of the habitants could have been expected to.

It is a subject of much disagreement among historians, but I believe that the pronounced cultural and organizational differences between late Rome and the established Byzantine state after the 7th century is more than enough to consider Byzantium a seperate Empire.

Voted for Genghis Khan and the Tai-zong emperor.

GK was arguably the most influential leader of the times, simply by being the founder of the Mongol war-machine, which impacted many regions of the world, fr heartland Russia to Japan.

The Tai-zong emperor was probably the greatest (and most warlike) of all Chinese emperors - and the great consolidator of the second phase of Imperial China.

I think the voters on the poll have probably got it right. Who can deny that the Great Khan was the greatest conqueror of the Middle Ages by quite a distance.

I'm also coming to see that Frederick II was much more important that I'd previously thought for his influence on the Renaissance and the secularization of European intellectualism. :goodjob:

I should have incleded Philip Augustus. I've been doing some reading, and I realize that now :eek:

Originally posted by Vrylakas
calgacus wrote:

Ivan has been referred to as the "gather of the Russian lands" and united most of the areas of Russia under his control.

Funny thing about that though was his definition of "Russian lands". Essentially, Ivan's definition of "Russian lands" was any lands he wanted. Between Poland and Russia were a mass of Slavic, Finnic and Iranian peoples, most of whom had been conquered by the Lithuanians, and few of whom considered themselves Russians. Ivan simply declared all of these peoples Russians, and said they were his alone to rule. Many lands that today we consider traditional Russian lands in this region only became so when conquered by Russia by Ivan, or by his successors. The Soviets in the 20th century, as they "recovered" many of these lands from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania simplified matters by declaring all the Slavs in these areas to be either Ukrainians or Byelorussians - no matter that many spoke various Slavic languages now extinct. Red Ruthenians, Black Ruthenians, Lemko, etc. - all disappeared to simplify Soviet ethnography and justify Russian land claims.

A question: do Ukrainians and Byelorussians regard themselves as Russians?

What about Byzantine Emperor Basil II, one tough hombrey right there, I suggest ya read up on him :)

Originally posted by Xen
What about Byzantine Emperor Basil II, one tough hombrey right there, I suggest ya read up on him :)


That addressed at me? That sounds pretty arrogant, though I haven't made up my mind.

Well, I got the idea for this thread on another forum.

http://mojtaba.proboards10.com/index.cgi?board=17&action=display&num=1031006333

Basil II was on their poll (there were only a few options) - the poll wasn't very good. I read up on him. I didn't think he deserved a place even in the 19. After all, his inclusion would mean the exclusion of another (and who in the poll would you get rid of may I ask, the options are not infinite ;) ?). He wouldn't even enter the poll if I had another 20 options. I don't want to sound conceited, but that poll is pretty good. Basil II would not have made it better, even though I've already admitted one or two candidates deserved more consideration than they got.

Feel free to argue your case though. That'd be much better than a vacant imperative ;)

Calgacus wrote:

A question: Do Ukrainians and Byelorussians regard themselves as Russians?

Short answer: no. Rather in the same way the Welsh or Cornish aren't likely any time soon to regard themselves as English. They are highly conscious of being caught up in larger Russian history (as the Welsh and etc. are of being involved in British history) but they are keenly aware of their own distinct cultures. Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55510) a link to another thread where I answered a similar question, in my usual long-winded way...

Willaim the first. took over england and did the domsday book (the earliest senses)

Originally posted by calgacus



That addressed at me? That sounds pretty arrogant, though I haven't made up my mind.

Well, I got the idea for this thread on another forum.

http://mojtaba.proboards10.com/index.cgi?board=17&action=display&num=1031006333

Basil II was on their poll (there were only a few options) - the poll wasn't very good. I read up on him. I didn't think he deserved a place even in the 19. After all, his inclusion would mean the exclusion of another (and who in the poll would you get rid of may I ask, the options are not infinite ;) ?). He wouldn't even enter the poll if I had another 20 options. I don't want to sound conceited, but that poll is pretty good. Basil II would not have made it better, even though I've already admitted one or two candidates deserved more consideration than they got.

Feel free to argue your case though. That'd be much better than a vacant imperative ;)

Nah, not directed to you in oaticular, as most people in these threads only know about a few people, and have it syuck in there heads that they are the best....

as for Basil II, remember I called him tough, not good, but his military gains certainlly deserve credit, after all after his campaigns no one attacked the empire for a good deal after his death, and no one can call someone who has that effect not tough...

Great King Sejong of Choson.

there was no other leader who created a language to end illiteracy in his people.. the Korean language so easy that anyone can learn to read and write in a day, and it can record almost all the sounds made in any other language in the world.

and the language thing is not all. he looked for skill, not family lines in people, and always thought of the common people..

now that's a great ruler.

The Pope was the eminent emperor of the christian world in the middle ages

Tzar Stefan Dusan Silni the emperor of the Serbs and Greeks!
He was the best...at least for my nation.:king:

id say charles V