I love how John I outranks 18 kings on this list despite only reigning and living for 5 days. Really goes to show how horrible some kings of France are.
I guess doing nothing by virtue of not being capable of doing anything is better than doing nothing while trying to do something, which is better be actively making things worse.
He's as neutral as it can be. Didn't do anything while no one could have expected him to do anything. Below him : kings that made more harm thab good, above him : good and decent kings
The fact there are kings lower than the guys who's reigns saw the French Monarchy abolished and a FIVE DAY OLD BABY says a lot about the quality of some kings of France
@@augth Listen man I can only excuse inherited a bad situation for like 10 years maximum. Other rulers inherited absolute awful situations like Charles VII and Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress yet managed to fix the situation. He did make some attempts to reform the government but he also was extremely passive and favored the nobles and clergy when the writing on the wall made it clear he had to start helping the common people.
@@agatha6999 Louis XVI had absolutely no interest in being king and I wish he could have followed his passion instead and become a clockmaker. One of the reasons why monarchy is a terrible system.
@@agatha6999 the case of Louis XV is a complicated one, he was in some way responsible, but one cannot deny that quite a few things were stacked against him. its reign started After a short Regency, led by the duke of Orleans, a cousin of the former king, and to get to the position of regent, he made deals with the aristocracy where he would get power and they would get back a number of privileges. the most important of these is what we call "le droit de remontrances" which was a right for the highest judicial courts led by powerful aristocrats, to essentially veto any royal ordonnances if they were deemed to tresspass traditions and customs, which were the basis of the royal judiciary framework. this right was supposed to be just an administrative step, a kind of fail safe that allowed the king to tweak its policy to avoid any backlash, but the courts started to overuse it, taking advantage of the fact that the king didn't have the natural authority or the will to enforce its policies on the estate. this simple thing, ended up crippling the entire administration for 50 years, the king had to struggle with his estates for almost any major mesures or tax levy, and he only managed to clamp down on it in 1770, when it was far too late.
TBF Louis XV was horribly unqualified because his predecessor (and great-grandfather), Louis XIV, made the nobility’s court customs ludicrously complicated and important so he could have absolute control over the country. After his death, this inevitably led to the scenario where absolutely no one knew how to rule their subjects properly, which was especially detrimental because the ol’ sun king died before Louis XV was of ruling age so he had to have a noble act as regent.
Charles VII did not HAVE to be crowned in Reims, which was in the occupied area (150 km east of Paris). He chose to, to establish legitimacy. Ever since Clovis (3 centuries before the video starts), french kings are crowned in Reims. But the english usurper got himself crowned in Paris, which didn't follow the procedure. So Charles sent Joan of Arc to liberate Champagne so that he could get crowned as the rightful king.
Yeah, that was some weird wording, all French Kings were crowned in Reims. The fact that Charles VII was able to be crowned in Reims was on the contrary a great accomplishment considering it was deep into English controlled territory by that time. Napoleon , Louis XVIII, Louis-Phillipe and Napoleon III were the only ones to break precedent by being crowned somewhere else (Napoleon in Paris, Louis XVIII planned a coronation in Reims but it didn't happen due to his health issues and Louis-Phillipe/Napoleon III chose to not have a coronation at all)
Glad to see Phillip Augustus given some proper respect! The man’s impact on France can’t be understated. I don’t think it would exist without him. Not with how the Angevins ruled as much of France as he did. Countless reforms and victories over enemies both internal and external. England took a turn for the worst partly because of his wars and meddling.
Philip II of France is my 24th great-grandfather through my 9th great grandmother Catherine de Baillon. Catherine de Baillon was a Les Filles du Roi as an immigrant bride to the New France colony by King Louis XIV of France and his government between the years of 1663 and 1673. She arrived in Quebec around 1669 from France and then she married a man named Jacques Miville dit Deschenes. The French Canadian Deschenes family are direct descendants of Catherine de Baillon. Catherine de Baillon was from a rich minor nobility family whose father Alphonse de Baillon was the Lord of Moscotterie in France under King Louis XIV's reign. So because her family was this rich as a part of the aristocracy of France her family history links towards the King's of France and to Charlemagne himself. I still don't know why a woman like this would leave her home country to marry someone like a farmer in Quebec when she could've gotten married within the aristocracy or even maybe to the Dauphin of France himself to be able to become a Queen Consort one day of France. But she did after all which is the reason why I'm here. Since my great great grandmother Flavie Deschenes is a direct descendant of Catherine de Baillon herself. Jacques himself did change his dit name by saying he was a Lord just to impress Catherine because of her family background. Which is why his direct descendants are called Deschenes rather than his surname Miville. Which as you can see Jacques's tactics worked since he unfortunately did get the girl. But both Jacques and Catherine died on the very same day together during the Small Pox pandemic of 1688 and 1689 that pretty much killed thousands of people in the New France colony during the winter of 1688 and 1689. Jacques's older brother Francois Miville took their children into his home and took care of them along with his own children after he lost his own wife during this same pandemic.
To be fair, he sort of lucked out when Richard I turned out to be a negligent, overgrown boy soldier and John turned out to be the worst monarch England ever had. While Phillip Agustus deserves massive props for his ability, he did benefit from the Angevins basically destroying themselves.
I personally think that Louis XIV was a lot like Diocletian in the fact that they both made sweeping reforms that made sense at the time but would greatly contribute to the downfall of their nation in the long run
The issue was the system ended after him. The Duke of Orleans destroyed Louis’ will to make the Duke of Maine his heir’s regent and Orleans gave power and privileges back to the parliament I’d argue Napoleon did more damage to France short and long term than Louis XIV
*In Historical Timeline Order* *Early Middle Ages, Medieval Kings* 14:09 Pepin The Short 751-768 17:42 Charlegmenge 786-814 9:00 Louis I The Pious 813-840 1:50 Charles III The Fat 884-887 4:05 Louis II The Stammerer 877-879 6:20 Louis III 879-884 & Carloman 879-884 5:21 Odo 888-898 3:49 Charles III The Simple 898-922 4:00 Robert 922-923 4:11 Louis IV from Overseas 936-954 5:28 Lothair 954-986 3:14 Louis V The Do-Nothing 986-987 *The Capet Dynasty that turned Frankia into Francia. Frankish Kingdom begins to be known as The French Kingdom* 7:04 Hugh Capet 987-996 *High Middle Ages Kings* 12:30 Robert II The Pious 996-1031 5:10 Henry I 1031-1060 8:47 Philip I The Amorous 1060-1108 9:52 Louis VII the Younger 1137-1180 *Notre Dame constructed, France Made Mighty* 19:53 Philip II = Philip Augustus 1180-1223 11:06 Louis VIII the Lion 1223-1226 13:21 Saint Louis IX 1226-1270 10:13 Phillip III the Bold 1270-1285 *Late Middle Ages Kings* 8:33 Philip IV the Fair 1285-1314 11:13 Louis X the Quarreler 1314-1316 6:06 John The Posthumous 1316 10:16 Philip V The Tall/The Compromiser 1316-1322 *The Hundred Years War Kings* 8:33 Charles IV the Fair 1322-1328 5:44 Philip IV the Fortunate 1328-1350 2:05 John The Good 1350-1364 12:39 Charles V the Wise 1364-1380 0:45 Charles VI the Mad 1380-1422 16:01 Charles VII the Victorious 1422-1461 6:47 Charles VIII the Affable 1483-1498 11:26 Louis XII the Father of The People 1498-1515 *Renaissance, Age of Exploration Kings* 11:45 Francis I the Father of Letters 1515-1547 10:34 Henry II 1547-1559 6:24 Francis II 1559-1560 7:19 Henry III 1574-1589 15:03 Henry IV the Great 1589-1610 *The Age of Absolutism* 10:55 Louis XIII the Just 1610-1643 16:51 Louis XIV the Sun King 1643-1715 2:25 Louis XV The Beloved 1715-1774 *The French Revolution* 4:23 Louis XVI 1774-1792 18:25 Napoleon Bonaparte 1804-1814, then 1815 *Post-Napoleon Kings* 4:57 Charles X 1824-1830 4:45 Louis Philippe I the Citizen King 1830-1848 *The 2nd French Empire* 12:05 Napoleon III 1852-1870
I personally disagree with the ranking of Philip IV. It’s impossible to overlook the fact that he was one of the more terrifying despots in the medieval period, however he objectively left France in a far better position than before him and was very efficient in a blatantly tyrannical sort of way.
Yep, that's the only serious issue I have with this list. Ranking Philip IV lower than some of his sons is extremely strange, especially since Louis X kickstarted the huge succession crisis that ended with the Hundred Years War. Probably a quite vile human being, but he was efficient.
This whole ranking of the French monarchy is quite arbitrary, it seems to be apparent that this does not comme from a deep understanding of French history, or at the very least, a lack of understanding of the French perspective of its on history. The very fact that Louis the X epithet in French is « le hutin » which implies more than simply quarrelsome but rather prone to anger because of dull jealousy shows that he was a very weak king governed by his uncle Charles de Valois and his cousin Robert d’Artois who where both traditionalist who worked to undo Philippe le bel’s work. He was in every possible under standing of monarchy a far worse king than his father and his brother Philippe Compte de Poitiers, even arguably than his other brother Charles count de la marche. I digress, I am in agreement with you gentlemen Philippe le bel is, in my humble esteem, one of Frances greatest monarchs, top ten at least.
@@jean-philippedufresne9184 This guy's list of English monarchs was pretty arbitrary and uninformed as well. He ranked Richard the Lionheart 39th out of 56 English Kings and Queens.
@@thareelhelloagain richard the lionheart was only king in name, he left to crusade and left the kingdom to his incompetent brother john. he remained in england after his coronation for less than a year and preferred france. although a great general and military mind he was not what you would consider a good king especially if he left his kingdom and contributed nothing to it no reforms, no new laws his impact on england is solely due to his association to it and the prestige in having the epitome of an gallant crusader king. i think his ranking was fair and think the ranking of edward IV was very unfair.
@@julianfischer6404 yeah, that's why I think it's kinda messy because idk, but I think including them it would be really great but I'd love it without them as well🤷♀️
@@eszterhedvignagy4885 He should do it similarly to Portugal and Spain. There he also ranked rulers that governed both countries differently (still Franz Joseph would be at the lower end of the list for both sides)
Louis VI the Fat also was wise enough to know his limits, and delegated much of his work to the bishop of Saint Denis. That same bishop invented the "gothic" architecture (term coined by the Italians out of pure envy) while rebuilding his church, that serves as the burial place of french kings
Okay that was fun, with some well reasoned arguments. I did wonder about Charles The Mad, especially after seeing him in 'The Last Duel' where we get to witness his utter glee at learning he still has the authority to declare a duel to the death and his almost childlike enthusiasm as he watches it take place, contrasted with the fear and sorrow of nearly everyone else and with Charles ignoring the obvious disgust of his Queen.
By the time of that movie he didn't show any sign of madness yet, he'd have his first crisis during a hunt 4 years later. But it's not impossible that beforehand he had signs that went unnoticed
@@Specoups Not as a source, but as something that made me curious to see how his historical counterpart balanced up. Like how 'I, Claudius' is far from historically accurate, but can make people curious enough to look up the real events for themselves.
Philip August actually didn't start the construction of the Notre Dame. The construction actually started a few months before Philip was even born. It was his predecessor, Louis VII, that started the construction. Under Philip August however, the construction of the Notre Dame did continue well, and a large portion of the Cathedral was completed under his reign. Fantastic video btw!
Pretty cool video! I would like to suggest that when you announce the names of the monarchs you also speak the dates, because some people like myself actually listen to these videos like they are podcasts while they cook or do other things. It would be helpful to also hear when the monarch was in charge . Thanks!
Oh, I did not know that. I've heard people say I have a rather soothing voice (though if you ask me personally, I actually dislike hearing it) oriented for podcast style content. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep that in mind.
@@spectrum1140 I am inclined to agree with the fact that I listen to your videos the same I would a podcast and ngl your voice is extremely soothing to listen to nonstop.
@@spectrum1140 I would also like this! I started listening to this to go to sleep but got curious about when they all reigned in comparison to one another.
Charles VI: "I attacked my own men and almost burned myself" Caligula: "Really? I had *rgies with my sisters since we were 12 years old, made my horse consul and ordered my soldiers to attack the sea and collect shells from the beach..." Charles VI: "You know? I think this is the beginning of a beautiful and lunatic friendship..." Caligula: "Yeah. How about we have a game of cards with Elagabalus and Nebuchadnezzar II? Charles VI: "Cool!"
Nebuchadnezzar II? Bro, you’re comparing a great warrior prince and king who actively participated in the toppling of the Assyrian Empire in his youth to this collection of absolute clowns?
@@Michael_De_Santa-Unofficial Even in the Bible Nebuchadnezzar is a wise and powerful king who was actively uplifted by God before he was afflicted with madness. With those other guys mentioned in the original comment there is nothing redeeming.
@@holypaladin4657Charles VI before the insanity might have had a shot at becoming something, then he lost, then he became insane. Honestly quite unlucky for an inbred guy
I’m french and i just want to say thank you to you for knowing Philipp August. So many foreigner just know Louis XIV and Napoleon. Ps : your classement is very good, quite perfect
@@blaiseragon8142 Yes. in many respects he was better than his uncle. If nothing else he left France so rich that even after defeat and made to pay a big indemnisation to Germany, that was paid ahead of schedule. He ended the centuries old wars with England, and paved the road for future alliances with it. And he thoroughly modenized the economy.
@@blaiseragon8142 Quite correct, Napoleon II should not be counted among the list of French sovereigns because he never reigned since if he was acclaimed by the parliamentary chambers after the abdication of Napoleon I on June 22, 1815, he was not proclaimed by these and was a prisoner in Austria. In fact, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte; nephew of Napoleon I when he got a plebiscite to become Emperor of the French in 1852 wanted to logically call himself Napoleon II but his friend and advisor Persigny advised him to take the name of Napoleon III because it would give the impression that the dynasty is more old, so that he became Napoleon III.
Napoleon Bonaparte said Napoleon 1st is technically by king of France as also his nephew Napoleon III but emperor of the French. Napoleon I refuted the title of French sovereign at his coronation in 1804 by saying "I am not the successor of the King of France Louis XVI but of the Emperor Charlemagne". In fact his reign France will obtain its maximum territorial extension with 110 departments with cities like Rome, Barcelona, Hamburg, Brussels, Amsterdam which are simple French prefectures while his son receives the title of King of Rome. Napoleon, in addition to his title of emperor of the French, cumlent the titles allowing him to dominate many other territories in Europe as king of Italy, protector of the Swiss confederation, protector of the confederation of the Rhine in Germany and of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in Poland. But unlike Louis XIV who had expanded the territory of France in Europe and overseas and was able to preserve its acquisitions, Napoleon will eventually lose almost all of his conquests so that France will find itself smaller at the end of his reign than he had found at the beginning of his seizure of power in 1799 enlarged by the revolutionary conquests (Savoie, county of Nice, Neuchâtel, Montbelliard, left bank of the German Rhine, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). Napoleon who, having quickly reconstituted his army which "he had managed to save by crossing the Berezina, after the Russian campaign and close his military victories at Bautzen and Lutzen in 1813 on the Russians and the Prussians constraining the latter to the"Armistice of Pleiswitz , had refused the mediation of his father-in-law the emperor of Austria who offered him to leave to France his revolutionary conquests as part of the surrender to Russia of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, to Austria of northern Italy and the Illyrian provinces, to Prussia of the kingdom of Westphalia of his brother Jérôme Illyrians , and to the English to return the German kingdom of Hanover hereditary possession of the king of England.Refusing to listen to his former foreign minister Talleyrand who had theorized "All the conquests of France below the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees are the conquests of France, all that is beyond are the conquests of Napoleon."Thus, if he had signed the peace treaty at Pleiswitz, France would certainly have kept in addition to Savoy and the county of Nice, which it would recover in 1861, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the German left bank of the Rhine and the principality of Neuchâtel in Switzerland.
Glad to see Philip II get his due. Everyone knows Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte and Charlemagne. But what sets him apart is that instead of starting from a strong position and rising from there, he was in a terrible position, and emerged as the most powerful king in Europe. Between Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart, England could quite possibly have achieved what Henry V couldn't, and make England the new France. The fact that France would ultimately end up humiliating both King John and the Holy Roman Emperor in the same war, and getting both in a heap of trouble as a result is not something a bad king could have pulled off in his stead.
Henri II and Richard were French nobles with large possessions in France that were also kings of England, not kings of England with colonies in France. If the Plantagenets took control of all of France, England wouldn't have been the new France. England would have been even more what it already was: a cash cow used only to finance their wars on the continent.
I was pretty surprised seeing Philip iv this low. Sure, he was a tyrant, but why does this matter? He was doing a lot of succesful stuff directed towards decreacing power of nobility (And lack of centralisation later proved to be a big problem for France).
@@akechijubeimitsuhide Yeah. It’s amazing how life like the characters come off in the books, especially Charles Count of Valois and Robert III of Artois (everyone’s favourite). At the end of the series, it feels like I’ve actually met the characters in real life.
@@joellaz9836 Robert my beloved :D Although when I reread as an adult, I realized Mahaut is a woman fighting to keep her inheritance in a world ruled by men, so I felt a bit of sympathy for her.
Nothing unusual about Charles VII being crowned in Reims, it was by then a tradition to crown french kings in the Reims cathedral. Although its theorized the french purposefully avoided Paris in the campaign and chose Reims as it was less defended and would still provide a great moral boost. Even after the 100y war, most if not all french kings are crowned in Reims, not Paris.
Charles V, if he had a better heir, would've been hands down the best king of France ever. He was way ahead of time by thinking about his reign in an historical way, he is actually responsible for compiling much of french History and french laws. For example, he gave numerals to monarchs, is the one that brought back salic law, created the first national (royal) library with the biggest amount of books after the Vatican, had Du Guesclin under his command that reunited the kingdom by revolutioning guerilla warfare tactics, he cured the kingdom from exactions of mercenaries (and eventually settled down a civil war in Castille by doing so), created the first regular army, the first regular taxation - he was the first to successfuly convey the Estates General and eventually created the Franc, he made the Louvre a palace and not just a fort, basically made french regalia (like the scepter Louis XVI is holding on the portrait)... I could go on and on, this man is criminally underrated
@@ericlurio246 maybe, but the problem is, a foreign husband would always have been a tool to claim France as a junior partner under a foreign crown. That's the reason why salic law was brought back in the first place
I would only make a small change: I would but Charlemagne as second (or even first), because unlike Napoleon, the former died in peace and power, victorious and loved by everyone.
@@fcalvaresi And that was mostly Napoleon's own fault. Like most succesful conquerors, Charlemagne understood the value of diplomacy and keeping his various enemies apart from one another. Divide and conquer, as they say. Napoleon's lack of diplomatic skills is what ultimately led to his demise and precludes him from being a really great ruler. He was a great general for sure, but a great ruler? Not so much. He made too many enemies to be a great ruler.
@@jodofe4879 Diplomacy wasn't quite the issue to begin with. When Napoleon arose to power, every single monarchy in Europe wanted to burn France to the ground (they didn't like that France literally got rid of its king at the time, and felt threatened). I do believe that in a position such as this one, it is quite difficult to make peace with anyone without some serious sacrifices (France just wasn't in a position to negociate) I put Napoleon above for this reason: In a position where many great rulers would have failed, he somehow pulled through and left a mark still very visible today
I would say Charlemagne is the biggest king in France because he may be the biggest king in Europe. He's the father of the modern idea of Europe. It wasn't until him that the fall of the Roman Empire was overcome, his reign was the start of what we think of when we talk about Medieval Europe. His kingdom was the heart of western Christianity and the beggining of all. As we may consider Napoleon the most important figure in the transition between the Ancien Régime and the contemporary world, Charlemagne is the most important figure in the Middle Ages in all Western Europe. Top 1 second to none, even great kings like Phillip II or foreign kings like Ferdinand II of Aragón owed their kingdoms to Charlemagne. @@yorunoxx4788 That's not entirely true. It is true the Revolution was seen as a threat to the rest of the monarchies in Europe, but by the time Napoleon rose to power the more conservative factions of the revolution managed to appease some of those same monarchies, In 1795 Spain, ruled by a Bourbon (a very stupid one though) went from enemy to ally of France. Spain fought alongside France against Great Britain, just to be backstabbed and invaded by France in 1808. That was Napoleon's decision, and made an enemy and another front out of it.Even though it is the modern consensus that the campaing in Russia was the biggest failure of Napoelon, himself in his exile blamed his failure to conquer Spain and the war there as the main cause of his defeat.
Philip IV reduced the English King to a vassal and conquered the Flemish, he also ended France's debts,the templars at that point where just bankers, and started the concept of centralized monarchy as well as taking command of the papacy,I was expecting him to be at top 10 you got him completelly wrong
Ended France's debt by spreading lies about the templars, preventing them to have self defense, taking all their stuff, controlling a pope even though he (pope) tried to do a fair tribunal but failes because of the king, tortures to make them confess things most of them didn't do I'm going to sleep now
As much as I admire Napoleon his invasion of Russia can’t be overlooked. His campaign in Eastern Europe fighting Russia at the battle of Friedland gave a small but honest taste of the supply hell that was Russia. Almost everyone advised him not to invade, but he alone made the decision. Though his invasion was unlucky with winter coming early and extremely harsh, he put himself in a position were he could just loose all the gain he make in the past 10 years with almost 0% chance of success. If he didn’t invade Russia he probably would’ve ruled until his death. Then his empire would’ve crumbled as his military genius was really what was holding it together.
@@glocksmith226 yes, the Austria’s were opportunists and would gladly join Napoleon if they couldn’t beat them. Though the second Napoleon died the Austrians would turn on them. Though they disliked the Prussia they hated the Revolutionary ideals from the French Revolution. They would join every other country in restoring the monarchy to France
@@glocksmith226 Austria like most European powers (except Britain) were absolute monarchies and their first priority would be riding the source of French Revolutionary ideals. Besides that Napoleon imposed a harsh peace on the Austrians at the end of the war of the 5th coalition taking Croatia away from them. On top of that a continued alliance with France after his death would mean being dragged into wars against Britain, Spain, Prussia, and probably Russia too. With Napoleon’s talents they might side with them but without him and a teenager on the French throne they’d definitely join the winning side with Britain and gain back their land and prestige.
@@thepgawesomechannel5930 save your bias for a death man, because Napoleon at the end of the day was as militaristic and aristocratic as it were the "absolute monarchies", while it is true they had centralised the power under a monarch, Napoleon wasn't far of them.
@@glocksmith226 yes, but only when France had the military to do so. The Austrians jumped onto the 6th coalition when Napoleon’s army was defeated. Napoleon was always on the loosing side even at the hight of his power just with the scale of enemies he was facing and the British never willing to sue for peace after Trafalger and always willing to fund any enemies of Napoleon. Napoleon was able to trip the scales in his favor due to his military skill and war economy/ national mobilization. Without him his empire would be weakened and ripe for conquest.
If you ever feel masochistic, you should try to rank all moldavian and wallachian voivodes, their average reign lasted like 4 years and almost ALL of them had multiple reigns.
Ranking recc: Swedish Kings -Vasa- (someone suggested Bjälbo dynasty as the better starting point) to Bernadotte Ottoman Sultans Persian Shahs Ethiopian (Solomon) Emperors Post Independece Balkan Kings Austrian Archdukes/Emperors Polish Kings Emperors of China/Japan (Divided into multiple parts) Dutch Stadtholders/Kings Emperors of Mexico/Brazil Kings of Hungary Kings of Jerusalem (suggested by someone else)
I think for Sweden you can do Bjälbo to Bernadotte. It's under the Bjälbo dynasty that Sweden actually becomes quite centralised and there is more known about the monarchs from that dynasty and ahead than previous rulers. Yes the Kalmar Union is messy but if we're only counting monarchs and not regents it shouldn't be too bad.
@@Oleksandr.Derkach I have been thinking about it but I dont know where to start from really. From the first king of Prussia or from the first Hohenzollern? Also, he should do Wittelsbach and Wettin dynasty if he does the Hohenzollerns
But what about Mughal emperors, sultans of Delhi, maharajas of Maratha empire, maharajas of Sikh empire, Belgian kings, kings of Italy/Sardinia-Piedmont, kings of Denmark and maybe Durrani empire/Afghanistan? 😢
Some of these stories really lend credence to that old saying "Reality is often stranger than fiction" Some king got stabbed in the leg by his servant on accident, and then the two of them were attacked by a wild boar and the King was killed. Truly a *bruh momento*
This was a nice video to watch, while working on a detailed project about the French Monarchy every month. Your growth to 10 subscribers to 50k in a short amount of time was amazing.
Fun fact : It's believed that Henry III last word were "AH! Méchant, tu m'a tué." which translate to "AH! Mean, you killed me." which has to be the silliest last word ever
I'm French and honestly, it's weird that the first video that talks about all the kings of France (whatever the subject, just encompassing all the dynasties of France) is made by a... a PORTUGUESE?! No big deal, good video.
@@fcalvaresi interestingly the Seleucids actually did not claim the shah title but they did claim older Babylonian and Assyrian titles such as master of the universe
@Emil.Fontanotthey can, but honestly id reaaaaaally hope we can one day get an unexagerated version of Cyrus's story. Dude did anihilate the strongest kingdoms of the region one by one becoming the very first foreigner amongst countless to have invaded succesfully and made an empire that brought down Mesopotamia despite its overwhelming power since the dawn of civilisation. Its only sad that his legend goes in the way lol
Are you counting Ottoman sultans as european monarchs? After you'll do every monarchy in Europe, it would be pretty interesting to see "top 50 best european monarchs", " top 50 worst european monarchs" and "ranking every european country based on quality of it's rulers".
@@Spyros5k ottoman capital was in europe. in the late 19th and 20th century europeans called them sick man of europe not sick man of near europe And one thing more importantly is that ottomans was involved the european politics all the time and center of the empire was both balkans and anatolia
Very good video. For similar projects in the future, please leave the names and duration of the reign of the monarchs visible for longer than a split second. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't know all of the lesser monarchs.
Exactly. It is way too rushed. I would like to have a second ore two to think myself about the time the king was in. ... But maybe it is done for teenagers who think faster than I do.
Very good video as always. My top 5 is: 1) Charlemagne 2) Philip Augustus 3) Napoleon I 4) Charles VII 5) Louis XIV I put Napoleon below because he started in a very easy position. France was the political powerhouse of Europe and the famines pressured the French people so much they would go with him anywhere. Charles VII was in a much more difficult situation and was able to use his little resources, strategical position and his very own capabilities to the maximum so that he could save France. Edit: Originally, Napoleon was 5th and Louis XIV was 3rd but thinking it better I swapped the places.
@@micahbonewell5994 Yes, that gratis him the second position. However, I think Charlemagne is above because of his legal, military and diplomatic ability.
@@SuperCrow02 Well by the time he took over France owned all the left bank of the rhine, Netherlands, had Spain as an ally and Russia just left the war.
The English names for the kings have been used here, which is fine but here are the names in French if anyones wondering Henry = Henri Philip = Philippe John = Jean Francis = François Let me know if I missed any
you forgot that napoleon lll invaded mexico and created the second mexican empire with Maximilian von Habsburg, without a doubt he is my favorite french monarch of all and for his elegance
@@ludwigramirez1047 Dude it wasnt Maximillian of Habsburg was a great Monarch easly swayed yes but he had great Ideas and lets face it life in the empire of mexico was better then in the Republic if Mexico
@@ludwigramirez1047 even if the mexican empire was a puppet state led by a foreign monarch, i would definitely believe that life in it would be much better that what Mexico ended up being.
@@mememachine6022 Alr both were warzones but lets do it different isnt a Progressive Monarchy with a great head of State better than a Democracy that has 1 Civilwar after it just had 1 a week ago?
I'm still mad at Philip II for abandoning the crusade, and screwed over my boy, Richard, but hey, it's politics. I'd really love to see you ranking the Ottoman Sultans next.
He leaves the holy lands without his troops who stay with Richard. And Philippe wasn’t really agree with the idea of “crusade” notably because his position in Europe was very weak since the rise of Henri II of England and the reign of Louis VII
Philip II was kind of forced to take part in it. Alas, he wasn't getting along with lionheart quite well, so he simply decided to do what benifited him the most: Go back to France and enjoy and take advantage of a England without it's ruler, who was busy fighting in a very costy war.
@@paonippobemduro well tbf ofc he wouldnt be friend with a guy who owned over half of HIS Kingdom. Part of de Jure Kingdom of France and he had less France than the King of England in his hands lol
Richard was an even bigger political coward, immediately started bribing Philips men to change side and dividing the Crusade. Philip knew Richard wasn't interested in the crusade as much as making a name hunting for a kingdom. Richard abandoning the crusade in the 11th hour did irrevocable damage to the movement, making people question the motives which was completely exposed after the 4th Crusade betrayed 2 major Christian cities, choosing gold over their virtue (an act abhorred by the people's mindset at the time where temptation resistance was core to the values). This in turn led to the collapse and dissolution of the Templars.... so Richard's greed cost far more than Philips
Honnestly Philipp 1 is way too hight on this list : he actually didn't do anything in 48 years of reign, he lost most of his battles, created a huge matrimonial scandal that lasted 20 years and went excommunicated (and his country too) for that. The territorial acquisitions of the royal domain were pretty negligeables. No way you can put Phillip 4 lower than him.
The Battle of Bouvines (1214), and its campaign in Normandy in 1202-1204 are basically successes that allowed the hegemony of the House of Capet. And it is customary to say that the unification of France began under his reign, even if the process lasted for centuries.
@@powderedwiglouis1238 You mean the 3rd Crusade that was intended to prop a failed state that had no sustainable way to exist? The 3rd Crusade that cost England a fortune to ransom its king, twice? The 3rd Crusade the gains of which were undone within less than two decades? Abandoning the Crusade was the best choice Phillip could've made at the time, considering it left him free to prepare for eventually retaking most of England's continental holdings.
I expected to see Napoleon or Charlemagne at number 1 as I do not know a lot about French monarchs. I would like to see you do a ranking on Prussian kings. Great video as always!
Philippe Augustus deserved the spot. He is often forgotten, because his grandson Saint Louis is more famous, but he achieved to make France the most powerful kingdom of Europe at the time while defeating England and the HRE. Impressive man.
Not a whole lot to write home about with Henri II. you say, but you show the fatal jousting tournament he was in, I love that. If no one knows what that is, that's just like a random painting, but that is the most significant thing to happen in Henri's reign, his dumb, stupid death.
@@spectrum1140 Napoleon III's rating is fair. It's a shame he's so poorly remembered since republicans hated him, for being their direct competitor The list was great, the main one I'd have put differently is Louis XIII that I'd have rated higher
Definitely an interesting pick for your top 3. Personally I’d have Charlemagne at 1 if we include Frankish kings, simply for the sheer size and effect he has on history, but I definitely see your reasons for the other two being above him.
If you include Frankish kings you might as well include Roman emperors. Franks were/still are speaking Frankish, practise Frankish culture and still live exactly where they settled. This is called the BeNeLuxe, Flemish/Dutch being Frankish. Sure France got it's name because of Frankish conquest but the French aren't Frankish in any way shape or form besides some in the North who to state the obvious used to be dutch hence why the Frankish dna. Charlemagne and every Carolingian/Frankish king were not French kings, they ruled over Gaul and renamed it west Francia, the name just stuck. But in the same sense Romans ruled over Gaul, Charlemagne also ruled over Gaul despite being Limburgish and speaking limburgish(dutch dialect)doesn't make him a French king, it makes him a Frankish/dutch king who ruled French(among others like Germans, Italians, Spaniards etc).
@@Enbdhhdu8e3the Frankish were already related to the gallo-romans since Clovis. Culturaly and linguistics, all of the French kings of France are of Frankish dynasties.
@TheFearsomePredator Clovis unified the Salian and Ripurian Franks and created the Frankish kingdom which was roughly the Benelux and Rhinelands area. Later/after having already established his kingdom he invaded deeper into Gaul and took out Syagrius and the Visigoths who ruled modern day France. The "French" with the exceptions of Wallonians and Picardians(Franks never settled further than Picardy hence why Dutch/Frankisch language stops in French flanders)are not Frankish at all besides some minor influences and the fact they were ruled by Frankish elites, but the same goes for the other Germans like Schwaben, Bayern, Sachsen etc, who were no different then the Roman-Gauls as subjects. France is only Frankish by the fact they were ruled by Frankish dynasties, literally nothing more, but Frankish dynasties also ruled many other countries, kingdoms etc. France/French people have a stronger claim and were more influential in English history than Franks in French history...
I'm not sure I understand the low assesment of Philip the fair. Admittedly my view is probably coloured a little by reading about him in the historical fiction novel 'The Iron King' by Maurice Druon
Philip the fair deserves to be in top 10. It's only the "black legend" from modern fiction depicting him as an "evil man" for destroying the Templars, the same way Richelieu (one of the greatest stateman France ever had) is seen as evil because of the 3 musketeers.
To be fair with the Mad king, despite his illness he really had the will to do good, for most of his reign. The humiliation of Azincourt was not his responsibility (most French nobility arrogance and incompetence) whereas he fought and won a decisive and massive victory at Roosebeke against Flanders.
Agincourt wouldn't even happened in the first place if France was not in a state of civil war due to his madness, weakness and incompetence. The English wouldn't even had the occasion to invade in the first place. He allowed the duke of Burgundy to create the hole in which the English could enter France.
I just wanted to note Charles the Simple ended the Viking raids in France by creating the Duchy Of Normandy, the only reason why he got deposed was because there were these mad men named Robert I and Hugh the Great that were hellbent on destroying France and the Carolingians and literally bribed some nobles in Lotharingia which Charles had obtained to rebel against him, same with Louis IV, and thank God Hugh the Great wasn't around for Lothaire, oh wait, he was, just not "The Great", this time it was "Capet" who made things probably 100 times worse by turning a country Lothaire made that had centralized control and could rival the HRE and even regained Lotharingia, into basically a figurehead monarch everywhere except Paris, oh yeah did I forgot to mention the other heir was a powerful noble that owned Lotharingia and had support of half the country? Yeah.
just discovering your channel. Love your thematics and your tone. Ich suskribing (why no Merovingians ? ) PS : would love to see a video about longest dynasties (not houses, i.e. valois and bourbon should be added to capetians-capetians). Thank you for all your videos !
There's a French history podcast that did something similar called "super joute royale". It's funny how some kings are ranked d the same between you and them.
Just to précise that all French kings were crowned in Reims (since it was the place in which Clovis got baptized) so it was actually the most legitimate thing for Charles VII to be crowned there in comparison to Henry VI of England who got crowned king of France in Paris which didn’t have him much legitimacy
Adding to Philippe Augustus triumphs : - Lead the begining of the IVth Crusade with Richard Lionheart (notably lead and won the siege of Acre) - Defeated said Lionheart in the subsequant war - Defeated a two pronged simultaneous attack by the Holy Roman Empire and England (lead by John Landless) - Made France the prime subject of the Chruch by intimidating the Pope - Left the Throne with a positive treasury
Yeah- but when he got there he didn't like it and ran away back home. One of the silliest moments in European history. Reading between the lines, they only voted him in because they thought he would obtain French military support against Ivan the Terrible.
@@chrisball3778 He ran away back home because his elder brother died and he became king of France... He just traded the Polish crown for the French crown.
When the future Duke of Anjou King of France Henry III became King of Poland he was not yet King of France and abandoned his Kingdom of Poland a year after his election to join the Kingdom of France after the death of his brother Charles IX in 1574.Pat against, there were several French sovereigns who accumulated the titles of foreign sovereigns during their reign as king of France Thus Charles II the bald and Charles III the fat were also emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles VIII was also king of Naples and also had the symbolic title of king of Jerusalem which was a kingdom of French origin created during the 1st crusade. Louis XII was also Duke of Milan by his grandmother Valentine Visconti. Napoleon I was Emperor of the French (French Empire encompassing besides present-day France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the left bank of the Rhine and the north of "Germany, Piemont, Val d'Aoste, Liguria,Etruria the Papal States of Rome in Italy, Aragon and Catalonia in Spain) and King of Italy (Actually Lombardy, Veneto , Frioul, part of Slovenia ), Protector of the Swiss Confederation, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.Many kings of France were also titled at the same time kings of Navarre, a Spanish Christian state straddling the Pyrenees between France and Spain with the capital Pamplona; Louis X (1314-1316), Philip V (1316-1322) then Charles IV (1322-1328) all 3 sons of the heiress of the kingdom of Navarre then their niece Jeanne removed from the throne of France then who could reign in Navarre after their death because this kingdom accepted women as queen, so that the descendants of this onethese will reign over Navarre including Henry of Navarre who will ascend the throne of France under the name of Henry IV in 1589 so that his successors until Louis XVI in 1791 will be crowned kings of France and Navarre.Knowing that in 1512, the kingdom of Aragon had seized southern Navarre and its capital Pamplona chasing the royal dynasty of French origin which took refuge in Pau in the north of the Pyrenees and which will therefore reign only on the north of the kingdom of Navarre which in 1791 at the time of the creation of the departments will become the departments of the Pyrénes Atlantique and the Hautes Pyrénées and will be integrated into the current France.
The only thing truly notable during the reign of Louis-Philippe was this: A la volonte du peuple, Et a la sante du progres, Remplis ton coeur de vin rebelle Et a demain, ami fidele! Si ton coeur bat aussi fort Que le tambour dans le lointain, C'est que l'espoir existe encore Pour le genre humain! Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!
I'd put Louis XV higher cause he abolished the parliaments, making the king able to reform the economy without having the care about the nobles' opposition too much, and Louis XVI lower because of the exact opposite : he instated the Parliaments back, preventing himself from doing the reforms that could've maybe prevented the Revolution
Louis XI is for me the best ruler france ever had (yes, even over Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle). He reformed France, finished the 100 years war without unsheathing his sword, used careful diplomacy to utterly crush the burgundians without spilling french blood. He created the french postal service, repaved the roads, created the first professional standing army in France since roman times, and made economic reforms that enabled France to recover from the devastations of the 100 years war in the space of his reign. Truly an excellent king, by any metric. He was also loved by the common people, and, in fact, surrounded himself with commoners over noblemen, which helped him keep in touch with the common peoples needs.
@@samarkand1585 well if you knew anything about history you would know that he defeated an entire english field army, led by their king Edward IV in 1475, just through careful positioning and diplomacy (he basically maneuvred the french army between the english and their lines of supply and retreat and forced them to negociate). It is the official end of the 100 years war, that had seen no combat since 1453, true, but no treaty had been signed. That changed with Louis XI signing the treaty of Picquigny.
Louis XI was good at politics and amazing at influencing events behind the scene which made him a great monarch how he played the burgundians into alienating their only allies the english and then let charles of burgundy bungle himself into an early grave at nancy in 1477 masterful shit and just payed the english to fuck off
Hey man that video was dope man and I'm glad you finally made one about France next up make one about German monarchs and after that crusader Jerusalem monarchs and yes I do agree that great uncle Napoleon was the modern day Charlemagne.... And yes I'm related to him through my great ancestor A.K.A his brother Joseph Bonaparte!!!!😎 #GreatVideo #FrenchMonarchs #BonaparteBoys
i was surprised napoleon was not first (very casual historian here, russian invasion slipped my mind lol) but the reasons provided for phillip augustus were incredibly convincing.
Well, he did eventually lose the wars he started and France ended up worse off after him than it was before, so being number 2 is arguably too generous.
I've watched some great documentary series on the English-British kings, but I haven't come across any on the French line. Are there any good english language series out there? Does France have a David Starkey type who has done a good somewhat balanced study of French Monarchs?
Nice list! Napoleon and Charlemagne are my favorites. Some suggestions: Wallachian Voivodes Templar Grandmasters US Presidents (Probably a good idea to stop at the 1990's to not cause a comment war lmao) "Holy" "Roman" "Emperors"
Now I want a video of 1:30 min ranking the italian kings. But actually I think would be cool to rank maybe all the kings of Savoia untill the last king of Italy (Savoia became a kingdom after the spanish succession war), or in general making a tier list of some less known kingdoms and empire in history
Philipp IV, the Iron King, lacks recognition due to people not understanding him. he is mistaken as either a Machiavelian before the letter or a tyrant. he was none of that actually, he was obsessed with his grandfather, Saint Louis, and was rather mystical and really, really REALLY pious. he also had to face the papacy at the height of its power and influence "the pontifical theocracy of the late XIIIth century", though he respected Rome, he was so damn fanatic that he considered the pope to be heretic and an obstacle on the divine destiny of the Holy Kingdom of France. modern french historiography speaks of him as " a pontifical king".
I love how John I outranks 18 kings on this list despite only reigning and living for 5 days. Really goes to show how horrible some kings of France are.
yeah that was weird lol
I guess doing nothing by virtue of not being capable of doing anything is better than doing nothing while trying to do something, which is better be actively making things worse.
@@Nutty31313 fair, fair. though i probably would have put one or two of the 18 above john I
The ghost of Quintilius strikes back
He's as neutral as it can be. Didn't do anything while no one could have expected him to do anything.
Below him : kings that made more harm thab good, above him : good and decent kings
The fact there are kings lower than the guys who's reigns saw the French Monarchy abolished and a FIVE DAY OLD BABY says a lot about the quality of some kings of France
Louis XVI was unlucky and Louis XV is the one to blame, and at least a baby can’t actively hurt the country
@@augth Listen man I can only excuse inherited a bad situation for like 10 years maximum. Other rulers inherited absolute awful situations like Charles VII and Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress yet managed to fix the situation. He did make some attempts to reform the government but he also was extremely passive and favored the nobles and clergy when the writing on the wall made it clear he had to start helping the common people.
@@agatha6999 Louis XVI had absolutely no interest in being king and I wish he could have followed his passion instead and become a clockmaker. One of the reasons why monarchy is a terrible system.
@@agatha6999 the case of Louis XV is a complicated one, he was in some way responsible, but one cannot deny that quite a few things were stacked against him.
its reign started After a short Regency, led by the duke of Orleans, a cousin of the former king, and to get to the position of regent, he made deals with the aristocracy where he would get power and they would get back a number of privileges.
the most important of these is what we call "le droit de remontrances" which was a right for the highest judicial courts led by powerful aristocrats, to essentially veto
any royal ordonnances if they were deemed to tresspass traditions and customs, which were the basis of the royal judiciary framework.
this right was supposed to be just an administrative step, a kind of fail safe that allowed the king to tweak its policy to avoid any backlash, but the courts started to overuse it, taking advantage of the fact that the king didn't have the natural authority or the will to enforce its policies on the estate. this simple thing, ended up crippling the entire administration for 50 years, the king had to struggle with his estates for almost any major mesures or tax levy, and he only managed to clamp down on it in 1770, when it was far too late.
TBF Louis XV was horribly unqualified because his predecessor (and great-grandfather), Louis XIV, made the nobility’s court customs ludicrously complicated and important so he could have absolute control over the country. After his death, this inevitably led to the scenario where absolutely no one knew how to rule their subjects properly, which was especially detrimental because the ol’ sun king died before Louis XV was of ruling age so he had to have a noble act as regent.
Imagine being a worse king than a baby that lived for 5 days
Well when you do something just a little bad, it's still worse thant somenone who didn't do anything by lack of time :)
@@iagosevatar4865 it's still bad to be worse than someone who done nothing
@@bridel2851 Imagine believing any video on youtube blindly
Technically John I ( Jean I ) was one of the best kings of France because he didn’t do anything bad
Odo being this low is a travesty
Charles VII did not HAVE to be crowned in Reims, which was in the occupied area (150 km east of Paris). He chose to, to establish legitimacy. Ever since Clovis (3 centuries before the video starts), french kings are crowned in Reims. But the english usurper got himself crowned in Paris, which didn't follow the procedure. So Charles sent Joan of Arc to liberate Champagne so that he could get crowned as the rightful king.
Yeah, that was some weird wording, all French Kings were crowned in Reims. The fact that Charles VII was able to be crowned in Reims was on the contrary a great accomplishment considering it was deep into English controlled territory by that time.
Napoleon , Louis XVIII, Louis-Phillipe and Napoleon III were the only ones to break precedent by being crowned somewhere else (Napoleon in Paris, Louis XVIII planned a coronation in Reims but it didn't happen due to his health issues and Louis-Phillipe/Napoleon III chose to not have a coronation at all)
@@marvelfannumber1 I believe you forgot Henri IV which was crowned in Chartres.
Extra Hisotry?
@@billcipherproductions1789 oh no no. he is the duke of lorraine
Glad to see Phillip Augustus given some proper respect! The man’s impact on France can’t be understated. I don’t think it would exist without him. Not with how the Angevins ruled as much of France as he did. Countless reforms and victories over enemies both internal and external. England took a turn for the worst partly because of his wars and meddling.
Philip II of France is my 24th great-grandfather through my 9th great grandmother Catherine de Baillon. Catherine de Baillon was a Les Filles du Roi as an immigrant bride to the New France colony by King Louis XIV of France and his government between the years of 1663 and 1673. She arrived in Quebec around 1669 from France and then she married a man named Jacques Miville dit Deschenes. The French Canadian Deschenes family are direct descendants of Catherine de Baillon. Catherine de Baillon was from a rich minor nobility family whose father Alphonse de Baillon was the Lord of Moscotterie in France under King Louis XIV's reign. So because her family was this rich as a part of the aristocracy of France her family history links towards the King's of France and to Charlemagne himself. I still don't know why a woman like this would leave her home country to marry someone like a farmer in Quebec when she could've gotten married within the aristocracy or even maybe to the Dauphin of France himself to be able to become a Queen Consort one day of France. But she did after all which is the reason why I'm here. Since my great great grandmother Flavie Deschenes is a direct descendant of Catherine de Baillon herself. Jacques himself did change his dit name by saying he was a Lord just to impress Catherine because of her family background. Which is why his direct descendants are called Deschenes rather than his surname Miville. Which as you can see Jacques's tactics worked since he unfortunately did get the girl. But both Jacques and Catherine died on the very same day together during the Small Pox pandemic of 1688 and 1689 that pretty much killed thousands of people in the New France colony during the winter of 1688 and 1689. Jacques's older brother Francois Miville took their children into his home and took care of them along with his own children after he lost his own wife during this same pandemic.
To be fair, he sort of lucked out when Richard I turned out to be a negligent, overgrown boy soldier and John turned out to be the worst monarch England ever had. While Phillip Agustus deserves massive props for his ability, he did benefit from the Angevins basically destroying themselves.
@@chadst.pierre5257how do you even keep track of your family past your great great parents
I personally think that Louis XIV was a lot like Diocletian in the fact that they both made sweeping reforms that made sense at the time but would greatly contribute to the downfall of their nation in the long run
Louis XIV made reforms that suited him and his "larger than life" nature but nobody else could fit such large shoes after him.
I always saw him more like Justinian
How so ?
@@WispFigment Apt comparison. Militarily victorious but left a prosperous nation bankrupt from it.
The issue was the system ended after him. The Duke of Orleans destroyed Louis’ will to make the Duke of Maine his heir’s regent and Orleans gave power and privileges back to the parliament
I’d argue Napoleon did more damage to France short and long term than Louis XIV
It's always Christmas when Spectrum uploads.
I like Charles the mad..... likes the name "Charles" thats why he is my favorite
Even in July
*In Historical Timeline Order*
*Early Middle Ages, Medieval Kings*
14:09 Pepin The Short 751-768
17:42 Charlegmenge 786-814
9:00 Louis I The Pious 813-840
1:50 Charles III The Fat 884-887
4:05 Louis II The Stammerer 877-879
6:20 Louis III 879-884 & Carloman 879-884
5:21 Odo 888-898
3:49 Charles III The Simple 898-922
4:00 Robert 922-923
4:11 Louis IV from Overseas 936-954
5:28 Lothair 954-986
3:14 Louis V The Do-Nothing 986-987
*The Capet Dynasty that turned Frankia into Francia. Frankish Kingdom begins to be known as The French Kingdom*
7:04 Hugh Capet 987-996
*High Middle Ages Kings*
12:30 Robert II The Pious 996-1031
5:10 Henry I 1031-1060
8:47 Philip I The Amorous 1060-1108
9:52 Louis VII the Younger 1137-1180
*Notre Dame constructed, France Made Mighty*
19:53 Philip II = Philip Augustus 1180-1223
11:06 Louis VIII the Lion 1223-1226
13:21 Saint Louis IX 1226-1270
10:13 Phillip III the Bold 1270-1285
*Late Middle Ages Kings*
8:33 Philip IV the Fair 1285-1314
11:13 Louis X the Quarreler 1314-1316
6:06 John The Posthumous 1316
10:16 Philip V The Tall/The Compromiser 1316-1322
*The Hundred Years War Kings*
8:33 Charles IV the Fair 1322-1328
5:44 Philip IV the Fortunate 1328-1350
2:05 John The Good 1350-1364
12:39 Charles V the Wise 1364-1380
0:45 Charles VI the Mad 1380-1422
16:01 Charles VII the Victorious 1422-1461
6:47 Charles VIII the Affable 1483-1498
11:26 Louis XII the Father of The People 1498-1515
*Renaissance, Age of Exploration Kings*
11:45 Francis I the Father of Letters 1515-1547
10:34 Henry II 1547-1559
6:24 Francis II 1559-1560
7:19 Henry III 1574-1589
15:03 Henry IV the Great 1589-1610
*The Age of Absolutism*
10:55 Louis XIII the Just 1610-1643
16:51 Louis XIV the Sun King 1643-1715
2:25 Louis XV The Beloved 1715-1774
*The French Revolution*
4:23 Louis XVI 1774-1792
18:25 Napoleon Bonaparte 1804-1814, then 1815
*Post-Napoleon Kings*
4:57 Charles X 1824-1830
4:45 Louis Philippe I the Citizen King 1830-1848
*The 2nd French Empire*
12:05 Napoleon III 1852-1870
Thank you for writing this mate!
You helped a lot :)
You skipped Louis the Beloved 2:26
You also missed John the Good (2:05)
Missing Charles The Bald and Louis XVIII
*sad Louis XVIII noises*
I personally disagree with the ranking of Philip IV. It’s impossible to overlook the fact that he was one of the more terrifying despots in the medieval period, however he objectively left France in a far better position than before him and was very efficient in a blatantly tyrannical sort of way.
Yep, that's the only serious issue I have with this list. Ranking Philip IV lower than some of his sons is extremely strange, especially since Louis X kickstarted the huge succession crisis that ended with the Hundred Years War. Probably a quite vile human being, but he was efficient.
This whole ranking of the French monarchy is quite arbitrary, it seems to be apparent that this does not comme from a deep understanding of French history, or at the very least, a lack of understanding of the French perspective of its on history. The very fact that Louis the X epithet in French is « le hutin » which implies more than simply quarrelsome but rather prone to anger because of dull jealousy shows that he was a very weak king governed by his uncle Charles de Valois and his cousin Robert d’Artois who where both traditionalist who worked to undo Philippe le bel’s work. He was in every possible under standing of monarchy a far worse king than his father and his brother Philippe Compte de Poitiers, even arguably than his other brother Charles count de la marche. I digress, I am in agreement with you gentlemen Philippe le bel is, in my humble esteem, one of Frances greatest monarchs, top ten at least.
What a dumb take Bastardmont.
@@jean-philippedufresne9184 This guy's list of English monarchs was pretty arbitrary and uninformed as well. He ranked Richard the Lionheart 39th out of 56 English Kings and Queens.
@@thareelhelloagain richard the lionheart was only king in name, he left to crusade and left the kingdom to his incompetent brother john. he remained in england after his coronation for less than a year and preferred france.
although a great general and military mind he was not what you would consider a good king especially if he left his kingdom and contributed nothing to it no reforms, no new laws his impact on england is solely due to his association to it and the prestige in having the epitome of an gallant crusader king.
i think his ranking was fair and think the ranking of edward IV was very unfair.
As a Hungarian, a ranking of Hungarian monarchs would be amazing! (Though I know Hungarian history is a bit messy)
Including the Habsburgs or not. That is the great question (to be real though Franz Joseph would be on the lower end of the ranking)
@@julianfischer6404 yeah, that's why I think it's kinda messy because idk, but I think including them it would be really great but I'd love it without them as well🤷♀️
Please do!
@@eszterhedvignagy4885 He should do it similarly to Portugal and Spain. There he also ranked rulers that governed both countries differently (still Franz Joseph would be at the lower end of the list for both sides)
The best : Mathias Corvinus , Saint Stephen , Karol Róbert, Luis the Great, Belá IV who is the best
Louis VI the Fat also was wise enough to know his limits, and delegated much of his work to the bishop of Saint Denis. That same bishop invented the "gothic" architecture (term coined by the Italians out of pure envy) while rebuilding his church, that serves as the burial place of french kings
*Louis VI the fat
Louis IX huh.
@@samarkand1585 fixed.
Okay that was fun, with some well reasoned arguments.
I did wonder about Charles The Mad, especially after seeing him in 'The Last Duel' where we get to witness his utter glee at learning he still has the authority to declare a duel to the death and his almost childlike enthusiasm as he watches it take place, contrasted with the fear and sorrow of nearly everyone else and with Charles ignoring the obvious disgust of his Queen.
By the time of that movie he didn't show any sign of madness yet, he'd have his first crisis during a hunt 4 years later. But it's not impossible that beforehand he had signs that went unnoticed
He was actually beloved before having his first crisis.
I believe the movie, which I enjoyed, doesn't give him justice.
Never take what's in a "historical movie" for granted.
Are you seriously quoting this dumpster fire of a movie (in historical terms) as a source?
@@Specoups Not as a source, but as something that made me curious to see how his historical counterpart balanced up. Like how 'I, Claudius' is far from historically accurate, but can make people curious enough to look up the real events for themselves.
Philip August actually didn't start the construction of the Notre Dame. The construction actually started a few months before Philip was even born. It was his predecessor, Louis VII, that started the construction. Under Philip August however, the construction of the Notre Dame did continue well, and a large portion of the Cathedral was completed under his reign. Fantastic video btw!
Pretty cool video! I would like to suggest that when you announce the names of the monarchs you also speak the dates, because some people like myself actually listen to these videos like they are podcasts while they cook or do other things. It would be helpful to also hear when the monarch was in charge . Thanks!
Oh, I did not know that. I've heard people say I have a rather soothing voice (though if you ask me personally, I actually dislike hearing it) oriented for podcast style content. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep that in mind.
@@spectrum1140 I am inclined to agree with the fact that I listen to your videos the same I would a podcast and ngl your voice is extremely soothing to listen to nonstop.
@@spectrum1140 I would also like this! I started listening to this to go to sleep but got curious about when they all reigned in comparison to one another.
Charles VI: "I attacked my own men and almost burned myself"
Caligula: "Really? I had *rgies with my sisters since we were 12 years old, made my horse consul and ordered my soldiers to attack the sea and collect shells from the beach..."
Charles VI: "You know? I think this is the beginning of a beautiful and lunatic friendship..."
Caligula: "Yeah. How about we have a game of cards with Elagabalus and Nebuchadnezzar II?
Charles VI: "Cool!"
Nebuchadnezzar II? Bro, you’re comparing a great warrior prince and king who actively participated in the toppling of the Assyrian Empire in his youth to this collection of absolute clowns?
@@holypaladin4657 Well, the Bible is the reason why Nebuchadnezzar II was and is still commonly thought of as being insane.
@@Michael_De_Santa-Unofficial
Even in the Bible Nebuchadnezzar is a wise and powerful king who was actively uplifted by God before he was afflicted with madness. With those other guys mentioned in the original comment there is nothing redeeming.
@@holypaladin4657Charles VI before the insanity might have had a shot at becoming something, then he lost, then he became insane.
Honestly quite unlucky for an inbred guy
I’m french and i just want to say thank you to you for knowing Philipp August. So many foreigner just know Louis XIV and Napoleon.
Ps : your classement is very good, quite perfect
Napoléon III devrait être deuxième
@@blaiseragon8142 Yes. in many respects he was better than his uncle. If nothing else he left France so rich that even after defeat and made to pay a big indemnisation to Germany, that was paid ahead of schedule. He ended the centuries old wars with England, and paved the road for future alliances with it. And he thoroughly modenized the economy.
@@blaiseragon8142 Quite correct, Napoleon II should not be counted among the list of French sovereigns because he never reigned since if he was acclaimed by the parliamentary chambers after the abdication of Napoleon I on June 22, 1815, he was not proclaimed by these and was a prisoner in Austria. In fact, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte; nephew of Napoleon I when he got a plebiscite to become Emperor of the French in 1852 wanted to logically call himself Napoleon II but his friend and advisor Persigny advised him to take the name of Napoleon III because it would give the impression that the dynasty is more old, so that he became Napoleon III.
Napoleon Bonaparte said Napoleon 1st is technically by king of France as also his nephew Napoleon III but emperor of the French. Napoleon I refuted the title of French sovereign at his coronation in 1804 by saying "I am not the successor of the King of France Louis XVI but of the Emperor Charlemagne". In fact his reign France will obtain its maximum territorial extension with 110 departments with cities like Rome, Barcelona, Hamburg, Brussels, Amsterdam which are simple French prefectures while his son receives the title of King of Rome. Napoleon, in addition to his title of emperor of the French, cumlent the titles allowing him to dominate many other territories in Europe as king of Italy, protector of the Swiss confederation, protector of the confederation of the Rhine in Germany and of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in Poland. But unlike Louis XIV who had expanded the territory of France in Europe and overseas and was able to preserve its acquisitions, Napoleon will eventually lose almost all of his conquests so that France will find itself smaller at the end of his reign than he had found at the beginning of his seizure of power in 1799 enlarged by the revolutionary conquests (Savoie, county of Nice, Neuchâtel, Montbelliard, left bank of the German Rhine, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). Napoleon who, having quickly reconstituted his army which "he had managed to save by crossing the Berezina, after the Russian campaign and close his military victories at Bautzen and Lutzen in 1813 on the Russians and the Prussians constraining the latter to the"Armistice of Pleiswitz , had refused the mediation of his father-in-law the emperor of Austria who offered him to leave to France his revolutionary conquests as part of the surrender to Russia of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, to Austria of northern Italy and the Illyrian provinces, to Prussia of the kingdom of Westphalia of his brother Jérôme Illyrians , and to the English to return the German kingdom of Hanover hereditary possession of the king of England.Refusing to listen to his former foreign minister Talleyrand who had theorized "All the conquests of France below the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees are the conquests of France, all that is beyond are the conquests of Napoleon."Thus, if he had signed the peace treaty at Pleiswitz, France would certainly have kept in addition to Savoy and the county of Nice, which it would recover in 1861, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the German left bank of the Rhine and the principality of Neuchâtel in Switzerland.
Glad to see Philip II get his due. Everyone knows Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte and Charlemagne. But what sets him apart is that instead of starting from a strong position and rising from there, he was in a terrible position, and emerged as the most powerful king in Europe. Between Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart, England could quite possibly have achieved what Henry V couldn't, and make England the new France. The fact that France would ultimately end up humiliating both King John and the Holy Roman Emperor in the same war, and getting both in a heap of trouble as a result is not something a bad king could have pulled off in his stead.
eh i’d still rate Louis XIV better
Henri II and Richard were French nobles with large possessions in France that were also kings of England, not kings of England with colonies in France. If the Plantagenets took control of all of France, England wouldn't have been the new France. England would have been even more what it already was: a cash cow used only to finance their wars on the continent.
I was pretty surprised seeing Philip iv this low. Sure, he was a tyrant, but why does this matter? He was doing a lot of succesful stuff directed towards decreacing power of nobility (And lack of centralisation later proved to be a big problem for France).
Someone has read the accursed kings
@@joellaz9836 My favourite historical book series growing up. It really brings these people to life.
@@akechijubeimitsuhide
Yeah. It’s amazing how life like the characters come off in the books, especially Charles Count of Valois and Robert III of Artois (everyone’s favourite). At the end of the series, it feels like I’ve actually met the characters in real life.
@@joellaz9836 Robert my beloved :D Although when I reread as an adult, I realized Mahaut is a woman fighting to keep her inheritance in a world ruled by men, so I felt a bit of sympathy for her.
Same here. I would have put him in the top 10 myself. That Templar thing really gave him bad rep.
Nothing unusual about Charles VII being crowned in Reims, it was by then a tradition to crown french kings in the Reims cathedral. Although its theorized the french purposefully avoided Paris in the campaign and chose Reims as it was less defended and would still provide a great moral boost. Even after the 100y war, most if not all french kings are crowned in Reims, not Paris.
You forgot to mention that Henry III was for some time king of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. You should do kings of Poland
Henry IV was an outstanding king for France. His efforts which arguably led France out of decades of civil conflict was truly remarkable imo
If only he hadnt been protestants if only
how about Henri V? He was king longer than John Ist....
I agree. Henry IV should be above his grandson Louis XIV considering that he had to fight his way to the throne.
@@powderedwiglouis1238 If only the catholic church realizes that it had been indeed corrupt and reformed.
I would love the Ottoman sultans just because I don't know anything about them besides a select few
yea Ottoman sultans would be great
You got one
@@Ghostkilla773 Just in time
Philip II was also the last & first French monarch to have the titles
"King of the Franks"
"King of France"
Charles V, if he had a better heir, would've been hands down the best king of France ever. He was way ahead of time by thinking about his reign in an historical way, he is actually responsible for compiling much of french History and french laws. For example, he gave numerals to monarchs, is the one that brought back salic law, created the first national (royal) library with the biggest amount of books after the Vatican, had Du Guesclin under his command that reunited the kingdom by revolutioning guerilla warfare tactics, he cured the kingdom from exactions of mercenaries (and eventually settled down a civil war in Castille by doing so), created the first regular army, the first regular taxation - he was the first to successfuly convey the Estates General and eventually created the Franc, he made the Louvre a palace and not just a fort, basically made french regalia (like the scepter Louis XVI is holding on the portrait)... I could go on and on, this man is criminally underrated
Yeah and I don't think we should judge him for his heir, so yes, one of the best medieval kings all across the board for me.
Bringing back the Salic law was awful.
@@ericlurio246 why do you think that
@@elioshabbar8443 Because there were quite a few women who would have made fine Queens regnant.
@@ericlurio246 maybe, but the problem is, a foreign husband would always have been a tool to claim France as a junior partner under a foreign crown. That's the reason why salic law was brought back in the first place
I would only make a small change: I would but Charlemagne as second (or even first), because unlike Napoleon, the former died in peace and power, victorious and loved by everyone.
True but the enemies of Charlemagne were not from the same league that the enemies of Napoleon.
@@fcalvaresi And that was mostly Napoleon's own fault. Like most succesful conquerors, Charlemagne understood the value of diplomacy and keeping his various enemies apart from one another. Divide and conquer, as they say. Napoleon's lack of diplomatic skills is what ultimately led to his demise and precludes him from being a really great ruler. He was a great general for sure, but a great ruler? Not so much. He made too many enemies to be a great ruler.
@@jodofe4879 Diplomacy wasn't quite the issue to begin with. When Napoleon arose to power, every single monarchy in Europe wanted to burn France to the ground (they didn't like that France literally got rid of its king at the time, and felt threatened). I do believe that in a position such as this one, it is quite difficult to make peace with anyone without some serious sacrifices (France just wasn't in a position to negociate)
I put Napoleon above for this reason: In a position where many great rulers would have failed, he somehow pulled through and left a mark still very visible today
>Loved by everyone
Not by Saxons
Also Napoleon is not only a great general and great emperor, he is actually extremely memeable postmortem
I would say Charlemagne is the biggest king in France because he may be the biggest king in Europe. He's the father of the modern idea of Europe. It wasn't until him that the fall of the Roman Empire was overcome, his reign was the start of what we think of when we talk about Medieval Europe. His kingdom was the heart of western Christianity and the beggining of all. As we may consider Napoleon the most important figure in the transition between the Ancien Régime and the contemporary world, Charlemagne is the most important figure in the Middle Ages in all Western Europe. Top 1 second to none, even great kings like Phillip II or foreign kings like Ferdinand II of Aragón owed their kingdoms to Charlemagne.
@@yorunoxx4788 That's not entirely true. It is true the Revolution was seen as a threat to the rest of the monarchies in Europe, but by the time Napoleon rose to power the more conservative factions of the revolution managed to appease some of those same monarchies, In 1795 Spain, ruled by a Bourbon (a very stupid one though) went from enemy to ally of France. Spain fought alongside France against Great Britain, just to be backstabbed and invaded by France in 1808. That was Napoleon's decision, and made an enemy and another front out of it.Even though it is the modern consensus that the campaing in Russia was the biggest failure of Napoelon, himself in his exile blamed his failure to conquer Spain and the war there as the main cause of his defeat.
Philip IV reduced the English King to a vassal and conquered the Flemish, he also ended France's debts,the templars at that point where just bankers, and started the concept of centralized monarchy as well as taking command of the papacy,I was expecting him to be at top 10 you got him completelly wrong
He also lied his ass off and turned the papacy and much of Europe against him
I was suprised when he was placed at the bottom
Created the disgusting avignon papacy and turned the pope into a slave
As a Catholic I despite what Philip did to the Church. It caused a ton of scandal and corruption for many years with the Avignon Papacy
Ended France's debt by spreading lies about the templars, preventing them to have self defense, taking all their stuff, controlling a pope even though he (pope) tried to do a fair tribunal but failes because of the king, tortures to make them confess things most of them didn't do
I'm going to sleep now
As much as I admire Napoleon his invasion of Russia can’t be overlooked. His campaign in Eastern Europe fighting Russia at the battle of Friedland gave a small but honest taste of the supply hell that was Russia. Almost everyone advised him not to invade, but he alone made the decision. Though his invasion was unlucky with winter coming early and extremely harsh, he put himself in a position were he could just loose all the gain he make in the past 10 years with almost 0% chance of success. If he didn’t invade Russia he probably would’ve ruled until his death. Then his empire would’ve crumbled as his military genius was really what was holding it together.
@@glocksmith226 yes, the Austria’s were opportunists and would gladly join Napoleon if they couldn’t beat them. Though the second Napoleon died the Austrians would turn on them. Though they disliked the Prussia they hated the Revolutionary ideals from the French Revolution. They would join every other country in restoring the monarchy to France
@@glocksmith226 Austria like most European powers (except Britain) were absolute monarchies and their first priority would be riding the source of French Revolutionary ideals. Besides that Napoleon imposed a harsh peace on the Austrians at the end of the war of the 5th coalition taking Croatia away from them. On top of that a continued alliance with France after his death would mean being dragged into wars against Britain, Spain, Prussia, and probably Russia too. With Napoleon’s talents they might side with them but without him and a teenager on the French throne they’d definitely join the winning side with Britain and gain back their land and prestige.
I would say that his other biggest error was the occupation a spain instead of placing the son of the current monach, who greatly admired him.
@@thepgawesomechannel5930 save your bias for a death man, because Napoleon at the end of the day was as militaristic and aristocratic as it were the "absolute monarchies", while it is true they had centralised the power under a monarch, Napoleon wasn't far of them.
@@glocksmith226 yes, but only when France had the military to do so. The Austrians jumped onto the 6th coalition when Napoleon’s army was defeated. Napoleon was always on the loosing side even at the hight of his power just with the scale of enemies he was facing and the British never willing to sue for peace after Trafalger and always willing to fund any enemies of Napoleon. Napoleon was able to trip the scales in his favor due to his military skill and war economy/ national mobilization. Without him his empire would be weakened and ripe for conquest.
"The good" doesn't mean he was good at his job, it means he was nice, sympathetic, liked for his personality
who are you referring to?
@@SaintJust1214 john II, or Jean II le Bon
Philippe II is definitely the best king of history. I think Philippe IV was quite good too and the guy had serious balls.
If you ever feel masochistic, you should try to rank all moldavian and wallachian voivodes, their average reign lasted like 4 years and almost ALL of them had multiple reigns.
If they weren't conveniently being killed off by their Ottoman masters, foreign invaders or pretenders being vaguely supported by..Ottoman masters.
Finally, my guy Phillip Augustus is getting the recognition he deserves
Ranking recc:
Swedish Kings -Vasa- (someone suggested Bjälbo dynasty as the better starting point) to Bernadotte
Ottoman Sultans
Persian Shahs
Ethiopian (Solomon) Emperors
Post Independece Balkan Kings
Austrian Archdukes/Emperors
Polish Kings
Emperors of China/Japan (Divided into multiple parts)
Dutch Stadtholders/Kings
Emperors of Mexico/Brazil
Kings of Hungary
Kings of Jerusalem (suggested by someone else)
I think for Sweden you can do Bjälbo to Bernadotte. It's under the Bjälbo dynasty that Sweden actually becomes quite centralised and there is more known about the monarchs from that dynasty and ahead than previous rulers. Yes the Kalmar Union is messy but if we're only counting monarchs and not regents it shouldn't be too bad.
What about Prussian/German monarchs?
@@Oleksandr.Derkach I have been thinking about it but I dont know where to start from really. From the first king of Prussia or from the first Hohenzollern? Also, he should do Wittelsbach and Wettin dynasty if he does the Hohenzollerns
But what about Mughal emperors, sultans of Delhi, maharajas of Maratha empire, maharajas of Sikh empire, Belgian kings, kings of Italy/Sardinia-Piedmont, kings of Denmark and maybe Durrani empire/Afghanistan? 😢
@@pajdoman77 probably first Prussian king, so far he ranked only people with rank of a king or higher.
Some of these stories really lend credence to that old saying "Reality is often stranger than fiction"
Some king got stabbed in the leg by his servant on accident, and then the two of them were attacked by a wild boar and the King was killed.
Truly a *bruh momento*
This was a nice video to watch, while working on a detailed project about the French Monarchy every month. Your growth to 10 subscribers to 50k in a short amount of time was amazing.
Fun fact : It's believed that Henry III last word were "AH! Méchant, tu m'a tué." which translate to "AH! Mean, you killed me." which has to be the silliest last word ever
such a silly guy
"Méchant" was a very bad word at the time, it became less important as time went on
I'm French and honestly, it's weird that the first video that talks about all the kings of France (whatever the subject, just encompassing all the dynasties of France) is made by a... a PORTUGUESE?! No big deal, good video.
After you finish the Habsburg Saga, it would be really cool if you could rank all the Holy Roman Emperors (800-1806) as a grand finale to the series.
Was not expecting my top 3 guesses to be beaten. loved that twist at the end.
You should rank the Shahs of Persia from Cyrus to Reza II!
I swear if Cyrus isn't first I would curse spectrum with the curse of Kosrow II
But what to you call a legitimate Shah of Persia?
The Arsacids?
The Seleucids? (They claimed the title).
@@fcalvaresi interestingly the Seleucids actually did not claim the shah title but they did claim older Babylonian and Assyrian titles such as master of the universe
@Emil.Fontanotthey can, but honestly id reaaaaaally hope we can one day get an unexagerated version of Cyrus's story.
Dude did anihilate the strongest kingdoms of the region one by one becoming the very first foreigner amongst countless to have invaded succesfully and made an empire that brought down Mesopotamia despite its overwhelming power since the dawn of civilisation.
Its only sad that his legend goes in the way lol
Are you counting Ottoman sultans as european monarchs? After you'll do every monarchy in Europe, it would be pretty interesting to see "top 50 best european monarchs", " top 50 worst european monarchs" and "ranking every european country based on quality of it's rulers".
good idea
Ottos aint european tho
@@tasostheteaman5484 profile picture checks out
@@wazzupdj98d61 his profile pic doesnt matter the ottoman empire was not european and more like an anatolian empire
@@Spyros5k ottoman capital was in europe. in the late 19th and 20th century europeans called them sick man of europe not sick man of near europe
And one thing more importantly is that ottomans was involved the european politics all the time and center of the empire was both balkans and anatolia
Very good video. For similar projects in the future, please leave the names and duration of the reign of the monarchs visible for longer than a split second. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't know all of the lesser monarchs.
Exactly. It is way too rushed. I would like to have a second ore two to think myself about the time the king was in. ... But maybe it is done for teenagers who think faster than I do.
Very good video as always.
My top 5 is:
1) Charlemagne
2) Philip Augustus
3) Napoleon I
4) Charles VII
5) Louis XIV
I put Napoleon below because he started in a very easy position. France was the political powerhouse of Europe and the famines pressured the French people so much they would go with him anywhere. Charles VII was in a much more difficult situation and was able to use his little resources, strategical position and his very own capabilities to the maximum so that he could save France.
Edit: Originally, Napoleon was 5th and Louis XIV was 3rd but thinking it better I swapped the places.
By that logic Phillip Augustus should be above Charlemagne, as Charlemagne started out with Francia at it's near height.
"A very easy position" as in literally being attacked by the entire continent of Europe?
@@micahbonewell5994 Yes, that gratis him the second position. However, I think Charlemagne is above because of his legal, military and diplomatic ability.
@@SuperCrow02 You are right, I swapped Napoleon and Louis XIV
@@SuperCrow02 Well by the time he took over France owned all the left bank of the rhine, Netherlands, had Spain as an ally and Russia just left the war.
The English names for the kings have been used here, which is fine but here are the names in French if anyones wondering
Henry = Henri
Philip = Philippe
John = Jean
Francis = François
Let me know if I missed any
you forgot that napoleon lll invaded mexico and created the second mexican empire with Maximilian von Habsburg, without a doubt he is my favorite french monarch of all and for his elegance
That second mexican empire was short lived and shit. I'd rather have the New Spain Viceroyalty.
@@ludwigramirez1047 Dude it wasnt Maximillian of Habsburg was a great Monarch easly swayed yes but he had great Ideas and lets face it life in the empire of mexico was better then in the Republic if Mexico
@@ludwigramirez1047 even if the mexican empire was a puppet state led by a foreign monarch, i would definitely believe that life in it would be much better that what Mexico ended up being.
@@blackdog9240 nah both are equally bad with one atleast being a democracy
@@mememachine6022 Alr both were warzones but lets do it different isnt a Progressive Monarchy with a great head of State better than a Democracy that has 1 Civilwar after it just had 1 a week ago?
YOOOOOO I WAS THE SUBSCRIBER WHO SENT THE LIST :D :D :D
This was great to watch! I like the snippets about each Monarch. Please make more videos
I'm still mad at Philip II for abandoning the crusade, and screwed over my boy, Richard, but hey, it's politics.
I'd really love to see you ranking the Ottoman Sultans next.
He leaves the holy lands without his troops who stay with Richard. And Philippe wasn’t really agree with the idea of “crusade” notably because his position in Europe was very weak since the rise of Henri II of England and the reign of Louis VII
Yeah Philippe had no interest in the Crusade but a lot of interest in enjoying Richard's absence in Europe.
Philip II was kind of forced to take part in it. Alas, he wasn't getting along with lionheart quite well, so he simply decided to do what benifited him the most: Go back to France and enjoy and take advantage of a England without it's ruler, who was busy fighting in a very costy war.
@@paonippobemduro well tbf ofc he wouldnt be friend with a guy who owned over half of HIS Kingdom.
Part of de Jure Kingdom of France and he had less France than the King of England in his hands lol
Richard was an even bigger political coward, immediately started bribing Philips men to change side and dividing the Crusade. Philip knew Richard wasn't interested in the crusade as much as making a name hunting for a kingdom. Richard abandoning the crusade in the 11th hour did irrevocable damage to the movement, making people question the motives which was completely exposed after the 4th Crusade betrayed 2 major Christian cities, choosing gold over their virtue (an act abhorred by the people's mindset at the time where temptation resistance was core to the values). This in turn led to the collapse and dissolution of the Templars.... so Richard's greed cost far more than Philips
Honnestly Philipp 1 is way too hight on this list : he actually didn't do anything in 48 years of reign, he lost most of his battles, created a huge matrimonial scandal that lasted 20 years and went excommunicated (and his country too) for that. The territorial acquisitions of the royal domain were pretty negligeables. No way you can put Phillip 4 lower than him.
The Battle of Bouvines (1214), and its campaign in Normandy in 1202-1204 are basically successes that allowed the hegemony of the House of Capet. And it is customary to say that the unification of France began under his reign, even if the process lasted for centuries.
@@tibsky1396 Those were won by Phillip II, not the 1st. There were around 150 years between the two monarchs.
Also lets not forget abandonning the 3rd crusade at acre and becoming a laughing stock in the christian world
@@powderedwiglouis1238 You mean the 3rd Crusade that was intended to prop a failed state that had no sustainable way to exist? The 3rd Crusade that cost England a fortune to ransom its king, twice? The 3rd Crusade the gains of which were undone within less than two decades?
Abandoning the Crusade was the best choice Phillip could've made at the time, considering it left him free to prepare for eventually retaking most of England's continental holdings.
Louis the Pious is one of the best examples of someone being too honest/naive.
great video, as always. subjectivity is unavoidable, as history comes from the eyes of the beholder. anyway, well done, spec
Imagine you making a tier list of Roman Kings, that'll be crazy.
Is there much known about the Roman kings?
That would be a fun way to swing this back to good old Roma.
It would be a short list, there was only 7.
@@Murad_el-Kaffas mostly legends.
I have a better idea: Roman consuls from Brutus and Collatinus to Augustus
I expected to see Napoleon or Charlemagne at number 1 as I do not know a lot about French monarchs. I would like to see you do a ranking on Prussian kings. Great video as always!
Philippe Augustus deserved the spot. He is often forgotten, because his grandson Saint Louis is more famous, but he achieved to make France the most powerful kingdom of Europe at the time while defeating England and the HRE.
Impressive man.
You should do a ranking of every Holy Roman Emperors.
Not a whole lot to write home about with Henri II. you say, but you show the fatal jousting tournament he was in, I love that. If no one knows what that is, that's just like a random painting, but that is the most significant thing to happen in Henri's reign, his dumb, stupid death.
Jean I is the only king of France to have reigned from birth til death.
Also has the shortest reign.
Hope you enjoyed the list! I especially thought of you while making it.
I bid you and your magnificent mustache (or so I've been told) a fine day.
@@spectrum1140 Napoleon III's rating is fair. It's a shame he's so poorly remembered since republicans hated him, for being their direct competitor
The list was great, the main one I'd have put differently is Louis XIII that I'd have rated higher
I love this man’s voice. It’s chaotic yet soothing in an unconventional way. 😊
I'm trying to learn french through french history. Muchas gracias, saludos desde México 🇵🇹🤝🇲🇽
You can watch the channel : Bataille de France a great French history channel about the napoleonic wars, Rome etc.
Fantastic viewing. 🇦🇺
Outstanding. I’m most grateful for an very entertaining educational episode.
I rewatch your Roman list often. Hooray for you ✨
Phillip IV the Fair is ridiculously low in my opinion. I can't think of a legitimate reason to have him lower than at least 15.
Definitely an interesting pick for your top 3. Personally I’d have Charlemagne at 1 if we include Frankish kings, simply for the sheer size and effect he has on history, but I definitely see your reasons for the other two being above him.
If you include Frankish kings you might as well include Roman emperors. Franks were/still are speaking Frankish, practise Frankish culture and still live exactly where they settled. This is called the BeNeLuxe, Flemish/Dutch being Frankish. Sure France got it's name because of Frankish conquest but the French aren't Frankish in any way shape or form besides some in the North who to state the obvious used to be dutch hence why the Frankish dna. Charlemagne and every Carolingian/Frankish king were not French kings, they ruled over Gaul and renamed it west Francia, the name just stuck. But in the same sense Romans ruled over Gaul, Charlemagne also ruled over Gaul despite being Limburgish and speaking limburgish(dutch dialect)doesn't make him a French king, it makes him a Frankish/dutch king who ruled French(among others like Germans, Italians, Spaniards etc).
@@Enbdhhdu8e3the Frankish were already related to the gallo-romans since Clovis. Culturaly and linguistics, all of the French kings of France are of Frankish dynasties.
@TheFearsomePredator Clovis unified the Salian and Ripurian Franks and created the Frankish kingdom which was roughly the Benelux and Rhinelands area. Later/after having already established his kingdom he invaded deeper into Gaul and took out Syagrius and the Visigoths who ruled modern day France. The "French" with the exceptions of Wallonians and Picardians(Franks never settled further than Picardy hence why Dutch/Frankisch language stops in French flanders)are not Frankish at all besides some minor influences and the fact they were ruled by Frankish elites, but the same goes for the other Germans like Schwaben, Bayern, Sachsen etc, who were no different then the Roman-Gauls as subjects. France is only Frankish by the fact they were ruled by Frankish dynasties, literally nothing more, but Frankish dynasties also ruled many other countries, kingdoms etc. France/French people have a stronger claim and were more influential in English history than Franks in French history...
Phillip II not only broke the angevin he beat an anglo imperial alliance aimed at undoing his victory, and came out on top despite being outnumberedm
He also abandonned the 3rd crusade at acre like a bitch
I am so happy that you are also a Phillip II appreciator
That one guy so you like history
Name every French king in history
Spectrum: challenge excepted
I'm not sure I understand the low assesment of Philip the fair. Admittedly my view is probably coloured a little by reading about him in the historical fiction novel 'The Iron King' by Maurice Druon
Philip the fair deserves to be in top 10. It's only the "black legend" from modern fiction depicting him as an "evil man" for destroying the Templars, the same way Richelieu (one of the greatest stateman France ever had) is seen as evil because of the 3 musketeers.
Great video man. Hope you make more ranking videos.
A video on the Swedish empire would be interesting as it is often overlooked.
The top 5 were essentially a hall of fame for historical figures. Holy Roman Emperors next?
To be fair with the Mad king, despite his illness he really had the will to do good, for most of his reign. The humiliation of Azincourt was not his responsibility (most French nobility arrogance and incompetence) whereas he fought and won a decisive and massive victory at Roosebeke against Flanders.
Agincourt wouldn't even happened in the first place if France was not in a state of civil war due to his madness, weakness and incompetence. The English wouldn't even had the occasion to invade in the first place. He allowed the duke of Burgundy to create the hole in which the English could enter France.
Thank you so much for this documentary. It means much to me.
Will you rank Sassanid rulers sometimes? I realy enjoy your ranking rulers videos (Bohemian kings would also be great because i am czech :))
What a brave choice, selecting Philip Augustus!
I just wanted to note Charles the Simple ended the Viking raids in France by creating the Duchy Of Normandy, the only reason why he got deposed was because there were these mad men named Robert I and Hugh the Great that were hellbent on destroying France and the Carolingians and literally bribed some nobles in Lotharingia which Charles had obtained to rebel against him, same with Louis IV, and thank God Hugh the Great wasn't around for Lothaire, oh wait, he was, just not "The Great", this time it was "Capet" who made things probably 100 times worse by turning a country Lothaire made that had centralized control and could rival the HRE and even regained Lotharingia, into basically a figurehead monarch everywhere except Paris, oh yeah did I forgot to mention the other heir was a powerful noble that owned Lotharingia and had support of half the country? Yeah.
just discovering your channel. Love your thematics and your tone. Ich suskribing (why no Merovingians ? ) PS : would love to see a video about longest dynasties (not houses, i.e. valois and bourbon should be added to capetians-capetians). Thank you for all your videos !
Great video ! Didn't you forget Philippe V however ?
Did you take into account Napoleon's time as a First Consul also (not a monarch, that is) or just his tenure as emperor from 1804 onwards?
I’d rank Philip “Augustus” II #1.
Philip IV is WAY too low.
There's a French history podcast that did something similar called "super joute royale". It's funny how some kings are ranked d the same between you and them.
Napoleon: Abandons the high round at Austerlitz, wins anyway. Obi-Wan Kenobi: *visible confusion*
Just to précise that all French kings were crowned in Reims (since it was the place in which Clovis got baptized) so it was actually the most legitimate thing for Charles VII to be crowned there in comparison to Henry VI of England who got crowned king of France in Paris which didn’t have him much legitimacy
I love how Spectrum felt more overwhelmed by WW2 than ranking EVERY king in french history 💀
I went into this fully expecting to disagree with the top 5 and then ended up agreeing completely. Mind blown.
Adding to Philippe Augustus triumphs :
- Lead the begining of the IVth Crusade with Richard Lionheart (notably lead and won the siege of Acre)
- Defeated said Lionheart in the subsequant war
- Defeated a two pronged simultaneous attack by the Holy Roman Empire and England (lead by John Landless)
- Made France the prime subject of the Chruch by intimidating the Pope
- Left the Throne with a positive treasury
Fun fact : Henry III was king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania from 1573-1574.
Yeah- but when he got there he didn't like it and ran away back home. One of the silliest moments in European history. Reading between the lines, they only voted him in because they thought he would obtain French military support against Ivan the Terrible.
@@chrisball3778
He ran away back home because his elder brother died and he became king of France... He just traded the Polish crown for the French crown.
When the future Duke of Anjou King of France Henry III became King of Poland he was not yet King of France and abandoned his Kingdom of Poland a year after his election to join the Kingdom of France after the death of his brother Charles IX in 1574.Pat against, there were several French sovereigns who accumulated the titles of foreign sovereigns during their reign as king of France
Thus Charles II the bald and Charles III the fat were also emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles VIII was also king of Naples and also had the symbolic title of king of Jerusalem which was a kingdom of French origin created during the 1st crusade. Louis XII was also Duke of Milan by his grandmother Valentine Visconti. Napoleon I was Emperor of the French (French Empire encompassing besides present-day France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the left bank of the Rhine and the north of "Germany, Piemont, Val d'Aoste, Liguria,Etruria the Papal States of Rome in Italy, Aragon and Catalonia in Spain) and King of Italy (Actually Lombardy, Veneto , Frioul, part of Slovenia ), Protector of the Swiss Confederation, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.Many kings of France were also titled at the same time kings of Navarre, a Spanish Christian state straddling the Pyrenees between France and Spain with the capital Pamplona; Louis X (1314-1316), Philip V (1316-1322) then Charles IV (1322-1328) all 3 sons of the heiress of the kingdom of Navarre then their niece Jeanne removed from the throne of France then who could reign in Navarre after their death because this kingdom accepted women as queen, so that the descendants of this onethese will reign over Navarre including Henry of Navarre who will ascend the throne of France under the name of Henry IV in 1589 so that his successors until Louis XVI in 1791 will be crowned kings of France and Navarre.Knowing that in 1512, the kingdom of Aragon had seized southern Navarre and its capital Pamplona chasing the royal dynasty of French origin which took refuge in Pau in the north of the Pyrenees and which will therefore reign only on the north of the kingdom of Navarre which in 1791 at the time of the creation of the departments will become the departments of the Pyrénes Atlantique and the Hautes Pyrénées and will be integrated into the current France.
Would have much preferred a tier list!
Waiting for the Dutch stadholders/kings
The only thing truly notable during the reign of Louis-Philippe was this:
A la volonte du peuple,
Et a la sante du progres,
Remplis ton coeur de vin rebelle
Et a demain, ami fidele!
Si ton coeur bat aussi fort
Que le tambour dans le lointain,
C'est que l'espoir existe encore
Pour le genre humain!
Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!
Try Ranking all Ottoman sultans
I'd put Louis XV higher cause he abolished the parliaments, making the king able to reform the economy without having the care about the nobles' opposition too much, and Louis XVI lower because of the exact opposite : he instated the Parliaments back, preventing himself from doing the reforms that could've maybe prevented the Revolution
Louis XI is for me the best ruler france ever had (yes, even over Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle). He reformed France, finished the 100 years war without unsheathing his sword, used careful diplomacy to utterly crush the burgundians without spilling french blood. He created the french postal service, repaved the roads, created the first professional standing army in France since roman times, and made economic reforms that enabled France to recover from the devastations of the 100 years war in the space of his reign. Truly an excellent king, by any metric.
He was also loved by the common people, and, in fact, surrounded himself with commoners over noblemen, which helped him keep in touch with the common peoples needs.
Nice to know he ended the hundred years war while he started his reign in 1461
@@samarkand1585 well if you knew anything about history you would know that he defeated an entire english field army, led by their king Edward IV in 1475, just through careful positioning and diplomacy (he basically maneuvred the french army between the english and their lines of supply and retreat and forced them to negociate).
It is the official end of the 100 years war, that had seen no combat since 1453, true, but no treaty had been signed. That changed with Louis XI signing the treaty of Picquigny.
Louis XI was good at politics and amazing at influencing events behind the scene which made him a great monarch how he played the burgundians into alienating their only allies the english and then let charles of burgundy bungle himself into an early grave at nancy in 1477 masterful shit and just payed the english to fuck off
Hey man that video was dope man and I'm glad you finally made one about France next up make one about German monarchs and after that crusader Jerusalem monarchs and yes I do agree that great uncle Napoleon was the modern day Charlemagne.... And yes I'm related to him through my great ancestor A.K.A his brother Joseph Bonaparte!!!!😎
#GreatVideo
#FrenchMonarchs
#BonaparteBoys
i was surprised napoleon was not first (very casual historian here, russian invasion slipped my mind lol) but the reasons provided for phillip augustus were incredibly convincing.
Well, he did eventually lose the wars he started and France ended up worse off after him than it was before, so being number 2 is arguably too generous.
Completely agree Phillip II is one of the greatest and most underrated monarchs of all Europe
I've watched some great documentary series on the English-British kings, but I haven't come across any on the French line. Are there any good english language series out there? Does France have a David Starkey type who has done a good somewhat balanced study of French Monarchs?
I completely agree with #1 I was actually surprised it was your pick but I'm a big fan of him.
cant belive that louis was so low and louis was soo high
You should do a video on the greatest generals in all of military history
Nice list! Napoleon and Charlemagne are my favorites.
Some suggestions:
Wallachian Voivodes
Templar Grandmasters
US Presidents (Probably a good idea to stop at the 1990's to not cause a comment war lmao)
"Holy" "Roman" "Emperors"
Yeah, ranking every US president from worst to best seems like a genius idea...
I had a heart attack with Napoleon being number 2 and not 1, i am eagerly waiting to hear number 1.
ok i had Philip Augastus in mind of beingin the top 5 but not number 1
Now I want a video of 1:30 min ranking the italian kings. But actually I think would be cool to rank maybe all the kings of Savoia untill the last king of Italy (Savoia became a kingdom after the spanish succession war), or in general making a tier list of some less known kingdoms and empire in history
Philipp IV, the Iron King, lacks recognition due to people not understanding him.
he is mistaken as either a Machiavelian before the letter or a tyrant.
he was none of that actually, he was obsessed with his grandfather, Saint Louis, and was rather mystical and really, really REALLY pious.
he also had to face the papacy at the height of its power and influence "the pontifical theocracy of the late XIIIth century", though he respected Rome, he was so damn fanatic that he considered the pope to be heretic and an obstacle on the divine destiny of the Holy Kingdom of France.
modern french historiography speaks of him as " a pontifical king".