Who is your favourite monarch?

emperor Bokassa, he's the funniest 'monarch' to have ever lived

Overall political astuteness( and for thwarting the whore of Rome)... Elizabeth Tudor. Overall military genius... Frederick the Great( held off the rest of the continent with the army of a small principality).

Overall all around asskicking on the list... Charlemagne.

I also like Phillip the Fair for kidnapping and basically killing the pope and turning the Papacy into a puppet for a while...

I forgot Henry VIII and Ivan the Terrible. :p

How about king Leopold of Belgium, his acquiring of the Congo was a superb jedi mindtrick.

Henry VIII spent too much money... and was a devout catholic before he decided he didn't think Catherine was going to have any male offspring. Ivan the Terrible wasn't that bad... and Novogrod probably was about to betray him.

Leopold was just a stupid asshole.

Æthelred the Unready, perhaps? ;)

Surprised you didn't name king David Otto.

Æthelred the Unready, perhaps? ;)
LOL, and yet pols today didn't learn from old Aethel its not a good idea to appease barbarians...

Gustav Adolf Den Store, He might be know as Gustavus Adolphus to english speakers.

a stupid a$$hole? Intelligent reply you posted there.

a stupid a$$hole? Intelligent reply you posted there.
Ill elaborate... in running the Congo he didn't quite understand the story of the farmer and the golden goose...

Ill elaborate... in running the Congo he didn't quite understand the story of the farmer and the golden goose...
He far from drained neither the Congo's resources nor its people. Noone has any serious, substantiated claim as to how many people supposedly died under his rule, apart from some nonsensical reports in his day sponsored by English royalists. You have an idea how many people died there? Make a wild guess, after all, your guess is as good as mine.

Does Louis Napoleon count?

I will post some brief profiles of some of the above monarchs, as I am sure everyone here is not an amateur medievalist:

Saint Louis IX of France

Philip Augustus' pious young grandchild Louis IX succeeded to the throne of France in 1226, at the age of twelve. His character contrasted markedly with that of his grandfather. There are so few good kings , so many bad kings! Louis IX, Saint Louis, is the only sainted monarch of France. The French love him still; after Joan of Arc he is the most popular character in their history. His personal charm captivated all who knew him, and thanks to his adoring biographer, Jean de Joinville, still wins French schoolchildren and their elders. He was temperate and chaste, faithful always to his rather forbidding wife, Margaret of Provence, who bore him eleven children. He was tall, thin, fair-haired, with blue eyes, "dove's eyes" according to one chronicler, who adds that he had the face of an angel and a mien full of grace. Though subject to painful attacks of skin disease, he was always cheerful.

His faith was deep. To the usual practices of attending mass, reading pious books, and confession, Louis added austerities. He wore a hair shirt, and even sent his daughter one, along with a discipline, or self-flagellator, as a Christmas present. He kissed lepers and once invited to dinner twenty poor people, whose smell revolted the soldiers of the guard. He thought of joining the Cistercians or the Franciscans, but was dissuaded by his wife. He tried to attain mystic ecstasies, and while praying could lose all contact with the external world. But faith, he held, should banish all tolerance of infidelity. He said that a layman, hearing the Christian religion abused by a Jew, "should not attempt to defend its tenents except with his sword, and that he should thrust into the scoundrel's belly as far as it will enter."

He had, nevertheless, a very pleasant whimsical way of speech. Joinville quotes him: "To restore [rendre] is such a hard thing to do that even in speaking of it the word itself rasps one's throat because of the r's that are in it. These r's are, so to speak, like the rakes of the devil, with which he would draw to himself all those who wish to 'restore' what they have taken from others." (The remark indicates that the Parisian, or uvular, r was current in the thirteenth century.)

He was a good king. He loved and enforced justice, and carried as a part of his regalia not only a scepter but also a main de justice, a staff with an open hand upon it to symbolize fair dealing. He abolished trial by combat, insisting that guilt be proved by evidence alone. He tried to check private wars among nobles, imposing a forty-day cooling-off period and prohibiting crop burning and peasant killing. A corps of professional magistrates, forbidden to take fees, frequent taverns, or play at dice, was enlisted to administer justice; the group eventually developed into the parlement de Paris, the nation's supreme court. Louis employed a hand of Franciscans to inquire into official injustices. He liked to sit under an oak tree at Vincennes, or stroll in a Paris public garden, to render immediate justice to any aggrieved person.

To his own and later times, Saint Louis was a perfect example of the Christian king. Europe recognized in him the embodiment of justice and proof that monarchs ruled by divine right."

Morris Bishop, The Middle Ages (New York: First Mariner Books, 2001), pp.67-69

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor

Saintly as he was, Louis was not, however, the most extraordinary ruler of the Middle Ages. That distinction must be reserved for the Emperor Frederick II, called Stupor Mundi, "The Marvel of the World."

Born in 1194, Frederick grew up in Palermo, poor, unregarded, though heir to the Sicilian throne. He associated by preference with low company, grooms, and Moslems. He was preocious, learning to speak half a dozen languages (Gaius: LOL Dubya can't even speak one!), notably Arabic. He had an insatiable curiosity about everything, including science, especially zoology. As a boy Frederick dreamed of restoring the empire, uniting Germany and Italy, and annexing the temporal possessions of the pope. He pushed his claims in Germany, and in 1220 was crowned emperor, having gained papal support in his campaign for the imperial post by offering to yield Sicily to the pope as fief. Despite his promise, he could never bring himself to fulfill his part of the bargain and surrender Sicily. He anatgonized Rome further by vowing to go on a crusade, and then delaying his deparature; finally Gregory IX excommunicated him.

In 1228 the excommunicated emperor embarked on the most remarkable of all crusades, taking along a detachment of Arab troops and a Moslem teacher of dialectic for his instruction. Upon landing, he sent princely gifts to the Saracen leader, Sultan al-Kamil, a broad-minded scholar-poet like Frederick himself. The sultan responded with equally princely gifts, including an elephant. The two rulers concluded a ten-years' truce, which ceded Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth to the Christians, along with a corridor from Jerusalem to the sea, and gave the Moslems full rights to retain their own shrines in the Holy City.

Frederick visited Jerusalem more as tourist than as a pilgrim. Out of regard for Christian sensibilities the sultan ordered the muezzin to omit the calls to prayer during his visit. Frederick protested; he had come to Jerusalem for the local colour. Pope Gregory was enraged at the news of Frederick's pact. The excommunicate had liberated the Holy Sepulcher, but he had done it in the wrong way, without striking a blow, without shedding a drop of paynim blood. The pope proclaimed a crusade against the crusader, but this elicted little response, and eventually he was forced to revoke Frederick's excommunication.

Frederick returned to Europe, carried on long, indeterminate wars to unite his empire, and established a brilliant Oriental court at his castles in Sicily and southern Italy. There he had everything he loved -- gardens, pools, woods, strange beasts, singing birds, dancing girls, and wise men of good conversation. Among the latter was Michael Scot, scientist, astrologer, translator of Aristotle and Averroes, something of a charlatan, and still legendary in Scotland and Italy for his wonder-working. Frederick's broad-mindedness shocked everyone. He gave a banquet commemorating Mohammed's hegira for some Moslem guests, and to their surprise sat them down beside bishops and Christian nobles. The pope once accused him of saying: "The world has been deceived by three imposters: Moses, Mohammed, and Christ." Like the eighteenth-century Frederick II of Prussia, the emperor liked best a supper with philosophes, Voltaire would have loved him, and he Voltaire.

Frederick was fascinated by mathematics and science. He made many experiments, some of them rather gruesome. On one occasion he fed two prisoners the same large dinner, sent one to bed and the other on a headlong hunt, then cut them open to see which had better digested the meal. (It was the sleeper.) He was very proud of his planetarium -- a gift from the sultan of Damascus -- a metal tent wherein jeweled astral bodies, moved by a hidden mechanism, described their courses. In return for it, Frederick sent the sultan a white peacock and a polar bear, which delighted the sultan by jumping into the sea and catching fish. (One wonders who captured the polar bear, and where, and how it was transported to Syria!) He propounded a series of puzzling questions to the learned world of Islam. Why does a stick in water appear bent? What proof is there of the soul's immortality? Or that the world exists in eternity?

His own contribution to science is his book On the Art of Hunting with Birds. This magnificent illustrated copy that belonged to his son still exists. The book is a manual of falconry, and at the same time, a scientific study of ornithology, based on direct observation. In it Frederick discusses bird migration, nesting habits, and the mechanism of hummingbird flight, and advises falconers to create a conditioned reflex by singing an unvarying song while feeding them.

Frederick encouraged all branches of learning. He founded the University of Naples in 1224 to train lawyers, accountants, and civil servants. This was the first university founded and run by laymen. He is said to have been the first medieval man to appreciate classical sculpture. He was the father of Italian poetry, the first to write love songs in the vernacular. He even cared about spelling, a rare concern for a man of the Middle Ages. When a notary wrote his name Fredericus instead of Fridericus, he had the guilty thumb cut off.

Physically Frederick was short, balding, nearsighted, with something snaky and demonic looking in his green eyes. A Moslem said that he wouldn't bring two dirhems on the slave market. He was abstemious but fastidious; his one daily meal, in the evening, had to be good. His favourate dish was scapace, a combination of fish and vegetables, fried, then marinated in a white wine and saffron sauce. He was extremely libidinous and kept a harem, which traveled with him, even to war, in curtained palanquins guarded by eunuchs. He was enlightened, but he was not really a very nice man.

Frederick failed in his great aims of reducing the power of the popes, uniting Italy, creating a viable Holy Roman Empire with its capital in Rome. After his death in 1250, the empire ceased to be a functioning reality, and the power of the imperial line of Hohenstaufen disintegrated. Modern people have been fascinated with Frederick because he was so modern. That was just his trouble; he would probably have been much more successful if he had been more medieval."

Ibid., 69-72

I have found many monarchs to be to my liking, so I voted for my favorite out of this list: Louis IX, of course; for he is fairness and devotion personified!

Catherine the Great has earned my admiration; she is one of the finest examples of a female despot that history has to offer. In a letter to Marie Antoinette, she penned the following beautiful statement: "Kings ought to go their own way without worrying about the cries of the people, as the moon goes on its course without being stopped by the cries of dogs."

Like any 'Royalist' I admire Marie Antoinette; in particular, her equanimity when faced with imprisonment, an unfair trial and, ultimately, death.

Catherine the Great has earned my admiration; she is one of the finest examples of a female despot that history has to offer.

Lizzie Tudor was better then Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst.

The list disinterests me due to its obvious centrism that is expected from these northern barbarians. How utterly impossible it seems for him, our intelligent 'Gaius', to create a list of truly great monarchs, those of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Italy, Persia, and Spain if for nothing less that his own useless pride in pathetic countries of the north! It is wholly unsurprising to find a list of such irrelevant calibre to be formulated on this board and presented as actual options - heresy of heresies to those monarchs who are truly eternal! Fade should be summoned by the inquisition and burned at the stake for his own impiety in the subject. I summon myself as the inquisitor, and how much work awaits me on this board!

The list disinterests me due to its obvious centrism that is expected from these northern barbarians. How utterly impossible it seems for him, our intelligent 'Gaius', to create a list of truly great monarchs, those of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Italy, Persia, and Spain if for nothing less that his own useless pride in pathetic countries of the north! It is wholly unsurprising to find a list of such irrelevant calibre to be formulated on this board and presented as actual options - heresy of heresies to those monarchs who are truly eternal! Fade should be summoned by the inquisition and burned at the stake for his own impiety in the subject. I summon myself as the inquisitor, and how much work awaits me on this board!Okay if we want to go to Italy and Rome, Trajan, Julian the Apostate, Augustus and Cosimo de Medici.

Now that I have unburdened myself of such disgust, I shall regret to choose any of them, although my strongest sentiments - what little I have for the lot of them - are towards Richard the Lionhearted.

However I estrange myself from the list and choose other. Whom exactly might I propose? Of course it is obvious, and what a heresy to not have him on the list - Divvs Avgvstvs Octavianvs Caesar. We bow before his memory, and those who don't should be subject to the crucifix! :D

Now that I have unburdened myself of such disgust, I shall regret to choose any of them, although my strongest sentiments - what little I have for the lot of them - are towards Richard the Lionhearted.

However I estrange myself from the list and choose other. Whom exactly might I propose? Of course it is obvious, and what a heresy to not have him on the list - Divvs Avgvstvs Octavianvs Caesar. We bow before his memory, and those who don't should be subject to the crucifix! :DRichard I Plantagent's reign was an unmitigated disaster for England.

This was intended to be a medieval/modern thread. I forgot to point that out (although I had suspected you guys would have caught on). :p

This was intended to be a medieval/modern thread. I forgot to point that out (although I had suspected you guys would have caught on). :p

Then where are the Byzantines, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Turks, etc.; even they seem to get lost in your northern centrism. I find it absurd that you post Vikings in your list, yet neglect the more important Mediterranean civilizations and their glorious empires. One can only imagine the reason! :rolleyes:

Moving on... :p

In change of my selection to fit your above criteria, I select Fernando I de Aragon. The Spanish empire was felt at literally every extreme of the world, and it has in its gratitude this man right here.

Then where are the Byzantines, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Turks, etc.; even they seem to get lost in your northern centrism. I find it absurd that you post Vikings in your list, yet neglect the more important Mediterranean civilizations and their glorious empires. One can only imagine the reason! :rolleyes:

Moving on... :p

In change of my selection to fit your above criteria, I select Fernando I de Aragon. The Spanish empire was felt at literally every extreme of the world, and it has in its gratitude this man right here.Who was Charles V, Mike? There were not that many great Byzantine monarchs ever, aside from Justinian and Basil the Bulgar Slayer.

Who was Charles V, Mike? There were not that many great Byzantine monarchs ever, aside from Justinian and Basil the Bulgar Slayer.

Charles V was the Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1558. He was also king of Spain, yet you did not refer to him in this sense (Carlos I).

Justinian and Basil were great monarchs? You have two to add already! If you look into the other civilizations, you'll find even more excellent monarchs to replace a lot of the trash you have up there right now. :)

I also like Phillip the Fair for kidnapping and basically killing the pope and turning the Papacy into a puppet for a while...

Nogaret manhandling the Pope at Anagni is one of my favourite moment in history ever :nice:

Richard I Plantagent's reign was an unmitigated disaster for England.

Indeed ...
As was his brother the usurper Lackland's .
Or how to wreck your father's inheritance (and what an inheritence it was !) in one generation ...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1174angev.jpg
precisely why Philippe II is on the list :)

Only white monarchs? Are you a foreign-monarchy denier as well as a holocaust denier? Do you disbelieve that "savages" could ever create something as "wonderful" and "cultured" as a monarchy? What about Jewish monarchs, black monarchs? Chinese monarchs? Native American monarchs?

Frederick Barbarossa
Charlemagne
Frederick II
Otto The Great
Henry VIII

Charles V was the Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1558. He was also king of Spain, yet you did not refer to him in this sense (Carlos I).

Justinian and Basil were great monarchs? You have two to add already! If you look into the other civilizations, you'll find even more excellent monarchs to replace a lot of the trash you have up there right now. :)
Justinian the profligate fanatic who financially ruined the Byzantine empire should not be exalted for the achievements of his henchmen Belisarius...

Justinian's legal codification laid the base for all of continental Europe's legal systems, this man's contribution to civilization can hardly be exaggerated. Of course, I prefer emperor Constantine, but this one is a very close second among the Byzantines.

Justinian's legal codification laid the base for all of continental Europe's legal systems, this man's contribution to civilization can hardly be exaggerated. Of course, I prefer emperor Constantine, but this one is a very close second among the Byzantines.
"Constantine the Great" given that he

1) Imposed Christianity at least publically, weakening military morale and putting the civic administration of the empire to ignorant fanatics

2) Divided the army into a seperate elite mobile and barely supported border force

3) Massively increased taxation

4) Imposed serfdom on the empire's free peasantry and made most profession's hereditary

5) Made the legions into numerous smaller detachments

6) Seperated the Infantry and Cavalry Command

Can be considered the architect of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Odd how you blame this Christian man for the decline of the Empire as a whole while his Byzantine part lived on for a further thousand years. Some people make fools of themselves by trying to interpret history wth Marx constantly in the back of their head, others do the same with the talmudic antichristian ideas it seems...

Who is your favourite monarch?

Augustus Caesar.

Odd how you blame this Christian man for the decline of the Empire as a whole while his Byzantine part lived on for a further thousand years. Some people make fools of themselves by trying to interpret history wth Marx constantly in the back of their head, others do the same with the talmudic antichristian ideas it seems...
It wasn't just christianity it was what he did militarily and economically... Edward Gibbon says the same thing( though he blames Severus earlier).

Only white monarchs? Are you a foreign-monarchy denier as well as a holocaust denier? Do you disbelieve that "savages" could ever create something as "wonderful" and "cultured" as a monarchy? What about Jewish monarchs, black monarchs? Chinese monarchs? Native American monarchs?
Genghis Khan was admirable, as were Attila, Tamerlane, Saladin, Aurangzeb and countless others. There now, I have been multiculturalised in the way of monarchial preference!

Without a doubt, Ivan the Terrible!

Only white monarchs? Are you a foreign-monarchy denier as well as a holocaust denier? Do you disbelieve that "savages" could ever create something as "wonderful" and "cultured" as a monarchy? What about Jewish monarchs, black monarchs? Chinese monarchs? Native American monarchs?
Well if you consider Deng Xiaoping a monarch im a huge admirer.

Actually, The Mikado is my favorite monarch.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/30/30_images/topsyturvy1.jpg

It wasn't just christianity it was what he did militarily and economically... Edward Gibbon says the same thing( though he blames Severus earlier).

The man was a military genius who took command of the empire in a series of battles in which he was severely outnumbered every time. He also died about 150 years before the western empire fell. This man was one of the greatest emperors Rome and/or Byzantine ever saw, if not the greatest, the only reason you dislike him is because he made christianity the state religion.

The man was a military genius who took command of the empire in a series of battles in which he was severely outnumbered every time. He also died about 150 years before the western empire fell. This man was one of the greatest emperors Rome and/or Byzantine ever saw, if not the greatest, the only reason you dislike him is because he made christianity the state religion.
Read Gibbon's chapters on him... and other historians who overwhelmingly agree his reorganization of the army was disastorous... they articulate it better then I ever could.

Indeed ...
As was his brother the usurper Lackland's .
Or how to wreck your father's inheritance (and what an inheritence it was !) in one generation ...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1174angev.jpg
precisely why Philippe II is on the list :)

That map of Ireland simply isn’t true to history.

Ive been told the Pale of Settlement was 13 miles long...

Ive been told the Pale of Settlement was 13 miles long...

The Pale was a Dive...Subject to the 'Black Rent' from almost every Gaelic Tíorna(lord) in the country.

Oh well, seeing as how I’m the resident Paddy/Mick I suppose I’ll go for Níall Naoighiollach MacEochaidh Muigmheadáin(followed closely by Toirdhealbhach Mac Ruaidhri ‘na Saidhe Buí’ Ó Conchúbhair).

William I
Harald I

That map of Ireland simply isn’t true to history.

Whatis not true ? That Adrian IV had decreed through the Bull Laudabiliter that Ireland was Henri II's to Occupy and reform ? :confused:
That the Occupation was not complete does not mean he didn't consider Tyrone, Armagh, Donegal, and Cork to be rightfully his ...

Whatis not true ? That Adrian IV had decreed through the Bull Laudabiliter that Ireland was Henri II's to Occupy and reform ? :confused:
That the Occupation was not complete does not mean he didn't consider Tyrone, Armagh, Donegal, and Cork to be rightfully his ...

The key to the map states "Aquisitions by papal bull and conquest". You got the Bull right, but there was no such conquest. And no, he didn't consider Tyrone, Armagh, Donegal, and Cork to be rightfully his...he signed them away to Ruaidhrí MacToirdhealbhach Ó Conchubhair in the Treaty of Windsor.

K, not what I read, but online site are bound no to be the most precise source of data ... :)

Gustav Adolf Den Store

Yes, but I prefer Heathen kings, like Gorm den Gamle.

EYTYXEITE!
Dear Fellows, I strongly believe that Alexander the Great was a remarkable personality of Monarch and Leader of a unique army. A very unique character aiming to the military victory as well as to the expansion of Civilization. A very strange 'case' for his era. Let's say the "sportsman" of the war. An armed ...thinker or a simple ...child, playing dangerous games just for a joke! So, he died young as well...

¸óôùóáí ïé Èåïß áñùãïß Õìþí!

I agree with Barbarossa and Gustav Adolf the Great

Frederick the Great is Frederick II. Why is he listed twice?

Frederick the Great is Frederick II. Why is he listed twice?Perhaps they refer to HR Emperor Frederick II, and not Frederick II of Prussia.

Not on the list but I admire Prince Vladimir
http://www.ffo.ru/az/foto/vladimir.jpg

Yaroslav the Wise
http://www.cnit.uniyar.ac.ru/yaros/images1/yaros_87/yr5.jpg

And Ivan III(the Great)
http://www.kingsnicknames.co.uk/images/Ivan%20111.jpg

One of my favourites is Philip II of Spain. Strange that he is not mentioned in the pool while Elizabeth I. is.

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs12/philip2spain1527.jpg

Because:

-he continued the policy of Ferdinand and Isabella by opposing the progress of heresy by means of absolutism.
-he fought against Netherlands under William Duke of Orange
-he supported Mary Steward of Scotland
-he destroyed of the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto in 1571, ending Turkish domination of the Mediterranean
-he tried to invade England in 1588.

During his rule Spain was the European force no1. opposed to Lutherans and Ottomans. While the Spaniards regarded him as their Solomon and called him "the prudent king", to Protestants he was the "demon of the south".

Phillip II has to be one of the most incompetent and worse kings in history.

His "prudence" cost Spain everything. Spain never recovered from him.

Phillip II has to be one of the most incompetent and worse kings in history.

His "prudence" cost Spain everything. Spain never recovered from him.

lol Can you imagine how would modern Netherlands look like if it remained under Spain? Without Negroes and liberalism? Without mayonnaise? :D How about England?

Aww, Oliver Cromwell isn't a choice. :(

http://www.ferdinando.org.uk/images/Oliver%20Cromwell.jpg

Though I suppose he wasn't really a monarch :|

lol Can you imagine how would modern Netherlands look like if it remained under Spain? Without Negroes and liberalism? Without mayonnaise? :D How about England?
We'd be way behind where we are now technologically and a lot poorer, Catholic countries consistently had trouble getting to and through the industrial era.

Also isn't Spain full of immigrants too... Ebus seems to suggest it.

Aww, Oliver Cromwell isn't a choice. :(

http://www.ferdinando.org.uk/images/Oliver%20Cromwell.jpg

Though I suppose he wasn't really a monarch :|


He was Lord Protector. And why on earth would you pick him? He did TERRIBLE things to Irish Catholics. He had his bad points, though, too.

We'd be way behind where we are now technologically and a lot poorer. Catholic countries consistently had trouble getting to and through the industrial era.

The benefits of bourgeois society infront of feudal can be defended only by materialist values.

Also isn't Spain full of immigrants too... Ebus seems to suggest it.

True, but was it so during Franco? It happened with the victory of socialist democrats and because of the anti-fascists isolation of Spain. But still, its nothing comparing the utterly revolting mongrelization of Amsterdam and London.

Frederick the Great Frederick II for sure!!!

Thats BS, why do idiotic englishmen/americans translate it as "Ivan the Terrible" ????

Ivan Grozny means Ivan the mighty/powerful/not_to_be_messed_with. the Title "terrible" implies a sadistic "evil" ruler.

Terrible does mean all that, it just isn't the most commonly form of the adjective.

Harold I.

Aethelstan is missing. An oversight, surely.

I voted Longshanks. He was a great king who had a number of military successes on top of removing a certain chosen people from England.

He was Lord Protector. And why on earth would you pick him? He did TERRIBLE things to Irish Catholics. He had his bad points, though, too.

Surprised to see you defend the micks. That and he brought the JEWS back into England. WORST monarch ever.

Someone to add: Matthias Corvinus.

Mathias was 15 when he was crowned king and he soon learned the finesses of power from his mentor, the Italian Bonfini, regent of Hungary until his adulthood. Mathias was educated in Italian and his fascination with the achievements of the Renaissance led to the promotion of Mediterranean cultural influences in Hungary. Buda, Esztergom, Székesfehérvár and Visegrád were amongst the townships in Hungary that benefited from the establishment of public health and education and a new legal system under Mathias' rule. He has proven a most generous patron and artists from Italy (e.g., Galeotto Marcio) and Western Europe flocked to his courts. His library, the Bibliotheca Corviniana, was Europe's greatest collection of historical chronicles and philosophic and scientific works in the 15th century.

His reign is considered one of the most glorious chapters of Hungarian history, also marked by victorious military campaigns of his feared Fekete Sereg (Hungarian for "Black Troops"), means which Hungary reached its greatest ever territorial expansions (Southeast-Germany to Dalmatia in the west, Poland to today's Bulgaria in the East). Matthias annexed to Hungary Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia (all three 1468/1469/1479-1490) and Lower Austria (1477/1485-1491). He spoke Hungarian, Croatian, Latin, and later also German, Czech, Slovak, and other Slavic languages. King Matthias is still remembered today, his character as a ruler of justice and great wisdom playing a vital part in many stories and songs of Hungarian folklore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus

Not only did he beat around the Hapsburgs and capture Vienna, but he romped the Turks too. And just about everyone else in the region. Few people fight on just about every front and win.

While Cromwell's internal policy was bad(dancing was illegal, and he wasn't a true monarch more like a dictator) his military genius cemented England as a world power.

While he was military successful - not sure if I would consider him a military genius - he was a very poor head of state imo.

O.C. was also responsible for allowing Jews back into England, for the first time since 1290. Much ensued from that.

Friedrich Der Grosse!

He was totally un-corruptible, moral and honest to a degree today's society can't even begin to comprehend, no matter which country.

He was totally un-corruptible, moral and honest

I think you have him confused with his Father Fredrick William.

Gustavus Adolphus (The Lion of the North)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/250px-Gustavus_Adolphus_at_the_Battle_at_Breitenfeld.jpg

Kicked some serious Catholic ass while fighting for the Protestant cause during the 30 years war. His reforms of the Swedish military were very important to him winning his part of the conflict, before he was killed in the battle of Lutzen.

Frederick? LOL "Sparta by day, Athens by night."

A Justinian but no Augustus? No Victoria? No Bonaparte? I guess I'll go with Peter.

Whatever I posted earlier, I reconsider: It was Napoleon Bonaparte.

http://krk.fcpages.com/hr/ppb/krunidba.jpg

That pic isn't showing Niccolo.

Undoubtedly, Frederick the Great.

nah, Napoleon was better

I'd have to go for either Charles I, or Louis XVI ...

... they both had good deaths.

http://www.napoleonguide.com/images/guillotine.jpg

Lately, I've been in a Tsar Alexander I mood. :jew:

Frederick the Great Frederick II for sure!!!
A reckless gambler who trusted to Luck to get him out of his self-inflicted misfortunes

The last century would have been much less troublesome if certain European leaders had not sought to emulate him

He was Lord Protector. And why on earth would you pick him? He did TERRIBLE things to Irish Catholics. He had his bad points, though, too.
Worse, he abolished Christmas

Worse, he abolished Christmas

well, maybe at the time, when Xmans actually meant something, it was a bad move, but I'd like to see someone doing that now ...

Why Napoleon isn't in the poll ? :eek:

I voted Charlemagne :p