Who was the best European monarch before the French Revolution and after Charlemagne.

I'm kind of astonished at anyone listing Charles V. His biggest accomplishment was, essentially, being born. He didn't do anything to become the heir to the Habsburg, Burgundian, Castilian, and Aragonese thrones. He was certainly not an ineffective monarch, and it's reasonably impressive that he managed to hold together such widely varying lands as well as he did, and also to cement Habsburg dominance in Italy and hold off the Ottomans. But he also totally fucked up in dealing with the Reformation in Germany. And he had nothing to do with the conquests of the Aztecs and Incas, which were probably the most important factors in assuring the strength of Spain going forward.

As a man, pretty much every assessment of him that I've seen is that he was dutiful and hard-working and conscientious and not terribly bright. Which of Ameck's categories would he rate a 5 in?

Peter and Frederick seem pretty safe choices. Speaking of Frederick, I don't at all get Ameck's rankings. He gets a 5 in "diplomatic prowess" ("world-beating" diplomatic prowess shouldn't result in having to fight a nearly hopeless war against the three most powerful armies in Europe), but a 4 in "military prowess" (if fighting off said three most powerful armies in Europe for six years doesn't qualify as a "world-beating" military prowess, it's hard to see what would)?
 
I'm kind of astonished at anyone listing Charles V. His biggest accomplishment was, essentially, being born. He didn't do anything to become the heir to the Habsburg, Burgundian, Castilian, and Aragonese thrones. He was certainly not an ineffective monarch, and it's reasonably impressive that he managed to hold together such widely varying lands as well as he did, and also to cement Habsburg dominance in Italy and hold off the Ottomans. But he also totally fucked up in dealing with the Reformation in Germany. And he had nothing to do with the conquests of the Aztecs and Incas, which were probably the most important factors in assuring the strength of Spain going forward.

As a man, pretty much every assessment of him that I've seen is that he was dutiful and hard-working and conscientious and not terribly bright. Which of Ameck's categories would he rate a 5 in?

The big difference is clearly how we view what he inherited.

I see it as 'basically impossible to handle' so the fact he managed is amazing. You consider it 'reasonably impressive' that he managed.
 
In France, the most underestimated of kings was Philip II Augustus. He is the king who layed the foundations for a supremacy of the kingdom of Frnce that was going to last 600 years. He was the one without whom you would never have heard about Louis IX and Louis XIV and Napoleon.

In England, I would be tempted to say Oliber Cromwell who founded the naval and trade power of modern England. Far more than Elizabeth I who did all she could not to make reforms and avoid sharing power with parliament, and so left the Stuarts with an impossible situation.

In Spain, It is of course the couple Isabelle of Castile and Fernando of Aragon.

In Prussia, Frederick II.

In the ottoman empire, Selim I more than his son Suleyman the magnificent. Selim conquered Mesopotamia, Egypt and parts of Persia.
 

libbrit

Banned
In England, I would be tempted to say Oliber Cromwell who founded the naval and trade power of modern England. Far more than Elizabeth I who did all she could not to make reforms and avoid sharing power with parliament, and so left the Stuarts with an impossible situation.

Any Brit with an interest in constitutional theory has just had their head explode at the notion that Cromwell was a monarch.
 
I'm kind of astonished at anyone listing Charles V. His biggest accomplishment was, essentially, being born. He didn't do anything to become the heir to the Habsburg, Burgundian, Castilian, and Aragonese thrones. He was certainly not an ineffective monarch, and it's reasonably impressive that he managed to hold together such widely varying lands as well as he did, and also to cement Habsburg dominance in Italy and hold off the Ottomans. But he also totally fucked up in dealing with the Reformation in Germany. And he had nothing to do with the conquests of the Aztecs and Incas, which were probably the most important factors in assuring the strength of Spain going forward.

As a man, pretty much every assessment of him that I've seen is that he was dutiful and hard-working and conscientious and not terribly bright. Which of Ameck's categories would he rate a 5 in?

Peter and Frederick seem pretty safe choices. Speaking of Frederick, I don't at all get Ameck's rankings. He gets a 5 in "diplomatic prowess" ("world-beating" diplomatic prowess shouldn't result in having to fight a nearly hopeless war against the three most powerful armies in Europe), but a 4 in "military prowess" (if fighting off said three most powerful armies in Europe for six years doesn't qualify as a "world-beating" military prowess, it's hard to see what would)?

I gave Frederick 5 in diplomacy because in the end he got what he wanted and played Austria and Russia during the partition, in which he showed the world how short sighted the Habsburgs where turning on the nation that less than a century earlier saved them and how he played the Russians into giving up control of Poland and then taking all the good bits of Poland for himself. And when it comes to the military score I gave in 4 because he never achieved what Alexander, Africanus and Sulla did he was beaten on the field, it's the same reason I would give napoleon and Hannibal a 4 despite winning the war he lost some battles.
 
How about Philip Augustus who laid the foundations for the state of France.

Or even better Charles XII of Sweden the guy who at 16 took the swedish throne and fought remarkably well against the rest of central and eastern europe. Was a badass no?

We could even look at Philip von Habsurg of Spain. True the armada to invade england failed but people forget that the armada the english sent to invade span failed just as bad so Elizabeth s really just hype.

As for netherlands, I dont think the fall of most of the Netherlands and the brilliant spansih sucesses that alowed them to retain the low countries coul be considered failure.
And charles v yes he was lucky being born but it was due to his prowess that he crushed the schimaldic leaugue and Bohemians too I think and beat back a combined Franco-Ottoman assaults on Habsburg lands and drove the French from Italy. Those were not won due to luck and he bested both his rivals Henry VIII and Francis II and Suleyman as wel.

The reformaton was won by the basburgs its just that French intervention and Imperial focus on far greater threats gave the protestants a fighting chance.
 

scholar

Banned
Any Brit with an interest in constitutional theory has just had their head explode at the notion that Cromwell was a monarch.
Eh, as much a monarch as any military dynast of Rome before Augustus. He even had his son succeed him, and often was said to be a "King-like" individual with all the powers of a monarch, with none of the titles.
 
Top