Your Nation's Greatest Leaders

[aronnax]

^, what about Charles VII the Victorious? During his reign, France was reunited and on its way to a great power.

 

[Steph]

^, what about Charles VII the Victorious? During his reign, France was reunited and on its way to a great power.

Because Jeanne d'Arc gave the initial impulse... And with a good help from his wife familly.

Well, he was a good monarch, but I don't think he did much more than some others. He's among the efficient leader, but I'm not he should be in the top V.

 

[Princeps]

I don't care for leaders, I want to get rid of them.

 

[Plotinus]

Ironic, given your nickname...

 

[Princeps]

Ironic, given your nickname...

Yeah.

 

[lutzj]

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOO! YEAH!!!!!!! REAGAN, REAGAN, REAGAN!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOT! Trying very hard not to start flame war... but REAGON PWNED ALL

 

[Ozbenno]

From the very short history (so far) of Australia I can think of 2 great leaders we have had.

1. John Curtin
2. Gough Whitlam

 

[aronnax]

Because Jeanne d'Arc gave the initial impulse... And with a good help from his wife familly.

Well, he was a good monarch, but I don't think he did much more than some others. He's among the efficient leader, but I'm not he should be in the top V.

Then who is in your top five, you only gave 3

 

[Steph]

I'm keeping a slot free for myself when I will run for president

You could have François 1er, who did a lot to advance France culture.

Henri IV, who ended the religion wars, and financed expedition that allowed Canada to become French, until the evil English took it.

Or Louis XI, who started leading France out of the middle ages. And by war, by cunning and with sheer guile, Louis XI overcame France's feudal lords, and at the time of his death, he had united France and laid the foundations of a strong monarchy

Don't forget, that the French king was at first less powerfull than most of his vassals. Wehn Hugh Capet became king, he possessed minor properties near Chartres and Angers. Between Paris and Orléans he possessed towns and estates amounting to approximately 400 square miles (1,000 km²).But his authority ended there, and if he dared travel outside his small area, he risked being captured...

So I think it's quite impressive to see how the kings managed to unit France on the long run.

And now, even if we still have some regionalism, I think France is a very united country. Probably more than most others.

UK: Scots, Welsh, are strong indepedant mind from the English.
Spain: Basque and Catalogne are independant minded.
Italy: large difference between North and South.
Belgium: no comment...


etc.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't see how Louis XIV can't be on any list of top French leaders. Leroy was simply the dominant figure in all of Europe for decades. I'd be inclined to add Cardinal Richelieu too, although I must admit that most of my knowledge of him comes from Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds.

 

[aronnax]

Was Henri IV that Navarre Protestant King that converted to Catholicism for the crown?

Mind if I asked your 5 worst rulers of France

 

[Steph]

I don't see how Louis XIV can't be on any list of top French leaders.

I dislike his hairstyle to much


He also forgot to put toilets in his Versailles palace, and then can really piss some people.

 

[Steph]

Mind if I asked your 5 worst rulers of France

Several candidates:

Charles the Fat, ssually considered lethargic and inept, who bribed the vikings to be spared there wrath.

Louis X le Hutin, his reign was short and unremarkable, dominated by continued feuding with the noble factions within the kingdom.

Charles VI , who became mad, killed several of his knights, forcing his uncle to assume regency (and this creating a feud with Burgundy). During one attack in 1393, Charles could not remember his name, did not know he was king and fled in terror from his wife. He did not recognize his children, though he knew his brother and councillors and remembered the names of people who had died. In later attacks, he roamed his palaces howling like a wolf, refused to bathe for months on end and suffered from delusions that he was made of glass

Pétain is of course infamous for his role during WWII.


Louis XIX deserve a special mention, he was King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes.

 

[aronnax]

I thought his rule was too short to actually be considered a monarch of France

 

[Steph]

I thought his rule was too short to actually be considered a monarch of France

He is included in some lists, and not in others.

 

[philippe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Van_Acker
Van Acker was born in Bruges on April 8, 1898 in a family with 12 children. Van Acker only went to school until his 10th year. Van Acker became a member of the city council of Bruges in 1926. The following year the 29 year old Van Acker was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. During the Second World War, Van Acker organized the Vlaamse Centrale der Illegale Partij.

After the Second World War, Van Acker became Prime Minister of Belgium in four different cabinets (the first two in 1945-1946 were back to back) and served as Minister of Labour and Social Services, Minister of Public Health, Minister of Mobility and Minister of Mining (which led to his nickname). From 1961 until 1974 he served as President of the Chamber of Representatives. He was named Minister of State in 1958.

The first three cabinets led by Van Acker were short-lived because of the crisis pertaining to Leopold III which held Belgium in its grip from 1944-1951. During his fourth cabinet, Van Acker realized various social themes which led to Van Acker being known as the father of Belgian social security.



A great man that was the voice of raison and moderation in a very troubled time

 

[luiz]

Several candidates:

Charles the Fat, ssually considered lethargic and inept, who bribed the vikings to be spared there wrath.

Louis X le Hutin, his reign was short and unremarkable, dominated by continued feuding with the noble factions within the kingdom.

Charles VI , who became mad, killed several of his knights, forcing his uncle to assume regency (and this creating a feud with Burgundy). During one attack in 1393, Charles could not remember his name, did not know he was king and fled in terror from his wife. He did not recognize his children, though he knew his brother and councillors and remembered the names of people who had died. In later attacks, he roamed his palaces howling like a wolf, refused to bathe for months on end and suffered from delusions that he was made of glass

Pétain is of course infamous for his role during WWII.


Louis XIX deserve a special mention, he was King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes.

Any list of bad french rulers can't possibly be complete without Jean the Good, the king who lost France. Not only did he suffer humiliating defeats to a nation with a fraction of France's population, he was actually taken hostage after a catastrophic battle.

Even during the Vichy regime France was never that humiliated.

 

[Evie]

As far as being humiliated...meh. John II only ever lost one significant battle (and that owing mostly to some of his sub-commanders deciding to abandon him). He lost it against one of the greatest military minds of the time, the Black Prince. Moreover, he did not start the war.

Despite being taken prisoner to england and having his country generally fall apart in his absence (not that he could do much about it, seeing as he was not absent by choice), the treaty he finally reached with England was relatively tame (Significant english territorial gains, but French recovering some territories as well, and England in theory renouncing claims to the throne of France), and far better than the later Treaty of Troyes that followed Agincourt.

He wasn,t the best king ever, but given the worthless hand he was dealt (a crap political and military structure, a war already started with a much more modern England (preventing any reform if he had thought of making one), he could have done far worse.

(And worse humiliation than Vichy? Give me a break. The treaty of Troyes (made the king of england heir to the French throne), and the surrender of Vichy (turned all of France in either out-and-out puppet German land or a puppet regime) have the treaty of Bretigny (makes part of France english, English renounce claims to the french throne and several other parts of France) beaten by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[luiz]

As far as being humiliated...meh. John II only ever lost one significant battle (and that owing mostly to some of his sub-commanders deciding to abandon him). He lost it against one of the greatest military minds of the time, the Black Prince. Moreover, he did not start the war.

The french forces at Poitiers outnumbered the english ones by more than 6 to 1. Edward the Black Prince was a great commander, but he used pretty much an identical tactic employed at Crécy. It is remarkable that the french fell for it again.

There's no way around it, Jean lost to an army that was a fraction of his own and to a tactical scheme that he should know well. That's humiliation. It was him, after all, who named his commanders. And he was notorious for naming incompentent men, not only as military commanders but also as administrators.

Despite being taken prisoner to england and having his country generally fall apart in his absence (not that he could do much about it, seeing as he was not absent by choice), the treaty he finally reached with England was relatively tame (Significant english territorial gains, but French recovering some territories as well, and England in theory renouncing claims to the throne of France), and far better than the later Treaty of Troyes that followed Agincourt.

The ransom they had to pay for Jean was equivalent to an entire year of France's income. And as far as bad rulers go, how about this: when France was on the brik of economical collapse caused in no small part by him, his account books in captivity show his purchasing of expensive horses and his keeping of a full court around him.

He wasn,t the best king ever, but given the worthless hand he was dealt (a crap political and military structure, a war already started with a much more modern England (preventing any reform if he had thought of making one), he could have done far worse.

Thought of reform? Are we talking about the same Jean? He only cared about his court, his wine and the general good life. He was drinking while his country was dissoluting.

(And worse humiliation than Vichy? Give me a break. The treaty of Troyes (made the king of england heir to the French throne), and the surrender of Vichy (turned all of France in either out-and-out puppet German land or a puppet regime) have the treaty of Bretigny (makes part of France english, English renounce claims to the french throne and several other parts of France) beaten by any stretch of the imagination.

No, you give me a break. The surrender of France in WW2 was a natural consequence of the failure of both France and England to keep Germany disarmed. It was both France and England that later failed to stop the german advance, both were equally unprepared to deal with the german assault and are equally to blame. I don't excuse the french leaders for what they did during Vichy, but I think the surrender in itself gets alot more bad press than it deserves.

Plus the germans were actually stronger than the french in WW2, while the english were far weaker back in 1356. It is far more humiliating to be taken captive by a nation with 1/5th of your population and an even smaller fraction of your wealth than to be defeated by the best army in the world, full of innovative tactics. Of course the english were better organized, but it was Jean's duty to organize his country. It was not at all an impossible task to defeat the English with the cards he had at hand. He just chose to occupy himself with other issues.

You can't possibly compare Pétain, or even Laval, to a moron like Jean II. Pétain was at least concerned with saving what was left of France, Jean just couldn't care less.

 

[Red Door]

James K. Polk? The guy started an aggressive war against Mexico.

Good. Do you not like the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, and arguably Texas?

Martin Luther King Jr.- Nonviolent, lead the civil-rights moevment, minister, peace and love, etc.

Historical inaccuracies make me sad.