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 .
Saint Louis did not simply continue the policies of his grandfather. He was the founder of the Parlement de Paris in an effort to establish regularity of the laws and true rule of law in his kingdom. He secured the South for France and greatly expanded the royal domain. He substantially increased the royal court system and the privileges of the towns to provide relief to the free peasantry and regularity in the chartered rights and urban constitutions in a bid to remove friction between the different estates. He was also a supporter of the universities and monasteries and a champion of every noble ideal of the Kingdom of France, securing the protection of the people, justice and rule of law, and the bounty of the nation.

Besides being effective in diplomacy, he was also a great warrior in his own right. If only he were able to restrain his reckless brothers, this would have borne better fruit in Egypt. As it was, he was content to spend generously on securing the Kingdom of Jerusalem. He was, above all other Kings in French history, the achievement of the French royal type and the basis for the ideology of French kingship for his dynasty still to this day. I think he is being seriously underrated here.

Napoleon wasted generations of the men of France for his own glory. He was an exceptional field commander, it is true. But I don't see how he can be said to be a good ruler. His legal reforms establishing the Code Napoleon were not the achievement of long-desired reform despite gridlock; he had a clean slate handed to him because all of the members of the old regime were either murdered or forced into exile. And where the Code Napoleon significantly departed from the Coutumes de Paris, it seems to have resulted in the weakening of France rather than national benefit. The military machine and artillery that he used to phenomenal advantage were inherited from the wise reforms of the Bourbons and their ministers. So, what can we say about him? He was a huge personality, a great field commander, and a workable administrator who, puffed up with historic hubris, destroyed that over which he had assumed control. Sounds more like a cautionary tale than an account of a great monarch.
 
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.
Correction: it wasn't that different from the monarchies of its time. That's because Napoleon basically tried to mix the new ideas that came from the Revolution with the old ones linked to the Ancien Regime. His wish was to end the Revolution: by this, one must understand that he didn't want to crush it, he wanted it to settle down. He also wanted the other European rulers to accept this fact, so he basically crowned himself to become one of their own.

The First French Empire was basically an attempt at mixing Monarchy and Revolution and its succeeded for the most part as long as Napoleon was militarily victorious. Once he started losing however, that's when everything fell apart.
I would go with Henri IV.
The Green Gallant is a bit overrated if you ask me. Sure, he pacified France after the Religious War and he did a pretty good number of reforms with Sully... But the man was on the verge on launching a war that might have been disastrous when he was murdered. He could have dragged France into the Thirty Years War earlier than it did, with potentially disastrous result. All of that to recover a mistress alledgelly by the way...
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.
Said republics were nothing more than puppet states created by the French Republic Napoelon had overthrown for the most part. So I doubt most people really saw a big change when Napoleon crowned his brothers and sisters. Plus, said Napoleonic creation all applied Revolutionnary ideal: Napoleon forced his brothers and sister to apply the Code Civil when he gave them their kingdoms for example.

As for saying he lost... On the battlefield, he eventually lost. But on the long run, he is the main reason the Revolution's ideas survived to this day.
Louis-Philippe. Sadly removed by an ungrateful citizenry who lost out on their chance for moderate constitutionalism.
Louis-Philippe was overthrown for very good reasons if you ask me. The monarchie de Juillet was established kinda because the Republicans weren't quick enough to seize power at the time... And in the years that preceded the fall of the Regime, it had become a bit static. Not to mention elections followed censitive suffrage. Granted, that part could have evolved later on but there was a huge demande for Universal Suffrage by the time the regime fell.

I also have the impression Napoleon III's second Empire was a bit more liberal than Louis-Philippe's regime by comparison.
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.
James XI already answered the question of Slavery far better than I could. Napoleon didn't want to reinstate it originally but he couldn't enforce the ban on the islands and so basically trained to maintain a status quo at first then basically settled for Raison d'Etat to try to keep the colonies in place. The mess in Haïti was also further complicated by the figure of Toussaint L'Ouverture, who was a bit too autonomous for Napoleon's taste... And also more or less the dictator on the island at the time. Not to say the restablishment of slavery was better, but Toussaint L'Ouverture wasn't really a nice character when you get down to it... Anyway, Napoleon admitted himself that the reinstitution of slavery was his greatest mistake in his memoirs. And he eventually banned the slave trade during the Hundred Days, a move that Louis XVIII kept after Napoleon's fall.

As for mentionning he lost hundreds of man during the March on Moscow... No one denies that the Russian Campaign was badly planned. Napoleon didn't have the best strategy: he waited for months to get a decisive battle that never came and once he got to Moscow, he thought he was in a strong enough position to focre the Tsar to make peace and waited too long before starting his retreat. But it's not as much Napoleon's ego that lost him there as a poor analysis of the situation.

Furthermore, the Russian Campaign isn't what doomed Napoleon in the end: it's his defeat at Leipzig. The campaign that ended in Leipzig was actually going extremly well for Napoleon before that battle happened: he could even have managed to save his Empire at that time under the right conditions. There were actual peace talks that were engaged at one point: they failed, but think about that.
You realise that France was a freaking republic when Napoleon seized power, right?
A republic? Yes. A democracy? Fuck no.

Not to mention the French First Republic is not only overrated, it was a complete failure. Its first constitution could never be applied and led to the use of the Terror, which basically resulted more or less in a Dictatorship centered around Robespierre and his cronies. It was then toppled and replaced by the directoire... which was more or less a corrupt government that made coup d'état to stay in place at least twice... And that was because it was losing the election to monarchists... Hell, it's even admitted by many historians that if Napoleon hadn't done his coup d'état, some other general would have ended up doing it.

Napoleon also saved the revolutionnary ideals by settling the Revolution. The Directoire probably would have failed to do that.
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.
The last part is a bit true but that's because Napoleon was a man of realpolitik. Hell, a lot of what he did can be explained by the fact he understood the Revolution went a bit too far on many levels and he felt he had to fix those problems. He didn't necessarilly chose the best way, but he solved a good number of issues.

As for the fact he crowned hismelf Emperor and gave thrones to his family members... Remember that most of the regime he put in place adopted Revolutionnary Ideals. And that the Republics they replaced were nothing more than glorified pupet states, so that wasn't much of change. And you can hardly call the First French Republic a perfect example if you ask me... It's one of the most overrated failures in history if you ask me: the ideals were nice, the actions less so and without Napoleon's reign the ideals would probably have died out and been forgotten for quite some time instead of settling down in the minds of people like they did.
This thread is sort of sad. The best French monarch in history was the one who left the nation weaker than he gained it.
If so, one also has to consider Louis XIV an awful king because France was far weaker after his reign than before it... Despite all the reforms the Sun King did and the fact his reign was remembered as Le Grand Siècle. You don't judge the competence of a ruler based solely on the final result, you have to judge the whole of it.

Napoleon eventually lost and France was weakened by the Napoleonic wars. No one denies it. But while Napoleon lost on the Battlefield, he left a pretty impressive legacy in terms of reforms and he spread the revolutionnary ideals to Europe, allowing the ideas to settle down in the minds of many. That's more than a victory if you ask me.
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?
Rather than the united people of Europe, it was more the united monarchs of Europe... None of them really liked Revolutionnary France, either because of its ideals or because they felt France was too strong as a nation and wanted it to see it toppled from its First World Power Status in the first place. Hell, at first, many felt the French Revolution was a just come-upance on the French King... until they realised what came with the Revolution.

It's also quickly forgetting that Napoleon didn't start most of the Napoleonic Wars... With the exception of the Russian Campaign, they all started when the European powers coalised against France. Napoleon was basically trapped in a vicious circle of war for most of his life and he never found a way to successfully stop it other than beating his ennemies into submission... A bit brutal yes, but it's a situation he was more or less forced into thanks the situation left by the Revolution (The First Coalition dates back from 1792...) and the fact the Brits never wanted to make peace with him because France was too powerful on the continent.

If you consider the difficulty of the context and what Napoleon still managed to achieve (which is an impressive lot of reforms and a legacy that still endures), it's actually impressive. Is it the best France has to offer? Probably debatable. But as far as I'm concerned, in terms of rulers, it's a solid yes.
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.
Italy: originally, it was meant as a distraction for the French armies fighting in Germany... Napoleon just happened to have been far more successful than expected. Saying the country burned as the army fed itself is also a bit puhing it... Not to mention Napoleon didn't stay in command in Italy for the whole period of time the French armies were stationed there.

Egypt: it wasn't a megalomaniac project, it was a rather bold (and kinda crazy) attempt to disrupt the British trade with India that was already among the possibilituies considered by the French authorities at the time... Plus, the Directoire kinda saw this as a convenient way to get Napoleon away from France as he was already becoming dangerous for them. As for the destruction of the French fleet, given that Napoleon was no naval commander, it's a bit pushing it to put the blame on him: I blame more the leader of the French navy at the time who sucked quite a lot and were no match for Nelson. Relations with the Ottomans had already been severed by the Revolution more or less and Plagues are unpredictable events. It might have been a failure in the end, but I will insist on the fact that it helped the birth of modern-day Egyptology a great deal.

Brumaire: The thing was ill-prepared yes and Napoleon nearly blew everything up at one point. But it still succeeded.

Haïti: the situation was already a mess before Napoleon tried to reinstitute slavery. It wasn't his smartest move (he even admitted it himself) and arguably didn't help since Haïti rebelled and became independent but the situation was already bad since Toussaint L'Ouverture had actually been pretty bad at his job except in the field of keeping power for himself.

The coronation: it didn't betray his liberal belief, it was more an attempt to reconcile the old regime with the revolutionnary ideals. Napoleon turned into an Enlightened Despot in the end, but he was far better than what had come before it. Hell, a number of his reforms and creations are still around and used by modern-day France.

The Napoleonic Wars: They were nothing more than a continuation of the Revolutionnary Wars started by the French Revolutionnaries themselves... Napoleon inherited this mess. He also had to face a Europe that was hostile to the Revolutionnary ideas and to the French dominance over the continent. He hardly is alone to blame for the mess.

As for the mistakes attributed to his ego, I'd rather argue they're more the result of bad judgement and poor handling of the situation. The overthrow of the Bourbons in Spain was an attempt at solving a messy political situation that was nearly turning into a civil war between Father and Son, both rather bad at their jobs (neither Charles IV nor Ferdinand VII were bright bulbs...) and replace them by someone who was felt more trustworthy and competent (Joseph). It backfired because Napoleon didn't take Spanish Nationalism into account... And how could he? It was something new...
As for Russia, the plan was badly conceived from the start because Napoleon waited for a decisive battle that never came and then for peace talks that never happened. Napoleon's reason for this wasn't just a result of his ego: he needed Russia to apply the Continental System, which is something the Russians no longer wanted to. The continental system in itself wasn't necessarilly a good plan but that's basically the only thing Napoleon had as he was basically facing a Britain that simply didn't want peace with him and that he couldn't invade because his navy was crap...
Napoleon wasted generations of the men of France for his own glory. He was an exceptional field commander, it is true. But I don't see how he can be said to be a good ruler. His legal reforms establishing the Code Napoleon were not the achievement of long-desired reform despite gridlock; he had a clean slate handed to him because all of the members of the old regime were either murdered or forced into exile. And where the Code Napoleon significantly departed from the Coutumes de Paris, it seems to have resulted in the weakening of France rather than national benefit. The military machine and artillery that he used to phenomenal advantage were inherited from the wise reforms of the Bourbons and their ministers. So, what can we say about him? He was a huge personality, a great field commander, and a workable administrator who, puffed up with historic hubris, destroyed that over which he had assumed control. Sounds more like a cautionary tale than an account of a great monarch.
Napoleon didn't waste these men for his own glory: again, the wars is something he more or less inherited because of the difficult political context of France at the time. The Revolution wasn't exactly the most popular event, France had become a bit too powerful for the other European powers (especially Britain) and most were actually not started by Napoleon but by a the various coalitions that formed against him.

Saying his refroms are the result of him being given a clean slate is forgetting the amount of work that was poured into them and how much time and effort Napoleon put at applying them. It's also forgetting that most of them are actually still in use or at least have left a durable legacy. It also didn't weaken France: other factors contributed to the weakening of France, but the new legislation was frankly not one of them.

Saying the military machine he inherited was a result of the Ancien Regime isn't necessarilly wrong but it's frankly forgetting that he used it very effectively and also put a number of military reforms while he was in power.

The rest, I have already expanded on above and I don't want to repeat myself over and over...
 
Philip II Augustus. Turned France into one of Europes strongest kingdoms and played the Plantaganets like a fiddle. Plus Notre Dame is cool.
 
Why did France need a Bonaparte on the Spanish throne? Or to annex holland? Hell, why did it need to replace the Batavian republic with a french king?
 
Why did France need a Bonaparte on the Spanish throne? Or to annex holland? Hell, why did it need to replace the Batavian republic with a french king?

For the very same reason Bourbons tried to have a Bourbon on the spanish throne, just as Hapsburgs did. Power and advantage over your rivals. Besides, Napoleon was trying to enforce his continental blockade. And, I guess, he thought he could trust his siblings to help him to build a new world order.
 
Without a Louis XIV, France could have had an other great king in his younger brother Philip of Orleans who also was a very good general. Philip of Orleans was as fond of arts as Louis XIV, would have benefited form the same skilled people as Mazarin, Louvois, Vauban, Colbert, ... etc, and he would probably have avoided the terrible mistake of repealing the Edic of Nantes.

I think that Philip of Orleans could maybe leave a better legacy than Louis XIV . With maybe the beginning of the road to an English monarchy type . He was certainly more "liberal" than his brother (and certainly not as "power hungry" )
 
I think that Philip of Orleans could maybe leave a better legacy than Louis XIV . With maybe the beginning of the road to an English monarchy type . He was certainly more "liberal" than his brother (and certainly not as "power hungry" )

I think you are confusing him with his son who became regent at Louis XIV's death.
 
I think you are confusing him with his son who became regent at Louis XIV's death.

Hum, maybe i have a friend who is a huge fan of the Orleans Dynasty (and quite odd, he qualify himself has a "communist" ) and he said to me maybe things rapidly about them :p .
 
For the very same reason Bourbons tried to have a Bourbon on the spanish throne, just as Hapsburgs did. Power and advantage over your rivals. Besides, Napoleon was trying to enforce his continental blockade. And, I guess, he thought he could trust his siblings to help him to build a new world order.

Your initial claim was:

TheZeppelin said:
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.

But now you're saying that he overthrow a friendly republic for power, and a French ally in Spain for rivals. So he's just another warlord, who lost to Britain.
 
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.

His wars? You know the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Coalitions all declared war on France and/or him, right? Edit: not awake enough to give real answers, but it seems I needn't, Yorel got there.
 
His wars? You know the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Coalitions all declared war on France and/or him, right? Edit: not awake enough to give real answers, but it seems I needn't, Yorel got there.

They declared war on him to reverse the outcome of the wars of the First and Second Coalitions, which were started by the revolutionaries after they overthrew the lawful government and threatened to overthrow theirs. The Republic clearly was the aggressor and was in the wrong according to the Law of Nations at the time. The Third began after Napoleon murdered the Duc d'Enghien and made aggressive provocations against foreign and neutral countries. The rest were simply follow up wars continuing those. It's ridiculous to say that the French were fighting defensive wars during this time.
 
They declared war on him to reverse the outcome of the wars of the First and Second Coalitions, which were started by the revolutionaries after they overthrew the lawful government and threatened to overthrow theirs. The Republic clearly was the aggressor and was in the wrong according to the Law of Nations at the time. The Third began after Napoleon murdered the Duc d'Enghien and made aggressive provocations against foreign and neutral countries. The rest were simply follow up wars continuing those. It's ridiculous to say that the French were fighting defensive wars during this time.

Don't have any time righ now, will address this and other arguments later, but just think about the implications of what you're saying in bold here.
 
Your initial claim was:



But now you're saying that he overthrow a friendly republic for power, and a French ally in Spain for rivals. So he's just another warlord, who lost to Britain.


Spain was not a republic and the men with good intentions are often forced to do evil in order to achieve the greater good. He's not another warlord. Regardless of whether you think Napoleon represented a benevolent or a malicious set of ideas, give him some respect for his outstanding military accoplishments.

Besides, after invading Spain Napoleon disbanded the Inquisition and attempted to modernize the country. The Spanish Royal Family was a bunch of backstabbing and imbecile people, caring only for power. They allied with France because France was way too strong to fight against. At the very first chance the Spanish would have thrown their lot with the Coalition. They were just too close to France and too weak to fight on their own.

I'm beginning to regret my Bonapartist stance, seeing how anglophone and anti-Napoleon this board is, but a loyal man can't go back on one's words.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon left France smaller than he started. You want me to praise a guy who lost?

I can't make you praise anyone. You don't have to. Everybody has a right to fight for what one believes in. But at least give the man some respect. He's not just some pesky warlord. It took all Europe to bring him down, not just Britain.
 
Heard of the Terror? Or the Civil Code?

Yes, it was ended by the Thermidorean reaction.

The Bonaparte apologists on this thread are moving goalposts in the argument so fast it is hard to keep up. The original claim was that George IV didn't count as being more modern and constitutional than Napoleon because power had already shifted away from the monarchy in the UK. When I point out that's a ridiculous argument because the power had shifted away from the monarchy ENTIRELY in France, you try to move the goal posts to saying that republicanism isn't great anyway.
 
Napoleon left France smaller than he started. You want me to praise a guy who lost?

Oh you don't understand Faelin. Anyone that doubts the greatness of the wonderful dictator is just doing it because they are English-speaking and not to be trusted.
 
Top