Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The best and the worst monarchs

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.
Originally posted by Martinus

Well, sorry to disappoint you Greven, but he is not remembered particularly fondly in Poland. The good thing about him is that he did not oppose the reforms too much. Besides he would have been quite good minister of culture and art.

Otherwise however, he was a weak monarch, acting according to the dictate of Catherine the Great of Russia (lover of whom, btw, he was).
Click to expand...

Actually I have read that Catherine the Great was rather pissed that he did not do what she wanted him to do when he became King of Poland. Yes I also know that he was sometimes rather indeceisive when come to the reforms, but from what I have heard this was mostly out of concern for the problematic diplomatic position Poland was in.:)

/Greven
 
Finland's best monarch ever:

Väinö I. He didn't make a single mistake during his reign.

Finland's worst monarch ever:

Väinö I. He lost his crown before he even arrived in Finland.

(Contest cancelled due to lack of competition)
 
Graven, about Sobieski

"Poland's foreign relations followed surely in the path of her military decline. The struggle to check the Hohenzollerns' relentless drive for independence in Brandenburg-Prussia was abandoned in 1657 at the Treaty of Wehlau. The interminable duel with Sweden, which began with the Livonian Wars and was compounded by Polish Vasas' dynastic claim, came to an end in 1660 in stalemate, at the Treaty of Oliwa. The still longer feud with Muscovy reached a similar state of apparent deadlock and mutual exhaustion at the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. At this very point, when the Republic seemed to have reached a modus vivendi with each of her traditional opponents of the previous century, she was attacked for the first time in nearly fifty years by the Turks. And the Turkish challenge was to have momentous consequences. For Sobieski's strategic decision to concentrate all his resources on the Turkish threat, at the cost of all of the Republic's other foreign concerns, was a certain invitation for later disasters. Sobieski may have scattered the Turks, and recovered the province of Podolia, which was returned to Poland by the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699); but in so doing, he saved Vienna, and exhausted his troops in the Austrians' recovery of Hungary. He surrendered his original intention of bringing the Prussians to heel; and was forced to leave the Muscovites in their possession of Ukraine (1686). The cost far outweighted the gains. The Habsburg realm, in control of Hungary, was revived as a great power. The Prussians proceeded to gain international recognition for their independent kingdom (1701); and the Muscovites, in possession of Ukraine, were set to build the Russian Empire."

Anyone can guess who has written this?
 
Best king of England: Charles III aka Bonnie prince Charlie

He could actually speak english, unlike the Hannover usurpers.

Best king of Prussia: Fridericus Rex!

Best king of the Netherlands: none, it only became a kingdom after our timeframe.

Worst king of France: Everyone called Louis.

My favourite monarchs are the rulers (princes?) of Liechtenstein because they didn't get involved in wars.

But I like also the great Swedish warrior-king Charles XII. I particularly feel sorry for him because in my last game he ended up in South Africa with 0 men. I was waiting for him to march back to Sweden and from there starting to conquer the world again, but alas the virtual Charles XII was less intelligent than his real life Doppelganger...or maybe walking to Stockholm from South Africa is just a lot more difficult than from Turkey...
 
Now that you mention the King of America...At the end of his life Bonnie Prince Charlie was offered the American throne! In 1782 George Washington asked Charles to become king of the Americans, but he refused because he didn't have legal heirs at that time, and after his death the Hannoverians might want to usurp the throne of the Americans as well.
After Charles' death in 1788 George Washington gave up the idea of making America a monarchy. Because Washington wanted to prevent the Hannoverians from claiming the American throne and he wasn't enough of royal blood to become King of the Americans himself, America became a presidential republic with George Washington as the first elected president.

Source: Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner, take care book is illegal in some European countries,
 
Are you sure England-I've heard of that book and could have sworn it was on sale here!

(There's normally a bit of a stink, at least in certain circles, when a book is banned-so it really doesn't happen anymore)
 
Theres no mention of not for sale, for any countrys, on any of the sites i just went through.

Hannibal
 
I don't like censorship, but if there's got to be censorship I like the kind where you have a list of forbidden books (Index librorum prohibitorum) more than where they randomly make it illegal to read certain books without clear rules as to what is allowed and what not. Problem for the censors is as Agelastus points that putting a book on the illegal-list attracts attention to it. So it only really works if the censors also control the media.
I think censoring books on medieval history is even more silly than censoring books about drugs, the government etc.
Anyway here's a link with books your leaders do not want you to read. http://www.overthrow.com/
---Don't go there, it's against the law.
---Well officer I'm just checking to see what those evil unbelievers are up to so I can turn them in!
---Ah then it's alright!

UPDATE: Forget the previous link as to downloading books is concerned...they connect you to a bookseller where they then tell you they don't have the book. A link with in some European countries illegal stuff about the middle ages is http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/index.html?articles
 
Last edited:
WFHermans, Rex F. asked and I'm also curious. Why is Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner supposedly illegal in some European countries? And why are many of those other texts on medieval history supposedly illegal? If you could just give the short version for those of us who lack the energy to find out ourselves.
 
Books like Bloodline of the Holy Grail contain a let's say unusual view of history, where history is not being made only by kings battling it out in the open but also by more secretive groups. The more such a book is on the mark the bigger the chance it will be hard to get. As pointed out earlier in this thread, an outright ban, through court or some other ruling, will draw undue attention and nobody wants that. So a modern state will use a more effective method (for ecample, I just read that the writer of the biography about the present US president Bush, in which his cocaine habit is decribed, "committed suicide".
Now as I understand from the posts in this thread you can buy this book everywhere, which means his ideas are not really dangerous and not true. It contains basically the genealogies of the important European ruling houses connected to Jesus Christ (through Clovis). And there are some secret organisations mentioned that are supposed to support those bloodlines. However, those secret organisations were apparently not powerful enough to stop the monarchs from losing their thrones. The book makes a claim for the Jacobites which would have meant a death sentence for the writer in 1690, a prison sentence in 1790, difficulties in 1880 (the writer claims that "Charles IV" the Jacobite pretender was murdered in 1887 by agents of the British government) but there seem to be no problems now. In fact the present claimant of the Scottish throne, who descends from the expelled king Charles II (Jacobus, hence the name Jacobites), is living in Scotland now.
More about this book in a way that is also more likely to offend in http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/index.html?articles/elitism
and just remember the better you're on the right track the harder the path can be followed. Which means if about an interesting idea you can't find information then the idea is probbly right.
 
Well, it is nice to have my suspicions about WFHermans confirmed-he is one of the world's conspiracy theorists ("nuts".) Stay tuned for more links to other amusing lunacies.

By the way, if you have an idea and you can't find any information on it.........it normally means that you're just wrong or foolish, not that the world is run by some shadowy sect going back thousands of years!

The bloodline of Jesus tracing through Clovis is just laughable, since the odds are good he didn't exist at all!
 
One way to deal with ideas you don't like is to misquote them and then refute this misquote you yourself made up. For example The conspiracy nuts claim that hundreds of people were involved in the murder of John F. Kennedy but it's obvious that such a huge conspiracy couldn't remain secret, therefore Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin. (Note here also the technique of labelling the person that makes a statement to proof the statement isn't true. Far easier than actually refuting the statement.)

I wrote about an interesting idea you can't find information then the idea is probbly right. so you simply left out the word "interesting" and refuted the new statemnt you just made up. Hey, you would make a great CNN reporter.
 
Nuts

If you are looking for a real conspericy nut look up David Icke (Twelve foot lizards rule the world), scary thing is this guy packs halls with people willing to listen to his lectures on his theories, there was a good Documentry on C4 recently, were fellow conspericy theorists (They believe the world is basically one big anti jewish leauge..ie all of us)attacked ICKE accusing him of being a nazi and his use of twelve foot lizards really means Jews, after watching these guys you realise they are just as scary as Icke himself.
 
OK, WFHermans, if you're going to be like that.

"By the way, if you have an interesting idea and can't find any information on it..........it normally means that you are just wrong or foolish, not that the world is run by some shadowy sect going back thousands of years!"

David Icke is a total loon-that's what you get when you spend several years presenting Sports Programmes!:D He may be considered a conspiracy theorist now, but his original ideas were a religious "revelation".

Oh, and WFHermans-I'm not sold on the lone Gunman idea either for the Kennedy assassination, but that doesn't mean I go to the extremes represented by at least one of the sites you recommended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back