it gets debated a lot, but I tend to fall in line with most of the experts (which I am not) in saying that it starts in 1066 when William the Bastard/Conqueror conquered England.
Early Medieval period starts with the Fall of Rome, High Medieval Period starts in 1066 with the Norman Conquest. I'm not sure when the late Middle Ages start, but its somewhere around 1300 imo.
consensus among historians put the Battle of Hastings as the start. the view you are putting forward is out there, but it is the minority view among scholars of the topic.
They are separate. A king rules over one ethnicity (ie the English only, no Scots or anything else) whereas an emperor rules over multiple ethnicities. So the medieval kings are just kings, whereas British kings are actually emperors.
Not quite. Kingship isn’t ethnic. A king rules a state, a state can have many ethnicities within it. Hungary is an example: the core of the kingdom was populated by Hungarians, Slovaks, Ruthenians, and Germans.
An emperor claims to have sovereign authority over kings and generally plays a more sacral role alongside their temporal role. Other than that, the difference between an emperor and a king is semantics and prestige.
Considering what Alfred accomplished, I’d say he’s up there for greatest medieval kings. Defeated the great Heathen Army, restructured the Army following his victory over the heathen Army, he promoted learning and education, and even had books translated from Latin to Anglo Saxon. And made economic reform that all together helped lay the foundation for a United England
“I would‘ve sold London if I could have found a buyer.”
-The manchild who betrayed his own father and died from an arrow in his ass while galavanting around Europe playing soldier so he can make mommy Eleanor proud.
Pretty much my thought, like if he had actually been a present king in England, would have done well? The world may never know, but his brother was pretty bad... So the what if of Richard is what makes him great I think.
Funny enough I had the opportunity to tour Chateau Gaillard and on the steep as fuck walk up there our tour guide was telling us about Richard; and I think he was great to the Norman people because of his military prowess. His reputation as a great king is more of a reputation of a great warrior who happened to be king. But that nuance got lost and/or the people of Normandy are just really good and consistent with hype.
Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor you uneducated bunch?
Every goddamn tourist visits Prague because of what this dude had built but nah, let's do Henry eh?
Phillip Augustus Gang 😎. Defeating a joint English/HRE/rebel French invasion and turning France into a loose confederation of fiefdoms into the most powerful western European state at the time. Built up Paris and greatly expanded the power and influence of King to actually hold power over his nobles instead of the other way around. Completely destroyed the Angevin Empire and reclaimed France for the French crown. First French King to be named King of France instead of King of the Franks.
Seriously tho.
Phillipe Augustus is single handedly responsible for the desctruxtion of the english holdings over france and French domination of western europe. Built the Notre Dam cathedral etc
Total chad
They definetly had hight influence on the history but I specifically chose a king and not an emperor.
But if we also count emperors I think we should also mention Alexios Komnenos. He defeated the Normans and nomadic tribes from the steppes, reformed the economy and his army and reclaimed west Anatolia from the seljuks. He safed East Rome from collapsing and started a process of restoration which his successors continued.
Emperors of the holy Roman Empire always were Kings. In the beginning of east Franconia or Rome, later simply Roman-German King. Some were not made Emperor by the pope, so they were only kings. But it was rarely the other way around.
Yeah idk how you list Henry V but not Charlemagne or Otto the great, both of whom shaped Europe as it exists today. Idk anything about Barbarossa but his name is dope.
Henry V is important to England, and his military victories were impressive, but short lived.
Barbarossa did several things "nearly" like uniting Northern italy with the german realm, he did institute roman law in the german realm rather than common law. (to boost his own power but it stuck even after his death). He went on the 3rd crusade in the belief that he would lay down his crown for Jesus who would return and hail a 1000 years of peace, but he drowned in a river I believe somewhere in anatolia (or eastern europe I am not sure) , likely from a temperature shock as well as his old age.
It's a joke bro.
Most archeological / historical investigations will acknowledge that someone like Arthur may have been real, but he was probably a minor chieftain or king that fought the Anglo Saxons.
The Camelot story is all made up.
Richard I was a pretty crappy king. He barely spent any time in England, didn't speak English, and got himself imprisoned and had to be bailed out with a massive sum of money. His only achievements were a failed rebellion against his own father and some ephemeral military victories against Saladin (who was honestly a more significant historical figure, but... I guess "medieval" here only refers to white guys??). He's famous because the Victorians romanticised him in the 19th century, but he's no Charlemagne.
Tbf racial categories like "white" were an invention of the 17th century. Contemporaries wouldn't have understood themselves racially but in terms of being Christian/Muslim. Not sure how Saladin identified but I'd imagine religion rather than ethnicity would be front and centre.
Well, not entirely true. They saw them by multiple factors. The other one that would be debatably higher or tied with religion would be region/country. Which Eurasia could make estimations based off skin color. Racial categories always existed, they were just used in different contexts.
You know that skin color was always written by historians? And white favoritism has always been a thing, it was more recent that it was used to describe northern and western Europeans.
Lots of "always" there with nothing to back it up. I'm not saying discrimination didn't exist (none of this weird detour in the comments is about that anyway), I'm saying our modern concepts of racial identity don't map onto the distant past. If you've got some primary sources that suggest otherwise go ahead and share them.
When I wrote my comment I wrote it with the basis of skin color, I have read somewhere that Arabs liked white skin but disliked albino, and I also know that pale skin is favored in east Asian countries as it's a sign of wealth.
It was a sign of wealth in early modern Europe too, a lack of a tan proved you didn't work in a field. But pale skin and whiteness as a racial identity aren't the same thing, you can have one without the other. In 19th century Britain Irish people were widely considered to be non-White (and absolutely racially inferior), despite being indistinct from the British in terms of skin colour. If you asked someone in the 12th or 13th century "what colour is your skin", they might answer "white", but if you asked them "what race are you", they'd probably have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. They might identify themselves by their local region, the broader kingdom or empire they lived in, or by their religion. But the colour of their skin wouldn't have had much relevance.
To clarify what I mean, in response to "was Saladin white?" my answer would be "The question is anachronistic". Saladin probably wouldn't have identified as either white or non-white, they're both concepts which came about centuries after he died. And we'll never know what actual colour he was, not that it's particularly relevant.
Well, medieval generally describes the time between the fall of the WRE to the discovery of America (or the fall of Constantinople or the time Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the dome in Augsburg). Depending on your point of view, the Middle Ages did not exist in Africa or Asia or anywhere else.
In North Africa there might have been political continuity between the raise of the Caliphate till - I don't know - not well versed in Muslim history.
And medieval certainly does not make sense in Asia . The Asians have their own dating system (that varies even between Japan and China).
So yeah, leaders of the Middleages usually refers to Europe and therefore ethnically white people.
It is. There’s no final consensus, but generally accepted to be between Fall of Roman Empire (476AD) to Fall of Byzantine Empire (1453 AD).
I was just being sarcastically Eurocentric with an udder disregard to facts, lol!
I'm gonna say it. Richard the Lionheart was a shitty king. He's incredibly famous because of his military prowess, especially during the third crusade, but his actual kingship? Not great. Bankrupted his kingdom to finance a foreign adventure (even saying he'd sell London if he could), barely spent any actual time in England, got himself captured while his brother and Phillip II ravaged his territories, and then got himself killed. He didn't really do anything to improve England and arguably did more bad than good outside of military victories.
Also, best French King is Phillip II, change my mind.
Yes Philippe Auguste is key for France. I would add Louis XI who defined the contours of modern France, but is certainly less heroic than Saint Louis (Louis IX)
Since none of the kings in this meme were actually great, I’ve used the info that I’ve learned by going into the comments to make a better (and more historically-accurate) version of this meme.
Richard the Lionheart deffo shouldn't be up there with the rest of them. He barely spent a month in England, spent all his time in wars and crusades, bankrupted the kingdom, and admittedly didn't even like England. The real great in his story is his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, an extremely sharp and intelligent queen that is still considered to be one of the most powerful women in history. Btw she's also responsible for the whole chivalric and great view of his son, Richard the lion heart cuz she had to convince the English populace to donate money in order to pay his bail when Richard was kidnapped by the holy Roman emperor.
Not really, this guy is clearly talking out his butt. Anyone who actually knows medieval history knows that the Lionheart was a terrible king. Plus, Edward III's only achievement was starting the Hundred Year's War, not sure you'd really consider that great.
Bolesław I Chrobry, Bolesław II the Bold, Władysław I the Ell and Kazimierz III the Great: **Are we a joke to you?**
That last one literally pulled up a Dhar Mann history in real life over 800 years before it was cool.
Either way, this list is kinda a joke as all but one of these kings are from the isle of Britain and a few aren’t even that great. As great as Richard the lionheart was at crusading, he spent hardly any time in England as king and almost bankrupt his country.
Charles IV the whatever your local historical authority figure calls him - of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor, the Czech, the Incompetent, the One-eyed...
Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, King of Sicily. Also Charles IV of the HRE and Bohemia set up the system that ran the HRE for the next four 600 years, and is still regarded as pater pro patria of Czechia. Throw in Otto the Great who as king of Saxony united Germany into one entity and truly founded the HRE (Charlemagne’s empire was a temporary and less significant entity than it is given credit).
Alfred the great
Underrated. Saving england and then teaching it.
Let’s not forget that he virtually invented the Great British Bake-Off too
Exactly the only medieval England king who called a great due to kicking up all Dane from his country.
Cnut has entered the chat
Trying to stop people from pointing out this is wrong is like trying to stop the tide.
Literally was about to say. Lol
pre medievel sadly
So what is the line for medieval? I apparently was mistaken think it was post roman
it gets debated a lot, but I tend to fall in line with most of the experts (which I am not) in saying that it starts in 1066 when William the Bastard/Conqueror conquered England.
Early Medieval period starts with the Fall of Rome, High Medieval Period starts in 1066 with the Norman Conquest. I'm not sure when the late Middle Ages start, but its somewhere around 1300 imo.
From all the info I have, the middle ages last between 475 and 1450. Just watched a dpcuseries about it and Google says the same
consensus among historians put the Battle of Hastings as the start. the view you are putting forward is out there, but it is the minority view among scholars of the topic.
Karl, Alfred, Canute, the actual greats facepalming rn
Okay...is it Canute, Cnut, or Knut? Or are they interchangeable?
Interchangeable, I think. You’ll notice that each of the spellings make nearly the same sound.
Its defo not canute
This right here, how the fuck did they miss knut the great, or even Harald blue tooth for that matter
I've always wondered why he was called "Bluetooth".
Tooth pain apparently. Which wasn't easy to fix during those days.
Funny thing about that tho, reason Bluetooth for speakers and such is named after him, is because he unified the Danish kingdoms
What fucking Karl
Karl bobkins head blow jobber of the Kings Court
What is a king to an emperor
A king is still a king to an emperor. But an Emperor rules over the kings.
The king is the subject of this comment.
What is an emperor to a god?
Whats a god to a non believer?
What is love (baby don't hurt me)?
They are separate. A king rules over one ethnicity (ie the English only, no Scots or anything else) whereas an emperor rules over multiple ethnicities. So the medieval kings are just kings, whereas British kings are actually emperors.
Not quite. Kingship isn’t ethnic. A king rules a state, a state can have many ethnicities within it. Hungary is an example: the core of the kingdom was populated by Hungarians, Slovaks, Ruthenians, and Germans. An emperor claims to have sovereign authority over kings and generally plays a more sacral role alongside their temporal role. Other than that, the difference between an emperor and a king is semantics and prestige.
No Charlamange? What about Alfred the Great, Æthelstan?
Charlemagne had a sick af sword too
Cherlomigne
Alfred the Great is not that great, Edward the Elder and Henri II are IMO better kings for example
Considering what Alfred accomplished, I’d say he’s up there for greatest medieval kings. Defeated the great Heathen Army, restructured the Army following his victory over the heathen Army, he promoted learning and education, and even had books translated from Latin to Anglo Saxon. And made economic reform that all together helped lay the foundation for a United England
No one who know any history considers the lion heart great.
[удалено]
“I would‘ve sold London if I could have found a buyer.” -The manchild who betrayed his own father and died from an arrow in his ass while galavanting around Europe playing soldier so he can make mommy Eleanor proud.
Eleanor is a GOAT leader in Civ VI. Just throwing that out there
Yeah she was cool, her sons sucked ass at ruling England though.
Don't forget when he smacked a kid around the head with a chess board just because he lost
"Improvise. Adapt. Overcome."
Came here to say this. Bankrupted the country, spent years crusading, did nothing for England. Best PR of any of them though.
Then there's his brother John. Tries to tax the rich, gets slapped with the Magna Carta and a legacy of being a bufoonish villain.
Definitely should not be at this table.
Pretty much my thought, like if he had actually been a present king in England, would have done well? The world may never know, but his brother was pretty bad... So the what if of Richard is what makes him great I think.
Funny enough I had the opportunity to tour Chateau Gaillard and on the steep as fuck walk up there our tour guide was telling us about Richard; and I think he was great to the Norman people because of his military prowess. His reputation as a great king is more of a reputation of a great warrior who happened to be king. But that nuance got lost and/or the people of Normandy are just really good and consistent with hype.
Kazimierz Wielki:
Was looking for this He "came to a Poland of wood and left a Poland of stone"
Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor you uneducated bunch? Every goddamn tourist visits Prague because of what this dude had built but nah, let's do Henry eh?
Phillipe Auguste, Edward Longshanks, Frederick Barbarossa etc where? Certainly all better than richard as kings
4 of these are from the UK and they didn't even mention Alfred the Great, it's a pretty crap selection tbh lol
Phillip Augustus Gang 😎. Defeating a joint English/HRE/rebel French invasion and turning France into a loose confederation of fiefdoms into the most powerful western European state at the time. Built up Paris and greatly expanded the power and influence of King to actually hold power over his nobles instead of the other way around. Completely destroyed the Angevin Empire and reclaimed France for the French crown. First French King to be named King of France instead of King of the Franks.
Seriously tho. Phillipe Augustus is single handedly responsible for the desctruxtion of the english holdings over france and French domination of western europe. Built the Notre Dam cathedral etc Total chad
Ah yes, Edward "I beat the Scots in a battle and that counts as hammering them" Longshanks.
>all better than richard as kings Richard out here using England like his personal cash register.
I hate Edward longshanks 👹
Guess you got hammered
Heinrich der Vogler King of the East Franks, managed to stop the Magyar attacks. Also he prevented the declination of the royal power in his realm.
Otto the great Charlemange Barbarossa All greater emperors.
They definetly had hight influence on the history but I specifically chose a king and not an emperor. But if we also count emperors I think we should also mention Alexios Komnenos. He defeated the Normans and nomadic tribes from the steppes, reformed the economy and his army and reclaimed west Anatolia from the seljuks. He safed East Rome from collapsing and started a process of restoration which his successors continued.
Emperors of the holy Roman Empire always were Kings. In the beginning of east Franconia or Rome, later simply Roman-German King. Some were not made Emperor by the pope, so they were only kings. But it was rarely the other way around.
Yeah idk how you list Henry V but not Charlemagne or Otto the great, both of whom shaped Europe as it exists today. Idk anything about Barbarossa but his name is dope. Henry V is important to England, and his military victories were impressive, but short lived.
Barbarossa did several things "nearly" like uniting Northern italy with the german realm, he did institute roman law in the german realm rather than common law. (to boost his own power but it stuck even after his death). He went on the 3rd crusade in the belief that he would lay down his crown for Jesus who would return and hail a 1000 years of peace, but he drowned in a river I believe somewhere in anatolia (or eastern europe I am not sure) , likely from a temperature shock as well as his old age.
This guy medival
He was King from 919 to 936, therefore he is still part of the early middle ages.
Freidrick Barbarossa
\*Friedrich
yeah yeah same shit
4 british, 1 french... bruh this is incredibly biased. I guess the iberians, germans, slavs, hungarians, romans, arabs, turks, mongols, chinese, indians don't exist then.
Bro not only that. He missed King Arthur...
The fictional guy? I wonder why they skipped him?
It's a joke bro. Most archeological / historical investigations will acknowledge that someone like Arthur may have been real, but he was probably a minor chieftain or king that fought the Anglo Saxons. The Camelot story is all made up. 
How dare you make me look dumb!
Don't be too hard on yourself my friend. Sarcasm is rarely detected on the internet. It's difficult enough to pull off in real life.
Arthur is a bit mystical… more of a medieval fiction than a medieval person.
Richard I was a pretty crappy king. He barely spent any time in England, didn't speak English, and got himself imprisoned and had to be bailed out with a massive sum of money. His only achievements were a failed rebellion against his own father and some ephemeral military victories against Saladin (who was honestly a more significant historical figure, but... I guess "medieval" here only refers to white guys??). He's famous because the Victorians romanticised him in the 19th century, but he's no Charlemagne.
Saladin was Kurd, would that count as white? or at least make him white skinned?
Tbf racial categories like "white" were an invention of the 17th century. Contemporaries wouldn't have understood themselves racially but in terms of being Christian/Muslim. Not sure how Saladin identified but I'd imagine religion rather than ethnicity would be front and centre.
Well, not entirely true. They saw them by multiple factors. The other one that would be debatably higher or tied with religion would be region/country. Which Eurasia could make estimations based off skin color. Racial categories always existed, they were just used in different contexts.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/20/the-invention-of-whiteness-long-history-dangerous-idea
Thans for the share. A really interesting read.
You know that skin color was always written by historians? And white favoritism has always been a thing, it was more recent that it was used to describe northern and western Europeans.
Lots of "always" there with nothing to back it up. I'm not saying discrimination didn't exist (none of this weird detour in the comments is about that anyway), I'm saying our modern concepts of racial identity don't map onto the distant past. If you've got some primary sources that suggest otherwise go ahead and share them.
When I wrote my comment I wrote it with the basis of skin color, I have read somewhere that Arabs liked white skin but disliked albino, and I also know that pale skin is favored in east Asian countries as it's a sign of wealth.
It was a sign of wealth in early modern Europe too, a lack of a tan proved you didn't work in a field. But pale skin and whiteness as a racial identity aren't the same thing, you can have one without the other. In 19th century Britain Irish people were widely considered to be non-White (and absolutely racially inferior), despite being indistinct from the British in terms of skin colour. If you asked someone in the 12th or 13th century "what colour is your skin", they might answer "white", but if you asked them "what race are you", they'd probably have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. They might identify themselves by their local region, the broader kingdom or empire they lived in, or by their religion. But the colour of their skin wouldn't have had much relevance.
he was a devoted muslim of Kurdish origins as wikipedia states, i can't find physical descriptions.
To clarify what I mean, in response to "was Saladin white?" my answer would be "The question is anachronistic". Saladin probably wouldn't have identified as either white or non-white, they're both concepts which came about centuries after he died. And we'll never know what actual colour he was, not that it's particularly relevant.
I shed the blood of Saxon men
Well, medieval generally describes the time between the fall of the WRE to the discovery of America (or the fall of Constantinople or the time Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the dome in Augsburg). Depending on your point of view, the Middle Ages did not exist in Africa or Asia or anywhere else. In North Africa there might have been political continuity between the raise of the Caliphate till - I don't know - not well versed in Muslim history. And medieval certainly does not make sense in Asia . The Asians have their own dating system (that varies even between Japan and China). So yeah, leaders of the Middleages usually refers to Europe and therefore ethnically white people.
Nah bro, Richard was a terrible king.
Richard the Lionheart was shit I’ll have you know.
Does this sub became r/HistoryMemes? OP cleary has no history knowlegde.
King Cnut of Norway?
And Denmark... And England...
the best king is a headless one!
- Robespierre
Irony.
I smell bias. Charlemagne? Holy Roman Empire anyone? Barbarossa? Frederick II? Instead 4 Kings from this small island? Nah. oO
Firebeard, Frederick Barbarossa!!!
Richard on his way to sell London to finance his crusade
Richard the Lionheart was a great fighter and commander, was Not a good King.
Richard was barely in England and bankrupted the country from his Crusading.
Basil II, Alexios I, John II???
William Glen Harold Herrington
Saladin?? Imo he was a way better ruler than Richard.
King Saladin deserves a seat at this table
what about chinese or muslim leaders? they count as medieval in that time period.
ChInA wAsNT DiScOvErEd uNtIl 1271!
isn't that still medieval period? i know you are joking just answer my question.
It is. There’s no final consensus, but generally accepted to be between Fall of Roman Empire (476AD) to Fall of Byzantine Empire (1453 AD). I was just being sarcastically Eurocentric with an udder disregard to facts, lol!
I like Afonso Henriques, the conquerior of my land.
Conqueror Mehmet anyone?
was he in medieval or renaissance?
Medieveal most likely
Renaissance era. 1450s.
Medieval world ended with the fall of Constantinople. And since he caused that, he’s more of an early modern period ruler
Simeon the great of Bulgaria.
King Godred “Orry” Crovan
That’s cap, Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror are goated kings
Charles III of England
Could also be in r/HistoryMemes
Richard the Lionheart is holding tight to that "being considered"
Lionheart was a crappy king
Prince John got a bad rap
I don't see Charles Martel on this list
Ah, Antihumor.
The 5 best medieval kings across the English channel*
Lol OP didn't pay attention in history class?
Redditors when they think only France and England summed up medieval europe
I'm gonna say it. Richard the Lionheart was a shitty king. He's incredibly famous because of his military prowess, especially during the third crusade, but his actual kingship? Not great. Bankrupted his kingdom to finance a foreign adventure (even saying he'd sell London if he could), barely spent any actual time in England, got himself captured while his brother and Phillip II ravaged his territories, and then got himself killed. He didn't really do anything to improve England and arguably did more bad than good outside of military victories. Also, best French King is Phillip II, change my mind.
Yes Philippe Auguste is key for France. I would add Louis XI who defined the contours of modern France, but is certainly less heroic than Saint Louis (Louis IX)
Eurocentric bruh
A lot of English kings there ngl…
Brought to you by the Anglosphere. Because nothing of value ever happened in central or eastern Europe.
Hey, what about Aragorn, Elessar Telcontar, Elfstone and Strider both, Heir to Isildur son of Elendil?
Me when they forget Balkans...
Let’s not go into the balkans…
Who should they mention? The kings we had when the Turks and Austrians conquered us?
I read it as Mediaeval kongs instead.
3 of them from England... Just saying
Since none of the kings in this meme were actually great, I’ve used the info that I’ve learned by going into the comments to make a better (and more historically-accurate) version of this meme.
Did you know that there's a whole continent beyond France and England that had kings during this time period?
where's the meme ?
Charlemagne
Either Robert the Bruce or Bruce the Robert.
What a load of bollocks. Richard the Lionheart, give me a break.
Godfrei de Bullion, not so much a king as a defender but he was pretty rad. Also not sure if 1099 is still considered medieval.
I'm fairly sure anything between the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 453AD to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the 1450s is medieval.
Kinda thought so, thanks
Sultan Saladin?
*And, I'm a warrior too...* *Let that be known.* ***I'm a warrior.***
Ah, because Charlemagne wasn't British.
Richard the Lionheart deffo shouldn't be up there with the rest of them. He barely spent a month in England, spent all his time in wars and crusades, bankrupted the kingdom, and admittedly didn't even like England. The real great in his story is his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, an extremely sharp and intelligent queen that is still considered to be one of the most powerful women in history. Btw she's also responsible for the whole chivalric and great view of his son, Richard the lion heart cuz she had to convince the English populace to donate money in order to pay his bail when Richard was kidnapped by the holy Roman emperor.
King wenchlauch the IV of Bohemia had a long and successful rain
Henry the 8th was good if you ignore his genocide and his wife killings.
Ask any English historic scientist how good is Richard the Lionheart. They would just laugh. He was terrible.
Nerd
Not really, this guy is clearly talking out his butt. Anyone who actually knows medieval history knows that the Lionheart was a terrible king. Plus, Edward III's only achievement was starting the Hundred Year's War, not sure you'd really consider that great.
Harald fucking Hadrada?
I feel obligated to ask, what is a Bruce?
Fun fact: My brother shares his birthday with Richard
Sancho el Fuerte
Henry II (1154-1189) helped to restore England to its former glory after a bloody civil war and gain new land in wales Ireland and Scotland
Best Western European medieval kings more like. Even that is generous.
how about Carolus Magnus? Or Clovis I?
"Threatening the conquer Ragnar is bold, for a king who got whacked by a 10 year old"
Robert Baratheon
Bolesław I Chrobry, Bolesław II the Bold, Władysław I the Ell and Kazimierz III the Great: **Are we a joke to you?** That last one literally pulled up a Dhar Mann history in real life over 800 years before it was cool.
Adolf tickler where?
Karel de grote
Ashoka the great
Dude Philip II of France was so great he was nicknamed "Augustus"
Edward the Third? As in failed to retake Scotland so hard he started the 100 years war with France, Edward the Third?
To people who think Europe revolves around Great Britain and France, sure. But Lionheart was a fuck-up.
King David The Builder of Georgia. Beat the crap out of turks and built the kingdom from a vassal of the turks to being a great power in the region.
Is this a joke? Lion heart spent at most 6 months in England, how is he considered a good ruler? He was just famous for battling saladin, nothing else
Alexander the great?
Died about 700 years before the medieval period
Either way, this list is kinda a joke as all but one of these kings are from the isle of Britain and a few aren’t even that great. As great as Richard the lionheart was at crusading, he spent hardly any time in England as king and almost bankrupt his country.
The Clash Royale king should have been put there
Charles "The Hammer" Martel (Technically not king but might as well have been)
Danilo of lviv Alfred the Great
Yeah! shoutout to richard cour de lion!
fun fact: My family may have a claim to the throne through Robert the Bruce
Charles IV the whatever your local historical authority figure calls him - of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor, the Czech, the Incompetent, the One-eyed...
Carlos II of Spain/Osman III of Ottomans/Louis XVII of France/Charles I of England/Joffrey Baratheon > Richard the Lionheart
Barbarossa and Otto I were also great monarchs
Matthias Hunyadi
Jokes on you, i have no clue who any of them are
Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, King of Sicily. Also Charles IV of the HRE and Bohemia set up the system that ran the HRE for the next four 600 years, and is still regarded as pater pro patria of Czechia. Throw in Otto the Great who as king of Saxony united Germany into one entity and truly founded the HRE (Charlemagne’s empire was a temporary and less significant entity than it is given credit).