Greatest European Rulers of the Middle Ages

Pangur Bán

Deconstructed
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Messages
9,022
Location
Transtavia
I was bored a few days ago, and decided on my top 5 medieval European monarchs. Here they are: :)

TOP 5

5) Ivan III the Great. Completed most of the centralization of the Grand Principality of Moscow. Subdued Novgorod, Tver, Viatka and Rostov-Suzdal, proclaimed himself "White Tsar" [Khan of the West] and married the last Byzantine princess. Introduced Italian and other renaissance men to the Russian lands, beginning the process of westernization continued by Vassili III, Ivan IV and then by the three great rulers, Aleixei Mikhailovich, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The political expnasion to the east was really the work of Ivan IV, but the strength of Russia to do this was down to Ivan III the Great.

Ivan_III.jpg


4) Heraclius. This eastern Roman emperor came to the throne with the Roman Empire in political chaos following the reign of Phocas. While a Persian-Avaro-Slav alliance was actually on the point of conquest, Heraclius went east, launched a "Crusade" from Armenian and Caucasian non-ROman christians, defeated the Persian armies in three large battles, and conquered the Mesopotamian economical heartland of the Sassanian realm. The Persians had conquered all of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, but were forced by Heraclius' strategic genius to withdraw. His military reforms enabled Rome to withstand much of the barbarian pressure that subsequently emanated from Arabia in the last years of his reign.

Heraclius.jpg


[NOTE: Click here to see the anachronist Renaissance paiting by Piero della Francesca (1460) depicting Heraclius in battle with Chosroes II - trumpeteer on the left on the US cover of Baudolino :) ]

3) Frederick II, king of Germany, Burgundy, Italy, Sicily and Jerusalem and Emperor of the Romans. Once called the "God-Sent Savior, the Prince of Peace, the Messiah-Emperor" - other people thought him to be the anti-Christ (the followers of Joachim of Fiore for instance). He abolished tolls in his kingdom, as well as import taxes and state monoploies. His Liber Augustalis is astonishingly "enlightened" for the period. He would always try negociation before war - he took Jerusalem back by diplomacy! He had Arab, Greek, Italian and even Scottish philosophers at his court, and encouraged cultural tolerance. Could speak nine languages and wrote a book on ornithilogy, De arte venandi cum avibus which was a standard work for centuries and is still used today. In this, he offers scathing criticisms of Aristotle - not very common in the period. He really is a revolutionary figure in Europe. He used secular, rather than clerical figures to run his govenment, and this is one reason he gave so much encouragement to Italian universities. His charisma and his battle against the papacy - in many ways - bring to an end medieval Europe's theocratic tendencies and make him, in the eyes of the EU, the "founder of modern Europe".

Frederick.jpg


2) Another is Kaiser Karl V, who was German Emperor and king of Spain (Carlos I). Charles V ruled more European territory than anyone since Valentinian III, and more world territory than European ruler ever! Fought off an alliance of Francis I and Suleiman the Magnificent, despite the presence of the new Protestant sect dividing the German realm. His sack of Rome in 1525 is usually regarded as the end point of the Renaissance.
In his reign, Imperial soldiers conquered Mexico and the Empire of the Incas, and his sailors undertook the first circumnavigation of the Earth. He also lauched the counter-Reformation. He even secured Portugal for his successors. He voluntarily abdicated. On the down side, he split his domains for his successors.

It was for Charles V that the phrase empire on which the sun never sets got coined:

The proud daughter of that monarch to whom when it grows dark [elsewhere] the sun never sets

.—Guarini: Pastor Fido (1590).

The sun never sets on the immense empire of Charles V.
- Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon. (February, 1807.)

I am called
The richest monarch in the Christian world;
The sun in my dominion never sets.

- Friedrich Schiller, Don Karlos, act i. sc. 6.

He also has a few famous quotes of his own:

"Iron hand in a velvet glove".

To God I speak Spanish, to women Italian, to men French, and to my horse--German

Although he did make a lot about his German credentials otherwise. :lol:
charles5.jpg


1) Constantine the Great. In my view, pretty much the most influential monarch in history. His conversion to a small Romanized eastern religion, Christianity, and promotion of clergy to secular positions, lauched the European middle ages. He presided over the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council, which forms the basis for the world's biggest religion - Nicene Christianity - with over 2 billion members today. He founded Constantinople, a city that for more than 1000 years would be the greatest in the world.

roman_constantine_the_great.c325.jpg


[NB: Click here to see the wonderful renaissance sculpting of Contantine's heavenly vision on the Milvian Bridge by Gian Lorenzo Bernini!]
 
What about Justinian? If it weren't for him, the Byzantines would just be another meaningless European nation. Justinian revived the Roman Empire temporarily. He was important!

Justinian should be #1!!!!
 
Originally posted by civilleader
What about Justinian? If it weren't for him, the Byzantines would just be another meaningless European nation. Justinian revived the Roman Empire temporarily. He was important!

Justinian should be #1!!!!



Yeah, but on the other hand, he blew the vast surplus revenues hoarded by Anastasius, and permanently aliented the Italian Romans from Constantinople. He didn't take military ventures in person.

Heraclius did. Heraclius really did save the Roman state.

I don't think those reasons, if they were accurate, would make Justinian my no 1 anyway.

These are, though, my choices. :)
 
Eh...yes:p

DA:476-1453/1492
 
Originally posted by Gladi
Eh...yes:p

DA:476-1453/1492

Again :lol: - Eh...no :p

To both of you, if you want an argument about medieval periodization, then you ought to give one rather than simply stating what you naively believe to be facts, and then leaving it at that. :lol:
 
My bad about making mediaeval period only dark ages:crazyeye: it is past one in the morning. Sorry but to my best knowledge and according to my teacher who wrote book I was learning from mediaeval period starts with Odoakar killing Romulus and ends somewhere 15th century most pouplar date is discovery of new world ot fall of constantinopolis
 
Well, I should tell you that periodization is largely subjective. Your teacher's opinion is somewhat out of date with current medievalist and historiographic fashions; he either isn't a very experienced medieval/late antique scholar, educated before the 80s, or a passionate traditionalist.

Brian Tierney, for instance, has "Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475"; Robert Fossier and the editors at Cambridge University press have it starting c. 350; Roger Collins has it starting in the 3rd century - as does Edward Peters ; Rosamond McKitterick starts c. 400; Peter Cramer starts c.200; Wallace-Hadrill starts c.400; the great Peter Brown starts Late Antiquity in somewhere in or just after the Severan period.

The point? It's subjective.

I know of no prominent scholar who would still go for 476. For the Christendom, 312 seems the best start date for me. It just makes more sense. 476, by comparison, is a total irrelevance! But - I should remind you - that is only my opnion :)
 
Right you said fashions. Okay now that you posted your argument your definition makes sense. And what is wrong with traditions;) ?
 
isn't Karl The Great (Charlemagne) important? Don't tell me that that was before the middle ages. When i think of the middle ages, i think about the the period after the fall of the Roman Empire.
 
COnstantine the great ranks amoung the WORST[/b[ rulers in european history- about the only good thing he did was to allow christianity to be a legale religion- but in that he went to far far, limiting the governmental superstructure by

A)OUTLAWING the best positions in government to any non christian,

B)bribeing the population into converting to chrstianity, which had the terrible effect of drainign ROme coffers, somthing the empire could hardley afford at that point

combine thius with the fact he litterally gutted the Roman army, makeing it into the sad construct that would so ill carry the empire into the dark ages, and the fact the man had little support of the population, his famed adversary, maxentinius beibng the man favorued by the population, common man, and arsticrat alike, outside those who had a direct gain to be mad eby Canstantines ascension, and you see why Constatine is amoung the ****tyiest leaders in European history

if going for the ROman vote of the period, the choice of Julian the apostate is a MUCH better choice :goodjob: wise in all matter, he leagalized all the religions, and he himself was a old styke polytheist, well tolerant of chrsitianty, as well as an incredible military commander
 
Well, if we're going up to those kind of dates as Charles V, I'll forward Henry VII of England. Ok so on paper, his achievements were not as great as the likes of Charles or the others, but he brought the country stability of both politics and economy and founded the Tudor dynasty. He ended the wars of the roses in england for good (unless you count minor rebellions by those claiming to be yorkist kings) and financially was prudent enough to drag the country back onto solid ground. What few wars he did fight he did so efficiently and without great expense.

Like I said, not the greatest of conquerer, or religiously important of kings, but precisely what England needed after decades of civil war. He doesn't get as much credit as his son, or kings like Henry V or Edward I, but he gets my vote :)

Then again I personally don't know that much about medieval history, so don't place too much on what I say :D I just think he gets less credit and TV time than he deserves. :(
 
I think that either Justinian or Basil Bulgaraktonos were greater "kings" than Constantine.
 
actually, Justinian too is far overrated as a monarch- he overstretched the Byzantine military to the point that, even tyhough it was still the single best fighting force on the planet at that time, there wasnt really enough fo it in anyone place to properlly defend the empire- not to mention the huge drain on Imperial coffers that the wars proved to be, not to mention that takeing italy didnt proove to be a very economically wise choice either (that said, Sicilly, and Carthage were- in fact, if Justinian had left the conquest of the west at JUST Sicilly and north Africa, i think it would have turend out for the best...

but no, as it was, Justinian alienated the Eastern provinces of the Empire, forced the clooages, and universities into closing down for good, generally infuriated the persians, further drove the eastern and western churches into splitting, and destroyed all chgances that any orthadox chrsitian state could have existed in the west.... nto to mention he furtherd just about all the ill thought "social reforms" that Constantine had started-even Justinains sole useful contribution to culture was so anti anything not orthadox chrsitian, its very value is undermined...
 
Originally posted by Xen
COnstantine the great ranks amoung the WORST[/b[ rulers in european history- about the only good thing he did was to allow christianity to be a legale religion- but in that he went to far far, limiting the governmental superstructure by

A)OUTLAWING the best positions in government to any non christian,

B)bribeing the population into converting to chrstianity, which had the terrible effect of drainign Rome coffers, somthing the empire could hardley afford at that point



Cu'mmon Xen, we all know you just don't like him because he effectively ended classical Rome.

He's hardly the worst, as he ruled for 3 decades and won 2 and a 1/2 civil wars - wars he started.

I think Constantine was a pretty great ruler, but he gets to the top of my list mostly because of his influence. The more and more I think about, the more I realize that Constantine is the most important monarch in European history.

He put Chritians in charge of things partly because the Great Persecution of Diocletion and Galerius demonstrated how brave and loyal they were, and they would be dependent on him.

I don't know what you mean by "bribing the population into converting to chrstianity" - you'll have to elaborate :)


Originally posted by Xen

if going for the ROman vote of the period, the choice of Julian the apostate is a MUCH better choice :goodjob: wise in all matter, he leagalized all the religions, and he himself was a old styke polytheist, well tolerant of chrsitianty, as well as an incredible military commander


Julian really was an awful ruler :( - he did much more to destroy the Roman army than Constantine. He betrayed his uncle Constantius II - a good ruler - and rebelled. He was lucky that Constantius died a natural death during the rebellion - otherwise Julian would have been a gonner and the Roman Empire would have lasted much longer.

Julian mismanaged the Roman army in his invasion of Persia - he had got himself trapped. For history's sake, he was lucky to have died before his name could be tarnished with the disaster he created.

According to Arthur Ferril, the defeat demoralized the Roman armies - and this was one of the most important factors in the Roman army's decline. Julian was responsible for this, even though he only ruled for 18 months :lol:
 
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that we Brits stole "the empire upon which the sun never sets" phrase from the Japanese.
The Japanese flag that we know today while only being officially adopted in 1870 is supposed to date from much earlier, from the time of the mongol invasions (1274) where a priest made a gift of the sun flag to the shogun. It makes more sense to have come from the Japanese IMO as they have a sun permanently emblazoned on their flag - so in effect the sun does not set on them.
 
About constantine
you mean you havent heard of the "robes and gold" thing? he offernd new "robes' and some gold to any person who converted to christianity- besides the whole outlawing of the nest jobs to non-christians, somthing no one can possibly deny was amount the worst moves in history

as far as the military goes, your forgetting the fact that even with Julians "mismanegmetn" fo the army, he was styill the most successful general in the area since Trajan, and his war on other fronts, and the successes he enjoyed speake for themself- constantien on the other hand, essentiall amde the legions a force fo poorlly equipped, poorlly trained, poorlly motivated Auxilla, apart form the few elite forces- and thats not including the force which had rapiddlly grown in battle feild improtance by that time, the praetorian guard, which he disbanded- the praetors may have been occasionally (;00 disloyal, but as the emprors presence had grown on the battle feild, the need for the incrase of the 9000 man legion had grown as well- remember- rome had never had the huge armies people would like to associte with it, even aty its height militarilyl under trajan, all said, legions, Auxilla, and praetors included, it only numbered about 500,000 men- a tiny number in comparison to what it faced- Rome needed well equipped troops, with good motivation, in relaitivlly good supply at all point of the empire- what constantine changed the army too was a poorlly equpped, small army that, whille it could move fast, could never have hoped to move, and react as fast as it was needed to to defend the empires borders
 
Back
Top Bottom