My Favorite Swedish Kings (House of Vasa to 1720)

I - King Sigismund: King Sigismund I of Sweden and Sigismund III of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was elected King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1587 and is probably better known for his rule over those lands than Sweden. Born to parents being held prisoner by the Protestant King Eric XIV, Sigismund was raised in the old religion and would go on to become one of the great Catholic champions of Europe. Inheriting the claim of his father to the Swedish throne, regaining control of Sweden was a lifelong goal for him. Promising to respect the Lutheran Church there he was finally crowned King of Sweden in 1594. A strong supporter of the Catholic (Counter) Reformation, this made many Swedes nervous, especially as he supported the Jesuit order and stamped out heresy in Poland. He fought Russia, his troops even taking Moscow for a time and he worked to strengthen the monarchy and made Poland the dominant power in eastern Europe. He was a man of great principles, strength and determination, a devout man but never a fanatical one who managed to make himself master of north and east Europe.

II - King Gustavus Adolphus: Contrary to Sigismund I, Gustavus Adolphus was a devout Lutheran and became known as the Protestant champion of Europe for his part in the devastating Thirty Years War in Germany. Undoubtedly one of the greatest kings in Swedish history, Gustav II Adolph came to the throne in 1611 and soon established himself as one of the greatest military minds in history. He was the first to integrate infantry, cavalry and artillery on the battlefield and became known as the “Father of Modern Warfare”. He also took care to have a disciplined and virtuous army which, the facts speak for themselves, made the Swedish army an even more effective force on the battlefield. He won control of the Baltic from Poland and made Sweden the dominant power in northern Europe. More a general than a statesman, knew his own limitations and appointed talented men to oversee the government while he fought the wars. A brilliant commander, known as the “Lion of the North” it was the French who brought him in to stave off a Hapsburg victory in the Thirty Years War and though he died in the field, there is little doubt the Catholic forces would have been victorious were it not for the genius of Gustavus Adolphus.

III - Queen Christina: The daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, Queen Christina succeeded to the Swedish throne in 1632 as “King” which was just as well as her father had raised her as a boy anyway. A great deal of nonsense and, frankly, slander has been written about Queen Christina, however, there was a great deal to admire about her. She was extremely intelligent, curious, had a real thirst for knowledge and was not afraid to go her own way and do what she thought was right. She is most famous, ironically enough for the daughter of the savior of Protestantism in Europe, for abdicating the Swedish throne in order to follow her convictions and convert to Catholicism, which she did in 1654. Her conversion was one of the head more than the heart and she took great care in preparing for the abdication so that the transfer of power would go smoothly. She was a woman of courage, consideration and strong opinions. It was also during her reign that Sweden became a colonial empire, establishing (with Finland) an enclave in North America centered on Fort Christina.

IV - King Charles XII: Probably my favorite Swedish king, Charles XII came to the throne in 1697 and, in time, would become known as “the Last Viking”. Like Gustavus Adolphus before him, King Charles XII would go down in history as one of the great warrior kings of all time and one of the most influential military commanders ever. In many ways he was the embodiment of the dictum of the great Frederick, “l’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace”. Most of his reign was dominated by the Great Northern War when Denmark, Norway, Poland, Lithuania, Saxony and Russia all decided to gang up on Sweden only to have King Charles XII put a royal Swedish smack-down on the lot of them. He not only held them off, but struck back and won victory upon victory until only the Russians were left standing. Thinking sooner was better than later, this King of Sweden looked over at the Russian Empire of Peter the Great and said to himself, “I think I can take’em!” He didn’t of course, but it was courage and audacity such as has seldom ever been seen. Sadly, but appropriately enough, he too died in the field while on campaign.

V - King Gustav III: Coming to the throne in 1771, I dislike the “Enlightened” tastes of this monarch but greatly admire the “despot” in him. After some period of hardship, he restored Sweden as a militarily significant power even though his efforts to expand Swedish territory came to nothing. Still, he was a strong monarch with a clear mind toward a well-ordered society. In something of a ‘royal coup’ he took over the government and restored the absolute monarchy in Sweden. Far from bringing about backward stagnation, King Gustav III ordered religious toleration, economic freedom and abolished torture and capital punishment -hardly what most would think of as the actions of a royal autocrat. He did, however, put a muzzle on the media which was probably for the best anyway. Given some of his ideas, many at the time amongst the crowned heads of Europe might have thought him to be some sort of radical progressive, however, the best thing about Gustav III was that he was a monarchists’ monarch. Shocked and infuriated by the French Revolution, he tried to form an alliance of monarchies to wipe out revolutionary republicanism at the outset; nip it in the bud you might say. Sadly, he was assassinated in a plot by parliament to regain power but, God bless him, he lingered just long enough to thwart them.

My Favorite Hapsburg Emperors

I - Emperor Charles V: Charles V was elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. His coronation by Pope Clement VII in Bologna in 1530 was the last ceremony of its kind to date. As the ruler of the lands around Austria, the Low Countries and Spain, with new explorations claiming territory in the Americas, his was the first empire upon which it was said that the sun never set. He was also a man beset by enemies but had a level of determination up to the task, fighting Protestant rebels in Germany, the French in northern Italy and the Turks in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. In 1525 he won a great victory of France at Pavia, after which the King of France and the Pope allied against him. Charles later made peace with the Protestants, captured Tunis in North Africa, reformed the law code, defeated a French attack on the Low Countries and sent Magellan on his historic voyage of circumnavigation. In 1556 he abdicated and retired to a life of prayer.

II - Empress Maria Theresa: After inheriting the throne of her father in 1740, Empress Maria Theresa was immediately attacked by a large alliance of nations who meant to prevent her succession including the great Frederick II of Prussia, the finest soldier in Europe. Though she was only 23, she refused to give in or show weakness and put up a spirited struggle, losing some territory but retaining her crown. She restored the Austrian economy by taxing the nobility and lowering taxes on the common people. She reformed the army, improved the legal system and made education available to everyone. Under her rule, the peasants gained their freedom and the right to own their own land. The Empress was a devout and pious Catholic woman and gave refuge to the Society of Jesus when others (even her own son) exiled them. In 1772 she gained territory for Austria in the first partition of Poland, perhaps the only regrettable decision she ever made.

III - Emperor Joseph II: Elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1765, Joseph II was an “Enlightened Despot” in every sense of the word. He was ambitious, not very personally charming, autocratic and at the same time extremely forward thinking. He was the first to grant (limited) freedom of religion in the Hapsburg lands, freed the serfs and tried to enforce German as the official common language of the empire. His dream was to make the Hapsburg Empire the most powerful in Europe, leading to clashes with Prussia and the Turks. Joseph II was a great patron of music, most famously commissioning work from Mozart. He built the first truly public parks and housing for the poor. Because of all he did to improve their lives the common folk adored him, hailing him as the “People’s Emperor”. Unfortunately, he brought religion under state control and so earned the wrath of the clergy and many nobles. Though he heard mass every morning of his life he was suspected of being a skeptic.

IV - Emperor Francis Joseph I: Not the most successful Hapsburg emperor in history by any means, Francis Joseph was nevertheless a monarch who refused to adjust his principles, a good and upright man who always sought to do his duty to the best of his ability and to serve the best interests of his people. He came to the throne in 1848, put down the revolutions and reestablished the House of Hapsburg as the great stabilizing force in central Europe. His personal life was beset by tragedy and the international situation for Austria (later Austria-Hungary) declined after a series of diplomatic and military disasters. Nonetheless, Francis Joseph held things together by his own integrity, work ethic and devotion to duty. The country was also developing rapidly and the prestige of the monarchy remained strong until the onset of the First World War in 1914, a conflict the Emperor had deep concerns over and which he had to be deceived into declaring.

V - Emperor Charles I: Coming to the throne in the midst of World War I in 1916, the new monarch already had a reputation as a brave soldier, devoted husband and father and a sincere man of God. He saw monarchy as a sacred duty and behaved accordingly. The Emperor viewed the alliance with Germany as a prison, distrusted the Germans and devoted himself to extricating Austria-Hungary from the First World War. He showed himself willing to sacrifice considerable territories if only he could gain peace but the Allies proved implacable. He agreed to reorganizing the Hapsburg empire into a confederation of autonomous national states but was never allowed the time to carry out such a plan. When the end came in 1918 he bowed to the inevitable but refused to abdicate, viewing such a thing as a renunciation of his responsibility to God. After being forced into exile he tried twice to regain his Hungarian throne but was loathe to shed the blood of his own people.

Not so favorites: Emperor Ferdinand I for not taking religion more into account and his son Maximilian II for not making up his mind on which faith he wanted to follow and, yes, Joseph II -who makes my best and worst lists at the same time for his needless religious antagonism.

My Favorite Savoy Kings

I - King Victor Amadeus III: The third King of Piedmont-Sardinia, Victor Amadeus III was my kind of guy; very conservative, very religious and very pro-military, which was generally the rule rather than the exception in the House of Savoy. He was an adherent of the old adage that, when change is not necessary it is necessary not to change. This meant that he was conservative where it mattered but open to reform areas that needed improvement. These included some bureaucratic changes and infrastructure improvements but his most famous reform was of the army which he did by following the example of the Prussian model; the most efficient and effective army of the day, particularly inspirational for leaders of small countries with small available forces. He even thought of attempting an alliance with Prussia to offset the danger posed by the recent Franco-Austrian alliance, however, when the French Revolution broke out he put all else aside and provided a safe haven to French royalists and refugees. Devotion to the monarchial principle compelled him to go to war with the French Republic even though the odds were clearly hopeless. He was also a good natured and generous man who was popular with his people.

II - King Charles Emmanuel IV: A favorite of mine mostly for his own qualities rather than any great accomplishments on his part, which was no fault of his own but due to the fact that he reigned at a time when Revolutionary France was on the rampage and all neighboring states had been occupied. He spent most of his reign in exile in Sardinia and Rome. He was a dutiful man who never gave up the struggle to return Savoy rule to Turin and he was also a very kind and religious man. He had an arranged marriage to a French princess who was mocked in her own country for being overweight and unattractive and she was never able to give the King any children, yet Charles Emmanuel IV loved her and her alone as long as she lived. He did so, not out of duty, not with any hint of sacrifice (indeed he had nothing but praise for his wife) but because they both shared the same deep, sincere faith. He saw the “inner beauty” of her devout soul and felt himself fortunate to have her. When she died he was absolutely distraught and decided to give himself entirely to the service of God, joining the Society of Jesus for the remainder of his years. In terms of character and spiritual devotion, Charles Emmanuel IV was a great man.

III - King Charles Felix: As someone who is proudly reactionary, I cannot help but admire King Charles Felix. He came to the throne in the midst of a revolutionary uprising during which a more liberal relative (future King Charles Albert) granted a constitution. Well, King Charles Felix was having none of that silliness. He returned to Turin, put a royal smack-down on the dissidents and did away with all of that constitution nonsense. King Charles Felix stands out, even among the Savoy, as an ardent and sincere believer in the sacred nature of monarchy. Memories of the French Revolution still lingered and he was determined to remove every last trace of the imposed revolutionary regime from Piedmont -and he was not kidding about that, he really meant every, single, last trace of it. My favorite illustration of this was the restoration of the aristocratic posts at court. When this resulted in “pageboys” including a number of middle-aged men among the usual early teenagers it made no difference to Charles Felix. Everyone entitled to a place would have it back! He was also a patron of the arts, music and theatre and sent a punitive expedition to Tunisia in 1825, strengthening the future Italian claim to the area.

IV - King Umberto I: Although he was a far from perfect man, King Umberto I took a number of actions that earns him high marks with me. He was a very monarchist monarch, joining in the Triple Alliance with Germany and Italy’s traditional enemy of Austria because of efforts by the French republic to export their kingless form of government to Italy. The French seizure of Tunisia also infuriated the court in Rome. Although more realistic than his father, Umberto I nonetheless had high aspirations for the Kingdom of Italy and supported the policies of his Prime Minister, Francesco Crispi, which saw the establishment of the first Italian colony in East Africa in Eritrea. Hopes for further expansion were dashed by the defeat at Adowa but King Umberto responded well, defending his unjustly maligned general and secretly using his own funds to pay the victorious Africans the money they demanded and to release their Italian prisoners. He had no compunction about swatting socialist revolutionaries and was generous and helpful toward his people. The fact that he was assassinated by a socialist revolutionary also makes me view him as something of a political martyr.

V - King Victor Emmanuel III: The most controversial of course, King Victor Emmanuel III was an imperfect man who certainly made mistakes, however, I have always had a soft spot for him. I detest people who make an issue of his size (as I do with those who do the same for Charles I of Britain and other ‘vertically challenged’ royals) and I detest those who ridicule his decisions without ever proposing alternatives or considering the consequences of those alternatives. Despite the sad ending, his reign accomplished many things his predecessors had long sought but never achieved; return of Italian-populated lands in the northeast, Italian dominance in East Africa, a foothold on the opposite shore of the Adriatic, restored friendship with the Church and greater strides in terms of national development. Circumstances aside, Italy reached her zenith of power under his reign with, for the first time in many, many centuries, Rome again becoming an imperial capital. He was also a good man, a devoted husband and was usually on the right side of issues even if few followed his advice when it mattered most. He usually did the right thing but suffered the consequences of often being a little late in doing so.

My Favorite Romanov Tsars

I - Tsar Alexei I: The ‘last hurrah’ of Muscovite Russia, Alexei I was a good Tsar, good to his friends, harsh to his enemies and a man of sincere faith who was not above correcting priests when they made a liturgical mistake -because he knew it all by heart. He had some problems with the Church but his personal faith was never in question. Alexei was, in some ways, the last “old school” Russian tsar, but he was not closed-minded and willing to learn from the west if it would make Russia better. Many of the accomplishments later attributed to Peter the Great were built on the foundation that had been set down by Tsar Alexei. Likewise, the territorial gains made by the wars during the reign of Alexei were a crucial starting point for the larger acquisitions of Peter later on. He improved the army and was an ardent monarchist who cut off trade with England after the regicide of King Charles I and sent assistance to King Charles II in his exile. He died during a war to defend Poland from the Turks.

II - Tsar Paul I: A controversial choice, but a favorite of mine, Paul I was another very monarchist monarch. He had his faults but, unlike many, he was aware of them and tried to mitigate them through living a very regimented life. He pressed for a better army, better conditions for the serfs and to make war on revolutionary France to see the legitimate monarchs of that country and Italy restored. He wanted to restore Malta to the Knights of St John, being their protector, but fell out with the allies when it became clear that Austria was intent on annexing Italian territory rather than restoring the former monarchs and that Britain insisted on retaining Malta rather than returning it to the Knights. Hoping Napoleon would be a counter-revolutionary he made peace with him and even contemplated an invasion of India as punishment for what he saw as British perfidy. These rather drastic foreign policy changes, along with his sometimes odd personality earned him the nickname of the “Mad Tsar” but his commitment to royal legitimacy was always at the heart of it. In truth, the accusations of insanity were probably put out as simply a means of justification for the plotters who overthrew him.

III - Tsar Nicholas I: One of my absolute favorites, from any country, Nicholas I came to the throne, unexpectedly, in 1825 and soon earned the nickname of the “Iron Tsar” for his rather firm style of ruling. He was a stern, disciplined monarch but a devoted family man as well. His rule of Russia is often summed up in three words: Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. He was committed to maintaining the centrality of the Russian Orthodox Church, the autocracy of the monarch and keeping Russia firmly and solidly Russian. Rebellions or revolutionary activity were dealt with swiftly and firmly and no immediate or potential threats to the Orthodox faith, the autocracy or the Russian people would be tolerated. Another very monarchist monarch, he was just as watchful for trouble abroad and was quick to offer help to any sovereign in danger from revolutionaries. Particularly after sending Russian troops to suppress the rebellion in Hungary against the Hapsburg monarchy he earned a new nickname, the “Gendarme of Europe”. He was successful in stamping out rebellion, defeated the Turks and improved education. He was in the midst of another war with Turkey, fought on behalf of the Christian position in the Holy Land when he died in 1855.

IV - Tsar Alexander III: A great monarch and a great man as well, Alexander III matches the perfect image one tends to have of a Romanov Tsar. He was a huge, powerful man and a strong ruler but also a man who adored his family, loved children, music and simple living. He favored the policy of “Official Nationality” of Nicholas I and dealt zealously with dissidents and revolutionaries. His government lowered taxes, enacted child labor laws and in hard times organized the aristocracy to respond with charitable giving rather than government programs. Industrial and infrastructure improvements increased and Russian power expanded in Central Asia. When Austro-German policies conflicted with those of Russia he allied with France and expanded Russian influence in the east by building the Trans-Siberian Railway. He died, beloved by his family and respected by his people in 1894.

V - Tsar Nicholas II: Many have criticized Nicholas II for being indecisive, however, what those people call indecisiveness I call a sober appreciation for the weight and responsibility, as well as the sacred nature, of his position as tsar. Certainly there were many problems during the reign of Nicholas II and of course mistakes were made, but much of this has been overblown. The reign of Nicholas II also saw great strides being made in industrialization and overall internal development. However, I admire him most for his personal qualities. He was very religious, a very devoted husband and father, a good judge of character and talent (despite what you may have heard) and a man of impeccable moral standards. In hindsight I can say that his greatest mistake was involving Russia in World War I (something he was not eager to do) but even then he was acting with very noble motivations. Under Nicholas, coal and iron production tripled, more people were educated than ever before in Russian history and despite what detractors say he was not bigoted or intolerant, blocking efforts to limit the civil rights of Jews for example. Likewise, his management of the war was not the total disaster it is often made out to be. In fact, Russia was showing signs of being on the verge of a massive recovery when the revolution broke out. However, it is more than enough that he was one of the most (perhaps the most) virtuous, upright and moral men to ever lead Russia.

My Favorite Kings of Spain

I - Queen Isabella: yes, I know, not a king, not exactly the ruler of “Spain” as we know it today, but I could not very well leave Queen Isabella out. She is one the most giant, iconic figures in Spanish history. Her marriage to Ferdinand of Aragon brought a new unity to Christian Spain, and she ruled alongside him as an equal. Their conquest of Granada ended the 800-year war against the Muslim occupation of Spain in 1492 and that same year she set Columbus off on his voyage that led to the discovery of the New World and put down the first seeds for what grew into Latin America. More controversially, she also set up the notorious Spanish Inquisition, however, this was ultimately to the benefit of Spain as (despite going a bit overboard sometimes) it spared Spain from the horrific, catastrophic wars of religion that so divided and devastated Britain, France and especially Germany.

II - King Carlos I: better known by his superior title, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, one of the greatest Hapsburg monarchs in European history, despite some problems in his private life, was an upstanding monarch is almost every way. His Hapsburg connections made Spain part of the largest Christian realm in the world and it was the empire of Charles V upon which it was first said that “the sun never set”. He urged the Church to deal with the corruptions that led to the rise of Protestantism but few listened to him and in the end he was forced to fight the French in the west, the Lutherans in the north and the Turks in the south. Yet, his forces overcame and either triumphed or at least broke even and avoided total defeat. He also presided over the further expansion of Spanish power in America as well as the continued rise of Spain as a great power in Europe. There were scars on his reign, the worst certainly being the “sack of Rome” but his victories were more numerous, the most prestigious probably being his defeat and capture of the King of France, who was a longtime rival.

III - King Philip II: Felipe II to the Spanish of course, is rightly celebrated in Spain and reviled in England where he very nearly put an early end to the rise of England to naval dominance. Philip II presided over the zenith of Spanish power and greatness and he was, by far, the most powerful man in the western world in his time. Often at odds with the Church, despite his association with zealous Catholicism and the Counter-Reformation, his forces nonetheless bore the brunt of the fighting in the religious struggles that engulfed Europe. He defeated the French at San Quentin, relieved the siege of Malta, very nearly stamped out rebellion in the Netherlands but was at least able to retain Belgium for the Hapsburgs and his forces ended the Turkish naval threat with their victory at Lepanto. After the regicide of the Queen of Scots, he sent the Armada against England, which met with disaster but he took great care of the survivors and accepted the defeat with dignity. Philip’s timely intervention saved the Catholic cause in France and he expanded Spanish power from the Americas in the west to the Philippines in the east.

IV - King Philip IV: Felipe IV, perhaps, benefits from coming along during a time when good leadership was rather lacking in Spain. Under his reign the Spanish empire reached its peak, in size if not in power, and the arts flourished. Spanish forces won many victories in the Thirty Years War and Felipe IV did his best to bring about a revival of Spanish fortunes which had been on the decline, mostly due to political and economic problems. He was a deeply religion man and patron of the Church, successfully pushing for the canonization of Queen Isabella of Portugal in 1625. He exchanged letters with the mystic Venerable Mary of Agreda on matters of moral, kingly leadership. He was patron to some of the greatest artists in Spanish history and his forces won victories on many battlefields but the enemies Spain faced were too widespread for any conclusive military resolution. Nonetheless, he did the best he could to maintain his vast empire in the twilight days of Hapsburg Spain.

V - King Ferdinand VI: The reign of Fernando VI is usually pointed to as the most glorious period of Bourbon Spain before conditions really started to deteriorate. After so many costly wars, he enacted a policy of neutrality with France and England. He instituted many reforms, some beneficial, some less so, aimed at improving the Spanish government and though different factions tried to tempt him into taking the side of Britain or France in their continuing conflicts, he held firm and refused to do so. As a result, after so many years of economic struggle, the Spanish treasury was able to recover and Spain began, again, to become a quite wealthy country. He increased colonial commerce, founded the Royal Academy of the Fine Arts of San Fernando and was particular known for his musical patronage. He expanded and improved the Spanish Navy and signed a concordat with Pope Benedict XIV which stabilized Church-state relations. His reign was not without its problems (sadly common for the period) but it was an era of prosperity.

Dishonorable Mention: King Carlos III -not only were his “enlightenment” tastes not to my liking, the man outlawed bullfighting. Not cool Your Majesty. Not cool. Also, while I do not have a problem with the absolutism of King Ferdinand VII, he made many big mistakes, his last being flouting the law (when he didn’t have to) in order for his daughter to succeed him, setting Spain up for numerous civil wars.

My Favorite Kings of France

(since the accession of the Capet dynasty)

I - King Philippe II Augustus: Philip II was a success in almost every way a King of France from his era could be judged. He built up his own estates and forces until he was the most powerful man in his kingdom, unified the squabbling factions under his leadership and launched a war against the King of England that brought down the Angevin Empire from its peak of greatness. He went on the Third Crusade and participated in the siege of Acre until ill health and tensions with England caused him to return home. He fought King Richard I to stalemate in France, not winning but at least avoiding defeat. He later defeated the forces of King John, driving him back to England and taking control of a great deal of English territory in France. When England, the Germans and the Flemish all allied against him, he still emerged victorious. He improved the French government and economy and though he was unpopular with many nobles and Churchmen, he was adored by the people.

II - King Louis VIII: Known as “Louis the Lion” began his reign by immediately taking the battle to the English in their on-going struggle and steadily regaining ground for France. During his reign the French knights seized Poitou, Saintonge, Avignon and Languedoc. He also made efforts to improve the economic situation and to improve relations with the Church. King Louis VIII was also one of the major leaders (on the Catholic side of course) of the Albigensian Crusade in the south of France, leading the French crusading forces into the fight in 1226. Unfortunately, he did not live to rule for very long and after taking the throne in 1223 he died later in 1226 while still on crusade against the Albigensians. His reign had been short but eventful and had seen the forward momentum continue of French victories and defeats for the English as well as local rebels and the heretical dissidents in the south. He was also father to one of the greatest kings of France: Louis IX.

III - King Louis IX: Better known as St Louis, set the standard by which all subsequent monarchs, not only in France but across Christendom, would be judged. His endeavors were not always unqualified successes, but his character and behavior were unparalleled. Because of him, in France as in no other country, the person of the King took on a sacred nature in the hearts and minds of the people. He was a devoted husband and despite coming to the throne at the age of 11, was a successful ruler overall. His combat against the English was mostly indecisive but he won several important victories over other enemies within France. He was a fair and just ruler, deeply religious even though the full extent of his devotions were never known to the public. When peace in France was secure his paramount objective was a crusade to retake the Holy Land, which was attempted but never successful. Still, he was brave, generous, just and upright in every way and as such was canonized after his death by Pope Boniface VIII.

IV - King Charles V: Known as “Charles the Wise”, King Charles V was not perfect but was ultimately the man who saved France from irrevocable disaster in the Hundred Years War. He intervened successfully in a civil war in Castile, blocking English influence there, but his greatest victories came when he renewed the war against the “Black Prince” of England. Disregarding traditional confrontation, his forces focused on wearing down the English and in the end they succeeded in driving the feared Black Prince back to England. As a result of the campaigns of his reign, earlier English conquests were reversed and Charles V restored his rule over all of France save for Calais and Aquitaine. His relations with the Church were not very admirable but were fairly common for the time. Charles V also embellished France a great deal, building or rebuilding the Bastille, the Louvre and a number of famous French castles.

V - King Louis XIV: The Grand Monarch, the Sun King, Louis the Great, is probably the only monarch I can like and dislike to the same great extent at the same time. He enacted many policies that were to have devastating consequences in the future, he led a very immoral lifestyle and his foreign relations were often despicable. Yet, at the same time, he was French greatness personified. All of Europe, and to a large extent the world, revolved around him. Virtually everything that was done by all the major powers in his lifetime was done in reaction to some action of his. During his reign France was the envy of the world with the most feared army, the brightest thinkers, the most astoundingly magnificent palaces, the most pious saints and some of the greatest sinners as well. He hoped to extent French power to the Rhine but did not quite make it though it took nearly every power in Europe to stop him. His relations with the Church were almost always strained yet he never crossed the line. His efforts to put the Stuarts back on the British throne failed but his effort to put the Bourbons on the Spanish throne did not. Today he is still remembered as the very personification of absolute, divine-right monarchy. No other monarch before, perhaps even since, embodied and exuded greatness to the same extent as Louis XIV. He is a hard man for me to admire and yet simultaneously hard for me not to.

Honorable Mentions: King Louis XVI for being a good man of upstanding moral character and King Charles X for his preference to chop wood ;-) I think you all know what I mean on that one.

My Favorite Kings of England

(note that this includes only my favorites since the conquest and before England and Scotland shared a king)

I - King Henry II, the first to be titled “King of England” rather than “…of the English” and the founder of the so-called Angevin Empire. It was under his rule that England became the dominant power in Western Europe. Henry II ruled England, most of western France, Ireland and was overlord of Scotland. He was well acquainted with the law, studious in his duties and he made the legal system more efficient. His efforts to subdue the Church has left him with a rather bad reputation but, it must be remembered, this was far from unusual, he did not intend to have his friend Thomas Becket killed and he did do penance for it -something our supposedly humble political leaders of today would never dream of. His relationship with his family is probably what I consider the worst aspect of him but, taken altogether, I cannot but view him as a very great English monarch.

II - King Richard I, the ‘Lionhearted’, yes, I will admit, much of his fame is due to some past romanticism but I cannot resist it. Modern critics have harped on him not spending much time in England and speaking French and other such silly little details. The legendary image of him did not spring up for no reason. He was, in his own time, noted for his chivalry, his courage, military talent and abilities as a political leader as well. When setting off for the Third Crusade he vowed to reform his life to better reflect a true Christian warrior. He conquered Cyprus (which remained in Christian hands until the time of Lepanto) and even while quite sick he helped re-take Acre. He won the battle of Arsuf even after being abandoned by his allies and fought the formidable Saladin to a stalemate before returning home. Forgiving his disloyal brother John and naming him heir might not have been the best but it was prudent and he still did quite well in his war in France, showing his skill as a soldier and diplomat as well as displaying his famous chivalry. His death by a mortal wound in battle was a good enough end for such a warrior-king. He also adopted the motto still used by the Royal Family today.

III - King Edward I, another monarch who has suffered a great deal of criticism in recent years, is probably most thought of today as a villain. I, however, take the older point of view and consider him one of the greatest of English kings. True, he was no softy but he was a great statesman and another heroic warrior king. He too was a crusader but hurried home when his turn came to be King of England. He showed himself to be such an astute statesman he was known as the “English Justinian”. He conquered Wales and made his son Prince of Wales and though his war with France came to nothing it was the fault of his allies rather than Edward. His victories in Scotland won him fame in the past, not so today, but it must be remembered that his involvement in Scotland was by invitation. He was rather bad-tempered and intimidating but, in that day and age, a king often had to be.

IV - King Edward III, an awesome monarch if ever there was one. Under Edward III the Kingdom of England became the Prussia of its day, famous across Christendom for the quality and efficiency of its military. He could be harsh but also merciful. After giving the Scots a drubbing he mostly left them alone and concentrated on becoming King of France. He captured Caen, won the battle of Crécy and after a long siege captured the city of Calais as his crowning achievement. Were it not for the Black Death he might have accomplished much more and in any event his son won the great battle of Poitiers. His later years were less successful but those before more than compensate for that. If he had done absolutely nothing else Crécy and Calais would be sufficient to rank him among the greatest of English kings. He also created the Order of the Garter, one of the most prestigious orders of chivalry in the world even today. His own people revered him so much he was compared to King Arthur.

V - King Henry V, one of my absolute favorites. For myself, kings do not come much better than Henry V. He was zealous in every effort he undertook, as energetic at administration and religion as he was at war. No detail escaped his notice and on the battlefield he was as audacious as they come -and if there is one quality I admire in any leader it is audacity. He was just in upholding the law, firm in protecting the Church and astute in bringing about national unity. He is most famous, of course, for his brilliant military campaign in France where he captured Harfleur and won a stunning victory at the battle of Agincourt despite being grossly outnumbered. He showed himself a skilled diplomat, conquered Lower Normandy and captured Rouen. He died while still fighting in France after winning a number of other victories. In short, he excelled at every aspect of leadership that he set his mind to.

Honorable Mentions: King Richard II for suppressing the Peasants Revolt