Best Ruler from 1500 - 1700

hmm IMHO I always have admired his (William the Silent's) quality of being a moderate and wanted to keep all the Netherlands together. And IIRC he converted twotimes, from Lutheran to Catholic and from Catholic to Calvinist.
It's nice to want to keep the Netherlands unified, but he kept trying to hold on to the South even after it was clear that Spain had re-establised a solid presence there. He should've cut his losses and focused on the northern states years earlier, imo

The "much earlier" qualifier was intended to apply to both- I know he ultimately converted to Dutch Reformed, I just think he should've done it earlier as part of the process of casting off the South.
 
Gustav II Adolf of Sweden. He made Sweden into a major power and secured religious freedom for Germany's Protestants.

Louis IV had the advantage of leading the richest, most populous state in Europe, while Gustav had very little to work with. IMO, that gives the edge to Gustav.
 
Gustav II Adolf of Sweden. He made Sweden into a major power and secured religious freedom for Germany's Protestants.

Louis IV had the advantage of leading the richest, most populous state in Europe, while Gustav had very little to work with. IMO, that gives the edge to Gustav.

There's something to be said for leaders who can manage to skip the whole overreach thing. GIIA kind of blew it.

Suleyman I has to be on a list, although I think Selim I was probably more talented - but he only reigned for 8 years.
 
True enough, though things only really began to fall apart after he died.
That's the other problem. Great men are so busy being great they don't have time to make sure their sons don't turn out rotten. It's a tough problem to overcome.

Also, Akbar > Suleiman :D
 
Last edited:
I'd rather go with Frederick Hendrik (he who managed to pull the United Provinces out of the doldrums after Maurice's death) or William III (glorious!) over William the Silent.

I always thought of William III as an early example of a king a figurehead, in his deference to Parliament -- a fine precedent, to be sure, but not what I think of as "great leader". I'll confess my knowledege of the Thirty Years War period is less than amateur, so I can't really comment on Henrik.

Yes, old William is the father of the country and all that, but he was a wretched general...

Oh come on, tell me the Battle of Leiden wasn't badass :D

... perhaps a bit too moderate in internal politics (I think he should've converted and considered the southern provinces lost much earlier), and a lot of work attributed to him should more rightly be attributed to a much larger cadre of men working together.

On moderation, I think that may be a more subjective call, but I hardly think it should count against a leader who has remarkable followers :rolleyes:
 

maverick

Banned
I'd vote for Suleyman and Philip II, as we're picking best rulers, not best Dutch.

Now, we of course need someone not from Europe, but the Japanese warring States period is not particularly inspired due to the fact that the competent daimyo kept getting killed and surpassed by Oda Nobunaga, who in turn was assassinated and replaced by the equally ruthless and competent Toyotomi Hideyoshi, but he was a wackjob, so that leaves Tokugawa Ieyasu, and while intelligent, competent, ruthless and a superb leader, hardly the best in the century.

But I'll nominate Tokugawa Ieyasu nevertheless.

Late Ming China is of course a horrible place to look for competent rulers, so we have the Qing instead, Nurhaci, Huang Taiji and other less than inspired choices, so let's go with the Kangxi Emperor and the Dynastic founder Nurhaci, who unified Manchuria and paved the way for the birth of the Qing.

Maybe the Ming Wanli Emperor, who reigned for 48 years and presided over great periods of unrest and tribulation...
 
Louis XIV, badass in war, administration, governing and centralization. A man who can deafeat all Western Europe united against him, is a man to know. And he makes idependent Spain history.

Until that man was beaten by the Dutch Republic, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire?

Louis IV had the advantage of leading the richest, most populous state in Europe

The Dutch Republic was far richer than France.


I'd vote for Suleyman and Philip II, as we're picking best rulers, not best Dutch

Well, if we can't pick a Dutchman than there's basically no choice. :p
 
...we're doing best rulers, and not best Dutch

Right -- William the Silent takes it over most of the names here in part because it's a lot easier to change the face of Europe when you're inheriting a great power; but to lead a movement that becomes a nation -- against the most powerful empire of the era no less -- that is a level of historical accomplishment held by so few. To also manage to bring out the best in the people you lead -- even (or especially) if it is done in realism rather than for an ideal -- puts him among the great leaders, not only of his era of history, but of all history.

My two cents.
 

Thande

Donor
While I had guessed that Asia and Africa would probably lose out in this thread through eurocentrism, I must admit I had not predicted that the Dutch would be specifically the ones to monopolise it.
 
For an outsider, what about James VI.
Of his 6 Scottish predecessors 3 were overthrown in civil wars, 2 died in combat against the English and five died as a direct result of violence.
His mother organised the murder of this father and he was brought up harshly by a rabid Presbyterian.
He managed to keep Scotland relatively free from English interference without losing his crown yet still managed to be named as Elizabeth Is successor.
After he added the title James I in 1603 he managed to hold both his realms together despite severe tension e.g. the Gunpowder Plot. (his Stuart descendants could not).
He managed to live with the Anglican church despite his Presbyterian upbringing
He was also quite a scholar and poet and commissioned the King James bible.

He managed all this despite being an unpleasant and unpopular character
 
True enough, though things only really began to fall apart after he died.

Things didn't really start to fall apart until 200 years after he died. There's a difference between "falling apart" and "opponents learning their lessons". The Ottomans never had the wealth and resources of Western Europe; it's a testament to their organizational and military prowess that they managed the predominance they had, and that they managed to remain a power for so long. And a great deal of that administrative vitality was the work of Suleyman.
 
I'd vote for Suleyman and Philip II, as we're picking best rulers, not best Dutch.

Now, we of course need someone not from Europe, but the Japanese warring States period is not particularly inspired due to the fact that the competent daimyo kept getting killed and surpassed by Oda Nobunaga, who in turn was assassinated and replaced by the equally ruthless and competent Toyotomi Hideyoshi, but he was a wackjob, so that leaves Tokugawa Ieyasu, and while intelligent, competent, ruthless and a superb leader, hardly the best in the century.

But I'll nominate Tokugawa Ieyasu nevertheless.

Late Ming China is of course a horrible place to look for competent rulers, so we have the Qing instead, Nurhaci, Huang Taiji and other less than inspired choices, so let's go with the Kangxi Emperor and the Dynastic founder Nurhaci, who unified Manchuria and paved the way for the birth of the Qing.

Maybe the Ming Wanli Emperor, who reigned for 48 years and presided over great periods of unrest and tribulation...

Why can't we do both? The one does not exclude the other, there can be candidates from every nationality....
And I already was quite elaborate, about why I (and most Dutchmen) wouldn't vote for Phillip II, I'd rather vote for Charles V;).
Candidates from the Dutch Republic, which imho could be nominated are William the Silent, Frederick Henry or William III. And despite some bad policies (especially the effect on the French treasury) Louis XIV should really be nominated....
 
Last edited:
Top