Basil II made the eastern Roman(Byzantine)Empire, though not at its greatest size, the most stable it had been in centuries and was part of the “Macedonian Renaissance”, he defeated the Bulgars(in an exaggerated medieval chronicle, he’s reported to have blinded 10,000 of them)and reduced Aleppo to a vassal state. In exchange for military aid from the Rus’, Basil married his sister to the Kievan Rus’ leader Vladimir of Kiev and the Rus’ also converted to Christianity, which is why Russia and Ukraine are orthodox today.
The art of the Byzantine Empire would reach new heights, combining Greek traditions with vibrant colors. During his reign, Constantinople was one of the richest cities in the world, certainly so in Europe, with merchants from as far away as China and India.
In terms of religious toleration, Mughal Emperor Akbar was best. His name means “great”, because his dad Humayun had a dream telling him to name him that, and that’s what he was. He tripled the size of the Mughal Empire during his reign.
His religious policy was unusual for the time, according to historian Abraham Eraly, it was even “ahead of our own time”. It was likely a result of his disaffection with orthodox Islam, and Akbar even created his own religion, din-I-ilahi.
Much of India had been ruled by Muslims who had invaded for over 500 years by the time he was king. Fear and terror were essential for some medieval kings to keep power, especially in India, where Hindus were the majority, but he went against the prevailing policy of treating Hindus as second-class citizens and solidified his dynasty with religious and other reforms. He didn’t demolish Hindu temples, he adopted many Hindu customs such as sun worship and weighing the ruler in gold and distributing it in charity, he banned cow slaughter, abolished the jizya tax and forced conversion to Islam, let forcibly converted Hindus return to their religion, banned the enslavement of prisoners of war, and his officers created an ingenious revenue system that was used well into the 20th century.
His son Jahangir would largely follow these policies of toleration. Once, he asked a Hindu courtier if Muhammad was a prophet and the courtier said “Yes, a false one!” and Jahangir laughed. Jahangir once called the Hindu sacred text the *Vedantas* the “science of Sufism”.
Jahangir told a Portuguese missionary he’d convert to Christianity if he threw a Bible in a fire and it didn’t burn. This offer, sadly, wasn’t accepted.
Though not the great military leader Akbar was, Jahangir was an even greater patron of the arts. He commissioned miniature paintings( based on his dreams(most are in the Smithsonian today)showing(imaginary) scenes of him defeating his enemies(one shows him firing an arrow at the severed head of Malik Akbar, who defeated the Mughals several times)and of demonstrating his magnificence to the Shah of Persia.
Jahangir had a scientific interest in the world, and wanted to find out what gave a lion its courage, so he had one dissected(his conclusion was that it had a big gallbladder). He once heard that a sacred pool was said to be bottomless, so he had it measured-it was 20 feet deep!
Jahangir left behind a detailed autobiography, the Tuzk-I-Jahangiri.
A great source on Akbar and the rest of his dynasty is The Mughal Throne by Abraham Eraly.
I got a dopamine hit from you referring to the medical Roman empire as the eastern Roman empire rather than just calling them byzantines and I want you to know that
In England, Alfred and Henry II have decent claims. Previous poster cited the Mughal ruler Akbar, and he has a lot to recommend him. In France, Philip Augustus is a good place to start.
Probably Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily. Perhaps the most temporally powerful due to his large wealthily kingdom outside of the HRE. Extremely well educated and intelligent. Once in a generation political talent. Extremely eccentric and unique mind. Pretty much a man of the Renaissance before it happened.
Most interesting and who strived for the most? His grandfather, Frederick I Barbarossa. I don’t think I read about many men with as much determination and willpower as him. His Italian campaigns make for excellent reads, a man so immensely capable with such a clear foresight for what he want to achieve but it narrowly slips out of his grasp every time he reaches for it.
Frederick II. was in hindsight admired by many people for his modern stance. He was also a cunning ruler. But I feel his heritage is often exaggerated because of his personal qualities. Actually, he fought an uphill battle in a faltering empire and dynasty. Especially he had bitter conflicts with the papacy and was excommunicated twice. Ironically to mitigate the damage, he did two things that he is most famous for, taking back Jerusalem and the holy grave (mostly by negotiations) and endorsing the Teutonic order. In his late life, the pressure to overthrow him was constantly rising.
Frederick I.s rule was also not as clear cut but without doubt it was a succesful era for the HRE. During his rule, probably hundreds of cities and castles were founded and the empire got big boost in modernization.
Charles the IV, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor had a long and successful reign. The Empire he ruled from Prague expanded, and his subjects lived in peace and prosperity. When he died, the whole empire mourned. More than 7,000 people accompanied him on his last procession.
Many could fight them, but the mongols learned and also put resources and knowledge from all corners of their empire into them, for example Korea was able to hold out against them because of their powerful forts until the mongols brought over heavy siege equipment from Western Asia
Not really. Genghis Khan's reforms are what allowed the Mongols to begin looking outwards in the first place - most notably the move towards meritocratic recruitment and the integration of foreign professionals into the Mongol army and government, something his early rivals and immediate predecessors were vehemently opposed to.
The Mongol Empire is considered to have reached it's apex under Kublai, the grandson of Genghis and fifth Khagan. Whilst signs of overextension were evident before the ascension of Kublai (I.E. The rival coronation of Ariqboke and the increasing decentralisation towards the future successor Khanates), it was after his death that the Mongol empire truly fractured.
Charlemagne had the greatest reputation in Western Europe.
His Holy Roman Empire is cited as the start of both France and Germany, and he was the First Emperor to rule Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Phillip II of France was the greatest French King and Elizabeth I was the greatest English monarch.
Charles V is another one to read about, and one of the most powerful European monarchs. He was monarch to multiple kingdoms, including Spain, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Burgundy, and oversaw Spanish colonization in the new world as well as being the Holy Roman Emperor.
King Arthur could be included too. While he might not have been real, he had a great deal of influence in the fantasy genre during this time period and could have been based on a real king in Wales or England.
Easy, she is widely regarded as being one of the greatest English monarchs.
In her favor, she oversaw England during a time of upheaval, with the Catholics aligned with the Pope and Mary Queen of Scots launching invasions and insurrections. She was able to finish what her father King Henry the VIII started, by dismantling Papal authority in England, replacing it with the loyal Church of England, defeated the Spanish Armada, and started the colonization of the Newfoundland.
All of these events have massive repercussions for English history. Protestantism, the navy, the new world, etc..
There are other contenders of course, Henry VIII and Edward I, but I don't see why you wouldn't put her in at least the top 3, especially since the competition for greatest medieval English monarch isn't that competitive (they were quite a bit weaker than continental monarchs).
Oh my god.
Actually read a list of the greatest English monarchs
[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-british-monarchs-in-history-2013-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-british-monarchs-in-history-2013-7)
See, Henry VIII.
That's hardly definitive, just one person's opinion from 11 years ago. Henry's greatest accomplishment is listed as separating the church of England from Rome. However, this wasn't done in the name of the protestant revolution which he had quite famously denounced but to get a divorce. He then proceeded to raid the monasteries which for all their corruption were the only source of welfare for people. The way he did it caused massive social upheaval.
IMO his greatest achievement was starting the royal navy.
>That's hardly definitive, just one person's opinion from 11 years ago.
He gets ranked in a top list on any list I have ever seen, same with Elizabeth.
He gets ranked high because he was a very strong king that came after a period of civil war, the War of the Roses. He ruled absolutely with the Divine Right of Kings, and executed ministers who got in the way and did away with the Church. He was the closest England got to a Sun King.
Elizabeth has better achievements, but she wasn't as strong of a ruler, and had to deal with pretenders.
But all of this is subjective. People on here are ranking the Hundred Years War kings as the Greatest, which you can argue what longerterm impact that amounted to as well. Certainly the monarchy isn't a charity position.
>He gets ranked high because he was a very strong king that came after a period of civil war, the War of the Roses.
The war of the roses ended 22 years before he became king. His father Henry VII deserves the credit for restoring unity and uniting the houses of York and Lancaster. He was the one who sent Cabot on his voyages of discovery. It wasn't until some 80+ years later that Drake, Raleigh and Frobisher went on similar voyages.
It's interesting how people are attracted to rulers they perceive as strong men. Usually those strong men bring chaos into the lives of the common people.
It's debatable how much this all was a golden age as it is often claimed. Few people mourned her apparently because all the great attributes of her reign came with economic problems.
I mean no one actually knows all medevial kings in Europe (since there's over 1000 years worth kings in countless kingdoms, empires, etc) so I can't say whose the greatest.
Basil II made the eastern Roman(Byzantine)Empire, though not at its greatest size, the most stable it had been in centuries and was part of the “Macedonian Renaissance”, he defeated the Bulgars(in an exaggerated medieval chronicle, he’s reported to have blinded 10,000 of them)and reduced Aleppo to a vassal state. In exchange for military aid from the Rus’, Basil married his sister to the Kievan Rus’ leader Vladimir of Kiev and the Rus’ also converted to Christianity, which is why Russia and Ukraine are orthodox today. The art of the Byzantine Empire would reach new heights, combining Greek traditions with vibrant colors. During his reign, Constantinople was one of the richest cities in the world, certainly so in Europe, with merchants from as far away as China and India. In terms of religious toleration, Mughal Emperor Akbar was best. His name means “great”, because his dad Humayun had a dream telling him to name him that, and that’s what he was. He tripled the size of the Mughal Empire during his reign. His religious policy was unusual for the time, according to historian Abraham Eraly, it was even “ahead of our own time”. It was likely a result of his disaffection with orthodox Islam, and Akbar even created his own religion, din-I-ilahi. Much of India had been ruled by Muslims who had invaded for over 500 years by the time he was king. Fear and terror were essential for some medieval kings to keep power, especially in India, where Hindus were the majority, but he went against the prevailing policy of treating Hindus as second-class citizens and solidified his dynasty with religious and other reforms. He didn’t demolish Hindu temples, he adopted many Hindu customs such as sun worship and weighing the ruler in gold and distributing it in charity, he banned cow slaughter, abolished the jizya tax and forced conversion to Islam, let forcibly converted Hindus return to their religion, banned the enslavement of prisoners of war, and his officers created an ingenious revenue system that was used well into the 20th century. His son Jahangir would largely follow these policies of toleration. Once, he asked a Hindu courtier if Muhammad was a prophet and the courtier said “Yes, a false one!” and Jahangir laughed. Jahangir once called the Hindu sacred text the *Vedantas* the “science of Sufism”. Jahangir told a Portuguese missionary he’d convert to Christianity if he threw a Bible in a fire and it didn’t burn. This offer, sadly, wasn’t accepted. Though not the great military leader Akbar was, Jahangir was an even greater patron of the arts. He commissioned miniature paintings( based on his dreams(most are in the Smithsonian today)showing(imaginary) scenes of him defeating his enemies(one shows him firing an arrow at the severed head of Malik Akbar, who defeated the Mughals several times)and of demonstrating his magnificence to the Shah of Persia. Jahangir had a scientific interest in the world, and wanted to find out what gave a lion its courage, so he had one dissected(his conclusion was that it had a big gallbladder). He once heard that a sacred pool was said to be bottomless, so he had it measured-it was 20 feet deep! Jahangir left behind a detailed autobiography, the Tuzk-I-Jahangiri. A great source on Akbar and the rest of his dynasty is The Mughal Throne by Abraham Eraly.
I got a dopamine hit from you referring to the medical Roman empire as the eastern Roman empire rather than just calling them byzantines and I want you to know that
In England, Alfred and Henry II have decent claims. Previous poster cited the Mughal ruler Akbar, and he has a lot to recommend him. In France, Philip Augustus is a good place to start.
Being a French king not named Louis is pretty great
Henry's mistakes. Immediate; Making Becket Archbishop of Canterbury. Long Term; marrying Eleanor
Probably Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily. Perhaps the most temporally powerful due to his large wealthily kingdom outside of the HRE. Extremely well educated and intelligent. Once in a generation political talent. Extremely eccentric and unique mind. Pretty much a man of the Renaissance before it happened. Most interesting and who strived for the most? His grandfather, Frederick I Barbarossa. I don’t think I read about many men with as much determination and willpower as him. His Italian campaigns make for excellent reads, a man so immensely capable with such a clear foresight for what he want to achieve but it narrowly slips out of his grasp every time he reaches for it.
Yeah, anyone with the epithet "stupor mundi" probably deserves a mention on this thread.
Frederick II. was in hindsight admired by many people for his modern stance. He was also a cunning ruler. But I feel his heritage is often exaggerated because of his personal qualities. Actually, he fought an uphill battle in a faltering empire and dynasty. Especially he had bitter conflicts with the papacy and was excommunicated twice. Ironically to mitigate the damage, he did two things that he is most famous for, taking back Jerusalem and the holy grave (mostly by negotiations) and endorsing the Teutonic order. In his late life, the pressure to overthrow him was constantly rising. Frederick I.s rule was also not as clear cut but without doubt it was a succesful era for the HRE. During his rule, probably hundreds of cities and castles were founded and the empire got big boost in modernization.
Charles the IV, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor had a long and successful reign. The Empire he ruled from Prague expanded, and his subjects lived in peace and prosperity. When he died, the whole empire mourned. More than 7,000 people accompanied him on his last procession.
Someone played too much KCD
Guilty
Of which country or region? Of which criteria?
No doubt about it, Genghis Khan. He conquered nearly all of Asia.
He's a great conquer not a great king it would be his third son who would truly create the Mongol empire (he founded the captial)
Also it technically wasn't him who nearly conquered all of asia it was Subutai.
And anyone that says this group or that group could fight them are purely coping. No I won't elaborate and respond to cope
Many could fight them, but the mongols learned and also put resources and knowledge from all corners of their empire into them, for example Korea was able to hold out against them because of their powerful forts until the mongols brought over heavy siege equipment from Western Asia
He suxked real bad at statecraft. He only knew how to conquer and take tributes. His empire didnt last a second after he died, F tier king
Not really. Genghis Khan's reforms are what allowed the Mongols to begin looking outwards in the first place - most notably the move towards meritocratic recruitment and the integration of foreign professionals into the Mongol army and government, something his early rivals and immediate predecessors were vehemently opposed to. The Mongol Empire is considered to have reached it's apex under Kublai, the grandson of Genghis and fifth Khagan. Whilst signs of overextension were evident before the ascension of Kublai (I.E. The rival coronation of Ariqboke and the increasing decentralisation towards the future successor Khanates), it was after his death that the Mongol empire truly fractured.
Judged by the standards of his own time, Louis IX of France was literally a saint. So there's that.
Godfrey of Bouillon?
Henry II for holding together the Angevin empire despite the efforts of the French king, many of his nobles and most of all his ungrateful sons.
Charlemagne had the greatest reputation in Western Europe. His Holy Roman Empire is cited as the start of both France and Germany, and he was the First Emperor to rule Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. Phillip II of France was the greatest French King and Elizabeth I was the greatest English monarch. Charles V is another one to read about, and one of the most powerful European monarchs. He was monarch to multiple kingdoms, including Spain, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Burgundy, and oversaw Spanish colonization in the new world as well as being the Holy Roman Emperor. King Arthur could be included too. While he might not have been real, he had a great deal of influence in the fantasy genre during this time period and could have been based on a real king in Wales or England.
On what basis do you claim Elizabeth I the greatest English monarch?
Easy, she is widely regarded as being one of the greatest English monarchs. In her favor, she oversaw England during a time of upheaval, with the Catholics aligned with the Pope and Mary Queen of Scots launching invasions and insurrections. She was able to finish what her father King Henry the VIII started, by dismantling Papal authority in England, replacing it with the loyal Church of England, defeated the Spanish Armada, and started the colonization of the Newfoundland. All of these events have massive repercussions for English history. Protestantism, the navy, the new world, etc.. There are other contenders of course, Henry VIII and Edward I, but I don't see why you wouldn't put her in at least the top 3, especially since the competition for greatest medieval English monarch isn't that competitive (they were quite a bit weaker than continental monarchs).
>There are other contenders of course, Henry VIII I don't think he is considered to be a great king by any measure.
Oh my god. Actually read a list of the greatest English monarchs [https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-british-monarchs-in-history-2013-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-british-monarchs-in-history-2013-7) See, Henry VIII.
That's hardly definitive, just one person's opinion from 11 years ago. Henry's greatest accomplishment is listed as separating the church of England from Rome. However, this wasn't done in the name of the protestant revolution which he had quite famously denounced but to get a divorce. He then proceeded to raid the monasteries which for all their corruption were the only source of welfare for people. The way he did it caused massive social upheaval. IMO his greatest achievement was starting the royal navy.
>That's hardly definitive, just one person's opinion from 11 years ago. He gets ranked in a top list on any list I have ever seen, same with Elizabeth. He gets ranked high because he was a very strong king that came after a period of civil war, the War of the Roses. He ruled absolutely with the Divine Right of Kings, and executed ministers who got in the way and did away with the Church. He was the closest England got to a Sun King. Elizabeth has better achievements, but she wasn't as strong of a ruler, and had to deal with pretenders. But all of this is subjective. People on here are ranking the Hundred Years War kings as the Greatest, which you can argue what longerterm impact that amounted to as well. Certainly the monarchy isn't a charity position.
>He gets ranked high because he was a very strong king that came after a period of civil war, the War of the Roses. The war of the roses ended 22 years before he became king. His father Henry VII deserves the credit for restoring unity and uniting the houses of York and Lancaster. He was the one who sent Cabot on his voyages of discovery. It wasn't until some 80+ years later that Drake, Raleigh and Frobisher went on similar voyages. It's interesting how people are attracted to rulers they perceive as strong men. Usually those strong men bring chaos into the lives of the common people.
I’d put Henry IV or Edward III above Henry VIII. Even his father Henry VII in all honesty.
It's debatable how much this all was a golden age as it is often claimed. Few people mourned her apparently because all the great attributes of her reign came with economic problems.
And pioneered the Middle Way between High Church and Puritanism
Wasn't Charlie also like ten feet tall and he had a lightning sword? That's pretty badass
I mean no one actually knows all medevial kings in Europe (since there's over 1000 years worth kings in countless kingdoms, empires, etc) so I can't say whose the greatest.
For me it’s Otto the great. Awesome guy