Worst Monarch of France?

Worst French Monarch?

  • John II the Good

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Henry I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philip IV the Fair

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Charles VI the Beloved, the Mad

    Votes: 12 11.7%
  • Charles IX

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Louis XV the Beloved

    Votes: 7 6.8%
  • Louis XVI the Restorer of French Liberty

    Votes: 17 16.5%
  • Philip VI the Fortunate

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charles X

    Votes: 35 34.0%
  • Napoleon III

    Votes: 10 9.7%
  • Louis-Philippe I the Citizen-King

    Votes: 4 3.9%
  • Other? Specify.

    Votes: 4 3.9%
  • Louis VII

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Louis XIV

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • Total voters
    103
  • Poll closed .
Napoleon I, great general, but you know you're doing something wrong when you end up at war with the rest of the continent no less than five times...

Well, it never stopped Louis XIV. Also, it depends how you define alone against the rest of Europe: bar the First Coalition (for which he is not responsible) and the Seventh, France had allies and did not face all the other powers, although it came close during the Sixth.
 
Versailles was very important as a means to curtail the nobility. The whole point was to get them there away from their lands.

And it cost a quarter of the French budget annually, which led to increasing deficits which led eventually to the French Revolution (and the fact that XV and XVI were not to stop the trend). The gains on the map of Europe were not worth the blood and treasure. He was a reformer.

Louis XlV is probably not deserving of worst monarch, but he is in that special category where their personal quest for glory looks good in the short term but the trends they set have disastrous consequences long term. Good comparison is Justinian, who over spent, expanded the Byzantium, but who emptied the treasury; a treasury that would have been useful a century latter.
 
Having the misfortune of sitting down across the table from a Henry Plantagenet or Otto Von Bismarck can't really be blamed on someone, imo. Not having brilliance in the face of brilliance probably means you'll lose the game, but losing to brilliance isn't imo the same as being awful. It's not like you have the option of not playing, either.
 

longsword14

Banned
He also restored slavery, which is not only immoral but it also bungled any chance at recovering Haiti.
Napoleon was not that interested in keeping or abolishing slavery. What he really wanted was to keep a foot-hold in the new world for which he was willing to do many things.
He sent in Leclerc only when it looked like control was completely lost, nor did he go on some frenzy to restore slavery everywhere.
Quite a bit before Napoleon, France had already caused issues in the sugar colonies by abolishing slavery. Some francophone colonies went as far as ceding control to the British so that they could keep their control over slave labour.
As long as French control could be maintained, Napoleon was happy enough to go along with various arrangements.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why everyone is picking Charles X. Yeah he was a generally bad ruler who learned nothing from the revolution but he didn't leave France any weaker than he found it. I voted for John II. The man's reign was an absolute, unmitigated disaster from start to finish. It says something when you would rather return to captivity instead of ruling your country.

And it cost a quarter of the French budget annually, which led to increasing deficits which led eventually to the French Revolution (and the fact that XV and XVI were not to stop the trend). The gains on the map of Europe were not worth the blood and treasure. He was a reformer.

Louis XlV is probably not deserving of worst monarch, but he is in that special category where their personal quest for glory looks good in the short term but the trends they set have disastrous consequences long term. Good comparison is Justinian, who over spent, expanded the Byzantium, but who emptied the treasury; a treasury that would have been useful a century latter.

What's your source for Versailles costing a quarter of the national budget? The most I've ever seen it quoted at was 10%.
 
And it cost a quarter of the French budget annually, which led to increasing deficits which led eventually to the French Revolution (and the fact that XV and XVI were not to stop the trend).

He certainly spent beyond his means; but this could have been just a footnote if the Banque Générale (founded during Louis XV's regency) had been more cautiously managed, instead of being used to fuel the Mississippi bubble. It could have emerged as the national bank to help the government eventually pay down its debts.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why everyone is picking Charles X. Yeah he was a generally bad ruler who learned nothing from the revolution but he didn't leave France any weaker than he found it.

Because he actively tried to turn back the clock on the Révolution. There's being a conservateur and there's being an ultra-réactionnaire, Charlie boy was the latter. Les quatre ordonnances (well, six, but only four mattered), dissolving the Chambre, forcing Haiti to pay an enormous sum, having himself crowned at Reims, having been a pain in the neck from the 1780s without ever being helpful to anyone, invading Algeria more or less just so he could boast about it...
 
Louis-Philippe. I suppose he wasn't an entirely useless monarch, but one cannot really countenance overthrowing the same rightful King who is also ones cousin.

I have a great deal of empathy for Charles X. If my brother, sister-in-law, nephew, sister, and son had been murdered by republicans, my brother overthrown once, and myself and my entire family forced into exile, I would have also been mistrustful of any whiff of republicanism and intransigently reactionary. I am anyway, but if I had been in his situation instead of being a gay Australian millennial, I would have turned it up to eleven.

Full discloser: I have a full-sized portrait of Charles X on my bedroom wall, and left flowers at his tomb.... I have something of a soft spot for him...
 
Last edited:
And it cost a quarter of the French budget annually, which led to increasing deficits which led eventually to the French Revolution (and the fact that XV and XVI were not to stop the trend). The gains on the map of Europe were not worth the blood and treasure. He was a reformer.

Louis XlV is probably not deserving of worst monarch, but he is in that special category where their personal quest for glory looks good in the short term but the trends they set have disastrous consequences long term. Good comparison is Justinian, who over spent, expanded the Byzantium, but who emptied the treasury; a treasury that would have been useful a century latter.
I think it would have been worth it had Louis XV been able to follow through with Louis XIV's gas lighting of the nobility to create a true enlightened absolutism.
 
Because he actively tried to turn back the clock on the Révolution. There's being a conservateur and there's being an ultra-réactionnaire, Charlie boy was the latter. Les quatre ordonnances (well, six, but only four mattered), dissolving the Chambre, forcing Haiti to pay an enormous sum, having himself crowned at Reims, having been a pain in the neck from the 1780s without ever being helpful to anyone, invading Algeria more or less just so he could boast about it...

If I had been His Most Christian Majesty, and seen the aftermath of the Revolution firsthand, I might also be inclined to turn back the clock more than a little...
 
Napoleon I, great general, but you know you're doing something wrong when you end up at war with the rest of the continent no less than five times...

I mean, Britain probably went to more wars with various countries in a similar amount of time, and it became the largest empire in human history.
 
Alright, first off: it's not Louis XVI. The poor guy inherited a clusterfuck from his grandfather that the vast majority of monarchs couldn't have solved. He was an okay King who unfortunately ruled when France needed a great King. I was going to put Louis XV, but then I remembered that at least, at least, Louis had somewhat good taste in women. Charles X truly had no redeeming facet and as a Monarchist I blame him and his idiotic vindictiveness for the fall of the French Monarchy more than any Republican.

I can but disagree with your statement. Louis XVI was a nice, clever and very instructed man. But he was spineless and this was a fatal flaw for a monarch of his age who faced a tough situation. He was the main responsible for his country's meltdown.

As Napoleon said, a mere shooting would have avoided the revolutionary spiral. And he knew about it since it is what he did in 1795 and that launched his meteoric career.

Louis XVI would have been a great monarch for the 20th century democratic times.
 
I still have to say that the guy expanded too little for how much was spent,not to mention how he ended up antagonizing most of France's former allies like the Dutch in the process of doing so
I'm not sure you can really say he expanded too little... France made several rather important gains in the North and the East during his rule. It may not look like much on a map but I don't necessarilly think border changes were that huge at the time in Europe. If you take Europe in 1643 and then look at the map in 1715, it's more or less the same map.

As for saying he ended up antagonizing most of his allies... I think that's exagerated. The Dutch's attitude certainly switched but that's kinda what happens when your ruler gets on the Sun King's bad side by refusing to marry one of his bastard daughters and also by becoming King of England, which was France's traditionnal ennemy... Oh and that also happens to have overthrown James II who was on rather good terms with his French cousin. So in that particular case, I think there are wrongs on both sides. As for the rest of France's allies... I don't know but it seems to me that most actually stayed on the French side. Bavaria certainly remained France's main ally in Germany for example.
I do think however that setting up a Bourbon successfully in Spain was a real big plus of his reign.
Eh... Remains to be seen. The Spanish Bourbos had pretty awful rulers at one point (Charles IV, Ferdinand VII, Isabella II). Then again, they also have had Philippe V, Charles III and Juan Carlos so I guess it kinda balances itself.
Napoleon. Lost hundreds of thousands of French lives to give up France's status as the premier power of Western Europe, lost the Rhineland, lost Flanders, lost Northern Italy...
It's a dream to think the Allies would have allowed France to keep these lands without question... The only way they would have would have been if they no longer had the choice and had been defeated. The problem is that all these conquests contributed to make France overpowered in the eyes of the allies.

As for the war, it's partially an inheritance Napoleon had from the Revolution. I mean, the Revolutionnaires were the ones who declared war on the rest of Europe in 1792... And the Allies never really trusted a strong Revolutionnary France after that... Napoleonic France being just a continuation of that to them...

Plus, it's kinda forgetting the legacy Napoleon left behind. The guy made a huge deal of reforms during his reign, some of which are still around (though amended) in France, spread his Code Civil throughout Europe which in turn spread revolutionnary and liberal ideas, etc... You can't judge Napoleon solely on the military side: it's the main aspect of the man, but there is also a whole lot more to his life, career and actions than just his wars.
Napoleon I, great general, but you know you're doing something wrong when you end up at war with the rest of the continent no less than five times...
Kinda what happens when you're seen by said other powers as the heir of bloodthirsty revolutionnaries that overthrew and executed their kings and wanted to do the same to all of Europe... Also when you're seen as the defenders of dangerous ideas like the ones the Revolution propagated...
He also restored slavery, which is not only immoral but it also bungled any chance at recovering Haiti.
The whole mess with slavery is actually quite complicated. longsword14 explained it earlier better than anyone could. Napoleon basically restored slavery only to keep control of his oversea colonies and even then the move was supposed to be a pragmatic one: slavery wasn't supposed to be restored in the isles it wasn't applied.

Plus let's give him credit: he acknowledged this as his biggest mistake in his memoir. And during the Hundred Days, though he didn't abolish slavery, he abolished the slave trade.
He could a done somethings to be a more acceptable presence in European diplomacy. Some territorial concessions here, some reconciliations with the Bourbons there, not offering Archduke Charles his brother's throne...

You know some little things that would have made him less obviously a radical hegemon.
Territorial concessions weren't really going to cut it. If the allies wanted satisfaction, Napoleon would have basically had to go back to 1793 borders... France in control of the West Bank of the Rhineland was basically too OP for the other European powers. And the British would never have allowed France to keep control of Antwerp.

Reconciliations with the Bourbons was also out of the question: the Bourbons had been kicked out by the Revolutionnaries and for most of the period they were extremly determined to go back on everything the Revolutionnaries did. Hell, there is a reason Napoleon was able to make a comeback during the Hundred Days and that's because Louis XVIII was more or less going back on everything the Revolution had done. It's only after these events that Louis XVIII became more pragmatic...

As for the Hegemon part... Thing is that it's more a less a side-effect of a vicious cycle the Revolution caused. France became more powerful and upseted the balance of power in Europe at the time and the allies would have only been satisfied if the balance was restored. The problem that it was screwing France over, no matter how you look at it: it would have had to abandon nearly all of its conquest made before Napoleon rose to power. As such Napoleon kinda had to beat the rest of Europe into submission. Which is what he did for most of his reign. The problem is that it in turn meant that Nappy became too powerful for the rest of Europe, which in turn meant that the allies wanted to weaken France, something which couldn't be done without screwing the French over, so new war to beat the allies into submission, rince, repeat... It's probably a bit caricatural but that's more or less how it went.
I don't know why everyone is picking Charles X. Yeah he was a generally bad ruler who learned nothing from the revolution but he didn't leave France any weaker than he found it.
If the state of your kingdom at the end of your rule was the only thing that mattered, then Georges IV would probably considered one of the greatest monarchs of Great Britain... As far as I know, that's far from the case.

You should also see what kind of legacy and reputation he left behind him. By all accounts, Charles X is basically considered a buffoon in French history. He is basically considered as the only architect of his downfall because of how intransigeant he was. And his reign is basically only remembered as a collection of mistakes and failures...
I voted for John II. The man's reign was an absolute, unmitigated disaster from start to finish. It says something when you would rather return to captivity instead of ruling your country.
The part where he returned into captivity is more linked to what he perceived was his personnal honor. He had originally been freed in exchange for an extravagant sum of money and a few hostages... One of said hostages escaped captivity so John felt compelled to go back. A bit stupid from a political POV, but John II is a man that was highly chivalrous.
Louis-Philippe. I suppose he wasn't an entirely useless monarch, but one cannot really countenance overthrowing the same rightful King who is also ones cousin.
If overthrowing your predecessor discards you from the title, we can basically remove a great deal of names from the list of great rulers...
I have a great deal of empathy for Charles X. If my brother, sister-in-law, nephew, sister, and son had been murdered by republicans, my brother overthrown once, and myself and my entire family forced into exile, I would have also been mistrustful of any whiff of republicanism and intransigently reactionary.
Charles X's action become a tad less forgivable when you consider that his older brother Louis XVIII basically shared the same views but was more into realpolitik to know his marge of maneuver and thus was more careful. To all of this, Charles X basically said "Screw this! I AM THE KING!" and it blew up in his face... HARD.
 

longsword14

Banned
I mean, Britain probably went to more wars with various countries in a similar amount of time, and it became the largest empire in human history.
It also never tangled with European nations and armies as often and as totally as France did. It is just that in the long term Britain concentrated on issues that gave much better returns.
 
I mean, Britain probably went to more wars with various countries in a similar amount of time, and it became the largest empire in human history.
But how many of those wars pitted Britain against at least three other great powers?

Territorial concessions weren't really going to cut it. If the allies wanted satisfaction, Napoleon would have basically had to go back to 1793 borders... France in control of the West Bank of the Rhineland was basically too OP for the other European powers. And the British would never have allowed France to keep control of Antwerp.

Reconciliations with the Bourbons was also out of the question: the Bourbons had been kicked out by the Revolutionnaries and for most of the period they were extremly determined to go back on everything the Revolutionnaries did. Hell, there is a reason Napoleon was able to make a comeback during the Hundred Days and that's because Louis XVIII was more or less going back on everything the Revolution had done. It's only after these events that Louis XVIII became more pragmatic...

As for the Hegemon part... Thing is that it's more a less a side-effect of a vicious cycle the Revolution caused. France became more powerful and upseted the balance of power in Europe at the time and the allies would have only been satisfied if the balance was restored. The problem that it was screwing France over, no matter how you look at it: it would have had to abandon nearly all of its conquest made before Napoleon rose to power. As such Napoleon kinda had to beat the rest of Europe into submission. Which is what he did for most of his reign. The problem is that it in turn meant that Nappy became too powerful for the rest of Europe, which in turn meant that the allies wanted to weaken France, something which couldn't be done without screwing the French over, so new war to beat the allies into submission, rince, repeat... It's probably a bit caricatural but that's more or less how it went.
If the state of your kingdom at the end of your rule was the only thing that mattered, then Georges IV would probably considered one of the greatest monarchs of Great Britain... As far as I know, that's far from the case.
I understand that much, but that's my point. He completely disregarded diplomacy in favour of an army that accounted for 55% of the government's budget durring peace times. The diplomatic option would probably fail as well, but the fact that he never tried it goes back to my point about him being a better general than king. A head of state who's only willing to use some of his tools is pretty limiting.
 
I can but disagree with your statement. Louis XVI was a nice, clever and very instructed man. But he was spineless and this was a fatal flaw for a monarch of his age who faced a tough situation. He was the main responsible for his country's meltdown.

As Napoleon said, a mere shooting would have avoided the revolutionary spiral. And he knew about it since it is what he did in 1795 and that launched his meteoric career.

Louis XVI would have been a great monarch for the 20th century democratic times.
I do agree that he should have enforced the law when it comes to the Bastille. What he really should have done was to not call the Parlements to raise new taxes; he should have just done that himself. Again, however many this is all with hindsight; from his point of view not calling the Parlements could have only made the situation worse.
 
I'd say Edward III, King of France. No matter how much military success he might have had, when it's inflicted on your own people it still makes you the worst King of France. Especially since he started a war of France vs France which went on for over a hundred years.
 
I'm not sure you can really say he expanded too little... France made several rather important gains in the North and the East during his rule. It may not look like much on a map but I don't necessarilly think border changes were that huge at the time in Europe. If you take Europe in 1643 and then look at the map in 1715, it's more or less the same map.
"expanded too little for how much was spent" doesn't refer to the amount of expansion, it refers to the costs of expanding. Which was rather high, seeing as he fought, what, 5 different wars over his 70 years that costs millions of livres and decades (about 30 years of his 54 years ruling in his own right) to fight altogether. His ambitions and expenditures were immense in comparison to the territory he did acquire, though understandable as half of Europe was trying to stop him from doing just that and his solution was to beat the resistance out.

And there is the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Aside from driving the Huguenots into the arms of the English and Dutch, it didn't really endear the French to the Protestants in a time when France was getting a bit isolated diplomatically.

Like that one quote from Wikipedia says, "France has its declared enemies Germany and all the states that it embraces; Spain with all its dependencies in Europe, Asia, Africa and America; the Duke of Savoy [in Italy], England, Scotland, Ireland, and all their colonies in the East and West Indies; and Holland with all its possessions in the four corners of the world where it has great establishments. France has ... undeclared enemies, indirectly hostile and envious of its greatness, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Portugal, Venice, Genoa, and part of the Swiss Confederation, all of which states secretly aid France's enemies by the troops that they hire to them, the money they lend them and by protecting and covering their trade."

That said, his was the high point of French power and he's nowhere close to the worst monarch of France (rather one of the better regarded, if not the best, in most peoples' minds), despite all his faults.

Having the misfortune of sitting down across the table from a Henry Plantagenet or Otto Von Bismarck can't really be blamed on someone, imo. Not having brilliance in the face of brilliance probably means you'll lose the game, but losing to brilliance isn't imo the same as being awful. It's not like you have the option of not playing, either.
Well, with regard to the Lesser of two Napoleons, the Mexico adventure and the Crimea caper were due completely due to his desire to increase the prestige of his nation and his house as opposed to any one genius. It didn't take a genius to predict that it would be difficult to supply and organize a full-scale invasion across the Atlantic, especially after Britain and Spain pulled support, or that fighting Russia when France and Russia had no conflicting interests would be a bloody waste of time and resources. Tens of thousands of men and millions of pounds sterling for the right to defend Christians in the Middle East? A fancy title, a fancy name, no gains territorially, and a whole lot wasted on one man's ego.

As for the common thing of Germany, it was again Napoleon III's ego that let Bismarck do as he did (no French involvement in the Austro-Prussian War for the sake of getting concessions since he thought France outclassed the German powers by that much meant Prussia could commit to crushing Austria when Austria had Italy to worry about as well). Occupying Rome did nothing to endear him to the Italians, many of whom were already angered by the loss of Nice and Savoy, who could've been a fairly decent ally when France needed one.

In general, Napoleon III lacked foresight and focused on prestige missions than improving France's position in Europe. Not the worst, granted, but bad in that regard. Better domestically than internationally, so not all bad. But a bit more foresight would've gone a long way to having the Franco-Prussian War not be a 9 month disaster and the end of French royal rule.
 
I'd say Edward III, King of France. No matter how much military success he might have had, when it's inflicted on your own people it still makes you the worst King of France. Especially since he started a war of France vs France which went on for over a hundred years.

Nitpick: He would be Edward I of France, Edward III of England, no?
 
Top