...and he was lucky Arthur died, theorically he was supposed to cumulate all continental tenures.
-
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.
I really do think that John was a good English king who just had to deal with the mess King Richard left him. England was Broke from all Richard's wars and the huge ransom they had to pay to get king Richard out of a Muslim dungeon so no matter who was on the English throne it was going to be very hard for a broke England (with barrens who also were broke from paying for all of King Richards wars in the from of huge taxes) to hold on to her lands in France with a very strong king like Philip II on the French Throne. France under Philip II rule had taken most of southern England and King John had managed to get it back and stopped French reinforcements landing on English soil by defeating the french navy carrying said reinforcements in the now forgotten navel battle of Sandwich. I really don't know why that naval battle is so forgotten as it it would of changed world history greatly had those reinforcements landed. Had king John not died on Campaign while fighting the French I think he would of gone on to be one of England's greatest kings but instead history looks very unkindly at him.
"lucky" - haha.
Austrian dungeon, I think, but yes - this isn't an uncommon view.
The Battle of Sandwich, the Battle of Lincoln (which is what forced the French to call for more reinforcements to start with), and the general defeat of the French invasion all happened after John had died though. Indeed, his death was a major turning point in the war, as a lot of English barons who had sided with Louis were more willing to side with an infant Henry III rather than John (who was not known for being forgiving to his former enemies). When John died, the French were still in control of large swathes of England, including London and most of the important ports, and were secure in their possession.
As for John as a ruler, all that can really be said about him is that he managed to provoke more or less constant rebellions, most of them entirely of his own making (right down to swiping the fiance of one of his vassals for no good reason, simultaneously providing Philip an excuse for an invasion and alienating one of the key individuals he would be relying on to oppose such an invasion). There has been some effort to rehabilitate John's reputation, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he picked needless fights (both internally and externally) and his reforms were generally ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.
They made documentaries about ~35 french kings. Curiously no Philippe the Fair and his sons... It has not much interest beside maps, some are very detailed(particulary Louis XI, Charles VIII, Louis XII).
Saint-Louis got an entire Stephan Bern's documentary which had better bugdet it seems. I don't like Stephan Bern and these inopportune interventions of Tariq Ali...but overal the cinematics are nice and for once, unlike the playlist above, they paid attention to typo-chronology, heraldry and it features reenactors at some points. St-Louis is played by Vladimir Perrin and his waifu Marguerite of Provence is beatiful
"Louis was the defensor of the poors, he had poors every day at his table, he even washed their feet before the lunch."
"As a simple monk[...] Louis IX takes his lunch among cistercians[in Royaumont]."
"St-Louis the Christian pure in heart, giving Justice under his oak tree."
"Cruel against blasphemators, Louis IX shows no mercy toward jews, cathars and muslims."
"For those who aren't christians, the saint easily becomes a persecutor."
I think it deserves to be know even If no english version exists so far, there are not many modern productions on french medieval period.
- 1
That documentary is rubbish, filled with factual mistakes. The author Michel de Decker is falsely presented as a historian when he was only a teacher of history over 50 years ago. Hardly academic knowledge. Louis Bériot is a journalist who has written countless books, I wouldn't have picked him as an "expert" given that his book seems to be a novel about the king. I have nothing against Robert Badinter, but why is the professor of private law and former Minister of Justice interviewed about Louis IX? From actual specialists we only get out of context snippets which do not present the nuance and tension present in any historical research. Avoid Secrets d'histoire like the plague, it is like a French version of The Sun but for history, filled with gossip about royal families.Saint-Louis got an entire Stephan Bern's documentary which had better bugdet it seems. I don't like Stephan Bern and these inopportune interventions of Tariq Ali...but overal the cinematics are nice and for once, unlike the playlist above, they paid attention to typo-chronology, heraldry and it features reenactors at some points. St-Louis is played by Vladimir Perrin and his waifu Marguerite of Provence is beatiful
On the Middle Ages I would rather recommend the podcast Passions Médiévistes : https://passionmedievistes.fr/ made by actual PhD or master graduates in medieval history who present what they study for their doctor's thesises or masters. They did a series Super Joute Royale: https://passionmedievistes.fr/category/passion-medievistes/sjr/
Otherwise Fréquences médiévales when they interview historians:
Last edited:
Nobody will sacrifice hours of his life to listen your site, If it has no graphic interest why not just read a book directly if you want to learn in depth?
Are you able to think in term of how TV documentaries or videos are more efficient at vulgarizing a theme and stimulating interest from grand public in comparison of an obscure podcast?
And where I said these guests had the ultimate academic knowlegde on St-Louis yet?
You can vulgarise in very different ways. I don't think the historical gossip from a TV-show riddled with inaccuracy achieves any of it at all, hence why Secrets d'histoire is a failed attempt at vulgarisation, might as well do a program about fantasy. There are actual real documentaries about Louis IX. YouTube channels do a better job at vulgarisation at that point, some which do videos related to history have over a million of subscribers and several have millions of views. ARTE also have many interesting documentaries that are accessible to the general public without inviting random guests with no knowledge of the subject at hand. Bern is a lot better when he visits old villages, that program at least has no pretense of doing serious history so the irrelevant anecdotes are entirely pertinent.
I criticised them for having no sourced knowledge at all or when they do being sidestepped so that you only hear snippets. Not having studied any history since secondary school or the 1970s and not having any interest in the sources means you are not pertinent in attempting to vulgarise about Louis IX.
Last edited:
Show a YouTube video that made +500k on the life of St-Louis. And not counting peoples who watched it in live when it was programmed on TV.
Which leads me to think, there is some ulterior motive behind this elitist attitude of yours, the real problem here is not Stephan Bern or even Decker, but well because Its too favorable to St-Louis, you would have prefered a three hours documentary on St-Louis burning talmuds.
Thats literally the first thing you had to say on him.
And congrats for the video on sexuality in medieval era to adress a point about french kings, Its totally on topic and the sound is perfect.
You realise I compared Secrets d'histoire with The Sun, right? High numbers of readers and viewers, rubbish content.
Because citing Youtube videos is a mark of elitism.
Unless you consider just the fact that you use and confront historical sources to be elitist?Do you seriously think I secretly appreciate Secrets d'histoire after having criticised it like I did? The show oscilliates between repeating cliché gossip about royal families and doing outright revisionism. The episode about Louis IX is just as bad as the average.
Yes, it is a major aspect of his reign, whether you like it or not. History is not about sorting out information you don't like.
I cited an example of that podcast, which also covers the topic of several kings.
- 1
You realise I compared Secrets d'histoire with The Sun, right? High numbers of readers and viewers, rubbish content.
Because citing Youtube videos is a mark of elitism.
Do you seriously think I secretly appreciate Secrets d'histoire after having criticised it like I did? The show oscilliates between repeating cliché gossip about royal families and doing outright revisionism. The episode about Louis IX is just as bad as the average.
Yes, it is a major aspect of his reign, whether you like it or not. History is not about sorting out information you don't like.
I don't think both are as rubbish, If Its not elitism Its snobism, meanwhile I must say I don't read The Sun or Secrets d'Histoire very often, to say the truth, I only know this one on St-Louis which became popular on internet with +500k views.
Sticking to books is ok, but saying YT history channels are fundamentally better than this particulary Secrets d'histoire makes no sense. In first place because no History Channel on YT have covered St-Louis In a long format as far I know. Or post it If you have one. And find something better than these podcasts. The problem with YT conferences(with actual historians) is that nobody watch them...they're not very popular. Storia Voce for exemple gets 5k, 10k, 20k views. Very limited impact on an audience that is already familiar with the themes proposed.
I don't particulary dislike the fact this aspect of St-Louis burning the talmud gets covered, and this Secrets d'Histoire very explicitly says "he was cruel against blasphemators...etc" in the first part, reminding us poor idiots that St-Louis was part of the Darkest Hours of Our History, in some way, and the insightful interventions of Tarek Ali allowed us to learn that Crusades= bad.
- 1
Philip IV has to be the worst. Bankrupted the country then vindictively disbanded the Knights Templar on false charges to try and cover his debts.
- 1
Disbanding the Knight Templars on false charges to pay for debt isn't necessarily a bad policy for the kingdom and bankruptcy is clearly an exaggeration. Legally it was a dubious trial, as with several other affairs during his reign. I would be more critical of his expulsion of the Jews and his devaluations did pose problems. With regards to the economy however, his reign is generally considered to have coincided with economic prosperity and the height of Champagne fairs, although the question is to what extent you can attribute that to him, and by the end of the reign the fairs declined due to the competition of the Northern European trade with the Italians.
- 1
Fairs decline, shortage of silver, weren't really his fault, more like international conjuncture. He had no possibility to prevent peoples to go by St-Gothard or using boats...etc, by 1280 It was clear the italian merchants would stop to irrigate Champagne with flows of money. France had little to no mines, some disorders were also caused by bimetalism that St-Louis copied from italians. Complex problems he tried to solve with simple solutions.
en.m.wikipedia.org
"Ad providam essentially handed over all Templar assets to the Hospitallers"
In all cases seizing lands wouldn't have solved the shortage of silver nor provided mountains of gold. The problem had reached a structural level and less lands more lands wasn't related, particulary when you look the size of Philippe the Fair's royal desmene, it was huge.
The worst of the worst reign could be Charles VI one, considering he was psychotic very early.
Ad providam - Wikipedia
"Ad providam essentially handed over all Templar assets to the Hospitallers"
In all cases seizing lands wouldn't have solved the shortage of silver nor provided mountains of gold. The problem had reached a structural level and less lands more lands wasn't related, particulary when you look the size of Philippe the Fair's royal desmene, it was huge.
The worst of the worst reign could be Charles VI one, considering he was psychotic very early.
honestly I think jean II "the good" was worse then charles VI with first "allowing" the chevauchée to devastate south-western france and later after poitiers the country fell into chaos with bandits ravaging south-eastern france and with charles "the bad" of navarra essentially ruling the country, it also has the citizens of paris murdering some of the dauphine's men and forcing him to wear their colours
also at least charles has the excuse of actually being insane rather then just being essentially a parody of french chivalry with upping your ransom to unmeetable numbers and abandonning your duty by giving yourself to captivity again when one of the people that was traded for you escaped
also at least charles has the excuse of actually being insane rather then just being essentially a parody of french chivalry with upping your ransom to unmeetable numbers and abandonning your duty by giving yourself to captivity again when one of the people that was traded for you escaped
In my humble opinion, I think Louis XIV is the best French King for having ruled more than any other king in Europe and the whole French court at that time revolves around him. He even got the best engineer Vauban to work for him.
King Richard bankrupted England with all this wars. John had to get money from somewhere and rich men (the barons) were feed up with paying for war after war, that's not john fault. Everything john dealt while he was king was Richards fault and John gets the blame. He can not win.
The navel battle of Sandwich is nearly all but forgotten today (strange as it one of the most important navel battles in history as it stopped the french invading England) as there very little about it online. I thought John may have been alive to see it alive but your right he was dead when it happened. John did stop the civil war unite the whole of England to face the French. Again John spent most of this rule cleaning up his brothers mess and he gets a very bad reputation because of that.
In Philp IV defence (I can not believe I'm doing this given how much of a evil man he was) he maybe had been worried that The Knights Templar were going to do what the Teutonic Order did to Poland but this time in France so he may have been right to get rid of them to save France. What you have to remember is that one holy order (The Teutonic Order) had all ready carved out their own state in Europe when they attacked their then allies the the Polish simply because they decided they wanted Polish lands. The Knights Templar probably would have not have attacked parts of France to try and create their own Kingdom in Europe to set up as a new base but mainstream holly wars in the middle east were all but dead and that was the soul reason for The Knights Templar existing. Without that, what was really the point of them any more? They may have needed a new reason to exist and stay very powerful and what better way to do that than simply do what The Teutonic Order had done to Poland. Philip IV could not take that risk now could he.
Last edited:
His "evilness" was mainly built by modern perspective, a mix of templarbooism, of projection of modern culpability on the past(the need to find the roots of antisemitism in the past) and a complete ignorance of how worked finances back then, which was demonstrated posts earlier by another poster.
When you look at the number of wars happening under his reign, there are fews, we can't even say he liked war, he didn't. The only thing which he could be blamed for, a posteriori of course, that he maried his daughter in England. But he had no way to foresee what would happen next when his last son Charles IV died.