Most Effective Monarch of France

Who was the most postively effective monarch of France?

  • Hugh Capet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philippe II, Augustus

    Votes: 41 47.1%
  • Louis IX, the Saint

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Louis X, the Quarreler

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charles V, the Wise

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Louis XI, the Prudent

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Francis I, Restorer of Letters

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Henri IV, the Green Gallant

    Votes: 7 8.0%
  • Louis XIV, the Sun-King

    Votes: 13 14.9%
  • Napoleon I, the Great

    Votes: 15 17.2%
  • Other (Specify)

    Votes: 3 3.4%

  • Total voters
    87
This is an expression of 1802. He was right at this time, but he ruled until 1814, so we should consider his whole reign and not only the four years of the Consulate.
I am actually not judging him solely based on his actions as first consul of the Republic. He didn't stop reforming France once he became Emperor of the French... And I still think he did overall more good than bad in his reforms.
You could have brought stability to France without establishing an absolute monarchy. That's the point. Napoléon brought stability to France, yes, but at what cost? In the last years of his reign, civil liberties were heavily restricted. People could be incarcerated without judicial review, and few people even bothered to read the newspapers because they had become so boring.
Quite frankly, given the mess that had come with the Revolution's liberal attempts, I wouldn't blame Napoleon for thinking a liberal regime couldn't hold. The first French Republic was after all one of the most unstable regimes in French history when you get down to it. Plus Napoleon was always a soldier and he probably favored a regime that followed the direction he wanted it to follow. Not saying he couldn't have taken a more liberal approach, but frankly that wasn't in the man's nature.

Besides, in terms of absolute monarch, I'm not sure he was that horrible: he had the flaws that come with the position sure, but he still proved rather good
That's one of the reasons why many liberals of the time were Royalists. And indeed, Louis XVIII established a quite liberal system instead of restoring the Ancien Régime. After the white terror of 1815, the Restauration brought stability to France without suffocating it.
You're kinda forgetting the Hundred Days in your story. Louis XVIII's regime wasn't exactly popular during the First Restauration: I'll give credit to Louis XVIII's attempts at reconciliating everyone but fact is that the Ultras weren't satisfied with his early decisions as they thought he wasn't going as far as he should and you also had an opposition that quickly arose from those who weren't happy with seeing the church come back in full force as well as in the army due to budget cuts. As for saying that the Restauration brought stability to France without suffocating it... It's kinda forgetting that the Charte is actually an extremly ambiguous text where everyone could read what they wanted. And then you have to remember that in 1820, when the Duke of Berry was assassinated, the Regime took a very conservative turn and gave up liberalism. So, I'm not really convinced about that.
According to Jean Tulard's book Napoléon, the first evidence of war fatigue is visible in 1808; also, Tulard assesses that the climax of Napoléon's power wa sin 1806/7. In 1809, he had already lost the initiative to Austria, and the annexations until 1811/12 were IMHO nothing more than desperate measures.
War fatigue did appear but Napoleon still had the aura linked to his near-invicibility and he was still in a strong position over the continent. Dissatisfaction to the regime was growing but as long as Napoleon was dominant militarily, he still had a pretty strong support. This changed after the Russian campaign where most of Napoleon's army was lost: by that point, the regime basically started to crumble. Napoleon still managed to hold on power but his defeat at Leipzig in 1813 definitely sealed his fate: the French campaign of 1814, though a strategic marvel, was nothing but a last hurrah as he pretty much had already lost all political and popular support.
Napoléon lacked a grand strategy. He tried to defeat Great Britain with his continental blockade, but the blockade wasn't working. Napoléon had to allow exemptions, and many states of Europe weren't obeserving the blockade. Therefore, he tried to gain direct control about more and more territories to enforce the blockade instead of reconsidering the whole Continental System.
It's not much that he lacked a grand strategy as much as he adopted the wrong one. The Blockade in itself wasn't a completely bad idea but the truth is that he had basically no means to enforce it except by use of his armies.
Just that he didn't expanded by annexing hostile territories, but by eating his own allies and vassals! In 1809, he annexed Rome - he could have restored the Roman Republic of 1798, but that would have been to republican. In 1810, he annexed Holland and parts of Berg and Westphalia - all three states were ruled by his relatives. In 1812, he annexed Catalonia, even if Spain was his own brother's kingdom.

Such annexions were completly useless and only antagonized the conquered populations. And as I already wrote, the Frenchmen themselves didn't want them. They certainly weren't eager to die in a war to conquer a foreign territory.
The annexations weren't completely pointless, at least not from Napoleon's POV: they allowed him to have better direct control of what was going on in said regions. I can agree they weren't necessarilly smart moves, but still it was all a matter of control in the eyes of Napoleon by this point.
I never said that Napoléon Bonaparte was French worst leader. He was a brilliant general who repeatedly saved the French Revolution. He was an energic ruler and could get things done - the Code Civil is one example of a reform that was implemented due to his influence. But he held absolute power, and we all now that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He could have been a French Washington, serving his ten years as First Consul, defending the Republic against the monarchies of Europe and then leaving power after having created a stable, prosperous and free country. Instead, he decided to became France's Caesar, the gravedigger of the republic.
The republic had more or less sabotaged itself when Napoleon took power: all the Revolutionnary violences as well as the political instability of the Directorate had doomed it. The Consulate itself is more or less a well-intentionned Dictatorship. The First Empire just took things a bit further.

And Napoleon had every intention of creating a stable, propserous and free country. Each and everyone of his actions were made towards that goal. Even his coronation as Emperor was aimed towards that: it was basically an attempt at reconciliating the Ancient Regime with the Revolution by fusing them together. Napoleon ruled according to his own interpretation of the revolutionnary ideals: a centralised authoritarian power but one that strived to respect the ideals of the Revolution. That's why he basically forced every country he could to adopt his Code Civil and many of his reforms followed revolutionnary ideals.
You keep emphazising on the Code Civil - I would do the same in your position. The Code Civil was one reform of the Consulate. During the first four years of his government, Napoléon was controlled by other institutions; the State Concil advised him and the Legislative Body voted on the laws, even rejecting some bills (among them was one of the first drafts of the Code). That's why the Consulate is so admired - you had an energic and competent leader on the top, who was checked by republican institutions like the parliament. Many Europeans intellectuals like Beethoven of the time praised the enlightened dicatorship of citizen Bonaparte.
That's what the First Consulate appears to be. In truth though, the balance of power was heavily advantaging the First Consul. I might admire him a great deal, but even I know that Napoleon wasn't really one to share power, even before his coronation.
But I can only repeat it: this positive image of Napoléon is limited to his first six, four, maybe only to his first two years. As his power grew, he became more and more autocratic. Instead of behaving like a French Cincinnatus he clung to power. He first became Consul for life, then Emperor. He absolished the egalitarian etiquette of the Revolution and even restored the nobility in 1808! His wars became highly impopular with the French, and his foreign diplomacy lacked a real strategy. Without a working system of checks and balances, the general of the French Revolution became Attila, despised by both Europe and his own population. The press was strictly censored; the conscription became more and more crushing; Napoléon ruled by decree because he knew that even the parliament didn't support him unconditionally anymore.
Napoleon's rule became a bit more autocratic sure. But basing himself on the ideas of the Revolution, he basically became a sort of enlightened despot. Again, when you look at a good deal of the reforms he applied, even under the Empire, he still tries to follow his ideals, despite the bit of corruption that comes from him having absolute power.
We can't grasp Napoléon's true character by limiting ourselves to the First Consul Bonaparte who enacted the Code Civil. We also have to take the absolute monarch Napoléon I into consideration.
And that's exactly how I make my judgement of the man. I still think he was a Great Man, both as First Consul and as Emperor of the French. I still think he was overall more good for France than bad. Like any Great Man though, he also had Great Flaws and that's eventually why he failed.
 
My vote is on Philippe August. The man probably contributed to the greatest success France ever had, and probably one of the most enduring. I am actually with Yorel in stating I was surprised when I saw Napoleon & Louis XIV were in contention for worst monarchs France ever had. On the subject of Napoleon in particular to keep with the conversation, I feel Napoleon's legacy is probably the most divisive figure. Did he follow the ideals of the Revolution to heart, or did he betray it to suit his own personal power? Yet for everything it happened, for good or for ill, he left a legacy that is still felt throughout all of Europe, heck, throughout the world today.

Would I say he's the most effective, no, and personally he seemed like a douche, but one can't say that he did some good for France, whether people say he's France's best, or France's single-handed worst monarch.
 
Charles V I always think is an underrated ruler. Maybe not the best monarch in French history, but he was exactly what France needed at that moment, and he did his job well. If only we could have smothered Charles VI in his sleep...
 
My vote goes to Philip II Augustus. He was the only "great" monarch of France who left it in a much stronger state than he started with.

Not that the Sun King or Napoleon were bad, it was just that they had a great position at the start of their reigns and simply leveraged that to propel France to greatness. But that doesn't beat having a laughable demesne and a vassal that happened to control half your country and another country to boot, then utterly reversing the situation in a span of a few decades.
 
@Yorel what is your opinion of Louis VI? Were it not for Philip II I might have voted Other for Louis VI. Your analysis is detailed and comprehensive, so what do you think of him?
 
@Yorel what is your opinion of Louis VI? Were it not for Philip II I might have voted Other for Louis VI. Your analysis is detailed and comprehensive, so what do you think of him?
He's actually one of the first Capetian Kings to truly expand royal authority and it began the move to restore it above the authority of his vassals. He also slightly expanded the royal desmene and pacified it. So overall, he was a pretty good King. Still, even if his reign was rather benefical and he started to make the reforms that would saw completions under Philippe Augustus, Louis VI still remained rather weak. He did assert his authority, but his vassals still remained pretty autonomous. Overall, a good King that pushed France in the right direction by using what he had at his disposal, but still in no position to assert his authority in the way Philippe II did.
 
Top