Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Best and worst French kings

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.
Best Henry IV, because paris is worth a mass and ending the wars of religion.

Worst, Louis XIV for has many wars and his religious policies.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Obviously the Sun-King without a doubt, France held as much soft power during and after his reign as America in the 1970's and 80's. Frederick II only spoke French and thought German was for dogs.

I'm not saying the Sun-King is the cause of French cultural dominance but during his era it really cemented itself as the new center of European culture and part of that must be credited to him

Personal favorite though, uh, probably Napoleon or Napoleon III because they ruled like EU4 and Vicky 2 players play
 
  • Worst: Henry VI of England (hey, he was technically crowned as King of France! in France even, and ruled a good chunk of it for most of his reign). It takes a very special kind of incompetence to manage to be kicked off of not one but two thrones, for completely separate reasons. And he even managed to get kicked off the English throne twice.
    • If we are indulging the French monarchist effort to retcon the Lancastrian interlude out of existence, the runner up would have to Charles X, for more or less the same reasons. Louis XVI, for all his myriad faults, had the excuse of not realizing the French might rise up and overthrow him. Charles X had seen exactly that happen, and decided to do his level best to repeat the process.
  • Best: Philip II. He started off in an extremely weak position, with limited control over his country, and Henry II of England ruling over most of France. He managed to play the Plantagenets against each other and ended up seizing most of their territory while establishing much greater control over France proper (helped by annexing the former English possessions, as well as seeing the Cathar lords crushed).
 
User29 said:
Frederick II only spoke French and thought German was for dogs.
Click to expand...
He preferred French. That's quite the difference.
 
Mder1 said:
He preferred French. That's quite the difference.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, "preferred" is strongly strongly underselling it
 
Rubidium said:
  • Worst: Henry VI of England (hey, he was technically crowned as King of France! in France even, and ruled a good chunk of it for most of his reign). It takes a very special kind of incompetence to manage to be kicked off of not one but two thrones, for completely separate reasons. And he even managed to get kicked off the English throne twice.
    • If we are indulging the French monarchist effort to retcon the Lancastrian interlude out of existence, the runner up would have to Charles X, for more or less the same reasons. Louis XVI, for all his myriad faults, had the excuse of not realizing the French might rise up and overthrow him. Charles X had seen exactly that happen, and decided to do his level best to repeat the process.
  • Best: Philip II. He started off in an extremely weak position, with limited control over his country, and Henry II of England ruling over most of France. He managed to play the Plantagenets against each other and ended up seizing most of their territory while establishing much greater control over France proper (helped by annexing the former English possessions, as well as seeing the Cathar lords crushed).
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree, Phillip Augustus was a badass king
 
Rubidium said:
  • If we are indulging the French monarchist effort to retcon the Lancastrian interlude out of existence, the runner up would have to Charles X, for more or less the same reasons. Louis XVI, for all his myriad faults, had the excuse of not realizing the French might rise up and overthrow him. Charles X had seen exactly that happen, and decided to do his level best to repeat the process.
Click to expand...
While I don't find the "best" and "worst" categorisation to be pertinent for a number of reason, and do not believe in ultra-personnalisation around the figure of the king (even for a king like Louis XIV this can be stated, read Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français [Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen] by Pierre Goubert if you have any doubts), on Louis XVI you should nuance the capacity of rising up and overthrowing. There was a deconsecration of the figure of the king during the Revolution, and a transfer of sovereignty from the king to the people through the Assemblée nationale, but the English example with the execution of Charles I was an example the king knew of. Furthermore, Louis XVI himself made the conscious choice of committing high treason, the start of the Revolution was actually characterised by sympathy towards the king, with the old myth of bad counsellors at Versailles. So he himself burnt that sympathy and created the Republic by his policies, excluding the possibility of a constitutional monarchy, which was what the patriots initially demanded. That being said, I agree with Charles X having been an awful king by all measures, being particularly out of touch with his ultra-royalist reactionary approach.
 
loup99 said:
While I don't find the "best" and "worst" categorisation to be pertinent for a number of reason, and do not believe in ultra-personnalisation around the figure of the king (even for a king like Louis XIV this can be stated, read Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français [Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen] by Pierre Goubert if you have any doubts), on Louis XVI you should nuance the capacity of rising up and overthrowing. There was a deconsecration of the figure of the king during the Revolution, and a transfer of sovereignty from the king to the people through the Assemblée nationale, but the English example with the execution of Charles I was an example the king knew of. Furthermore, Louis XVI himself made the conscious choice of committing high treason, the start of the Revolution was actually characterised by sympathy towards the king, with the old myth of bad counsellors at Versailles. So he himself burnt that sympathy and created the Republic by his policies, excluding the possibility of a constitutional monarchy, which was what the patriots initially demanded.
Click to expand...
Was Louis XVI actually a political person at all? From the history I get the impression he had no understanding at all of politics. He was just a guy acting out the role of the king, without caring much about what went on around him. Not a bad person at all but totally the wrong person for the job at that particular time in French history
 
JodelDiplom said:
Was Louis XVI actually a political person at all? From the history I get the impression he had no understanding at all of politics. He was just the guy acting out the role of the king
Click to expand...
That has since been revised by historiography, he was fully aware of what he was doing and wanted to reign by maintaining absolutism. When he fled it was to restore control over a situation he no longer mastered, being a prisoner of the population of Paris since he had been forced out of Versailles due to the Women's March. From the start Louis XVI refused to embrace the Revolution, always attempting to delay the events and try to get the upper hand to keep his power. He only accepted to compromise when he was left with no other choice.
 
loup99 said:
While I don't find the "best" and "worst" categorisation to be pertinent for a number of reason, and do not believe in ultra-personnalisation around the figure of the king (even for a king like Louis XIV this can be stated, read Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français [Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen] by Pierre Goubert if you have any doubts), on Louis XVI you should nuance the capacity of rising up and overthrowing. There was a deconsecration of the figure of the king during the Revolution, and a transfer of sovereignty from the king to the people through the Assemblée nationale, but the English example with the execution of Charles I was an example the king knew of. Furthermore, Louis XVI himself made the conscious choice of committing high treason, the start of the Revolution was actually characterised by sympathy towards the king, with the old myth of bad counsellors at Versailles. So he himself burnt that sympathy and created the Republic by his policies, excluding the possibility of a constitutional monarchy, which was what the patriots initially demanded. That being said, I agree with Charles X having been an awful king by all measures, being particularly out of touch with his ultra-royalist reactionary approach.
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely! Both on the terribleness of Louis XVI (who would have been my choice if Charles X hadn't existed) and the silliness of these Great Man dominated approaches to things.

But arguing about pointless things on the internet can be fun, and I figure Louis XVI at least had the excuse of plausibly believing "it can't happen here" (as so many people have done, throughout history), while Charles X had literally seen it "happen here," and chose to actively reject the lesson.
 
Charles X was the worst french king to France wich have existed. By his blindness, he destroy the processus of Bourbons monarchy restauration in France and his dynasty was chased away by Révolution de Juillet by essentially his fault.
 
User29 said:
From what I've read, "preferred" is strongly strongly underselling it
Click to expand...

Not really. He had to rule Prussia and lead its armies after all. So it was at least a necessity for his day job, especially considering his tendency to micro manage the half realm.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
loup99 said:
While I don't find the "best" and "worst" categorisation to be pertinent for a number of reason, and do not believe in ultra-personnalisation around the figure of the king (even for a king like Louis XIV this can be stated, read Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français [Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen] by Pierre Goubert if you have any doubts), on Louis XVI you should nuance the capacity of rising up and overthrowing. There was a deconsecration of the figure of the king during the Revolution, and a transfer of sovereignty from the king to the people through the Assemblée nationale, but the English example with the execution of Charles I was an example the king knew of. Furthermore, Louis XVI himself made the conscious choice of committing high treason, the start of the Revolution was actually characterised by sympathy towards the king, with the old myth of bad counsellors at Versailles. So he himself burnt that sympathy and created the Republic by his policies, excluding the possibility of a constitutional monarchy, which was what the patriots initially demanded. That being said, I agree with Charles X having been an awful king by all measures, being particularly out of touch with his ultra-royalist reactionary approach.
Click to expand...

might the thousands of people publicly, loudly and insistingly demanding his head have anything to do with his flight?
the moderates ought to have executed the radicals from the start and today the french revoltution would be known as a glorious event instead of a giant elephant in the room that has to be tiptoe'd around
 
demanvanwezel said:
might the thousands of people publicly, loudly and insistingly demanding his head have anything to do with his flight?
Click to expand...
That is factually wrong though. When the Bastille was stormed on the 14th of July no one asked for the head of Louis XVI. Marie-Antoinette was already very impopular during the October Days, but Louis XVI wasn't, asking for him to come to Paris and leave Versailles is a sign of popularity.
demanvanwezel said:
the moderates ought to have executed the radicals from the start and today the french revoltution would be known as a glorious event instead of a giant elephant in the room that has to be tiptoe'd around
Click to expand...
Most radicals were executed, "moderates" who survived participated in ending the Republic with their coups during the Directoire and then many of them supported Bonaparte.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back