Maximilian I of Habsburg - he made the success of the later Habsburgs possible
Maximilian I of Habsburg - he made the success of the later Habsburgs possible
I have another one: John I, Lackland, of England!![]()
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?
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.
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)?
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.Any Brit with an interest in constitutional theory has just had their head explode at the notion that Cromwell was a monarch.