Originally Posted by Knighterror1013
Queen Elizabeth, hands down. It was her who ultimately led England into world pwer status.
1) She knew a great mind when she seen one. Shakespear, Francis Bacon, Francis Drake, etc. all were given royal posts under her.
2) She came into power of the weakest kingdom in western Europe, and by her death it was well on its way to becoming the most powerful nation of the world.
Actually, it is fact that Elizabeth was more lucky than she was shrewd in politics. England was bankrupt by the Anglo-Spanish War.
3) She had Sir Francis Drake rob and plunder the Spainish in the Americas and back in Europe. She gave him the chance to humiliate the Spainish once more, and he did so by defeating the Armada. Also, in his trip around the world (the 2nd person to do so ever), he explored the areas of American Northwest, which lead to the claim by the American people of Manifest Destiny (controlling the North American interior from coast to coast), since when they rebelled and won thier independence from England, they got all former claims of the King of England in America, and that included New Albion (although, no one knows exactly where that is).
Drake took orders from himself, not the Queen. The Queen and several nobles may have invested in him, but his attacks and subsequent voyage around the world was under his own guidance, not the Queen.
You forget that after the Spanish Armada, the English used that advantage to strike back at Spain in the "Counter Armada" They had three goals which they all failed. They failed to raise a revolt in Lisbon, they failed to establish a base in Azores and in destroying the Spanish Atlantic fleet.
The Queen and England was more lucky than skilled.
Exactly, she gave Francis Drake a chance to shine and he did so. Also, she had ideas to weaken the Spanish, but not the commanders and generals to carry out the plans. She gave them the chance and they failed. Ultimately, it was not her in direct command of the soldiers, wasn't it the Duke of Essex that lead the men in Lisbon?
4. She was a shrewd politician. She knew who she had to ally with and when.
Wrong, she was indecisive and slow in her decision making. Her support for Dutch Protestants was half-hearted and ended in disator.
Your absolutely correct right there, however this also came at the time she was dealing with the Catholics in Scotland. She managed to keep Scotland under English control although they had French and Spainish support. That was mainly through her promises of Marriage to suitors from both countries and delayed any major support or invasion from the mainland for years.
5. She had the love of her people, they even called her "Good Queen Bess".
While she was a loved Queen during her reign, when she finally died, people heaved a sigh of relief as they were tired of the expensive taxes and endless war.
Most English households during her riegn had a portrait of her in the house, showing thier loyalty. Those do not come cheap, and she didn't pay for them.
6. She ruled by herself, as a woman, for her entire reign. That was something that did not happen often, all through out history, and people respected and feared her.
No, she had an army of male councillors who guided her throughout her reign.
She did, as most kings did. But can you name one major male that heavily influenced her decisions? She listened to each side on every issue nearly and mainly came to her own decisions. Besides, name one monarch that did not have a council.
7. She severly weakened the Spainish in the long run, and freed England from any serious outside threats. This allowed the English to focus on setting up broad international trade agreements, over seas exploration and settlement, and the English being recognized as serious power on the worlds stage.
Spanish Naval dominace was only truly broken by the Dutch in 1639 in the Battle of Downs. Spain was weaken temporarily. English Settlement became something serious in the Reign of James I.
Weakened enough that they could not invade England, thus preserving the English throne. When did James 1 rule? Enough said.
8) She was courted by foriegn Kings and Dukes, but knew in order to keep the English throne in English Hands, she did not marry, and did not produce any heirs.
I dont think not producing makes a leader good.
It was common practice for Royalty to marry royalty, and heirs to rule over what thier parent's had. Had she married a French duke, her heir would be French, and England would have went to France. This would have happened with whoever she married. So by her not marrying and producing heirs, the English throne stayed in the hands of the English.
Also, I would hate to see what would have happened if her sister Mary (not Queen Mary of the Scots) did not die and kept power. English history may be very different and England may have become a French, Dutch, or Spainish province, thus America could of been a very different place then it is today.
The ideal of the Virgin Queen, Good Queen Bess was the result of a sudden resurgen in the romantic appeal of her reign when James became unpopular with the people.
She was a marvelous monarch no doubt, but you give her too much Credit.
I believe I give her the credit that she deserves. Why else would she be in Civ games consistently if she wasn't one of the best English rulers, if not one of the best rulers period. Sure, she spent alot, theres no excuse for that, although any military failure by her is not really her fault, but the General in charge. She provided the tools needed, however, they could not finish the job.
?
