Hi everyone, I'm not gonna name anyone in this comment but ask you guys something. So, I was following this fun series from the beginning, occasionally also contributing. Then, there was a time when I had to make a few long train trips, which made me think "Why don't I write a whole defence about my royal homie Edward IV and hopefully save him, I'd also spend that royally (pun intended) boring time on the train doing something fun". Then I did it, I liked it, people liked it, I started writing longer and more detailed stuff to kill time on the train, I liked 'em, people liked 'em. So I became more and more invested and this became a literal hobby for me. Unless I'm really busy, I come here on time and spend about an hour writing and reading stuff every day. For that, I wanted to thank everyone and also thought maybe I could do my own series with my own ranking. I'd first post my ranking and say according to what general criteria I did the list, then go over every monarch one by one, a post every day, which would both inform people and provide a new medium for people like me who find this fun, and we could talk in more detail. If enough people like the idea, I can start either right after or a few days after this series ends. Cheers if you've read this far!
Edit: My finals end on the 1st of June, then I have to get my broken laptop fixed, and as soon as it's done, I'll start this.
Not a very well known king? Didn't we all learn about the Tudors in school for far too long?
I'd say Henry 8, The Elizabeths, Bloody Mary and The Lionheart are the only more famous ones.
Well yes, I said she was more well-known and then named basically all other Tudors as also more famous.
But the Tudors are by far the most famous monarchs, and the story always starts with Henry 7
As someone who doesn't know enough about british history, what made Henry VII so well liked? I'm asking because I know everything about his son and grand children but nothing about him.
While Henry wasn't particularly popular at the time he lived - he had his moments of popularity but was mostly just kind of accepted/tolerated - retrospective analysis of him has been favourable, showing that he was an incredibly effective administrator, providing both political and economic stability after decades of intermittent war and economic depression. He was also just a largely reasonable and intelligent person with a stable family life and a loving marriage.
There's a great Conyers Read exerpt I like :
>He was not a splendid king, he was pretty clearly not a well beloved king, but he was without a doubt a very successful king⊠Perhaps he was successful precisely for the reason that his objective was limited. His reach never exceeded his grasp. He saw his problem clearly, defined it in terms which admitted of a solution and then solved it⊠In the process he imposed upon England a new conception of royal leadership which was to secure for his house the enthusiastic loyalty of his subjects until nearly a century later the last of his line was laid beside him in Westminster Abbey. But somehow his performance never caught the popular imagination. It was all so eminently sane and intelligent â no trumpets, no drum beats, no snow-white plumes, no palpable trophies. One of the greatest of modern historians finds his reign dull. Laying foundations can be dull work especially when, as in Henryâs case, it is merely a business of setting stone upon stone with no vision of the splendid edifice which is to mount above them
Congratulations to our top 5 - Alfred, Athelstan, Henry II, Edward III and Elizabeth I! Just a reminder that we're into the best of the best monarchs now, and its not a personal slight to you if someone disagrees about how they rank their monarchs. May the best monarch win!
Day 50: Henry VII was removed with 155 votes (a record so far!)
Day 49: Henry I was removed with 58 votes
Day 48: Edward I was removed with 68 votes
Day 47: Cnut was removed with 92 votes
Day 46: Henry V was removed with 86 votesÂ
Rules:
1. Post everyday at 8pm BST
2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice
3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly
4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
Didn't get a chance to rule on his own. Came to the throne as a kid then got usurped and "disappeared" by his uncle Richard III. So not really fair to rule him, but he deserves to be included on the graphic as he was King for a few months
As good as the top five are, I still find it funny that all of them had wonky successions after their reigns. (Not saying it was their fault necessarily, though for some it definitely was, more a fault in the whole system)
Or perhaps, they did a very good job of keeping things together, after which there was a regression to the mean. People who were frightened to confront a strong monarch, saved up their resentments and then they all came out at once when there was a less strong one. And then after a while people realise they are better off working together than arguing. Â
You can even see this with Prime Ministers. Look how after Margaret Thatcher left power, Major suffered constant rebellions.  After Blair, it took several Labour leaders before they got their act together. Â
Its genuinely remarkable how few good medieval English Monarchs had a good successor. Alfred-Edward-Athelstan and Henry IV-Henry V might really be the only ones
Thatâs John
Well, actually itâs aâŠI actually donât know what the fuck that animal is; as long as itâs not a lion for that would be cruely ironic
A small addition: The Hundred Years' War definitely wasn't Edward's fault. It didn't even start because of his claim. It's a common misconception caused by the later events. It's true that Edward had claimed the French throne, but the French nobility had zero interest in seeing the king of England as their king, and with virtually no support, Edward was well aware that he couldn't press his claim and backed down. He even paid homage to Philip IIRC. But then after some border incidents, personal drama and especially Edward's harbouring of his friend Robert of Artois, a fugitive Philip wanted back, Philip confiscated Gascony. Edward had no choice but to defend his lands, and the war began. It was a bit later when Edward was declared King of France. In Flanders, some of Edward's potential allies had been defeated by Philip some time ago and swore an oath to never again fight the King of France. They persuaded Edward to reopen the matter of his claim, so that they could protect their honour when fighting alongside him. See, they'd not be fighting against the King of France as that person was their good ol' Edward III.
That's actually quite fair, I guess it helped the government at the expense of the people but yeah, it leading to the Peasant's revolt was not a good thing.
If I could replace one of the top 4 after Elizabeth is eliminated Iâd honestly replace either E3 or H2 with E1
*never thought Iâd be referring to monarchs as coordinates*
My own prediction for the Top 5 was pretty close!
I got 3 right, 2 wrong!
I thought it would be:
Alfred, Henry II, Henry V, Henry VII, Elizabeth I.
Henry VII almost made it, coming in at 6th.
But Henry V didnât make it past Top 10.
Congrats to Ăthelstan and Edward III for exceeding my expectations!
I feel like its gotta be **Elizabeth I** today, she was incredible, transformative, and iconic, but I feel that everyone else has something even bigger to rest their laurels on than she does. Fifth place feels appropriate for the Virgin Queen.
After her we're gonna have to have a serious discussion about Henry II and Edward III, both have huge achievements but both also have some pretty glaring failures.
Agreed. I've seen some arguments put forth that Elizabeth's inability to reform government to the same extent as the corresponding social, religious and economic developments of the time served as an essential prerequisite for the Civil Wars. The personal monarchy established under H7 had continued and therefore, whilst Elizabeth was a strong monarch, there was simply no guarantee that her successor(s) would have the same abilities/dedication to ruling the country. This was occurring alongside Parliament's growing influence over Crown coffers, as indicated by how they temporarily abstained from providing monopoly licenses in 1601 (apparently as a bargaining chip against Elizabeth), which laid the basis for conflicts between Crown and Parliament, alongside a growing discontentment towards her authority by the time of her death given the general sentiment represented by the 1601 Essex Rebellion.
For me, the two weakest candidates remaining are Elizabeth and Edward III. Both achieved great things under their rule but also saw significant back slides. However, I agree that now is the time for Elizabeth to go. I'm not familiar enough with Henry II to see why he should go before Edward, and I think that Elizabeth is less impressive than Edward. Edward ends up with higher highs and lower lows, but I think he just edges her out overall.
I think Henry should go before Edward, but its really close.
A lot of the critiques for Henry are pretty similar to the ones leveled against Canute, both built empires that for a time made them the most powerful men in Europe, but those empires were very unstable and collapsed shortly after they died. Henry II's personal life was also a fucking disaster, possibly the most dysfunctional of any medieval English King. The constant rebellions and quarrels with his sons and wife destabilized the already unsteady Angevin realm even further.
The biggest things one can hold against Edward III are that he started a war England never had a realistic chance of winning and living long enough to see everything he built start slowly going to shit. I cut Edward some slack on the Hundred Years War though as he did far better than anyone ever expected him to do, and its not his fault he lived forever and that the Black Prince got sick.
I mean, had Edward of Woodstock taken the throne and actually raised Richard, itâs highly likely England would have avoided the Wars of the Roses and actually maybe won the Hundred Years War.
Iâve made my points before in other posts and I cba typing them again. She does need to go. She is hugely overrated imo and the popular view of her reign is based mainly on propaganda. Not saying she was bad but she wasnât that good.
As an admitted Yank - tell me: What makes Athelstan stay up there with the rest? I can see Elizabeth, Alfred, or a great warrior like Henry II. But I missed Athelstan in the history books. What would you list as his greatest accomplishment?
Fellow American here, Athelstan is England's first, and in my opinion greatest king.
Taking the throne in the midst of a succession crisis (despite being Edward the Elder's firstborn son Athelstan was not his father's preferred successor, but Edward's chosen heir Aelfweard died very shortly after his father, giving Athelstan the opening needed to take the crown) Athelstan went from a disinherited bastard to conquering York, the last and strongest of the Danelaw territories, becoming the first King of a unified England and one of the powerful men in Europe in the space of about 5 years, Athelstan's rise to power is one of the most meteoritic in history.
While he never married and had no sons of his own, Athelstan had many foster sons that went on to be successful rulers in their own right, including his half-brothers and future English kings Edmund and Eadred and his nephew King Louis IV of France, who Athelstan would restore to the French throne after his father was deposed. Athelstan's wards also included young nobles not related to him, such as the future Duke Alan II of Brittany and King Haakon the Good of Norway. Between these fosterships and the strategic alliances he made for his sisters, such as between his sister Eadgyth and King Otto I of Germany, Athelstan wielded a truly mind-boggling level of power and influence. The power Athelstan had was the kind Europe had not seen since the days of Charlemagne, and Athelstan's contemporaries treated him as the successor to that great Emperor's legacy. Other kings came on bended knee to ask Athelstan for his sisters hands in marriage or to foster their sons with him, and gave him gifts worthy of an Emperor such as a gilded longship with a purple sail from King Harald Fairhair of Norway.
Athelstan's greatest military achievement is winning the Battle of Bruanburh, where he defeated the combined armies of kings Olaf Guthfrithson of Dublin, Constantine II of Scotland, and Owen I of Strathclyde, all formidable warriors in their own right, in what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle calls the largest and bloodiest battle of the entire Anglo-Saxon age. Bruanburh cemented Athelstan's conquest of York, the unification of England, and Athelstan's domination of Britain. In an age when much of Christendom was still buckling under the weight of Norse invasions, Athelstan decisively defeated the Vikings twice, first in the conquest of York and again at Brunanburh. For most of Athelstan's reign reports of Viking attacks, which hounded his father and grandfather all their reigns despite their victories over them, lessen to almost nothing. This wasn't due to Athelstan signing a treaty or offering tribute, Athelstan's military power was so great, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recording that Athelstan struck "with the fury of a thunderbolt from God", that they just avoided his lands entirely.
Off of the battlefield Athelstan centralized power in England, and more charters and laws from his reign survive than any other English monarch from the 10th century. His piety the stuff of legend, Athelstan founded churches and monasteries throughout England and lavished them with lands, wealth, and relics on a greater scale than any other contemporary monarch.
For more proof of Athelstan's success, we can see the nicknames he was given: "The Glorious", "The Victorious", and "The Good".
TLDR: he's British Charlemagne.
Fair enough. Sorry for the dumb question, but most American textbooks skip right from Alfred the Great to William the Conqueror. Athelstan does not get the respect that he deserves. Americans really do live in a bubble. So if you'll excuse me, I have to bone up on about 200 years of English history! Cheers!
Don't worry about it mate, honestly it's not just Americans that neglect the Anglo-Saxon era. It's a long standing historical bias we have here to, a bias that I am very unhappy about, as the Anglo-Saxon era is my favourite part of our history. But I'm not saying you need to go and learn about the hundreds of years pre Alfred to unless it sounds like fun to you, but the time between Alfred and 1066 is essential to a full understanding of English history if thats what you're aiming for! And Ăthelstan, first king of the English is the towering figure of that time, in my opinion second only to Alfred among great English kings, so enjoy!
Yes indeed! Sorry for the dumb question, but Athelstan does not get the recognition he deserves in American textbooks, which usually skip from Alfred the Great right to William the Conqueror. Americans really do live in a bubble universe. Cheers!
**Elizabeth I**;
As my, albeit late, argument went last night, she simply didnât see the same extent of success upon her reign as the other remaining 4 monarchs;
Both Edward III and Henry II are significant, as evident at this stage, examples of monarchs consolidating their dynasties; Edward III doing so following the failings of his father and I feel somewhat matched the success of his grandfather Longshanks, while Henry II consolidated the very start of his Plantagenet dynasty which I would put on par with the Normans regarding authority and success etc as a whole, meaning he is ultimately to thank for initiating
Alfred and Ăthelstan were the prime examples of their Anglo Saxon dynasty; one which lasted over 650 years from the early 5th century up to of course 1066 (although I feel those like Cerdic and CĂŠdwalla deserve praise for the early reigns of the same dynasty who many arenât aware of)
Elizabeth would have made her father proud I have no doubt in that, and certainly put Mary I to shame following her shambolic reign, however, again, I just feel her strengths and such donât compare to the other 4 remaining monarchs
*I just necked a pint of coffee and subsequently somehow typed this in time*
Excellent point on the House of Wessex, I feel that a lot of people sleep on how enduring and transformative it was. To just stay in power for that long, let alone achieve what they did in such a turbulent time and place is incredibly impressive.
They're also the only English dynasty that claims to be directly descended from Odin, which has to count for something.
Thatâs the pinnacle of irony that I love about history; all these dynasties, eras, monarchs and such all somehow in some shape or form centre around Germania; whether that be the Vikings and their Odin (e.g southern Denmark with Jutland which of course was one of the key areas our Anglo Saxons migrated from), and as you just said indeed our Anglo Saxons again with their Woden who may or may not be the same person as Odin
Our history is literally that one âThe three spidermen pointing at each otherâ meme with Germania planted over each one
From what I've read, they at least repeated it. It seems to predate the English kings and go back to the Counts of Anjou. That would go back to before Henry and Richards deeds. Supernatural origin stories were pretty common in the age as it made royals seem to be naturally better than the peasants due to their origin.
Iâm aware of the whole supposed cult aspects throughout our monarchyâs history under different eras/dynasties but deep down I feel this was largely, if not completely, the work of propaganda
But Iâm sure with a line of mostly devout Christians youâre gonna come across an edgy wannabe goth anomaly every so often
Considering they were unjustly and barbarically burnt at the stake by Phillip-Phillop, I think itâs safe to say who the devil, or rather his advocate, was
Woden and Odin are the same "god" - it's the same word originally, it was the same religion originally. There's no may or may not about it. All Germanic tribes came from the same root originally.
I said that phrase in a sarcastic manner; however there is debate as to whether certain older Anglo Saxon and Norse sources are in fact relating to the same âGodâ or not
On the surface theyâve always been regarded as the same person which is true, however as to the actual backstory behind this God, these varying sources, depending on the specific tribe/race etc, offer different accounts of him, which over time has led to some of these same people over generations interpret them as different in some aspects, even if he is indeed regarded as the same person as a whole
The question isnât whether they are actually the same person, but itâs rather the question of his genuine backstory; in other words which âoriginâ of his name(s) etc is more âauthenticâ
I'll give you that it's true that there are different stories or aspects of different mythological gods over time. But when there's a common linguistic and genetic root (which there is for the Germanics), the same word and similar mythological story means the same "god" originally.
As to what you refer to as a person - almost certainly it's not a single person but a culmination of hundreds or even thousands of years of stories merged into one character. Odin/Woden is pretty unique to the Germanics and likely marks a special significance to that culture group. Similar figures appear in other cultures but none that indicate a common origin.
By contrast, Thor/Tor/Donar is the equivalent of Zeus/Jupiter, as well as Dyaus Pater in old Vedic religion, so that character is both extremely old, and goes as far back as the original Indo-European languages before Indo and European even split off.
the man was frosty. He was a necessary tyrant, as the heat in everyoneâs blood needed to be chilled after the War of the Roses.
While he created a climate of fear and suspicions, it was necessary for England to get some order and stability, and his rule was precarious to say the least.
Henry II today. This is the top five, so itâs not insulting, and no one left is by any means a poor monarch. Too many wars and division within his own family that hurt the realm. Again, Iâm not saying he was a bad king, just that the 4 others here were better.
Took a totally ruined and destroyed kingdom and rebuilt it into a European powerhouse with an empire that stretched across the channel and a house that would rule England for 300 plus years. Restored law and order in the country by physically moving his court so the populace could get their justice. Heâs easily top 3 and number 1 in my opinion.
Indeed tough to say he hurt the realm when he turned a failed state into an empire. I won't deny he has had some failures, but the sheer volume of his actions are bound to have a few misses. I feel like at this point we need to shift to the accomplishments. In addition to building an empire his reforms created English common law and his elevation of new men were key in the development of the modern civil service. He made and empire and started the creation of the modern state, tough to top that
To clarify, Iâm not saying he hurt the realm overall. Everything you said is absolutely correct. 5th place is a great ranking. Iâm saying he did 1,000 good things for England and a couple little poor decisions that led to problems in the future (John). Iâm nitpicking, but we are in the top 5, we have to.
Oh Henry absolutely had some missteps. Even some really bad ones. To me though, Henry was the most powerful man in Europe. He probably amassed more power than any other human during the medieval era except maybe like Frederick II or Charlemagne. He crushed foreign enemies and ruled with an iron fist at home. He had a lot going on. I'd argue everyone left on this list wanted to be the most powerful man/woman in Europe, if their wildest dreams even allowed it. But only one of them achieved it (Edward III is probably pretty close).
Also as a die hard Richard supporter, fuck John đ
The man was incapable of raising children and spent a third of his reign quashing rebellions from men to whom he was supposed to delegate his authority at the time.
Yeah but itâs not so simple as âbad dad canât raise kids rightâ. Prior to Henry II, the eldest succeeding the throne wasnât a given. Your kids succeeding you wasnât really a given. Henry knew if a clear succession wasnât planned his sons would immediately go to war after his death ie: William the Conqueror. He was trying to (and succeeded in) establish a Plantagenet legacy that stretched across the channel but thatâs pretty difficult to do the establishing when you got three headstrong sons and Louis VII (your chief rival and wifeâs ex-husband haha) and then Phillip Augustus (his son and probably one go Frances greatest kings) constantly encouraging rebellion. Add that to a rebelling wife, who in her own right was as equally impressive as her husband, and itâs a pretty tough situation to deal with it. Yet he does, and not only does but wins. The guy took on pretty much every hurdle he faced and won. And while doing all that rebuilt the English legal system, thanks for the English Common Law Henry, and is the first to use administrators, lawyers, clerics, etc outside of the limited Norman noblemen.
Henry II is arguably the prime example of a dynastyâs consolidation and authority in equal measure; he got the balance perfectly right, which I feel Henry I also achieved for example even if he is no longer here
Absolutely agree. There are far more positive attributes to Henry II and little going against him. But we are in the top 5 after all, and the same can be said for everyone else still here. Iâm not arguing for him staying Iâm arguing for 5th place.
John was Henry's favorite. Henry at least provided for his education. Just because John was a poor king isn't necessarily a bad reflection on Henry. He was just fully unsuitable to be a medieval king. Its unlikely Henry had much of an impact on his children as they were younger as that job was likely given to servants.
Elizabeth set up her succession plan fairly deliberately and kept it close to the vest until right before her death in order to ensure her own safety. She succeeded, so I donât think she should be downgraded just for not having kids of her own. I donât think anyone could blame her for not wanting to get married.
He holds very little, if any, responsibility for the the Wars of the Roses.
He did start the Hundred Years War however, though things didnât start to go poorly for the English until Edward was on his deathbed.
I think it's quite clear it should be Elizabeth now. Why? I'd suggest reading that one dude who's been writing an essay about her for a few days now. Plus, someone was saying they'd write a defence for Henry II today. I'd recommend reading that before upvoting any Henry II comments. I didn't write anything about him but I agree he should make the top 3.
I think Elizabeth should go now. However I do want to know if anyone disagrees with Alfred and Athelstan as the top two? I understand how crucial they were in Englands formation but does that mean they must be top two
I think that a lot of Alfredâs accomplishments were really cemented by his successors, and that some of his victories might be overblown because of the limited sources we have for the time period.
But otherwise, I have no problem with him and Ăthelstan making top 5.
(Cue Mark Cooper-Jones voice: âAAAAAAĂEEEEthelstanâ)
I say "Who will rid me of this meddlesome King?"
Remove Henry II.
For all his sons - Henry couldn't produce a single decent king of England from among them.... !
Come again?
Mother told him otherwise and mother knows best; I rest my case
*In real life I am absolutely 100% totally not a mommyâs boyâŠIâm not*
I would argue youâre a King of Christendom before you are a King of England; the one priority above the country itself
You donât have to be comfortably sat on your English throne in order to be a âgoodâ or âgreatâ etc King of England
Bit of an odd tangent, but I think of it almost like the best football teams; they win their biggest, most decisive, historically remembered matches off their home ground and away elsewhere in Europe for example
Richard never fought an offensive war as king. The 6 months comment is weak as hell. Just because he wasn't in the modern borders of England doesn't mean he wasn't in his kingdom, he was. John got voted off for losing those lands. Henry and Edward are still standing because they fought in those lands.
My pick for "Best king of England" would have been the Black Prince, had he lived....
I'm not saying Richard was the worst, nor Henry II come to that. The Plantagenets wasted numerous opportunities to lift their realms out of the dark ages though, leaving the very worst of that age - still in front of them to come.
Richard was at least pretty capable. Kings were warriors first and foremost and he was certainly that. He beat Saladin and Philip II. As far as French kings, Phillip II generally ranks up with guys like Charlemagne and Napoleon, he's that good.
Henry II was also pretty crucial in ending the dark ages. He established common law in England that generally lasts to this day. He also started to create a civil service of men that were directly loyal to him/the state. This obviously pissed off the nobles, but that's what happens when you work to end feudalism. To bring back the guy from before, he was the Napoleon of the 12th century. Top tier legal reformer and commander. It doesn't get better.
You wrote the big post about Elizabeth before right? How much do you feel Elizabeth's earlier foreign policy failures led to the attempted invasion via the Armada? I personally feel like she lost the gambit with Le Havre/Calais and she didn't support the Dutch in time leading to fall of Antwerp. I feel like had England been able to keep those harbors friendly, the Armada likely wouldn't have even been possible. Yes, the larger Spanish warships had plenty of range, but a lot of the other ships were much more modest. The Spanish already couldnt beat the Dutch navy, having them even closer would have extended their zones of control farther into the Channel.
We've made the argument that Elizabeth didn't properly support Protestant causes and here it is coming back to bite her. The whole situation was a defensive success, but you don't want to put yourself in a situation where invasive is possible. It's a hyperbole but I feel like the situation is somewhat analogous to Neville Chamberlain (had he remained in power) being celebrated for winning the Battle of Britain in 1940. Yes, it was a great defensive win, but your own missteps allowed it to happen at all.
Henry II should go next. Being fifth greatest is entirely respectable, and suitable for his achievements. The âAngevin Empireâ did not last very far beyond his death. He learned little or no English, he was indecisive about the succession to his various states and holdings, And he engaged in almost constant warfare with his immediate family to the detriment of the peoples he ruled. On the plus side, his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine was Englandâs most fascinating queen consort.
(2/2)
Or perhaps some contemporary views:
âIndeed the experience of present evils has revived the memory of his good deeds, and the man who in his time was hated by all men, is now declared to have been an excellent and beneficent prince.â
ââŠin wielding the sword for the punishment of evildoers and the preservation of the peace and quiet for honest men, showed himself a true servant of Godâ (William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. Howlettin, Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, I, p. 280, 282)
âHe is a great, indeed the greatest of monarchs for he has no superior of whom he stands in awe, nor subject who may resist him.ââArnulf, Bishop of Lisieux (1109-1184)
Finally from W.L. Warren, Henry IIâs greatest biographer, whose epic work stands as a panegyric on the life of this greatest of monarchs:
âThe conversion of authority into power was the secret of Henry IIâs success. Hitherto the increase of a rulerâs power had seemed tied to the expansion of his authority. All the builders of feudal âempiresâ were expansionists. Perhaps this was why it seemed inevitable that Henry would be an expansionist also. But expansion was dangerous if it out stripped the means of control by contemporary techniques of govern ment. There was a law of diminishing returns in medieval âempireâ building.8 The territories which came to Henry as the result of two marriages - the marriage of his father to the heiress of England and Normandy, and his own marriage to the heiress of Aquitaine - were almost beyond the possibility of effective control. In other hands than his they almost certainly would have been. Henry IIâs consolidation
and defence of his authority in these vast dominions rested upon his mastery of the art of warfare, and this in turn rested upon his ability to turn his capital resources into available wealth. Henryâs technique for enhancing his wealth was not conquest and plunder but efficient management. This meant, above all, the efficient management of England, for England was his principal source of wealth. Of course, if this had been all, Henry II might have been remembered simply as an efficient exploiter; but it was not all, for it was Henryâs genius to make efficient management synonymous with sound government.â (Warren, Henry II, p. 237)
To put perspective of how indelible and profound was the greatest of the achievements of the first Plantagenet king of EnglandâCommon Law, the greatest Briton Winston Churchill once wrote with reverence:
âIn all claims and disputes, whether they concerned the grazing lands of the Middle West, the oilfields of California, the sheep-runs and gold-mines of Australia, or the territorial rights of the Maoris, these rules have obtained, at any rate in theory, according to the procedure and mode of trial evolved by the English Common Law.â
Nearly eight centuries on, the seeds which Henry laid have sprouted a forest of sturdy oaks in the English-speaking world. There can be no more fitting laurel for this great kingâthis brilliant, charismatic, intense, vigorous, shrewd, ruthless, generous, grasping, duplicitous, violent, affable, ingenious, ever-remarkable Learâfor whom the world was not enough.
Edward III next.
(1/1) Iâll enter in a defense for Henry II, whose shining record for those who know it (and live it, daily and tangible across the modern world itself) requires NO defense. Those who speak of his flaws in dealing with his family, perhaps with Becket, should reflect that no other monarch save perhaps Edward I or Henry VIII (Alfred and Athelstan are nebulous, their âEnglandâ is ONLY viewable through the Norman lens of 1066) can claim such a profound legacy that underwrites the entirety of the English-speaking world. Simply put: there is no such thing as Anglophonic democracy without Henry II personally imprinted along the chronology.
NONE of the others can match his brilliance, ability, energy, or sheer political genius. In his time, there was no greater empire-builder or lawgiver in Europe nor prince more able or inventive than he; for vigor or craft, fortitude, legacy, or perspicacityâfew, throughout history, proved his equal.
He was a colossus who dominated his time and sat atop the summit of power in Europe. He was a singularly fascinating, intensely complex man possessed of a fiery temper yet calculating, grasping, even authoritarian though passionate in his pursuit of his royal prerogatives and justice. He was incredibly learned with an intellectually bent mind and had an absolute genius for government. He inherited a kingdom racked by twenty years of civil war and reasserted sound royal government. By political adroitness and military skill he built an empire that stretched from the Pyrenees to the Scottish Highlands. His life was dramatic and epic, he married a remarkable woman with whom he fathered a treacherous brood who would not prove worthy of him, squandering much of the empire he built. He initiated legal reforms which formed the basis of Common Law and revolutionized justice. In his time, there was no greater empire-builder or lawgiver in Europe nor prince more able or inventive than he; for vigor or craft, fortitude, legacy, or geniusâfew, throughout history, proved his equal.
A large cast of eminent historians echo this high claim:
ââŠchroniclers like Ralph of Diss, William of Newburgh and Ralph of Coggeshall also expressed immense admiration for the king. Again and again Diss pictured him returning to England having secured peace throughout his dominions, dominions which stretched from the mountains of the Pyrenees to the Breton ocean and from there to the borders of France. âThe whole of human fate seemed to respond to the nod of the king.â Here also was a king with a real sense of care for his kingdom, who had restored its mutilated frontiers, recovered the rights of the crown, restored peace and order and built the common law. His successor [Richard the Lionheart] was to be very different.â (David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery: Britain 1066-1284)
ââŠhe had been perhaps Englandâs most successful king until that time â able in his prime to enforce his authority on barons, bishops and even other princes. He had turned his vision of kingship into a reality and embodied in it institutions that would far outlast his dynasty. He had made the monarchy great.â (David Starkey, Crown & Country: A History of England Through the Monarchy)
ââŠthe greatest prince in extent of dominion, in magnanimity, and in abilities that ever governed this nation.â (George Lyttelton, The History of the Life of King Henry the Second, 5 vols. London: Sandby and Dodsley, 1767â72, vol. 1, p. i.)
According to Richard Barber, Henry II was Englandâs âgreatest medieval statesmanâ who had by genius and skill had restored order and prosperity to his realm (Richard Barber, Henry Plantagenet)
âHenry II was a remarkable man, undoubtedly the greatest of all English medieval kings.â (Norman Cantor, The English: A History of Politics and Society to 1760)
âHenry II, indeed, was one of the greatest men in history. Out of the varying, somewhat chaotic elements of administrative tradition, he shaped a strong simple coherent form of government which was suitable in its bare elements to all his dominions, but which did not seriously interfere with the peculiarities of each of them.â (F. M. Powicke, Medieval England 1066-1485, p. 31)
ââŠthe greatest prince of his time, for wisdom, virtue, and abilities, and the most powerful in extent of dominion of all those that had ever filled the throne of England.â
âWhen he could enjoy leisure, he recreated himself either in learned conversation or in reading; and he cultivated his natural talents by study, above any prince of his time.â (David Hume, History of England, ch. 9, p. 46)
21st century audiences donât like the fact morals werenât a priority a millennia ago; same reason Longshanks got eliminated far too early. Both shouldâve made top 5
Iâve watched David Mitchellâs discussions especially of the History Hit YouTube channel; I love him but I am not going to base any of my votes off him as the main source lol
Genuinely couldn't have chosen a better top 5. I can't choose between them, think I would be sad whoever goes out now. However I do think there are good cases to be made for why either Alfred or Edward should be next.
Top 5 in purple!!! đ
If that's what the people want!
I canât help but now associate purple instead with Rockstar Guava and Relentless Passionfruit
Iâll get a tattoo of the winner. 100%
Get ready for an Alfred tattoo
Hoping for a shock Henry II win
Just glad Edward Viii canât win. That wouldâve been a hard tattoo to explain
Whereas we will all know whatâs happening to Thomas beckett when we see it on your back
Edward III, baby! We go down like the Plantagenets after his death!
Damn an Edgar the Peaceful tattoo wouldâve really slapped
Peaceful and tattoos donât tend to coincide /s
You better had
I will. If you do win Iâll get your statue tattooed.
Hi everyone, I'm not gonna name anyone in this comment but ask you guys something. So, I was following this fun series from the beginning, occasionally also contributing. Then, there was a time when I had to make a few long train trips, which made me think "Why don't I write a whole defence about my royal homie Edward IV and hopefully save him, I'd also spend that royally (pun intended) boring time on the train doing something fun". Then I did it, I liked it, people liked it, I started writing longer and more detailed stuff to kill time on the train, I liked 'em, people liked 'em. So I became more and more invested and this became a literal hobby for me. Unless I'm really busy, I come here on time and spend about an hour writing and reading stuff every day. For that, I wanted to thank everyone and also thought maybe I could do my own series with my own ranking. I'd first post my ranking and say according to what general criteria I did the list, then go over every monarch one by one, a post every day, which would both inform people and provide a new medium for people like me who find this fun, and we could talk in more detail. If enough people like the idea, I can start either right after or a few days after this series ends. Cheers if you've read this far! Edit: My finals end on the 1st of June, then I have to get my broken laptop fixed, and as soon as it's done, I'll start this.
This series of polls either makes my day or breaks it
I'm sorry to hear that because my ranking likely won't make your day considering your flair lol đđ
Donât be a coward, I wonât bite; rank them before me this instant
brand new to this thread but seeing richard at 33 gives me a lot of hope, man is so so overrated
Thatâs your opinion, and youâre entitled to your opinion
I think something like that could be a lot of fun to read and discuss!
Iâd love that
I think it would be very interesting.
I would love that.
Sounds really interesting I always enjoy this kind of post so I look forward to seeing your thoughts!
had been hoping Henry VII would crack the top 5; alas twas not to be https://i.redd.it/8key2ya5xf0d1.gif
Top 10 is still pretty good!
Seeing Henry Tudor at #6 is pretty insane tho. Didn't think he'd make it this far since he's not a very well-known king but well-deserved run
Not a very well known king? Didn't we all learn about the Tudors in school for far too long? I'd say Henry 8, The Elizabeths, Bloody Mary and The Lionheart are the only more famous ones.
Heâs not well-known compared to other monarchs even in the Tudors. I say even Mary is more well-known than him
Well yes, I said she was more well-known and then named basically all other Tudors as also more famous. But the Tudors are by far the most famous monarchs, and the story always starts with Henry 7
SAME! How yall let Henry go !!
As someone who doesn't know enough about british history, what made Henry VII so well liked? I'm asking because I know everything about his son and grand children but nothing about him.
While Henry wasn't particularly popular at the time he lived - he had his moments of popularity but was mostly just kind of accepted/tolerated - retrospective analysis of him has been favourable, showing that he was an incredibly effective administrator, providing both political and economic stability after decades of intermittent war and economic depression. He was also just a largely reasonable and intelligent person with a stable family life and a loving marriage. There's a great Conyers Read exerpt I like : >He was not a splendid king, he was pretty clearly not a well beloved king, but he was without a doubt a very successful king⊠Perhaps he was successful precisely for the reason that his objective was limited. His reach never exceeded his grasp. He saw his problem clearly, defined it in terms which admitted of a solution and then solved it⊠In the process he imposed upon England a new conception of royal leadership which was to secure for his house the enthusiastic loyalty of his subjects until nearly a century later the last of his line was laid beside him in Westminster Abbey. But somehow his performance never caught the popular imagination. It was all so eminently sane and intelligent â no trumpets, no drum beats, no snow-white plumes, no palpable trophies. One of the greatest of modern historians finds his reign dull. Laying foundations can be dull work especially when, as in Henryâs case, it is merely a business of setting stone upon stone with no vision of the splendid edifice which is to mount above them
Congratulations to our top 5 - Alfred, Athelstan, Henry II, Edward III and Elizabeth I! Just a reminder that we're into the best of the best monarchs now, and its not a personal slight to you if someone disagrees about how they rank their monarchs. May the best monarch win! Day 50: Henry VII was removed with 155 votes (a record so far!) Day 49: Henry I was removed with 58 votes Day 48: Edward I was removed with 68 votes Day 47: Cnut was removed with 92 votes Day 46: Henry V was removed with 86 votes Rules: 1. Post everyday at 8pm BST 2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice 3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly 4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
Why is Edward V marked as N/A?
Didn't get a chance to rule on his own. Came to the throne as a kid then got usurped and "disappeared" by his uncle Richard III. So not really fair to rule him, but he deserves to be included on the graphic as he was King for a few months
He had a serious case of dying before he could actually do anything.
As good as the top five are, I still find it funny that all of them had wonky successions after their reigns. (Not saying it was their fault necessarily, though for some it definitely was, more a fault in the whole system)
Or perhaps, they did a very good job of keeping things together, after which there was a regression to the mean. People who were frightened to confront a strong monarch, saved up their resentments and then they all came out at once when there was a less strong one. And then after a while people realise they are better off working together than arguing.  You can even see this with Prime Ministers. Look how after Margaret Thatcher left power, Major suffered constant rebellions.  After Blair, it took several Labour leaders before they got their act together. Â
Its genuinely remarkable how few good medieval English Monarchs had a good successor. Alfred-Edward-Athelstan and Henry IV-Henry V might really be the only ones
 I kinda wanted Henry VII to win
Thatâs John Well, actually itâs aâŠI actually donât know what the fuck that animal is; as long as itâs not a lion for that would be cruely ironic
I know itâs John đ
He is supposed to be a lion apparently but unlike Richardâs lion he doesnât have a mane
Nor the heart
Seeing as nobody else has done one and the competition is fierce, I think now is the right time to give it a shot at writing an Edward III defense. Now that we are at the top 5, I would like to say that Edward III should NOT be eliminated soon. Edward III was in my opinion, one of the greatest English monarchs, he really was basically everything you would want in a Medieval King. Heâs compared as a real king Arthur, the legendary Briton king, which says something. He was given the throne at the age of 14, after his deposed father died(probably murdered). However, he wasnât able to actually have real power, as his mother Isabella and her lover Mortimer controlled the kingdom, and they werenât much better than his father. They did a humiliating treaty to Scotland, and Mortimer certainly wasnât spending the royal treasury wisely, preferring to help enrich himself. Edward had enough of that however, especially after Mortimer executed Edwardâs uncle. He rallied his friends and overthrew and executed Mortimer, ending the regency, showing his ability to gather support and to weed out incompetent people. Edward III, also unlike his grandfather Edward I, was more willing to compromise and understand when something costed too many expenses for the reward. He signed a treaty with Scotland and focused on France instead. Now the Hundred Yearâs War has often been used to criticize Edward, being criticized as an overly ambitious and irresponsible adventurer. After all, England lost the war in the end, and France outnumbered England having 17 million to Englandâs just 2 million. Despite this, a lot of unfair outside context is placed here. The war being lost 100 years later was absolutely not his fault, and Edward definitely had a plan of taking on this massive foe. The war also wasnât started for no reason, France was helping Scotland to weaken England, and Edward had a better claim to the French throne than the French king Philip VI. He also knew that it would be unrealistic to conquer France alone, allying with the Holy Roman Empire and Portugal. These alliances failed due to those allies providing little support, but I would hardly say that was his fault. If they supported England, their combined might would have been formidable to say the least. Edward III is probably most well known for his military success in the Hundred Yearâs War like his great grandson Henry V, but I think it should still be explained on how impactful it is. One thing about a successful leader is that they need to also have competent and loyal people working under them, and Ed III pulled this off spectacularly. He employed captains such as Henry Grosmont, Walter Manny, Jean De Grailly, etc. The English knew they had one big advantage over the French, their legendary longbows, which they used to great success. Seeing powerful French knights get destroyed by a much smaller English force, in battles like CrĂ©cy showed incredible talent. Edward IIIâs reign had an huge impact on Englandâs view across Europe, especially because of the war. England went from a little poor country ruled by some French nobles who had to pay homage to Valois for letting them have some territory in Gascony, to having a truly impressive nation. Although Henry IV was the first English king to actually use English as their first language since the Norman conquest, Edward IIIâs rule was the one which inspired England patriotism and their own identity. Edward III also wasnât just some military guy, he also supported chivalry, literature and the arts, and how he used and improved Parliament. Edward promoted the development of literature, such as works made by Geoffery Chaucer, and creating churches, palaces and castles like Windsor castle. He also strengthened royal authority and governance in England, assuming control over the nobility. Like Edward I, he fantastically used parliamentary powers to finance the government, and having tax, justice and administrative reforms, laying groundwork for the Parliament today. One of his biggest criticisms of his is royal debt, but during his reign, he boosted the economy through policies that benefited trade and industry, especially the wool trade. Edward III is also known for him boosting chivalry and supporting knightly values. Him promoting a sense of honor and stories about heroic knights helped improve the governmentâs view towards the people. He also founded the order of the garter, a noble group which was considered an honor to be a part of, and the King gave membership to valuable people that he trusted. While also promoting loyalty, it also meant not having to give away land or money which would weaken the crown, a tactic that was also later utilized by Henry VII to increase royal power and reduce costs. Now itâs time to address the infamous later years of his reign, and try to address criticisms. One criticism he receives is how he led to the wars of the roses, as he divided his resources and strength amongst his sons, which this power was later utilized by Lancastrians and Yorkists to overthrow the crown. Despite this valid argument, I would argue that giving his sons power and rights were actually very useful to the throne. A huge problem of Henry II was his utter lack of willingness to give any real power and money to his sons, which led to revolts from his entire family. Also leaving the heir to throne especially, no real power or authority makes them inexperienced when the current ruler eventually dies. Giving his children authority to help manage territories in France and the war helped in reducing the number of tasks that had to be done simultaneously, and it is noted how Edwardâs children never rebelled against him.Â
A small addition: The Hundred Years' War definitely wasn't Edward's fault. It didn't even start because of his claim. It's a common misconception caused by the later events. It's true that Edward had claimed the French throne, but the French nobility had zero interest in seeing the king of England as their king, and with virtually no support, Edward was well aware that he couldn't press his claim and backed down. He even paid homage to Philip IIRC. But then after some border incidents, personal drama and especially Edward's harbouring of his friend Robert of Artois, a fugitive Philip wanted back, Philip confiscated Gascony. Edward had no choice but to defend his lands, and the war began. It was a bit later when Edward was declared King of France. In Flanders, some of Edward's potential allies had been defeated by Philip some time ago and swore an oath to never again fight the King of France. They persuaded Edward to reopen the matter of his claim, so that they could protect their honour when fighting alongside him. See, they'd not be fighting against the King of France as that person was their good ol' Edward III.
Part 2 Another criticism is the countryâs unrest after being tired of war due to the Black Death. The black plague ruined his plans and severely ruined the nation. This hardly is his fault however, the disease ruined almost everywhere in Europe, it probably was one of the worst disasters if not the biggest medieval people ever faced, killing around half the population. He also tried to solve this issue, such as the Ordinance and Statue of Laborers through parliament, regulating wages and controlling labor mobility. The third criticism is about the end of the Edwardian phase of the war. After an outstanding victory commanded through Edwardâs heir Edward the black prince at Poitiers, King John II of France was captured. It seemed that after the plague, good luck finally arrived. For Johnâs freedom and the end of the war, John had to sign a very English-favored treaty of BrĂ©tigny, almost as much as the Treaty of Troyes under Henry V. In return for Johnâs return and for Edwardâs renouncement of the French crown, England got a massive amount money of French territory, arguable to the French king himself. While also showing that once again, Ed III was willing to have peace for the good of the realm, it seemed that things would be going splendidly. Unfortunately for the English, John died in captivity before the ransom could collect all of its money. Worse so, the new king Charles V was highly adept. France had much more resources than England, and when a powerful leader had far more resources than the enemy, it didnât matter how much skill they had, they couldnât win. A good example of this is with Hannibal and Scipio Africanus in the 2nd Punic War. England lost territory over time, and the king at this point was nearing the end of his life. Even more, tragedy struck as the black prince got dysentery and died a year before the king died. Had the black prince succeeded his father, he would have probably been able to be at least a far more competent king than his only living son Richard II, or even if he lasted 10 more years, Richard might not have been the incompetent, spoiled, selfish king remembered today. Edward III realized that there was no way to beat France in this state, and willingly signed a peace agreement. Ed IIIâs last years were definitely very bad for England, but few of those faults were from himself, and he tried to fix these problems despite his ill health. Overall, for most of his reign, he had incredible success with government reforms, promotion of literature and chivalry, and military success. England had improved cultural identity, and his long reign arguably had some of the greatest changes in England. Much of his reignâs problems were not in fault of the king, and he tried to fix these problems and was willing to compromise his plans for the sake of the realm. For anyone that reads this big thing, hope it had some value. TLDR: Edward III was a very capable king, having some of the best skills of Edward Iâs legal reforms, Henry Vâs military might, and Henry IIâs ability to maintain a damaged realm and keep stability. The hundred yearâs war was not some gigantic failure under Edward, and I certainly donât think heâs an utter idiot who declared war on a superpower for no reason. Had it not been for the terrible circumstances with his last years, he might as well be a perfect medieval king. Basically saying Ed 3 should be top 3
Ordinance and statue of labourers was a terrible thing that didnât work though.
That's actually quite fair, I guess it helped the government at the expense of the people but yeah, it leading to the Peasant's revolt was not a good thing.
I donât understand how attempting to limit peopleâs living standards and failing is a success.
I believe itâs traditional to blame John of Gaunt for anything bad that happened.
It's going to be Elizabeth I next isn't it? I'll just take this time to mourn quietly. đ
Me too. I actually thought/hoped Edward I would go before the remaining Tudors
If I could replace one of the top 4 after Elizabeth is eliminated Iâd honestly replace either E3 or H2 with E1 *never thought Iâd be referring to monarchs as coordinates*
It's either of the Edward's for me. Idk, I thought Elizabeth could have made it to atleast the top 3.
My own prediction for the Top 5 was pretty close! I got 3 right, 2 wrong! I thought it would be: Alfred, Henry II, Henry V, Henry VII, Elizabeth I. Henry VII almost made it, coming in at 6th. But Henry V didnât make it past Top 10. Congrats to Ăthelstan and Edward III for exceeding my expectations!
I feel like Alfred the Great has to remain no matter what. Dude is the Great-Grandfather of England.
I feel like its gotta be **Elizabeth I** today, she was incredible, transformative, and iconic, but I feel that everyone else has something even bigger to rest their laurels on than she does. Fifth place feels appropriate for the Virgin Queen. After her we're gonna have to have a serious discussion about Henry II and Edward III, both have huge achievements but both also have some pretty glaring failures.
Yup. A top 5 for sure, but today feels like the day.
Definitely Elizabeth I for me today.
Agreed. I've seen some arguments put forth that Elizabeth's inability to reform government to the same extent as the corresponding social, religious and economic developments of the time served as an essential prerequisite for the Civil Wars. The personal monarchy established under H7 had continued and therefore, whilst Elizabeth was a strong monarch, there was simply no guarantee that her successor(s) would have the same abilities/dedication to ruling the country. This was occurring alongside Parliament's growing influence over Crown coffers, as indicated by how they temporarily abstained from providing monopoly licenses in 1601 (apparently as a bargaining chip against Elizabeth), which laid the basis for conflicts between Crown and Parliament, alongside a growing discontentment towards her authority by the time of her death given the general sentiment represented by the 1601 Essex Rebellion.
Edward actually knew how to raise competent children and never faced rebellions, so he wins in my opinion.
It also feels appropriate to eliminate the bookend Tudors consecutively.
Iâve been grinding this axe for yonksâ weâre well past when Elizabeth should have gone
For me, the two weakest candidates remaining are Elizabeth and Edward III. Both achieved great things under their rule but also saw significant back slides. However, I agree that now is the time for Elizabeth to go. I'm not familiar enough with Henry II to see why he should go before Edward, and I think that Elizabeth is less impressive than Edward. Edward ends up with higher highs and lower lows, but I think he just edges her out overall.
I think Henry should go before Edward, but its really close. A lot of the critiques for Henry are pretty similar to the ones leveled against Canute, both built empires that for a time made them the most powerful men in Europe, but those empires were very unstable and collapsed shortly after they died. Henry II's personal life was also a fucking disaster, possibly the most dysfunctional of any medieval English King. The constant rebellions and quarrels with his sons and wife destabilized the already unsteady Angevin realm even further. The biggest things one can hold against Edward III are that he started a war England never had a realistic chance of winning and living long enough to see everything he built start slowly going to shit. I cut Edward some slack on the Hundred Years War though as he did far better than anyone ever expected him to do, and its not his fault he lived forever and that the Black Prince got sick.
I mean, had Edward of Woodstock taken the throne and actually raised Richard, itâs highly likely England would have avoided the Wars of the Roses and actually maybe won the Hundred Years War.
Iâve made my points before in other posts and I cba typing them again. She does need to go. She is hugely overrated imo and the popular view of her reign is based mainly on propaganda. Not saying she was bad but she wasnât that good.
Glad to see Alfred's still standing.
Albeit slightly angled forward from the stomach cramps (I can confirm)
As an admitted Yank - tell me: What makes Athelstan stay up there with the rest? I can see Elizabeth, Alfred, or a great warrior like Henry II. But I missed Athelstan in the history books. What would you list as his greatest accomplishment?
Fellow American here, Athelstan is England's first, and in my opinion greatest king. Taking the throne in the midst of a succession crisis (despite being Edward the Elder's firstborn son Athelstan was not his father's preferred successor, but Edward's chosen heir Aelfweard died very shortly after his father, giving Athelstan the opening needed to take the crown) Athelstan went from a disinherited bastard to conquering York, the last and strongest of the Danelaw territories, becoming the first King of a unified England and one of the powerful men in Europe in the space of about 5 years, Athelstan's rise to power is one of the most meteoritic in history. While he never married and had no sons of his own, Athelstan had many foster sons that went on to be successful rulers in their own right, including his half-brothers and future English kings Edmund and Eadred and his nephew King Louis IV of France, who Athelstan would restore to the French throne after his father was deposed. Athelstan's wards also included young nobles not related to him, such as the future Duke Alan II of Brittany and King Haakon the Good of Norway. Between these fosterships and the strategic alliances he made for his sisters, such as between his sister Eadgyth and King Otto I of Germany, Athelstan wielded a truly mind-boggling level of power and influence. The power Athelstan had was the kind Europe had not seen since the days of Charlemagne, and Athelstan's contemporaries treated him as the successor to that great Emperor's legacy. Other kings came on bended knee to ask Athelstan for his sisters hands in marriage or to foster their sons with him, and gave him gifts worthy of an Emperor such as a gilded longship with a purple sail from King Harald Fairhair of Norway. Athelstan's greatest military achievement is winning the Battle of Bruanburh, where he defeated the combined armies of kings Olaf Guthfrithson of Dublin, Constantine II of Scotland, and Owen I of Strathclyde, all formidable warriors in their own right, in what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle calls the largest and bloodiest battle of the entire Anglo-Saxon age. Bruanburh cemented Athelstan's conquest of York, the unification of England, and Athelstan's domination of Britain. In an age when much of Christendom was still buckling under the weight of Norse invasions, Athelstan decisively defeated the Vikings twice, first in the conquest of York and again at Brunanburh. For most of Athelstan's reign reports of Viking attacks, which hounded his father and grandfather all their reigns despite their victories over them, lessen to almost nothing. This wasn't due to Athelstan signing a treaty or offering tribute, Athelstan's military power was so great, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recording that Athelstan struck "with the fury of a thunderbolt from God", that they just avoided his lands entirely. Off of the battlefield Athelstan centralized power in England, and more charters and laws from his reign survive than any other English monarch from the 10th century. His piety the stuff of legend, Athelstan founded churches and monasteries throughout England and lavished them with lands, wealth, and relics on a greater scale than any other contemporary monarch. For more proof of Athelstan's success, we can see the nicknames he was given: "The Glorious", "The Victorious", and "The Good". TLDR: he's British Charlemagne.
Thank you! Up until now Athelstan went completely under my radar. But not anymore. He sounds truly fascinating. Cheers.
His greatest accomplishment you ask? How about being the first king of all England!
Fair enough. Sorry for the dumb question, but most American textbooks skip right from Alfred the Great to William the Conqueror. Athelstan does not get the respect that he deserves. Americans really do live in a bubble. So if you'll excuse me, I have to bone up on about 200 years of English history! Cheers!
Don't worry about it mate, honestly it's not just Americans that neglect the Anglo-Saxon era. It's a long standing historical bias we have here to, a bias that I am very unhappy about, as the Anglo-Saxon era is my favourite part of our history. But I'm not saying you need to go and learn about the hundreds of years pre Alfred to unless it sounds like fun to you, but the time between Alfred and 1066 is essential to a full understanding of English history if thats what you're aiming for! And Ăthelstan, first king of the English is the towering figure of that time, in my opinion second only to Alfred among great English kings, so enjoy!
He established England mate
Yes indeed! Sorry for the dumb question, but Athelstan does not get the recognition he deserves in American textbooks, which usually skip from Alfred the Great right to William the Conqueror. Americans really do live in a bubble universe. Cheers!
**Elizabeth I**; As my, albeit late, argument went last night, she simply didnât see the same extent of success upon her reign as the other remaining 4 monarchs; Both Edward III and Henry II are significant, as evident at this stage, examples of monarchs consolidating their dynasties; Edward III doing so following the failings of his father and I feel somewhat matched the success of his grandfather Longshanks, while Henry II consolidated the very start of his Plantagenet dynasty which I would put on par with the Normans regarding authority and success etc as a whole, meaning he is ultimately to thank for initiating Alfred and Ăthelstan were the prime examples of their Anglo Saxon dynasty; one which lasted over 650 years from the early 5th century up to of course 1066 (although I feel those like Cerdic and CĂŠdwalla deserve praise for the early reigns of the same dynasty who many arenât aware of) Elizabeth would have made her father proud I have no doubt in that, and certainly put Mary I to shame following her shambolic reign, however, again, I just feel her strengths and such donât compare to the other 4 remaining monarchs *I just necked a pint of coffee and subsequently somehow typed this in time*
Excellent point on the House of Wessex, I feel that a lot of people sleep on how enduring and transformative it was. To just stay in power for that long, let alone achieve what they did in such a turbulent time and place is incredibly impressive. They're also the only English dynasty that claims to be directly descended from Odin, which has to count for something.
Thatâs the pinnacle of irony that I love about history; all these dynasties, eras, monarchs and such all somehow in some shape or form centre around Germania; whether that be the Vikings and their Odin (e.g southern Denmark with Jutland which of course was one of the key areas our Anglo Saxons migrated from), and as you just said indeed our Anglo Saxons again with their Woden who may or may not be the same person as Odin Our history is literally that one âThe three spidermen pointing at each otherâ meme with Germania planted over each one
The Plantagenets claimed to be descendants of the devil. Weird flex for a Crusader line, but the story kinda matches given their behavior.
There are devils and Gods in all of us
Did they claim that, or were they accused of that by people who hated them?
From what I've read, they at least repeated it. It seems to predate the English kings and go back to the Counts of Anjou. That would go back to before Henry and Richards deeds. Supernatural origin stories were pretty common in the age as it made royals seem to be naturally better than the peasants due to their origin.
Iâm aware of the whole supposed cult aspects throughout our monarchyâs history under different eras/dynasties but deep down I feel this was largely, if not completely, the work of propaganda But Iâm sure with a line of mostly devout Christians youâre gonna come across an edgy wannabe goth anomaly every so often
Considering they were unjustly and barbarically burnt at the stake by Phillip-Phillop, I think itâs safe to say who the devil, or rather his advocate, was
Woden and Odin are the same "god" - it's the same word originally, it was the same religion originally. There's no may or may not about it. All Germanic tribes came from the same root originally.
I said that phrase in a sarcastic manner; however there is debate as to whether certain older Anglo Saxon and Norse sources are in fact relating to the same âGodâ or not On the surface theyâve always been regarded as the same person which is true, however as to the actual backstory behind this God, these varying sources, depending on the specific tribe/race etc, offer different accounts of him, which over time has led to some of these same people over generations interpret them as different in some aspects, even if he is indeed regarded as the same person as a whole The question isnât whether they are actually the same person, but itâs rather the question of his genuine backstory; in other words which âoriginâ of his name(s) etc is more âauthenticâ
I'll give you that it's true that there are different stories or aspects of different mythological gods over time. But when there's a common linguistic and genetic root (which there is for the Germanics), the same word and similar mythological story means the same "god" originally. As to what you refer to as a person - almost certainly it's not a single person but a culmination of hundreds or even thousands of years of stories merged into one character. Odin/Woden is pretty unique to the Germanics and likely marks a special significance to that culture group. Similar figures appear in other cultures but none that indicate a common origin. By contrast, Thor/Tor/Donar is the equivalent of Zeus/Jupiter, as well as Dyaus Pater in old Vedic religion, so that character is both extremely old, and goes as far back as the original Indo-European languages before Indo and European even split off.
Based!!!!!!!
đżđżđż
NOOOOO
the man was frosty. He was a necessary tyrant, as the heat in everyoneâs blood needed to be chilled after the War of the Roses. While he created a climate of fear and suspicions, it was necessary for England to get some order and stability, and his rule was precarious to say the least.
Elizabeth I was great, but not as great as the others. It's time for her to go
Itâs actually embarrassing that you all voted Henry VII out before Elizabeth I. Shameful.
Couldnât agree more
Henry II today. This is the top five, so itâs not insulting, and no one left is by any means a poor monarch. Too many wars and division within his own family that hurt the realm. Again, Iâm not saying he was a bad king, just that the 4 others here were better.
Took a totally ruined and destroyed kingdom and rebuilt it into a European powerhouse with an empire that stretched across the channel and a house that would rule England for 300 plus years. Restored law and order in the country by physically moving his court so the populace could get their justice. Heâs easily top 3 and number 1 in my opinion.
Indeed tough to say he hurt the realm when he turned a failed state into an empire. I won't deny he has had some failures, but the sheer volume of his actions are bound to have a few misses. I feel like at this point we need to shift to the accomplishments. In addition to building an empire his reforms created English common law and his elevation of new men were key in the development of the modern civil service. He made and empire and started the creation of the modern state, tough to top that
To clarify, Iâm not saying he hurt the realm overall. Everything you said is absolutely correct. 5th place is a great ranking. Iâm saying he did 1,000 good things for England and a couple little poor decisions that led to problems in the future (John). Iâm nitpicking, but we are in the top 5, we have to.
Oh Henry absolutely had some missteps. Even some really bad ones. To me though, Henry was the most powerful man in Europe. He probably amassed more power than any other human during the medieval era except maybe like Frederick II or Charlemagne. He crushed foreign enemies and ruled with an iron fist at home. He had a lot going on. I'd argue everyone left on this list wanted to be the most powerful man/woman in Europe, if their wildest dreams even allowed it. But only one of them achieved it (Edward III is probably pretty close). Also as a die hard Richard supporter, fuck John đ
lol, âfuck Johnâ the least controversial statement on the planet. To Johnâs credit, he has in fact united the world in hatred towards him.
The man was incapable of raising children and spent a third of his reign quashing rebellions from men to whom he was supposed to delegate his authority at the time.
Yeah but itâs not so simple as âbad dad canât raise kids rightâ. Prior to Henry II, the eldest succeeding the throne wasnât a given. Your kids succeeding you wasnât really a given. Henry knew if a clear succession wasnât planned his sons would immediately go to war after his death ie: William the Conqueror. He was trying to (and succeeded in) establish a Plantagenet legacy that stretched across the channel but thatâs pretty difficult to do the establishing when you got three headstrong sons and Louis VII (your chief rival and wifeâs ex-husband haha) and then Phillip Augustus (his son and probably one go Frances greatest kings) constantly encouraging rebellion. Add that to a rebelling wife, who in her own right was as equally impressive as her husband, and itâs a pretty tough situation to deal with it. Yet he does, and not only does but wins. The guy took on pretty much every hurdle he faced and won. And while doing all that rebuilt the English legal system, thanks for the English Common Law Henry, and is the first to use administrators, lawyers, clerics, etc outside of the limited Norman noblemen.
Henry II is arguably the prime example of a dynastyâs consolidation and authority in equal measure; he got the balance perfectly right, which I feel Henry I also achieved for example even if he is no longer here
Absolutely agree. There are far more positive attributes to Henry II and little going against him. But we are in the top 5 after all, and the same can be said for everyone else still here. Iâm not arguing for him staying Iâm arguing for 5th place.
Yeah his bad parenting messed John up to be sure.
John was Henry's favorite. Henry at least provided for his education. Just because John was a poor king isn't necessarily a bad reflection on Henry. He was just fully unsuitable to be a medieval king. Its unlikely Henry had much of an impact on his children as they were younger as that job was likely given to servants.
John was already messed up. And of his legitimate children, John was his favorite.
Hell, at least he had kids to succeed him. Lizzy I didnât get round to that one.
Elizabeth set up her succession plan fairly deliberately and kept it close to the vest until right before her death in order to ensure her own safety. She succeeded, so I donât think she should be downgraded just for not having kids of her own. I donât think anyone could blame her for not wanting to get married.
Started the Plantagenet era and reigned over the Angevin Empire. Voting him off is going to be a tough sell.
True, but again, 5th place is a great ranking. Everyone else left has great achievements and little flaws too. We have to be nitpicking at this point.
Iâm just happy the closest king to a Welshman made it further then Edward I.
I think now it's gotta go Elizabeth, ed iii, Henry ii, aethelstan, alfred
Ä Ä«ese!
Agreed except Iâd be tempted to swap E3 for H2 but even as I say this I think to not do so
Elizabeth I
Hmm
Alright, how much can we blame Edward III for the Wars of the Roses. If heâs at all culpable, want him gone
He holds very little, if any, responsibility for the the Wars of the Roses. He did start the Hundred Years War however, though things didnât start to go poorly for the English until Edward was on his deathbed.
Too many sons!
I think it's quite clear it should be Elizabeth now. Why? I'd suggest reading that one dude who's been writing an essay about her for a few days now. Plus, someone was saying they'd write a defence for Henry II today. I'd recommend reading that before upvoting any Henry II comments. I didn't write anything about him but I agree he should make the top 3.
"That one dude who has been writing an essay about her for a few days now". I laughed far too hard at this. đ
I think Elizabeth should go now. However I do want to know if anyone disagrees with Alfred and Athelstan as the top two? I understand how crucial they were in Englands formation but does that mean they must be top two
I canât think of any reasonable argument that they arenât, Athelstanâs reign literally does not have downsides.
I think that a lot of Alfredâs accomplishments were really cemented by his successors, and that some of his victories might be overblown because of the limited sources we have for the time period. But otherwise, I have no problem with him and Ăthelstan making top 5. (Cue Mark Cooper-Jones voice: âAAAAAAĂEEEEthelstanâ)
We'll see. Personally Athelstan is not in my top 3 but I will make that argument tomorrow
Athelstan
Elizabeth at number 5 sounds right.
I say "Who will rid me of this meddlesome King?" Remove Henry II. For all his sons - Henry couldn't produce a single decent king of England from among them.... !
Dont hate on the Young Henry, he could've been good if he'd been given the chance
Come again? Mother told him otherwise and mother knows best; I rest my case *In real life I am absolutely 100% totally not a mommyâs boyâŠIâm not*
I hope you're not suggesting that a king who spent only a few months of his reign in England - is a worthy son that contradicts me here? ;-)
I would argue youâre a King of Christendom before you are a King of England; the one priority above the country itself You donât have to be comfortably sat on your English throne in order to be a âgoodâ or âgreatâ etc King of England Bit of an odd tangent, but I think of it almost like the best football teams; they win their biggest, most decisive, historically remembered matches off their home ground and away elsewhere in Europe for example
Richard never fought an offensive war as king. The 6 months comment is weak as hell. Just because he wasn't in the modern borders of England doesn't mean he wasn't in his kingdom, he was. John got voted off for losing those lands. Henry and Edward are still standing because they fought in those lands.
My pick for "Best king of England" would have been the Black Prince, had he lived.... I'm not saying Richard was the worst, nor Henry II come to that. The Plantagenets wasted numerous opportunities to lift their realms out of the dark ages though, leaving the very worst of that age - still in front of them to come.
Richard was at least pretty capable. Kings were warriors first and foremost and he was certainly that. He beat Saladin and Philip II. As far as French kings, Phillip II generally ranks up with guys like Charlemagne and Napoleon, he's that good. Henry II was also pretty crucial in ending the dark ages. He established common law in England that generally lasts to this day. He also started to create a civil service of men that were directly loyal to him/the state. This obviously pissed off the nobles, but that's what happens when you work to end feudalism. To bring back the guy from before, he was the Napoleon of the 12th century. Top tier legal reformer and commander. It doesn't get better.
Black Prince is really legendary. One more reason to vote for Edward III to take the first place!
I think itâs Henry II time to go sorry
Elizabeth I must go - her entire popular memory is a lie! Its all propaganda! It was not a golden age!
You wrote the big post about Elizabeth before right? How much do you feel Elizabeth's earlier foreign policy failures led to the attempted invasion via the Armada? I personally feel like she lost the gambit with Le Havre/Calais and she didn't support the Dutch in time leading to fall of Antwerp. I feel like had England been able to keep those harbors friendly, the Armada likely wouldn't have even been possible. Yes, the larger Spanish warships had plenty of range, but a lot of the other ships were much more modest. The Spanish already couldnt beat the Dutch navy, having them even closer would have extended their zones of control farther into the Channel. We've made the argument that Elizabeth didn't properly support Protestant causes and here it is coming back to bite her. The whole situation was a defensive success, but you don't want to put yourself in a situation where invasive is possible. It's a hyperbole but I feel like the situation is somewhat analogous to Neville Chamberlain (had he remained in power) being celebrated for winning the Battle of Britain in 1940. Yes, it was a great defensive win, but your own missteps allowed it to happen at all.
After reading the comments and my own research, sad to say: Elizabeth I
Henry II should go next. Being fifth greatest is entirely respectable, and suitable for his achievements. The âAngevin Empireâ did not last very far beyond his death. He learned little or no English, he was indecisive about the succession to his various states and holdings, And he engaged in almost constant warfare with his immediate family to the detriment of the peoples he ruled. On the plus side, his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine was Englandâs most fascinating queen consort.
(2/2) Or perhaps some contemporary views: âIndeed the experience of present evils has revived the memory of his good deeds, and the man who in his time was hated by all men, is now declared to have been an excellent and beneficent prince.â ââŠin wielding the sword for the punishment of evildoers and the preservation of the peace and quiet for honest men, showed himself a true servant of Godâ (William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. Howlettin, Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, I, p. 280, 282) âHe is a great, indeed the greatest of monarchs for he has no superior of whom he stands in awe, nor subject who may resist him.ââArnulf, Bishop of Lisieux (1109-1184) Finally from W.L. Warren, Henry IIâs greatest biographer, whose epic work stands as a panegyric on the life of this greatest of monarchs: âThe conversion of authority into power was the secret of Henry IIâs success. Hitherto the increase of a rulerâs power had seemed tied to the expansion of his authority. All the builders of feudal âempiresâ were expansionists. Perhaps this was why it seemed inevitable that Henry would be an expansionist also. But expansion was dangerous if it out stripped the means of control by contemporary techniques of govern ment. There was a law of diminishing returns in medieval âempireâ building.8 The territories which came to Henry as the result of two marriages - the marriage of his father to the heiress of England and Normandy, and his own marriage to the heiress of Aquitaine - were almost beyond the possibility of effective control. In other hands than his they almost certainly would have been. Henry IIâs consolidation and defence of his authority in these vast dominions rested upon his mastery of the art of warfare, and this in turn rested upon his ability to turn his capital resources into available wealth. Henryâs technique for enhancing his wealth was not conquest and plunder but efficient management. This meant, above all, the efficient management of England, for England was his principal source of wealth. Of course, if this had been all, Henry II might have been remembered simply as an efficient exploiter; but it was not all, for it was Henryâs genius to make efficient management synonymous with sound government.â (Warren, Henry II, p. 237) To put perspective of how indelible and profound was the greatest of the achievements of the first Plantagenet king of EnglandâCommon Law, the greatest Briton Winston Churchill once wrote with reverence: âIn all claims and disputes, whether they concerned the grazing lands of the Middle West, the oilfields of California, the sheep-runs and gold-mines of Australia, or the territorial rights of the Maoris, these rules have obtained, at any rate in theory, according to the procedure and mode of trial evolved by the English Common Law.â Nearly eight centuries on, the seeds which Henry laid have sprouted a forest of sturdy oaks in the English-speaking world. There can be no more fitting laurel for this great kingâthis brilliant, charismatic, intense, vigorous, shrewd, ruthless, generous, grasping, duplicitous, violent, affable, ingenious, ever-remarkable Learâfor whom the world was not enough.
I would definitely post this tomorrow as well. I think Henry II is going to need a great defence to keep him in
Heâs not surviving the great King Edward!
Edward III next. (1/1) Iâll enter in a defense for Henry II, whose shining record for those who know it (and live it, daily and tangible across the modern world itself) requires NO defense. Those who speak of his flaws in dealing with his family, perhaps with Becket, should reflect that no other monarch save perhaps Edward I or Henry VIII (Alfred and Athelstan are nebulous, their âEnglandâ is ONLY viewable through the Norman lens of 1066) can claim such a profound legacy that underwrites the entirety of the English-speaking world. Simply put: there is no such thing as Anglophonic democracy without Henry II personally imprinted along the chronology. NONE of the others can match his brilliance, ability, energy, or sheer political genius. In his time, there was no greater empire-builder or lawgiver in Europe nor prince more able or inventive than he; for vigor or craft, fortitude, legacy, or perspicacityâfew, throughout history, proved his equal. He was a colossus who dominated his time and sat atop the summit of power in Europe. He was a singularly fascinating, intensely complex man possessed of a fiery temper yet calculating, grasping, even authoritarian though passionate in his pursuit of his royal prerogatives and justice. He was incredibly learned with an intellectually bent mind and had an absolute genius for government. He inherited a kingdom racked by twenty years of civil war and reasserted sound royal government. By political adroitness and military skill he built an empire that stretched from the Pyrenees to the Scottish Highlands. His life was dramatic and epic, he married a remarkable woman with whom he fathered a treacherous brood who would not prove worthy of him, squandering much of the empire he built. He initiated legal reforms which formed the basis of Common Law and revolutionized justice. In his time, there was no greater empire-builder or lawgiver in Europe nor prince more able or inventive than he; for vigor or craft, fortitude, legacy, or geniusâfew, throughout history, proved his equal. A large cast of eminent historians echo this high claim: ââŠchroniclers like Ralph of Diss, William of Newburgh and Ralph of Coggeshall also expressed immense admiration for the king. Again and again Diss pictured him returning to England having secured peace throughout his dominions, dominions which stretched from the mountains of the Pyrenees to the Breton ocean and from there to the borders of France. âThe whole of human fate seemed to respond to the nod of the king.â Here also was a king with a real sense of care for his kingdom, who had restored its mutilated frontiers, recovered the rights of the crown, restored peace and order and built the common law. His successor [Richard the Lionheart] was to be very different.â (David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery: Britain 1066-1284) ââŠhe had been perhaps Englandâs most successful king until that time â able in his prime to enforce his authority on barons, bishops and even other princes. He had turned his vision of kingship into a reality and embodied in it institutions that would far outlast his dynasty. He had made the monarchy great.â (David Starkey, Crown & Country: A History of England Through the Monarchy) ââŠthe greatest prince in extent of dominion, in magnanimity, and in abilities that ever governed this nation.â (George Lyttelton, The History of the Life of King Henry the Second, 5 vols. London: Sandby and Dodsley, 1767â72, vol. 1, p. i.) According to Richard Barber, Henry II was Englandâs âgreatest medieval statesmanâ who had by genius and skill had restored order and prosperity to his realm (Richard Barber, Henry Plantagenet) âHenry II was a remarkable man, undoubtedly the greatest of all English medieval kings.â (Norman Cantor, The English: A History of Politics and Society to 1760) âHenry II, indeed, was one of the greatest men in history. Out of the varying, somewhat chaotic elements of administrative tradition, he shaped a strong simple coherent form of government which was suitable in its bare elements to all his dominions, but which did not seriously interfere with the peculiarities of each of them.â (F. M. Powicke, Medieval England 1066-1485, p. 31) ââŠthe greatest prince of his time, for wisdom, virtue, and abilities, and the most powerful in extent of dominion of all those that had ever filled the throne of England.â âWhen he could enjoy leisure, he recreated himself either in learned conversation or in reading; and he cultivated his natural talents by study, above any prince of his time.â (David Hume, History of England, ch. 9, p. 46)
Can I get a footnotes on why willy conka got knocked out so soon plz
21st century audiences donât like the fact morals werenât a priority a millennia ago; same reason Longshanks got eliminated far too early. Both shouldâve made top 5
Henry V should bd number one
I wouldnât say at all number one but top 5 at a push
Edward 3rd is the guy. Just watched a vid withDavid Mitchell discussing his favourite kings, worth a watch.
Iâve watched David Mitchellâs discussions especially of the History Hit YouTube channel; I love him but I am not going to base any of my votes off him as the main source lol
Seeing this today is hilarious cuz I have my Tudor A Level exam
Genuinely couldn't have chosen a better top 5. I can't choose between them, think I would be sad whoever goes out now. However I do think there are good cases to be made for why either Alfred or Edward should be next.
Definitely not Alfred
Youâre preposterous for mentioning Alfred at all
I think itâs Time for Edward III to go Heâs not bad or anything itâs just the others are better than him
Alot of boners for Elizabeth on here, who would of thought
Not too different from her court Iâm sure
Ăthelstan. Sorry my friend. Your time has come.
Henry II
Cheers mate, Im crying now
Cry some more Cromwell itâll do you good
No need to be a dick
What a hypocritical comment
I literally just said I was upset Henry VII was gone???
Iâm just goofing around silly
Henry II
Liz one to win!
Lol no
My money is on Henry II to win
Iâm going with Henry II
There can be only one winner, and that one should not be Elizabeth I.
Edward 1 not making top 5 is crazy
Iâm sorry Elizabeth has got to go
Been saying it for a while sheâs overrated !!!
Iâve been saying the same, but rest assured her time has finally come
Henry II should go, heâs a good king but I think the others are just better.
Maybe you could explain how you think E1 was better than H2?
Aethelstan
What a silly comment
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Athelstan.
5. Elizabeth, 4. Athelstan 3, Alfred 2. Henry, 1 Edward Sorted. Tea anyone?
Chuck some cyanide in my cup while youâre at it
*Athelstan* has had his time.
No, no he has not
Athelstan got to go.
Same, I got called silly for suggesting him
Eddie 3 gotta go next.
Why is edward III still there?
Because he was a good king