The Greatest of the Medieval English Kings
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12830
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 09:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Greatest of the Medieval English Kings
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Subject: The Greatest of the Medieval English Kings
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 19:21
|
I did not add Richard since I strongly believe that as Romantic as he may have been, it is generally agreed that his ventures cost his kingdom heavily.
|
Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 19:55
|
Alfred and William were not "English" as I would define it. Henry VII Tudor is a Renaissance figure.
Edward I was surely the first great English king although a rather nasty man.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 02:40
Edward I Longshanks without a second thought, to me he is a medieval
giant, both figurately and literally speaking. If only his son had
taken note of Edward I's ability to succeed, he might not have ended up
dying from a usurper who inserted a red hot poker up his anus.
-------------
|
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 05:59
? Where are Edward the Confessor (almost a saint), Edmund (longest reign), Cnut (Ruler of Denmark, Norway, England etc) ?
-------------
rgds.
Tom..
|
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 13:51
| Alfred and William were not "English" as I would define it. |
I think they had huge impact on later events in British impact.
| Henry VII Tudor is a Renaissance figure. |
I realized later that the Tudors really did not fall here. Originally I put him and stopped before Henry VIII because of the fact that I skipped the Renaissance but connected Medieval to Reformation. My terrible mistake.
| Where are Edward the Confessor (almost a saint), Edmund (longest reign), Cnut (Ruler of Denmark, Norway, England etc) ? |
I could only fit so many and in the end it is kind of guided by my own (kind of limited) view.
-------------
|
Posted By: ironaxe
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 14:03
Originally posted by Theodore Felix
I did not add Richard since I strongly believe that as Romantic as he may have been, it is generally agreed that his ventures cost his kingdom heavily. |
What qualities are we to assess the candidates by?
I would name Alfred the Great's son- Edward the Elder, and his grandson- Athelstan, as two of the greatest English kings. The former secured a 'Viking-free' England after his reconquest (910-18), and the latter battered a massive Viking/Scottish army in 937 at the battle of Brunanburh.
Harold II - my other nominee- was desperately unlucky to have been hit by a chance arrow after the day-long, even and brutally-fought battle at Hastings. He had marched north 190m to surprise and slaughter over 90%(276 out of 300 shiploads slain) of a colossal Norwegian army(led by the most famous and fearsome warrior of the age, Harald Hardraada) at Stamford Bridge in 1066, then force-marched again back to face William- and even then nearly won.
ps. Henry VII was Welsh.
|
Posted By: Pendragon
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 06:22
|
It has to be Alfred the Great i must say - he almost single handedly ensured England continuing existance against the threat of the Viking invaders. Without him, there wouldn't be any further English Kings, Britain would simply be another Scandinavian outpost like Iceland.
|
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 14:06
| What qualities are we to assess the candidates by? |
My view was general properity, economic growth etc.
-------------
|
Posted By: ironaxe
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 15:52
What was expected of an Anglo-Saxon King, was his ability to defend the realm, to maintain law and order, and to successfully produce male heirs to his throne.
I meant, in retrospect, for example;
Do we judge this poll on how many battles they won, how peaceful was their realm(not many were) or how they have been recorded in history by other biased historians over the centuries?
|
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 13:04
| Do we judge this poll on how many battles they won, how peaceful was their realm(not many were) or how they have been recorded in history by other biased historians over the centuries? |
Personally the second would have the most significance but the third probably has the most important one. lol
-------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 21:02
I would love to know what was meant by 'greatest of the medieval English kings". Greatest in terms of numbers of English subjects ground into the dust in the interests of feudal heirarchy perhaps? Greatest number of Scottish people slaughtered whilst defending their homes? Greatest number of French people enslaved, greatest amount of foreign territory despolied, pillaged and burnt, greatest number of Irish churches despoiled, greatest number of Moslems captured and cold-bloodedly beheaded, greatest number of Christian values overthrown or distorted into medieval English law... please do clarify the question, because until we settle the meaning of the word "greatest" we won't know what we are arguing about.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 00:35
|
I voted for Henry II. While he wasn't successful in his personal life, nor in curbing the power of the church, he brought relative peace and economic prosperity to his immense realm.
-------------
|
|