Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How come in England's and later GB's worse rulers left the biggest legacy?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
S

sleeperul

Lt. General
Jul 11, 2014
1.340
105
John of England terrible ruler but because of him Magna Carta, Henry VIII even worse ruler made an fleet made the Church of England, Charles the first broke the monarchy's power good thing in the long run, James II destroyed any chance of the Church of England become catholic, George the mad lost the 13 colonies and destroyed the last shred of power the monarchy had all things good in the long run.
These country had about 4 terrible rulers an all brought great legacies while the dozens of good rules brought nothing to measure to that.
 
they were demonstrating that kings and queens are best left for royal weddings and dog shows.

other monarchs were, you know, good at their job of tyrannizing their people and waging wars, in a desperate attempt to validate their existence. when you just fall flat on your face like, say, Henry VIII or George III, and do a miserable excuse of being King as Leviathan and God's Chosen, then people can take a step back and say... well... let's change that list of job duties from "ruling" and "messing stuff up" to "puppy breeding" and "going to Australia every few years."
 
Its probably in part to do with the interaction between monarch and parliament, very few people remember powerful members of parliament compared to easy history of following a well documented royal line.
 
I am sure people know of powerful people of Parliment like William Pitt, Pitt the Younger, Pitt the even younger, Walpole, Margared Thatcher the iron lady. That is about all I know.
 
George III was one of the longest reigning British monarchs. During his reign the industrial revolution happened, the great war against the French was won, Britain gained and a ‘second empire’ far greater and richer than the first and the abolitionist movement started which eventually led to the abolition of slavery in the whole empire. What matters the loss of a few provinces in north America full of God botherers and slave owners compare to all that.

They got to keep the largest part of North America anyway.
 
sleeperul said:
John of England terrible ruler but because of him Magna Carta, Henry VIII even worse ruler made an fleet made the Church of England, Charles the first broke the monarchy's power good thing in the long run, James II destroyed any chance of the Church of England become catholic, George the mad lost the 13 colonies and destroyed the last shred of power the monarchy had all things good in the long run.
These country had about 4 terrible rulers an all brought great legacies while the dozens of good rules brought nothing to measure to that.
Click to expand...
How are untold millions languishing in heresy a good thing?
 
Gil galad said:
George III was one of the longest reigning British monarchs. During his reign the industrial revolution happened, the great war against the French was won, Britain gained and a ‘second empire’ far greater and richer than the first and the abolitionist movement started which eventually led to the abolition of slavery in the whole empire. What matters the loss of a few provinces in north America full of God botherers and slave owners compare to all that.

They got to keep the largest part of North America anyway.
Click to expand...

Most of that happened during the regency though. The Prince Regent doesn’t have a good reputation either so I would guess that Parliment deserves most of the credit.
 
Gil galad said:
George III was one of the longest reigning British monarchs. During his reign the industrial revolution happened, the great war against the French was won, Britain gained and a ‘second empire’ far greater and richer than the first and the abolitionist movement started which eventually led to the abolition of slavery in the whole empire. What matters the loss of a few provinces in north America full of God botherers and slave owners compare to all that.

They got to keep the largest part of North America anyway.
Click to expand...
Its also notable the mainly self inflicted loss of the north American colonies was more due to poor government policy rather than Geroge III himself, the main person to blame for the success of the revolt of 1776 is Lord North. George III wasn't even mad as he is known, its in part due to side effects from medication he took at various points over his reign but also in becoming somewhat infirm during his elderly years.

Also as a side point the slave abolition had happened in other nations long before Britain, notable large countries banned slavery before Britain including some fairly major nations like Poland Lithania and Venice, while quite a few minor nations also banned slaves fairly early on,
 
Fluffy_Fishy said:
Also as a side point the slave abolition had happened in other nations long before Britain, notable large countries banned slavery before Britain including some fairly major nations like Poland Lithania and Venice, while quite a few minor nations also banned slaves fairly early on,
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of those countries did it just because they could see the writings on the wall. I know Denmark stopped the slave trade because they could see how vulnerable they were to a potential British enforcement of a ban, also there were plenty of slaves already in the colonies, so no real reason to keep importing them from Africa.
I don't know a lot about Polish-Lithuanian history but my go-to explanation for anything done in that country usually comes down to "the nobles needed something to enforce their autonomy from the crown", and regarding Venice I imagine it was to distance themselves from the Barbary Pirates/Ottomans/Mameluks whereby it became easier plundering their ships with the argument "Christians liberating Christians" .
Finally there's the important distinction between abolishing slavery and abolishing slave trade.
 
viale said:
I wonder how many of those countries did it just because they could see the writings on the wall. I know Denmark stopped the slave trade because they could see how vulnerable they were to a potential British enforcement of a ban, also there were plenty of slaves already in the colonies, so no real reason to keep importing them from Africa.
I don't know a lot about Polish-Lithuanian history but my go-to explanation for anything done in that country usually comes down to "the nobles needed something to enforce their autonomy from the crown", and regarding Venice I imagine it was to distance themselves from the Barbary Pirates/Ottomans/Mameluks whereby it became easier plundering their ships with the argument "Christians liberating Christians" .
Finally there's the important distinction between abolishing slavery and abolishing slave trade.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what caused the various bans of slavery before the well known British Abolition, quite a few nations temporarily banned slavery, especially in their homelands like Iceland, China and Ireland whilst others undertook permanent bans like Bologna, Venice, Poland-Lithuania and Ragusa. I'm not really too clued up on what caused them to do so but I do know in Venice it was pretty much republicanism that did it, they were also one of the very first nations to do so with the complete ban taking place in 960, almost 1000 years before it became mainstream. This is despite Venice being a fairly key player in the medieval slave trade mainly from the Slavic regions (which is where they get their name from). Interestingly it proved a massive long term boost to the Venetian economy, due to slavery actually being a pretty bad way to produce things. The early Venetians who took their freedom seriously, in the age where the vast majority of Europe was indebted in serfdom couldn't justify themselves being free at the expense of others. The Venetian distaste for slavery also plays a part of the reason they went on to dominate other markets like the spice trade.

Christians didn't really seem too bothered about enslaving other Christians either, with the Balkan and Black sea regions being major slaver zones well into the early modern era. The most notable slave trade wasn't even Islamic, and while the rise of the Berber states did mean that Christians were being taken from their beds at night the major slave trader of the time was really Genoa, who were the key contributor to influencing Spain and Portugal, and through them into France and England to set up the slavery part of the famous triangle trade. The Genoans advising all the way as to best profit from this exercise.

Christian on Christian enslavement is just something that kind of gets whitewashed out of history, its one of those things people don't like to talk about because it makes them uncomfortable about their history so they try and pretend it never happened.
 
William the conqueror could apply consider he was probably a bad ruler from the saxon perspective but must have had some very big impact no matter what.
 
WJLIII3 said:
Well come on, the English did their best, but the Catholic heresy is very strong, you can't expect them to purge it all.

Also is your name a Spiderweb reference?
Click to expand...
The second: yes.

The former: that's because it's the One True Faith, it has divine support ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back