Best Monarch of France?

Best French Monarch?

  • Philip II Augustus

    Votes: 38 32.8%
  • Napoleon I Bonaparte

    Votes: 27 23.3%
  • Louis XIV the Great

    Votes: 22 19.0%
  • Charles VII the Well-Served

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charles V the Wise

    Votes: 6 5.2%
  • Francois I the Roi-Cheavlier

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Louis XI the Universal Spider

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Henri IV the Green Gallant

    Votes: 12 10.3%
  • Louis VI the Fat

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Louis VIII the Lion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Saint Louis IX

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • Louis XIII the Just

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Other?

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .
I think a lot of the criticism against Napoleon I brings into light interesting things about being a great ruler. Does the direct impact on the country seal the deal? If so, maybe we need to remove Marcus Aurelius from the list of good roman emperors.
 
Because the Templars.... :p

True, Philippe IV was a great king. Still, not the greatest. He had many success but several fails.
Among his fails and errors were:
- Losing the grasp over Flandres
- Pope affair (sending Guillaume to arest the pope.... who lucly died)
- Templars, Jews and Lombards affairs (and to extension the financial issues)
- Nesle Tower affair... he practically blow up his dynasty by making it public.

And... I forget the last one: marring his daughter Isabelle to England ! :) Well, he could not knew what will lead to, but still. :)


Concerning Louis XI yes, he destroyed Burgundy but what he give birth to was even worse (Habsburg Burgundy)

Philip IV regained control of Flanders barely 3 years after losing it.

And I don't think it is a mistake to get rid of in-laws who jeopardized the legitimacy of his grandchildren. Remember the was of castilan succession when the legitimacy of Juana the beltraneja, daughter of Henry IV, was challenged by the nobility ?

The marriage of Isabelle and Edward II was not a mistake since it was not the cause triggering the hundred years war.
 
Because the Templars.... :p

True, Philippe IV was a great king. Still, not the greatest. He had many success but several fails.
Among his fails and errors were:
- Losing the grasp over Flandres
- Pope affair (sending Guillaume to arest the pope.... who lucly died)
- Templars, Jews and Lombards affairs (and to extension the financial issues)
- Nesle Tower affair... he practically blow up his dynasty by making it public.

And... I forget the last one: marring his daughter Isabelle to England ! :) Well, he could not knew what will lead to, but still. :)


Concerning Louis XI yes, he destroyed Burgundy but what he give birth to was even worse (Habsburg Burgundy)

The question of Flanders was already adressed above but I don't really think that Pope affair could be counted as a failure. The man brought down the power of the Papacy. Tour de Nesle affair is mostly a failure of Louis X and Charles IV. Their wives were their responsibility.

The templars... Well, apart from the curse, somebody had to stop them. What is more, apart from consolidating royal control over France, Philippe didn't waste money and manpower on the Crusades.

I mean no disrespect by arguing and merely wish to discuss history. Your points are valid and true.
 
How could you vote for Napoleon? He lost and left France smaller than he found it.

I would go with Henri IV.

Henry IV was a great king and a benevolent ruler, but Napoleon... Napoleon is a legend. He is a perfect example of self-made man. Emperor of the Republic, a brilliant military commander, a reformer and statesman. I guess that a part of his popularity stems from his charisma, that inspired undying loyalty from the army. Napoleon underwent huge character development, speaking in terms of plot. He brought France to the peak of its power, fought not to enslave but to spread the idea. A great idea of liberty.
 
Henry IV was a great king and a benevolent ruler, but Napoleon... Napoleon is a legend. He is a perfect example of self-made man. Emperor of the Republic, a brilliant military commander, a reformer and statesman. I guess that a part of his popularity stems from his charisma, that inspired undying loyalty from the army. Napoleon underwent huge character development, speaking in terms of plot. He brought France to the peak of its power, fought not to enslave but to spread the idea. A great idea of liberty.
His regime has very little to do with liberty.It's better than the ancien regime,but it's no different from an authoritarian dictatorship.
 
Napoleon placed family members On the thrones of Europe and destroyed several republics to do so. Not sure how one can call that liberty.

Plus he lost.
 
His regime has very little to do with liberty.It's better than the ancien regime,but it's no different from an authoritarian dictatorship.

Napoleon is certainly not a saint, but his law code was far more fair and complete than any european law code before. Napoleon promoted people on the basis of merit, encouraged freedom of religion, accepted jews and protestants, being the first man in France to do both. He abolished serfdom in the countries he conquered and disbanded the Spanish Inquisition for good. Surely he had his moments of dictatorship like reintroducing slavery in the French colonies, but he was a far more enlightened ruler than any European king at the time.
 

longsword14

Banned
reintroducing slavery in the French colonies
Not commenting about all else, but Napoleon did not care in one way or another about slavery. He was for keeping the status quo as it is and denying bases to enemies and keeping tenuous French hold on the plantation islands.
 
Napoleon is certainly not a saint, but his law code was far more fair and complete than any european law code before. Napoleon promoted people on the basis of merit, encouraged freedom of religion, accepted jews and protestants, being the first man in France to do both. He abolished serfdom in the countries he conquered and disbanded the Spanish Inquisition for good. Surely he had his moments of dictatorship like reintroducing slavery in the French colonies, but he was a far more enlightened ruler than any European king at the time.

Simply not true. George IV (who was prince regent for Napoleon's last few years) was far better in accepting the role of a constitutional monarch. Napoleon was a tyrant that re-enslaved Haiti. He left France a crippled country that lost hundreds of thousands of men on the march to Moscow because the man was such an egomaniac.
 
Simply not true. George IV (who was prince regent for Napoleon's last few years) was far better in accepting the role of a constitutional monarch. Napoleon was a tyrant that re-enslaved Haiti. He left France a crippled country that lost hundreds of thousands of men on the march to Moscow because the man was such an egomaniac.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. The British monarch had already lost a lot of power by the time George IV became regent, so he had no power base to draw from. Also, all of the Western powers were pro-slavery at that time.

The invasion of Russia, yeah that was not very well-planned, but the overall context of the Napoleonic wars is more complicated than just "bad guy Napoleon fought the good guys."
 
Re: Napoleon and slavery.

He did not reintroduce slavery. He redacted a law which had outlawed slavery in the colonies, but the redaction was only applicable in those colonies which ignored the law in the first place. As, due to fairly constant war and British control of the seas, there was literally no way to enforce the anti-slavery laws overseas. Some colonies were fine with eliminating slavery, and those were untouched by his repeal. Others were however not at all happy with the elimination of slavery, and as France could do nothing about it just ignored the law, practiced skavery and began to make noises about Independance.

So, unable to enforce the law in those places anyways, but fearing losing the colonies altogether, Napoleon retracted the unenforceable laws where it was not wanted/obeyed in a pragmatic attempt to retain the colonies. He absolutely had ideals, but wasn't the kind of man to lose assets for empty gestures.

And he was in fact the one to repeal the redaction in his Hundred Days.
 
I don't think that is a fair comparison. The British monarch had already lost a lot of power by the time George IV became regent, so he had no power base to draw from.

You realise that France was a freaking republic when Napoleon seized power, right?
 
Re: Napoleon and slavery.

He did not reintroduce slavery. He redacted a law which had outlawed slavery in the colonies, but the redaction was only applicable in those colonies which ignored the law in the first place. As, due to fairly constant war and British control of the seas, there was literally no way to enforce the anti-slavery laws overseas. Some colonies were fine with eliminating slavery, and those were untouched by his repeal. Others were however not at all happy with the elimination of slavery, and as France could do nothing about it just ignored the law, practiced skavery and began to make noises about Independance.

So, unable to enforce the law in those places anyways, but fearing losing the colonies altogether, Napoleon retracted the unenforceable laws where it was not wanted/obeyed in a pragmatic attempt to retain the colonies. He absolutely had ideals, but wasn't the kind of man to lose assets for empty gestures.

And he was in fact the one to repeal the redaction in his Hundred Days.

Yes, his ideals of abolishing the republic and making himself emperor. And then abolishing neighbouring republics to put family members on their thrones. And, on one occasion, annexing one of those neighbours when that family member dared to pursue the right policy for the country, rather than what Napoleon wanted.

The only reason he embraced liberal ideas in the Hundred Days was because he thought it was the best route back to power. He would have converted to Islam if he had a chance to become a Middle Eastern sultan.
 
You realise that France was a freaking republic when Napoleon seized power, right?

A corrupt, unstable one at war with half of Europe (and still facing some internal resistance in the west), at that. There were coup attempts every several months; Bonaparte's was the one that succeeded.
 
This thread is sort of sad. The best French monarch in history was the one who left the nation weaker than he gained it.
A corrupt, unstable one at war with half of Europe (and still facing some internal resistance in the west), at that. There were coup attempts every several months; Bonaparte's was the one that succeeded.

That's true, Napoleon came to power as a successful general in a warmongering nation, only overthrown by the united peoples of Europe.

This is the best France has?
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Bonaparte was a horrible monarch for Europe, the Americas and France. His invasions of Italy may have put gold in the Directory's treasury, but Italy burned as the army fed itself. His invasion of Egypt was an arrogant and megalomanical display that resulted in the destruction of the French fleet, relations with the Ottomans and his own army at the hands of plague. His accession on 18 Brumaire showed that he wasn't a political genius, as he nearly blew the whole thing before it started. His actions in Haiti were inexcusable, a violent quagmire that resulted in massacres of both black and white all to bring back a horrific slave colony based on brutality. His accession as Emperor betrayed the liberal beliefs he supposably stood for, and became an absolute monarch along the same lines as the Ancien Regime before him. His wars caused Europe to burn and killed millions- French, German, Russian, Spanish, Italian, British, Polish, Danish and Swedish alike. He repeatedly commited terrible political mistakes for his own ego, like overthrowing the Bourbon Spanish monarchy and invading Russia.

All in all, no legal code or "enlightened rule" could make up for all of his wrongs.

So I voted Philip Augustus.
 
Top