Fun fact: Æthelred's nickname has nothing to do with him being not ready, it's a pun on his name, which means "well-advised" So Æthelred the Unready literally means "Well-advised the Poorly-advised". Lol.
His son Edmund Ironside would have certainly been much better! He challenged Cnut to a one-on-one duel in Glastonbury, but died weeks later after suspicious circumstances.
I remember hearing a slightly different one with the same connotation of it meaning Wise counsel the poorly counseled, which is pretty similar so it might be based on how it’s modernized
And I say England lacked the unity necessary at the time where the Anglo-Saxon kings would be considered a king of England. Sure some did held off the Vikings and prevented England from being a Nordic country, but that wasn’t England yet.
@@Marylandbrony There were several Anglo Saxon kings of a united kingdom of England. Athelred the unready, Athelstan, Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson are some examples. All of these men ruled the kingdom of England itself.
@@Marylandbrony Are you serious? Anglo-Saxon England was arguably the most centralised and administratively efficient state in Christian Europe outside of the Byzantine Empire. So effective was the Anglo-Saxon administrative system that it was one of the few things the Normans didn't completely do away with.
Henry VII is way too low, by far the best Tudor in terms of sheer canny ability and turned the kingdom from a basketcase to a relatively modern kingdom (certainly better than his disastrous son).
Yeah I think by far the most out of place ranking was Henry VII. He was arguably the best king as far as stabilising the finances of the nation goes, especially considering he ruled off the back of the Wars of the Roses.
Henry VII managed to win the war of roses, unite the houses of lancaster and york, leave a large surplus treasury on his death and fund the first expeditions to the New World. His also marks the transition to unified english administration. He needs to be way higher.
I actually did think I should have put Henry VII much higher. Like, Top 10 higher. But by then, I was in the process of editing the video, and I didn't want to practically restart from scratch.
He got magna carta very quickly annulled by the pope though. It only came back in for young king Henry III with the bits most egregious to the king stricken off.
@@PrinceOfCats5 However, almost every single King of England after have to renew the charter upon ascension to the throne. After a while that got bothersome and they just written into law.
I'd put Alfred much higher, definitely in the top 5. Without him, England would have been a Danish colony or a disjointed heptarchy . The idea of a united English kingdom begins with him. It wasn't realized until his grandson Athelstan, but he's the source. Without him, there is no list.
Agreed. He was wise enough to not just rely on military conquest to hold territory. He obtain submission of Mercia without wasting much needed troops against the Danes. He lost most of the wars against Danes until the one that counted. He really should be higher.
Well lads you know what time it is. I'm William the Conqueror My enemies stood no chance They call me the first English king Although I come from France 1066, the Doomsday book I gave to history So fat on death my body burst But enough about me To help remember all your kings I've come up with this song A simple rhyming ditty For you all to sing along Oh, William (Bit short init? We need more kings. Who came next?) William second, cheeks were red Killed out hunting, so it's said I took over, Henry one That's my next eldest son Then King Stephen, it's true check it! Hi, Henry two, killed Thomas Beckett Richard Lionheart? That's right! Always spoiling for a fight Oh King John, what a disaster Rule restrained by Magna Carta William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Time for my mate, King Henry eight To take up this song Henry three built the abbey Ed one hated Scots A red hot poker killed Ed two That must have hurt him lots Edward third was a chivalry nerd Began the hundred years war Then Richard two was king aged ten Then Henry, yes one more King Henry four, plots galore Not least from Henry five, why? Killed ten score at Agincourt Then Henry six arrived Edward four, Edward five Richard the third, he's bad 'Cause he fought wars with Henry seventh First Tudor and my dad So Henry eight, I was great Six wives, two were beheaded Edward the sixth came next, but he died young And so my dreaded Daughter Mary ruled, so scary Then along came... me I'm Liz the first, I had no kids So Tudors RIP William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess That's me, time for more men James six of Scotland next Is English James the first he led Then Stuarts ruled, so Charles the first The one who lost his head No monarchy until came me Charles two, I liked to party King Jimmy two was scary, woooh Then Mary was a smarty She ruled with Bill, their shoes were filled By sourpuss Queen Anne Gloria And so from then, you were ruled by men Till along came me Victoria William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria Still to come, it's Queen Victoria And so began the Hanover gang George one and George two (grim) Then George the third was quite absurd Till I replaced old him King George the fourth and known henceforth As angry, fat and cross (hang on) It's true you beat Napoleon But were mostly a dead loss (bang on) Old William four was a sailor (ahoy) It's nearly the end of the story-a As onto the scene comes the best loved queen Hail to Queen Victoria William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria George, George, George, George Will, Victoria Victoria Victoria Victoria (I ruled for sixty four years, you know.) Ed seven, George five Then Ed, George sixth Liz two then reigned and how And so our famous monarch song Is brought right up to now, oh William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria George, George, George, George Will, Victoria Edward, George, Edward, George six And Queen Liz two completes the mix That's all the English kings and queens Since William first that there have been. Edit: I feel as though Charles II and Henry VII should be rated higher and you missed Lady Jane Grey. However aside from that decent list.
Timestamps: **F Tier** 56. John Lackland 0:40 55. Richard II 1:17 54. Edward II 1:34 53. Henry VI 1:53 52. Stephen of Blois 2:07 51. Richard III 2:27 50. Mary I 2:53 49. Charles I 3:15 48. James II 3:25 47. Edward VIII 3:51 46. William Rufus 4:02 **D Teir** 45. Eadwig 4:10 44. George I 4:20 43. Eadred 4:33 42. Sweyn Forkbeard 4:45 41. Harthacanut 4:56 40. Harold Harefut 5:03 39. Richard I 5:12 38. Edward VI 5:30 37. George IV 5:49 36. Aethelread* 5:59 **? Teir** 35. Edward V 6:20 34. Edward the Martyr 6:35 **C Teir** 33. Charles II 6:40 32. William IV 6:51 31. George II 7:06 30. Edward IV 7:18 29. Edmund I 7:31 28. Edward VII 7:42 27. Henry III 7:52 26. Henry IV 8:06 25. Edmund Ironside 8:22 24. Henry VII 8:38 **B Teir** 23. George III 8:52 22. George V 9:07 21. Anne 9:16 20. Henry I 9:34 19. Henry VIII (bruh) 9:44 18. Edward the COnfessor 10:45 17. Harold Godwinson 11:00 16. James I 11:14 **A Teir** 15. George VI 11:23 14. Mary II 11:45 13. William the Conqueror 12:00 12. William II 12:10 11. Edgar the Peacefulu 12:16 10. Alfred the Great 12:25 9. Henry V 12:45 8. Canute the Great 13:00 7. Athelstan 13:12 6. Henry II 13:24 **S Teir** 5. Victoria 13:55 4. Edward I 14:06 3. Edward the Elder 14:26 2. Edward III 14:41 1. Elizabeth I 15:02
I must give you a piece of intelligence that you perhaps already know - namely, that the ungodly arch-villain Voltaire has died miserably like a dog - just like a brute. - Mozart
Great video as always, but I strongly disagree with the positioning of Henry VII. The man ended a 30-year fratricidal war despite having the weakest claim to the throne, imposed law and order on a heavily atomized feudal kingdom, conducted far-sighted diplomacy, sanitized the economy and trade, strengthened the royal coffers. Nah dude u did him dirty he's top 5 material imo 😂
@@devishiaggarwal795i dont think constitutional monarchs should be on the list. She didnt have absolute control or as you said accomplished anything. She merely symbolized an Empire and secluded herself nost of her reign.
But the fact that the wars of the roses took 30 years and decimated the country really helped Henry. In those 30 years, Beauforts, Yorks, Lancasters, Mortimers, Nevilles, and many other influential houses were either exterminated or severely weakened. I mean, it was so bad that a weasel like Thomas Stanley, who wasn't even an earl was the wildcard at the Battle of Bosworth Field. All Henry had to do was win two battles, not be a complete asshole to the nobility and the common people, and the country was his. Don't get me wrong, he was a great administrator and reasonably good general, but his job wasn't that hard. Much of that credit should go to Edward IV imo. He never lost a battle, he was shrewd enough to bring Woodvilles to power in order to limit the Nevilles, then willful enough to beat them when they betrayed him. He was also a great administrator and as he was beloved by the common people, the parliament and the nobility, he probably could better rule the country than Henry VII, too, if he hadn't died young.
I am so unbelievably grateful that you included the kings prior to 1066. Lol, much like Americans tend to skip the chapters of their history from the mayflower straight to the revolution the English seem to think their history doesn't start before William came ashore.
I'm an American, but George III probably should be ranked higher. Not only did he establish the King's Library. It wasn't just the American and French Revolutions that took place during his reign, but also the Industrial Revolution. Britain became both a huge colonial and naval empire. Britain's ships wouldn't have been able to colonize the globe if they didn't know where they were going, and George III not only set up a prize to get somebody to solve the longitude problem, but he personally intervened to make sure John Harrison got the money he deserved for inventing the maritime chronometer. I suspect some of the things that Victoria is praised for actually started in her uncle's reign.
He was usually known more as the farmer's king which was already in the rear view mirror then which hurt posterity as well as his madness which may have been an untreated disease.
Edward III was so badass, that he ruled those 50 years backwards in time... Seriously though, people don't give him enough credit because the 100 years war became what it became, if not for the Black Death he would have won and regained land lost since Richard's time (he held more of France than actual king of France). The often ommited fact is, England at the time had around 2 million Citizens, France around 17, and he still whooped their asses at every occasion. He got ready, trained his famous longbowmen to be the best foot archers in history by forbidding any sport other than archery (under the pain of death) and rescinding taxes on fletchers (bowmakers) for 5 years before the start of war, they even won a battle with literally their pants down, but the black death forced a ceasefire, and the country never recovered during his reign.
@@jonahjayverdon Not just any skirmish, but the battle of Agincourt itself, I will quote the description from warhistoryonline - "On top of being faced with an enemy that outnumbered them by two to one on the most modest estimates, the English army was plagued by sicknesses including dysentery, and had marched an average of 13 miles a day for over two straight weeks. The main disease running through the English camp was dysentery. Dysentery is a disease which mainly causes intestinal inflammation leading to excessively frequent and uncontrollable diarrhea. Thanks to their stationary position, the archers suffering from dysentery simply dropped their pant to more easily relive themselves. As the French knights and men at arms approached the English they traveled through narrow muddy fields and up a slight hill which pushed them together and slowed their advance. The professional English archers fired an incredible amount of armor piercing bodkin arrows at the French. In addition to the armor piercing arrows, it is thought that the archers also dipped their arrows in their diarrhea as a form of biological warfare and also for psychological impact."
He had a period of great sucess from 1345 to 1350, then it was mostly defeat against the French and Spanish. Also you tend to forget France wasn't an united country but a kingdom divided and under civil war, Brittany and Burgundy were on William III side thus no point to talk about population since you can't know how many were loyal to the French king. I won't talk how he wasn't able to win when France was under Charles V rule. He is far away from Henri V in term of combat.
Top 5 personal favourites: 1. Edward iii - reign epitomises the height of the romanticised medieval chivalric England with a Arthurian court (100 years war, Edward Woodstock the Black Prince, Crecy, Sluys, Chaucer, knights of the Garter etc.) If it wasn’t for the last few years of his reign where he most likely suffered with dementia he could definitely be Englands greatest king 2. Henry ii - while perhaps less romantic still extremely competent and powerful leader of what was later coined the Angevin empire, only let down by rebellious sons and his knights mistakenly killing Beckett 3. Henry v - hard not to be impressed even if he was a bit of a religious nut - Agincourt & Shakespeare ofc, fought in the thick of the battle of Shrewsbury at 16 scarring half his face. The dude was 6 weeks off unifying the English and French thrones if he hadn’t died!! Pretty impressive Hal 4. Edward i - the dude conquered Wales and made all future heirs it’s Prince while also building loads of huge castles there. Went on crusade in his youth, battered Scotland making it a vassal of the English (battle of Stirling Bridge etc.) until his son messed it up… Bannockburn 5. Edward iv - personal underdog fav, took the throne at 18 after defeating the Henry vi in battle, married for love (silly but respect), essentially won the war of the roses in his lifetime, brought back the chivalric court of Edward iii, and he was huge 6’4 (can you tell I love the medieval & the name Edward, ps. my boy Athelstan just missed out on this)
It seems you have more of a high into late medieval period interest since I think I would put some more kings from the early medieval/dark ages period here , and maybe Elizabeth I too.
Edward IV is definitely underrated, I'd say. I think Henry VII learned a lot from his father-in-law's administration, especially government finances. Yes, his foreign policy ended in a bit of a disaster but overall, he was pretty good.
Did you know that Cnut the great was the first king of England to call himself the king of England his predecessors called themselves the king of the English
Brilliant list!! Some comments on it: You obviously know your stuff and don’t just follow the normal trends, I particularly love the often unrecognised credit you give Athelstan and Edward the Elder! While you justly put those such as Henry viii and Richard i fairly low on the list. - Charles ii at 34 a bit harsh: he did very well towing the line between Protestant and Catholics at perhaps the height of religious intolerance + seemed like a chill and hilarious dude. - Edward iv at 30 also seems harsh: effectively won the war of the roses during his lifetime, won the battle of Mortimer’s cross at 18 to become king and the guy was 6’4 (tallest king!) - bigger than longshanks - Unsure why Mary ii is so high at 14: always seemed pretty passive to me and was swept into power in the glorious revolution by others. Still, a very well done list!!
Do keep in mind, I did think quite a bit about re-arranging the list a little further, but I just didn't want to go with the trouble of re-writing the script. But some things I thought (after finishing the writing and recording and during the actual editing) were: 1- Henry VII should be way higher 2- Henry VIII should be a little lower 3- I should have put Henry II in S-tier 4- Edward III should be quite a bit lower. But if there's one thing I've learned from making lists such as these is that I can't waste too much time being indecisive; otherwise I'd never finish the video.
@@spectrum1140 if you want voriaty in monarch quality look at France or HRE for Europe as they have the dumbest and some of the best rulers . Siam would be interesting since it's not trendy. Anyway good job
@@eg310 Ooh, east Asian monarchs would be interesting! And Siam/Thailand does tend to get forgotten about. Also, no big deal, but it's spelled variety.
@@spectrum1140 not criticising! I don’t envy rating every single monarch and there will always be a level of subjectivity to any of these lists. I agree with Henry vii & Henry ii probably deserving to be higher, but I think Edward iii at 2nd is spot on!
I agree completely with Henry VIII, like I think he also had some good advisors and guys doing the actual infrastructure... that he blew through by executing a lot of them. Can't argue he didn't have an eye for choosing administration which I think is an underrated trait in a king that can get you a lot farther than stuff like military acumen if you can just hire guys for that instead.
Note on Anne, she actually reigned from 1702 to 1714. She was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland until the Acts of Union in 1707 wherein she reigned as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland until 1714.
Yes, I’d have him in the top dozen at least. There’s very little outrightly bad that he did other than ‘possibly’ murdering the mad king Henry VI, but it was probably the most pragmatic thing for the stability of the reign. Also, I do like a king that fights his own battles.
I actually think this is a very good attempt at ranking the monarchs. Henry 7th is obviously too low. Ethelred the unready is too high. Henry 1st should be higher aswell. I actually think Victoria is too high I appreciate It’s hard to rank a figure head but Victoria spent a considerable time of her reign moping after her husbands death instead of fulfilling her constitutional duty. She was pointlessly vindictive to Peel and Gladstone and she lucky that this didn’t have any lasting effects. Honestly William 4th (who is very underrated ) and George 6th were better figurehead monarchs but Victoria was playing on easy mode.
7:00 Massive oversight on William IV. Seeing it was him who personally forced the Tories to accept the Great Reform Act in 1832. Thus placing him much higher.
"When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns". - Winston Churchill on King John
Good list it is ironic that Henry VIII went through so many wives because he wanted to leave England a male heir, but Anne Boleyn bore him Elizabeth who put England on the world map, England has done well under her queens, who ruled in their own right.
She did put England on the map in some ways (or those around her did), but she also let the sadist Richard Topcliffe brutally murder and torture god knows how many innocent people, executed hundreds of innocent people like Campion and Mary Queen of Scots, and acted like an absolute child even in her 60s.
You show the depth of your scholarship by making Edward III no. 2. The guy was amazing! I can’t believe there hasn’t been a movie about his life. And on top of that, he sired, raised and trained the Black Prince.
Shakespeare wrote a play about him but it was kept secret for a while because he didn’t want to offend the new Scottish monarch with its negative depiction of David II of Scotland. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_(play)
I always thought Henry VII was seriously underated. I studied him at school and he honestly made very few mistakes and managed to drag the country out bankruptcy. His diplomacy was masterful and the only monarchs I consider better than him were Alfred and maybe Athelstan.
Also William the Comqueror did commission the Doomsdaybook, which is basically a giant land survey over England. I feel he would be higher than 13 for that.
@@dyingearth Various ealdermen, earls and sheriffs would hav kept records on shires and counties. The Normans commissioned the Doomsday book partly because all of the Anglo-Saxon land and wealth records became obsolete after the invasion and the “harrowing of the north”.
Look up the horrifically overlooked Harrying of the North. William was a genocidal maniac, who also turned England from an Orthodox free country into a Catholic feudal tyranny.
I'm so thankful to see you put Harold Godwinson on this list. Guy fuckin crushes one of the most formidable people to ever challenge for the English throne in Harold Hardrada (I prob spelled that wrong). Last of the Vikings kings, guy was easily the most experienced militarily of the 3... I just didn't see that one coming... An then still gave William hell after marching his army at across the country at breakneck pace
Harold Godwinson is a personal favourite of mine, even if he reigned only for 9 months and is mainly remembered for losing at Hastings. But he lost after hours of well-balanced fighting, he had fought at Stamford Bridge less than three weeks before and had marched his army from London to York and back at an incredible pace.
I gotta call out yet also credit discussing Edward I without mentioning that he conquered Wales. It’s too important not to mention, but also his reign wasn’t just about conquering Wales so it’s nice to see him spoken of without that
I like the inclusion of the AngloSaxon kings who are so often forgotten. Richard III deserves a better rank, certainly better than Edwig, Eardred, Edward V ( who never ruled) and Sven Forkbeard, and even Richard I who was a miserable king. A very enjoyable video!
@@ie2428 1. Brought about military and political stability after the Wars of the Roses 2. Used said stability to reform and grow the English economy Sure he had an air of 'Michael Corleone' about him. But England in the late Middle Ages wasn't a particularly pleasant place to be.
@@ie2428 Henry VIII was the irrresponsible and immature one. Henry VII was a fairly unpleasant man and had no compunction about executing anyone he considered a threat, but he was fiscally responsible and pretty adept at diplomacy.
Bloody fanstastic champ, for next one of you're episodes I recommend doing Polish ones. There were many of them and well, you already touched on western and eastern, so what about central?
Henry III should be way lower. He bungled multiple invasions of France which didn't achieve the goal of retaking the Angevin lands. He turned most of his own nobles against him. Started a massive feud with Simon De Montfort, leading to the devastation of the second barons war, and his powers being further limited than they were already (thanks magna carta) with the provisions of Oxford. He only got saved in the end by his own son, and the fact that most nobles hated De Montfort more than him. An absolute train wreck from start to finish.
I said this in a comment too. After his regent (William Marshall), best frenemy (Simon De Montfort) and his own son (the future Edward I), Henry III managed to have a long reign where his was never close to being the most important person in the kingdom. He also had a terribly unpopular Queen Consort too in Eleanor of Provence, which didn't help. Some important buildings and institutions were created, but that was more despite of him and inevitable during such a long reign.
Henry VII ended the war of the roses, united the two houses of Lancaster and York, formed powerful marriage and trade alliances abroad in a time where England's international power had been decimated by the Hundred years war, and turned the deficit he inherited into a surplus that he left behind.
I love how the bottom half of the list bounces back and forth between random kings in the 18/19th century and then even more random and obscure medieval kings
My friends and I went through and ranked all pre-Act of Union monarchs for fun a while back. We came up with similar rankings, but our top five were: 1) Edward III 2) Edward Longshanks 3) Alfred the Great 4) Henry II and 5) Tie between Athelstan and Henry V
@@ZosimusNova Ah! It sounds like a typical NCAA tournament, when you anxiously scan the brackets to see how far your team is likely to go, only to see it's been seeded lower than you (a fan) thinks fair and is up against Gonzaga or UNC in the third round! So she (presumably) wasn't' seeded as high as I (a fan) would have liked. Well, I'd never win the office pool anyway. Whether it's basketball, Halloween candy, or monarchs, there's a lot of subjectivity, which is part of the fun.
@@elainechubb971 Elizabeth was a good queen for sure, but even then I'd still have her in the tier just below our top monarchs I think, as her reign was not without some major failures, like the Counter-Armada.
These monarch videos are good to watch to see your perspective and such, it is also a good intermediate video to put between the episodes of the new Punic Wars episodes.
Richard I was a great warrior king but not a great king of England. Think he deserves to be higher up though. His crusading accomplishments set him apart from any of the other middling monarchs.
Eh. For a tier list of"Monarchs of England" he is probably too high. Great guy, maybe. Great soldier, sure. Great monarch... he never really did the job. His main contribution to the kingdom was getting captured on his way home from Crusades and had to be ransomed at a cost that bankrupted the kingdom. This also dragged down his brother who inherited the bankrupted realm. His capture wasn't entirely his fault as he was under papal protection as a crusader but he also was a complete muppet to put himself in that situation. If you mark John down for being forced to sign magna carta, you have to mark Richard down for playing a huge role in creating the scenario that forced it.
@@cronoros to really understand how stupid that capture affair was you only need to understand that doing what he did would get you killed even today let alone in the middle ages
@@cronoros But unlike John, Richard managed to defeat the French king and regain all the lands that were lost while he was imprisoned in Austria and Germany. Things were going very well before Richard died and all the English nobility supported Richard and were loyal to him. It’s only after Richard died that John, being incompetent, lost the lands once more to the French king.
@@cronoros Richard did not create that scenario. Before Richard died everything was actually going very well. He had reconquered all the lands lost in France and defeated the French king. But John was unable to hold back the French king like Richard nor was he was popular among the Barons like Richard since he kept losing.
@@joellaz9836 don't get me wrong, John absolutely was not a good king but neither was Richard really. Richard was a good general and soldier but not a good king. Note the verbiage you used "regain", "reconquered" - as in Richard lost them cos he was not there to hold them. He could win them back in war but ruling them was a different matter. And while things were OK when he died, he never settled the succession (an ongoing issue true...) leading to a war and ultimately a king who had no power base of his own. John was a worse ruler in his own right but his line ruled for centuries. If given more time, how well Richard would have ruled long term is an open question also given his record in aquitaine prior to becoming king versus what experience he might have gained since becoming king.
That’s not a British accent, it’s really cool that you’ve taken such an interest in our history that you’d make this. You must be great at quizzes! 😝 I’m British and this is educational.
I'm honestly glad that Harold Godwinson was placed so high up, poor guy gets so much shit and in my opinion doesn't get enough credit. When his nation was in turmoil he stepped up, he put down Welsh raiders, marched up and down the length of England to crush a massive invasion by Norwegian Vikings after Northern English forces couldn't hold them back, and then he marched his dogged and tired army all the way back down to the very south of England to face off against William. A lot of people also don't realize that the English very nearly defeated the Normans even after having to march up and down England and already after having put down a massive invasion force. Every charge William sent up the hill after the English was crushed and forced back, it got so bad that the morale of the Normans nearly broke when they thought William had died, he had to ride in front of his army with his helmet off to prove he was still with them, and even then it got so bad that they seemingly began to retreat (this may have been a trap, but it's not impossible that they genuinely were trying to retreat, since they were suffering very bad casualties, even the Knights). There is a good chance Harold would have defeated the Normans and William would have been ever after remembered as the Bastard rather than the Conqueror had Harold's infantrymen not given into their bloodlust and chased the retreating Normans down hill therefore losing their position on the hill and falling prey to the Norman Knights who cut the disorganized and panicked footmen down like grass. Even with the annihilation of the infantry and the death of their King, the elite Huscarl axemen of Harold still fiercely held their position on the hill and fought to the death against the overwhelming Norman Knights. So I'd say, Harold deserves way more respect than he gets.
I'd say Elizabeth II is top 10. She helped forge a new identity for Britain after WW2, as well as unite the Commonwealth Realms under her, simultaneously running 14 countries. She was a strong leader who remained popular and was pretty much the gold standard constitutional monarch, keeping prime ministers in line. Only problem was having terrible children. Not a good look when the moral and spiritual heir of the country constantly cheats on his wife, sending her spiralling into mental illness. Not to mention Andrew being a pedo. Other two children also went through messy divorces that were wide on display for the public to watch. She very much failed in raising good heirs to the country.
Henry V should be higher like this is the person who won the 100 years war for England before his son, his son’s advisors and Joan of Arc caused a defeat in the 100 years war.
This is very misleading. Henry was never decisively defeated by the Welsh princes. Each time, at Ewloe and Crogen, he battled the Welsh indecisively and then outmaneuvered them politically. By the late 1170s the Welsh Princes, especially Rhys of Deheubarth, had submitted to Angevin hegemony, with Rhys even being appointed Justiciar for Southern Wales thus being incorporated in the Angevin feudal structure. Henry was never defeated entirely in any of his endeavors, quite the opposite in fact. He won even if he seemed to lose (Hosler, "Henry II: A Medieval Soldier at War 1147-1189"). This is classic medieval Realpolitik, of which Henry was THE master. War is not merely a question of battles, it is the enforcement of a political principle. At this Henry was undefeated for 35 years until the very last days of his life when he was dying man. Truly a peerless monarch.
@harry This is completely speculative. Henry time and again made way for John to prove himself, for instance in John's disastrous expedition in Ireland in 1185. That John was such a dastardly man is not something to be laid entirely at Henry's feet. John had his father's administrative zeal but not his genius.
@@duncancurtis1758 And then Henry II cleverly got almost everything he wanted in the Compromise of Avranches and was able to completely hijack the Becket cult for his own ends. Its difficult to see what Henry really lost, practically. He could still intervene and often did in ecclesiastical matters. Famously, he often commanded appointments to church offices. For instance, in the election of the Bishopric of Bath he told the abbot, "I order you to hold a free election, but forbid to elect anyone but Richard my clerk." Three guesses who became Bishop of Bath? And this was AFTER the Becket affair. Henry had the absolute power of an Roman emperor (Cantor, "The English: A History of Politics and Society to 1760).
Jesuits, who were Catholic, were actually the first to implement educational reform across Europe, making mathematics compulsory. In fact, in the 16th and 17th century mathematics was only truly taught in Jesuit schools. Others only did very basic maths (like primary level).
George V should be much higher for his innovations that started the modernisation of the British monarchy and bringing the institution closer to the people: cutting the German ties, changing the dynastic name, founding the OM, CH & OBE decorations, setting the rules for British royal titles and marriages that still endure to this day, as well as WWI and recognising that Edward VIII would be a disastrous king. Also, the Empire was at it's greatest extent during his reign. Queen Anne should be ranked higher than her sister Mary II, who was a fairly passive joint monarch in deference to her husband. Also, i think the first portrait you show as Anne is actually Mary (I may be wrong). Henry VIII deserves a higher rank for his break with Rome - it remains the most nation-defining act in English history, even if he was a monster. Charles II too, for re-establishing the monarchy after the ghastly Cromwell, rebuilding London after the Great Fire, and (inadvertently) fathering so many of the ancestors of today's non-royal dukes. Henry VI and Richard II, while not great rulers, were great patrons of learning and culture, so maybe deserved a higher rank. Ditto, George II and George IV for the same reasons. Loved that you included the Anglo-Saxons and Danes (and wisely left out Matilda). Although where was Lady Jane Grey?
Agreed with you up until you said Henry VI deserved to be higher. Lost of all England's French territories to end the Hundred Years' war, a puppet of powerful Dukes (Somerset and Suffolk), which fostered the start of the War of The Roses. If he let Richard of York manage control of the French territories, it would have been a different story. Let's not also forget he frequently turned into a vegetable and couldn't rule.
I agree with all your points. Perhaps I should clarify: Henry VI should be *slightly* higher, if only for his founding a number of important colleges. It was his one lasting achievement.
Whenever you make these tier lists I make a list in Word for myself too. First I go to the corresponding Wikipedia article, then I copy all the names into it (even the disputed ones) and then I start playing the video and sorting the names in my list at the same time. There are always some names that get left out. So this time the people who were left out were - all the disputed claimants - king Phillip of Spain and - both Cromwells (and I can see why these people were left out)
I feel Charles II is ranked lower than he should be, in my opinion. Unlike his father and brother, Charles II was actually able to dissolve parliament and rule competently as an Absolute Monarch. Aside from that, he also steered the country through three catastrophic events, the Great Fire of London, Great Plague and most of the Popish Plot. In fact, he even personally dispelled the Popish Plot himself. As well as going to London with his brother to assist the Firemen during the Great Fire of London. Personally, a favourite of mine.
Henry VII super underrated, retook the kingdom from exile, eliminated the various dynastic threats, and unlike his son understood Englands strength and thus sought to avoid war while maximising income by playing the great powers off each other. In my opinion the best Tudor monarch and most overlooked English King.
Aethelstan should be higher than 9 IMO. Man literallly founded the first England that's close to the borders we have today. First true King over all the Anglo-Saxons, no longer divided into Mercia, Wessex and other petty kingdoms.
Umar wins the Caliph tanking, IMHO. Although he was helped by having an all-time great general in Khalid Ibn Al-Walid. Don't know as much about Ottomans, but Mehmet II and Suileman I are the normie choices.
@@Jackaljkljkl would be more interesting to divide up tbf . All 14 United Umayyad caliphs. All 23 rulers of an Independent emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba till 1031. All 37 Abbasid caliphs from Baghdad etc .
I agree with Jack in Umar (ra) being the best caliph. Very competent and a fairly just leader, the grain stores and the welfare benefits handed out to the poor was something ahead of its time. He had a great general in Ibn Waleed and he avoided appointing kinsmen to political offices to minimise nepotism (something that was Uthman's biggest flaw). I guess Meiji would be one of the top contenders for japanese emporers but I don't know much of their medieval history so their could be better ones. Mehmet II would probably sweep the ottoman rankings.
Great video! One small issue at 12:35, and it's a common misconception to fall under, but Alfred was never deemed "king of England", he definitely laid the foundations for England to emerge later down the line though.
To be completely fair to Edward IV, the earl of Warwick did have a ton of power. A French dignitary once joked that England had two kings, Warwick and another who’s name he’d forgotten. Capable as he may have been Edward didn’t want Warwick to call the shots and for himself to be a figure head. I got most if not all of my information from the documentary: Britain’s bloody crown. Edward IV’s biggest mistake was probably his marriage, he was scheduled to marry a French princess, the match had been set up by Warwick. Instead he married Elisabeth Woodville, and this marriage created another phase of the war of the roses which played out after Edward IV’s death. The documentary from which I got my information theorizes that Edward IV married Elisabeth Woodville to assert his dominance over Warwick, and possibly also because Elisabeth’s family had fought against his family. Edward IV had a reputation for taking mercy and showing good faith to his ex enemies as he actually did towards Warwick and his own brother. Marrying Elisabeth Woodville was perhaps another attempt at showing good faith to an ex enemy. But considering the alliance he could’ve made with France, eh you be the judge. Elisabeth Woodville was also rumored to be very beautiful and she played hard to get.Edward apparently fell head over heels for her, which is probably another reason he married her. I must again emphasize that all of my info is from the documentary Britain’s bloody crown.
Considering its factoring in to your Henry VIII decision, I'm going to disagree heavily on that his leaving the church benefitted English education. Frankly, the great powers who stayed Catholic, primarily France and Austria, remained competitive with England in terms of the arts and sciences, despite having to spend drastically more on their defense budget and being a part of all the continental upheaval that went on in the period. I hear this claim a lot from people of Spanish and Portuguese extraction, including by way of their respective colonies, and honestly, this seems to have been more of an issue with the Iberian monarchies. Yes, they allowed the church to control education, but so did France, Austria, and the Italians, who all produced huge contributions to the scientific world at a rate comparable with the British. Unfortunately, the Iberians don't seem to have invested in their education, or most other areas of their infrastructure, very much at all, due to a variety of factors, but probably most importantly their colonies, which provided wealth without the need for educated citizens, which set Spain and Portugal (and their colonies) up for failure in the long run. It also didn't help that Spain in particular was spending huge amounts of its colonial wealth on European wars, and that Portugal was spending theirs trying to remain independent of Spain. More to the point, however, politically, Henry VIII's leaving was a disaster for English foreign policy. Fifty years prior, England had contended for control of the French throne. Henry's reign is the final end to English continental ambitions, by making England into such a pariah that Spain could actually attempt to invade, without anyone else in Europe caring. The story of the Spanish Armada is often touted as a miracle by the English, but the fact that it got as far as it did, or that it required a miracle at all, is evidence of just how incompetent English diplomacy and soldiery had become under the Tudors. Leaving the Church cost England a generation of educated men and the entirety of their continental ambitions, and very nearly their sovereignty, and we don't see England pulling away from its peers in terms of education until the 1800s, and even then, not by much. Call me crazy, but founding the largest empire on earth while Europe was devastated by the Naopleonic Wars, probably had a lot more to do with the slight British edge on education than leaving the church. It's also telling that we don't see anything similar in northern Germany, Scandinavia, or the Netherlands, until their economies each took off. So, yeah. I'd be interested in a rebuttal, but I really don't think it's as simple as Catholic country=bad education, and I think Henry VIII probably did more long term harm than good, even if he didn't ultimately cost England its sovereignty.
I also just wanted to add that Jesuits, who were Catholic, were actually the first to implement educational reform across Europe, making mathematics compulsory for the first time. In fact, in the 16th and 17th century mathematics was only truly taught in Jesuit schools. Others only did very basic maths (like primary level).
I have to respecfully disagree on the scientific achievements and educational part of your argument. I agree that there were great scientific discoveries in Italy during the Renaissance particularly--Galileo the prime example--and some in France, e.g., Pascal. But nothing to compare with the advances in practical science particularly in England, Scotland, and British North America. Here is a very incomplete list: Newton and Darwin, steam power (Stephenson), mechanized spinning and weaving (French contributions, too), logarithms, early mathematical work ultimately leading to the computer, powered flight (airplane), telephone, telegraph, television ... Note: by the 19th century, science, engineering, and other inventions became much more international, so it's harder to talk only of separate nations being birthplace of various advances. I want to add that the first scientific association started in England as the Royal Society, under the auspices of Charles II. One big problem with Roman Catholic countries in the later Middle Ages and early modern times was that a large number of brilliant and ambitious young men or boys (and to a lesser extent young women) were drawn into careers in the Church and were usually celibate, thus diminishing the gene pool. Cardinal Wolsey was a very successful Chancellor of England (until he lost the favor of Henry VIII) but could not leave sons who might also have contributed a lot to the country. But Elizabeth's great chancellor, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, left more than one son to carry on serving the country (and, of course, becoming rich doing so), first among them being Robert Cecil. In the Georgian era, William Pitt the Elder was prime minister, and so was his son, William Pitt the Younger. (And in the U.S., there were John Adams and John Quincy Adams.) A remarkable number of famous people have been children or grandchildren of members of the clergy, mostly Protestant but also Eastern Orthodox (Tesla) Sir Christopher Wren was the son of an Anglican clergyman. The father of the Wright Brothers was a Methodist bishop. (There's a long list in Wikipedia.)
@@elainechubb971 Look, Britain's record is impressive, I don't think anyone can deny that, but prior to the late 1700s and early 1800s it was actually rather mediocre compared to France and Italy, and those two nations did not fail to produce important technologies throughout the 1800s either. Britain had great success with the steam engine, and Newton and Clerk-Maxwell were incredibly important to the study of mathematics, but there were already practical steam engines and advanced theories of mathematics in existence in Europe prior, so they were very much standing atop the shoulders of giants already. Britain had iron, coal, a burgeoning empire, and internal stability all in one place, which made it a very likely place for the industrial revolution to arise, but there is much more to the modern world than that, and France and Italy in particular have very comparable contributions. France gave us Pasteur, for instance, who essentially built germ theory for us, including the principles of heat treatment and vaccination, which together have likely saved billions of lives, and Italy's Volta basically single-handedly gave us useable electricity for the first time with his voltaic pile, which batteries today still essentially mirror in principle. More importantly though, even if Britain was special in that regard, that would not make Catholicism the culprit, because there are multiple Protestant countries with records far less impressive than Britain. The matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that most European nations stayed Catholic, but it's very difficult to argue that every Protestant country suddenly or even gradually greatly surpassed its Catholic neighbors. One doesn't cross from the Netherlands to Belgium and suddenly find a drastically worse standard of living, or Brandenburg to Bavaria. Without that connection, then even if we could definitively say that Britain has a leas on every other country (and I do dispute that), then the cause of that lead being the disadvantage of Catholicism seems far less likely than Britain's natural resources and political stability, both products of geography, not human society.
I want to add: 1.Canute the Great died in 1035 not 1025 2. Athelstan was king of the English from 927-939 3. Edward III (date for the reign has an error)
John might not be great, but at least he was here! Part of the reason John was in trouble with the barons and had no money is that Richard had spent all of the money on wars, that he has then lost, while spending less than one whole year in England.
John had an immense amount of resources on his side. Half of the kingdom of France and all of England was under his control. He was utterly defeated by phillip Augustus, who ruled a fraction of the land, and his alliance with Otto the 4th fell apart completely. Richard had previously humiliated phillip by kicking him out of the lands that John gave to him. John's own meddling caused him his own situation with Richard having to fix it.
How the hell is Victoria ranked higher than Henry II? She was a figurehead that did basically nothing, Henry II was the man who built the mighty Angevin Empire and established English common law
Napoleon was really kinda defeated under the reign of George (later IV.) the Prince Regent because George III. couldnt rule anymore at that point. George IV. also was alot more active especially in cultural matters than many people think and did some important work in unifiying the kingdom with his big tour through the kingdoms. Underway he also lifted the ban on scottish highland culture that was in place since the last jacobite rebellion. Today we mainly see all those horrible caricatures joking about his fatness and the conflict with his wife but atleast the british did have the right to do so under his rule.
14:13 actually people in the middle ages were as tall as modern humans, the decrease in height started in the 1600s until the 1800s, the average height in middle age europe was 1,73 meters and during the 1600 to 1800 was 1,67 meters.
I read somewhere that Napoleon used tall soldiers in the front ranks, in order to intimate the enemy. When these guys inevitably died more than others and had fewer offspring, it reduced France's average height by two inches.
IDK if I’d put Edward VII so low. His personal charisma helped a lot getting England and France allied right before WWI. I’d put him in the bottom half of B tier.
Henry II should be higher on this list. He ended the anarchy in England that was the result of the war of succession between his mother, the Empress Mathilda, and his uncle, King Stephen. He expanded English holdings in France to the point where the English crown controlled more French territory than the French crown. And most importantly, he was the godfather of the English Common Law, a legal system that is still being used in the UK, Ireland and in every former English colony (the USA, Canada, India, Australia, Kenya, etc.). That puts Henry II up there with Napoleon, Justinian and Hammurabi.
Thank you for this list. I have a request. Kind of an addendum to your list. Now that Queen Elizabeth II has passed on. Where would she be on your updated list?
Maybe somewhere like 30th in my opinion. Britain's standing in the world decreased during her reign and she didn't really do anything besides attending ceremonies and banquets. She was popular so she isn't 40th or something but she didn't have much of an impact on britain for a monarch.
I don't think anyone gives George the 4th enough credit, he was actually incharge alot of the time when his father went mad and he Kick-started he did alot for the arts and architecture, infect just visit Brighton it's a wonderful place
Good choice of Elizabeth I as number 1. She WAS Belphoebe and Gloriana! The Queen regnant in every sense who would "have but one mistress here and no master" and whose reign saw England's independence preserved and then set the nation on the path leading to imperial global hegemony.
@@michaelshkop8478 You know England never intended to conquer France right ? The Plantagenets themselves came from France, and Henri V was the first to have English as his mother tongue. I think England was lucky to lose de the 100 Years War, remaining an island is what made it gradually a superpower. And arguably, if Henry did become king of France, the court would have been moved the richer area where most people are: in France, in Paris in particular. Which would have probably reversed to linguistic shift that was just beginning toward English, and would have made England unrecognizable (probably more influenced by France than the opposite). I think it was the best outcome for England as you know it. edit: Alternatively, it also could have ended up with no major differences in the long term, as a simple temporary personal union. After all, personal unions often went back to division historically in Europe, most of the time actually.
i think that after you make a few more of these, maybe at some sort of channel milestone you could throw together every single emperor/ruler from all of your ranking videos (or at least some from each vid) and put together a general ranking for all of them.
Fun fact: Æthelred's nickname has nothing to do with him being not ready, it's a pun on his name, which means "well-advised" So Æthelred the Unready literally means "Well-advised the Poorly-advised". Lol.
His son Edmund Ironside would have certainly been much better! He challenged Cnut to a one-on-one duel in Glastonbury, but died weeks later after suspicious circumstances.
Michal Ireneusz Jakubowski Right you are! The Anglo-Saxon nickname is "unred," "red" being a cognate of the German "rat," meaning council.
@@Oodelally
I mean, it was probably of wounds suffered in battle
@@warlordofbritannia I have heard that he was apparently assassinated on the toilet by a Viking, which seems both plausible and rather comedic.
I remember hearing a slightly different one with the same connotation of it meaning Wise counsel the poorly counseled, which is pretty similar so it might be based on how it’s modernized
I like that you included the Anglo-Saxon monarchs too, not just the Normans.
Absolutely. A lot of sources/videos will just ignore the Anglo-Saxon kings as if they never even existed, and William just made England himself.
And I say England lacked the unity necessary at the time where the Anglo-Saxon kings would be considered a king of England. Sure some did held off the Vikings and prevented England from being a Nordic country, but that wasn’t England yet.
@@Marylandbrony There were several Anglo Saxon kings of a united kingdom of England.
Athelred the unready, Athelstan, Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson are some examples.
All of these men ruled the kingdom of England itself.
@@Marylandbrony Are you serious? Anglo-Saxon England was arguably the most centralised and administratively efficient state in Christian Europe outside of the Byzantine Empire. So effective was the Anglo-Saxon administrative system that it was one of the few things the Normans didn't completely do away with.
@@browsingfloor62 not true. Edward the confessor for example was well remembered and his name was given to English kings.
Henry VII is way too low, by far the best Tudor in terms of sheer canny ability and turned the kingdom from a basketcase to a relatively modern kingdom (certainly better than his disastrous son).
Henry VIII was alright if you're not catholic
@@jesuschrist9513 well my family suppose to be Catholic but i like him.
Yeah I think by far the most out of place ranking was Henry VII. He was arguably the best king as far as stabilising the finances of the nation goes, especially considering he ruled off the back of the Wars of the Roses.
Henry VII managed to win the war of roses, unite the houses of lancaster and york, leave a large surplus treasury on his death and fund the first expeditions to the New World. His also marks the transition to unified english administration. He needs to be way higher.
I actually did think I should have put Henry VII much higher. Like, Top 10 higher. But by then, I was in the process of editing the video, and I didn't want to practically restart from scratch.
"Oh, King John, what disaster. Rule restrained by Magna Carta."
"William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Time for my mate, King Henry eight
To take up this song."
He got magna carta very quickly annulled by the pope though. It only came back in for young king Henry III with the bits most egregious to the king stricken off.
@@PrinceOfCats5 However, almost every single King of England after have to renew the charter upon ascension to the throne. After a while that got bothersome and they just written into law.
@harry A red hot poker killed Ed II that must have hurt him lots.
Edward III was a chivalry nerd, began the hundreds war.
@harry Henry IV plots galore, not least Henry V, why? Killed 10 score at Agincourt, then Henry VI arrived.
Agree with your sentiments on George VI - dude is very underrated.
Even got an Oscar winning movie
Your channel is so good, I hope you make videos more often.
Don’t forget that he fought at Jutland while still a prince.
i thought you died! it has been years since i last saw one of your videos. amazing that i even remember you when i came across this comment.
HAHAHA WTF IT'S YOU you're a legend for your return a few months ago by the way.
I'd put Alfred much higher, definitely in the top 5. Without him, England would have been a Danish colony or a disjointed heptarchy . The idea of a united English kingdom begins with him. It wasn't realized until his grandson Athelstan, but he's the source. Without him, there is no list.
Agreed. He was wise enough to not just rely on military conquest to hold territory. He obtain submission of Mercia without wasting much needed troops against the Danes. He lost most of the wars against Danes until the one that counted. He really should be higher.
He was definitely the most consequential, ending the heptarchy and weakened the danelaw
I'm just disappointed that bakery wasn't included in Alfred's list of achievements
He is the only king to be named “the Great” in English history!
@@Oodelally Cnut the great, turns in his grave.
Well lads you know what time it is.
I'm William the Conqueror
My enemies stood no chance
They call me the first English king
Although I come from France
1066, the Doomsday book
I gave to history
So fat on death my body burst
But enough about me
To help remember all your kings
I've come up with this song
A simple rhyming ditty
For you all to sing along
Oh, William
(Bit short init? We need more kings. Who came next?)
William second, cheeks were red
Killed out hunting, so it's said
I took over, Henry one
That's my next eldest son
Then King Stephen, it's true check it!
Hi, Henry two, killed Thomas Beckett
Richard Lionheart? That's right!
Always spoiling for a fight
Oh King John, what a disaster
Rule restrained by Magna Carta
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Time for my mate, King Henry eight
To take up this song
Henry three built the abbey
Ed one hated Scots
A red hot poker killed Ed two
That must have hurt him lots
Edward third was a chivalry nerd
Began the hundred years war
Then Richard two was king aged ten
Then Henry, yes one more
King Henry four, plots galore
Not least from Henry five, why?
Killed ten score at Agincourt
Then Henry six arrived
Edward four, Edward five
Richard the third, he's bad
'Cause he fought wars with Henry seventh
First Tudor and my dad
So Henry eight, I was great
Six wives, two were beheaded
Edward the sixth came next, but he died young
And so my dreaded
Daughter Mary ruled, so scary
Then along came... me
I'm Liz the first, I had no kids
So Tudors RIP
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
That's me, time for more men
James six of Scotland next
Is English James the first he led
Then Stuarts ruled, so Charles the first
The one who lost his head
No monarchy until came me
Charles two, I liked to party
King Jimmy two was scary, woooh
Then Mary was a smarty
She ruled with Bill, their shoes were filled
By sourpuss Queen Anne Gloria
And so from then, you were ruled by men
Till along came me Victoria
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then
Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria
Still to come, it's Queen Victoria
And so began the Hanover gang
George one and George two (grim)
Then George the third was quite absurd
Till I replaced old him
King George the fourth and known henceforth
As angry, fat and cross (hang on)
It's true you beat Napoleon
But were mostly a dead loss (bang on)
Old William four was a sailor (ahoy)
It's nearly the end of the story-a
As onto the scene comes the best loved queen
Hail to Queen Victoria
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then
Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria
George, George, George, George
Will, Victoria
Victoria Victoria Victoria
(I ruled for sixty four years, you know.)
Ed seven, George five
Then Ed, George sixth
Liz two then reigned and how
And so our famous monarch song
Is brought right up to now, oh
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then
Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria
George, George, George, George
Will, Victoria
Edward, George, Edward, George six
And Queen Liz two completes the mix
That's all the English kings and queens
Since William first that there have been.
Edit: I feel as though Charles II and Henry VII should be rated higher and you missed Lady Jane Grey. However aside from that decent list.
God, how GOOD show Horrible Histories was.
@@danilobarbosavieira2130 is*
@@nedsteven4622 wait horrible histories is still going?
@@Darj_sip No
@@lowlsqwid Was sadly.
Timestamps:
**F Tier**
56. John Lackland 0:40
55. Richard II 1:17
54. Edward II 1:34
53. Henry VI 1:53
52. Stephen of Blois 2:07
51. Richard III 2:27
50. Mary I 2:53
49. Charles I 3:15
48. James II 3:25
47. Edward VIII 3:51
46. William Rufus 4:02
**D Teir**
45. Eadwig 4:10
44. George I 4:20
43. Eadred 4:33
42. Sweyn Forkbeard 4:45
41. Harthacanut 4:56
40. Harold Harefut 5:03
39. Richard I 5:12
38. Edward VI 5:30
37. George IV 5:49
36. Aethelread* 5:59
**? Teir**
35. Edward V 6:20
34. Edward the Martyr 6:35
**C Teir**
33. Charles II 6:40
32. William IV 6:51
31. George II 7:06
30. Edward IV 7:18
29. Edmund I 7:31
28. Edward VII 7:42
27. Henry III 7:52
26. Henry IV 8:06
25. Edmund Ironside 8:22
24. Henry VII 8:38
**B Teir**
23. George III 8:52
22. George V 9:07
21. Anne 9:16
20. Henry I 9:34
19. Henry VIII (bruh) 9:44
18. Edward the COnfessor 10:45
17. Harold Godwinson 11:00
16. James I 11:14
**A Teir**
15. George VI 11:23
14. Mary II 11:45
13. William the Conqueror 12:00
12. William II 12:10
11. Edgar the Peacefulu 12:16
10. Alfred the Great 12:25
9. Henry V 12:45
8. Canute the Great 13:00
7. Athelstan 13:12
6. Henry II 13:24
**S Teir**
5. Victoria 13:55
4. Edward I 14:06
3. Edward the Elder 14:26
2. Edward III 14:41
1. Elizabeth I 15:02
There’s the time stamp legend I was looking for
Small correction: William II should be William III
So the S Tier is mostly E rulers?
@@greywolf7577 Yeah, three Edwards and Elizabeth in the top 4
Sorry, ? Tier for Victoria
hmm, Holy "Roman" Emperors could be pretty interesting to look at next
“holy” “Roman” “emperors”
INB4 Someone says that annoying Voltaire quote.
I must give you a piece of intelligence that you perhaps already know - namely, that the ungodly arch-villain Voltaire has died miserably like a dog - just like a brute.
- Mozart
When Charlemagne the pretender to the Roman Empire is going to be the best we already know it
@@justinianthegreatandnerd6377 Byzantiboo spotted, preparing to initialize Annihilation.
Great video as always, but I strongly disagree with the positioning of Henry VII.
The man ended a 30-year fratricidal war despite having the weakest claim to the throne, imposed law and order on a heavily atomized feudal kingdom, conducted far-sighted diplomacy, sanitized the economy and trade, strengthened the royal coffers.
Nah dude u did him dirty he's top 5 material imo 😂
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SCROLLING DOWN HERE TO SAY! My mans got done dirty!
Because Victoria was supposed to be in top 5, you know?! Despite the fact that her achievements were practically zero!!
@@devishiaggarwal795i dont think constitutional monarchs should be on the list. She didnt have absolute control or as you said accomplished anything. She merely symbolized an Empire and secluded herself nost of her reign.
But the fact that the wars of the roses took 30 years and decimated the country really helped Henry. In those 30 years, Beauforts, Yorks, Lancasters, Mortimers, Nevilles, and many other influential houses were either exterminated or severely weakened. I mean, it was so bad that a weasel like Thomas Stanley, who wasn't even an earl was the wildcard at the Battle of Bosworth Field. All Henry had to do was win two battles, not be a complete asshole to the nobility and the common people, and the country was his. Don't get me wrong, he was a great administrator and reasonably good general, but his job wasn't that hard. Much of that credit should go to Edward IV imo. He never lost a battle, he was shrewd enough to bring Woodvilles to power in order to limit the Nevilles, then willful enough to beat them when they betrayed him. He was also a great administrator and as he was beloved by the common people, the parliament and the nobility, he probably could better rule the country than Henry VII, too, if he hadn't died young.
"It was Walpole"
I cannot express how happy that reference makes me.
Everything happens because of Walpole
It has always been Walpole
@@tommyatomic222 It's Walpoles all the way down.
I would have to agree.
I’m still waiting on that extra history series
@@ibullymidgets9138 Lost all interest in em.
I am so unbelievably grateful that you included the kings prior to 1066. Lol, much like Americans tend to skip the chapters of their history from the mayflower straight to the revolution the English seem to think their history doesn't start before William came ashore.
same in english schools, we were taught only past 1066 in school
@@musicoruu we are taught about roman britain but they pretty much skip over the anglo saxon part lol.
Yeah everything before 1066 (except for the Romans) just seems like a mystery in schools lol
There isn’t enough time lol, it’s better to study more relevant topics and such, Events and Kings from after 1066
Yeah that’s in no way true…
I'm an American, but George III probably should be ranked higher. Not only did he establish the King's Library. It wasn't just the American and French Revolutions that took place during his reign, but also the Industrial Revolution. Britain became both a huge colonial and naval empire. Britain's ships wouldn't have been able to colonize the globe if they didn't know where they were going, and George III not only set up a prize to get somebody to solve the longitude problem, but he personally intervened to make sure John Harrison got the money he deserved for inventing the maritime chronometer. I suspect some of the things that Victoria is praised for actually started in her uncle's reign.
He was usually known more as the farmer's king which was already in the rear view mirror then which hurt posterity as well as his madness which may have been an untreated disease.
Him allowing the highland clearance to occur tho.....
@@Taospark
Porphyria.
Edward III was so badass, that he ruled those 50 years backwards in time... Seriously though, people don't give him enough credit because the 100 years war became what it became, if not for the Black Death he would have won and regained land lost since Richard's time (he held more of France than actual king of France). The often ommited fact is, England at the time had around 2 million Citizens, France around 17, and he still whooped their asses at every occasion. He got ready, trained his famous longbowmen to be the best foot archers in history by forbidding any sport other than archery (under the pain of death) and rescinding taxes on fletchers (bowmakers) for 5 years before the start of war, they even won a battle with literally their pants down, but the black death forced a ceasefire, and the country never recovered during his reign.
Whats the name of that battle?
@@jonahjayverdon Not just any skirmish, but the battle of Agincourt itself, I will quote the description from warhistoryonline - "On top of being faced with an enemy that outnumbered them by two to one on the most modest estimates, the English army was plagued by sicknesses including dysentery, and had marched an average of 13 miles a day for over two straight weeks. The main disease running through the English camp was dysentery. Dysentery is a disease which mainly causes intestinal inflammation leading to excessively frequent and uncontrollable diarrhea.
Thanks to their stationary position, the archers suffering from dysentery simply dropped their pant to more easily relive themselves. As the French knights and men at arms approached the English they traveled through narrow muddy fields and up a slight hill which pushed them together and slowed their advance. The professional English archers fired an incredible amount of armor piercing bodkin arrows at the French.
In addition to the armor piercing arrows, it is thought that the archers also dipped their arrows in their diarrhea as a form of biological warfare and also for psychological impact."
@@NylfaenNoldoreth Bruh this is so insane they were literally shooting armed knights charging them on horseback while literally shitting themselves.
@@NylfaenNoldoreth Agincourt was Henry V, Crecy (another really impressive battle) was Edward III
He had a period of great sucess from 1345 to 1350, then it was mostly defeat against the French and Spanish. Also you tend to forget France wasn't an united country but a kingdom divided and under civil war, Brittany and Burgundy were on William III side thus no point to talk about population since you can't know how many were loyal to the French king. I won't talk how he wasn't able to win when France was under Charles V rule.
He is far away from Henri V in term of combat.
Top 5 personal favourites:
1. Edward iii - reign epitomises the height of the romanticised medieval chivalric England with a Arthurian court (100 years war, Edward Woodstock the Black Prince, Crecy, Sluys, Chaucer, knights of the Garter etc.) If it wasn’t for the last few years of his reign where he most likely suffered with dementia he could definitely be Englands greatest king
2. Henry ii - while perhaps less romantic still extremely competent and powerful leader of what was later coined the Angevin empire, only let down by rebellious sons and his knights mistakenly killing Beckett
3. Henry v - hard not to be impressed even if he was a bit of a religious nut - Agincourt & Shakespeare ofc, fought in the thick of the battle of Shrewsbury at 16 scarring half his face. The dude was 6 weeks off unifying the English and French thrones if he hadn’t died!! Pretty impressive Hal
4. Edward i - the dude conquered Wales and made all future heirs it’s Prince while also building loads of huge castles there. Went on crusade in his youth, battered Scotland making it a vassal of the English (battle of Stirling Bridge etc.) until his son messed it up… Bannockburn
5. Edward iv - personal underdog fav, took the throne at 18 after defeating the Henry vi in battle, married for love (silly but respect), essentially won the war of the roses in his lifetime, brought back the chivalric court of Edward iii, and he was huge 6’4
(can you tell I love the medieval & the name Edward, ps. my boy Athelstan just missed out on this)
Edward the Black Prince is great if you're English. He conducted a scorched earth warfare in France.
It seems you have more of a high into late medieval period interest since I think I would put some more kings from the early medieval/dark ages period here , and maybe Elizabeth I too.
Edward IV is definitely underrated, I'd say. I think Henry VII learned a lot from his father-in-law's administration, especially government finances. Yes, his foreign policy ended in a bit of a disaster but overall, he was pretty good.
Edward IV is a personal favorite of mine
@@dyingearth very true, all these kings/princes doubtlessly did terrible things
I would have put George III definitely higher on this list. His role for Britain is so often underrated.
Most misunderstood English monarch of all time.
As an American, i can confirm that 90% of his hatred generally comes from us alone
@@PunishedKrabJohn Adams actually really liked him. Adams was always my favourite traitor from that period 😉
Did you know that Cnut the great was the first king of England to call himself the king of England his predecessors called themselves the king of the English
Brilliant list!! Some comments on it:
You obviously know your stuff and don’t just follow the normal trends, I particularly love the often unrecognised credit you give Athelstan and Edward the Elder! While you justly put those such as Henry viii and Richard i fairly low on the list.
- Charles ii at 34 a bit harsh: he did very well towing the line between Protestant and Catholics at perhaps the height of religious intolerance + seemed like a chill and hilarious dude.
- Edward iv at 30 also seems harsh: effectively won the war of the roses during his lifetime, won the battle of Mortimer’s cross at 18 to become king and the guy was 6’4 (tallest king!) - bigger than longshanks
- Unsure why Mary ii is so high at 14: always seemed pretty passive to me and was swept into power in the glorious revolution by others.
Still, a very well done list!!
Do keep in mind, I did think quite a bit about re-arranging the list a little further, but I just didn't want to go with the trouble of re-writing the script. But some things I thought (after finishing the writing and recording and during the actual editing) were:
1- Henry VII should be way higher
2- Henry VIII should be a little lower
3- I should have put Henry II in S-tier
4- Edward III should be quite a bit lower.
But if there's one thing I've learned from making lists such as these is that I can't waste too much time being indecisive; otherwise I'd never finish the video.
@@spectrum1140 if you want voriaty in monarch quality look at France or HRE for Europe as they have the dumbest and some of the best rulers . Siam would be interesting since it's not trendy.
Anyway good job
I don’t think anybody ever put Henry viii high up in the rankings, usually I say they put him extremely low down.
@@eg310 Ooh, east Asian monarchs would be interesting! And Siam/Thailand does tend to get forgotten about.
Also, no big deal, but it's spelled variety.
@@spectrum1140 not criticising! I don’t envy rating every single monarch and there will always be a level of subjectivity to any of these lists.
I agree with Henry vii & Henry ii probably deserving to be higher, but I think Edward iii at 2nd is spot on!
I agree completely with Henry VIII, like I think he also had some good advisors and guys doing the actual infrastructure... that he blew through by executing a lot of them. Can't argue he didn't have an eye for choosing administration which I think is an underrated trait in a king that can get you a lot farther than stuff like military acumen if you can just hire guys for that instead.
Yeah too bad he executed Cromwell
And More
Note on Anne, she actually reigned from 1702 to 1714. She was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland until the Acts of Union in 1707 wherein she reigned as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland until 1714.
Edward IV is my personal favorite. A young man who marches to avenge his father and brother, and rules with mercy after
Yea, Edward IV should have been Top 15, if not Top 10.
Yes, I’d have him in the top dozen at least. There’s very little outrightly bad that he did other than ‘possibly’ murdering the mad king Henry VI, but it was probably the most pragmatic thing for the stability of the reign. Also, I do like a king that fights his own battles.
I actually think this is a very good attempt at ranking the monarchs.
Henry 7th is obviously too low. Ethelred the unready is too high. Henry 1st should be higher aswell.
I actually think Victoria is too high I appreciate It’s hard to rank a figure head but Victoria spent a considerable time of her reign moping after her husbands death instead of fulfilling her constitutional duty. She was pointlessly vindictive to Peel and Gladstone and she lucky that this didn’t have any lasting effects.
Honestly William 4th (who is very underrated ) and George 6th were better figurehead monarchs but Victoria was playing on easy mode.
Edward IV too low.
Henry III too high.
Henry VI should be bottom or second bottom.
@Andrew Lunn Completely completely completely agree with you!! Couldn't have agreed more. She is just so overrated you know!
7:00 Massive oversight on William IV. Seeing it was him who personally forced the Tories to accept the Great Reform Act in 1832. Thus placing him much higher.
"When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns". - Winston Churchill on King John
Good list it is ironic that Henry VIII went through so many wives because he wanted to leave England a male heir, but Anne Boleyn bore him Elizabeth who put England on the world map, England has done well under her queens, who ruled in their own right.
Omg amen!
She did put England on the map in some ways (or those around her did), but she also let the sadist Richard Topcliffe brutally murder and torture god knows how many innocent people, executed hundreds of innocent people like Campion and Mary Queen of Scots, and acted like an absolute child even in her 60s.
It’s rare I agree so much with any “list” video. You did a splendid job.
You show the depth of your scholarship by making Edward III no. 2. The guy was amazing! I can’t believe there hasn’t been a movie about his life. And on top of that, he sired, raised and trained the Black Prince.
Shakespeare wrote a play about him but it was kept secret for a while because he didn’t want to offend the new Scottish monarch with its negative depiction of David II of Scotland.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_(play)
I always thought Henry VII was seriously underated. I studied him at school and he honestly made very few mistakes and managed to drag the country out bankruptcy. His diplomacy was masterful and the only monarchs I consider better than him were Alfred and maybe Athelstan.
Also William the Comqueror did commission the Doomsdaybook, which is basically a giant land survey over England. I feel he would be higher than 13 for that.
Before that, no King of England have remotely idea of how much possession he have in the country.
Henry II also did the same with the Carta Baronum, but much later.
@@dyingearth Various ealdermen, earls and sheriffs would hav kept records on shires and counties.
The Normans commissioned the Doomsday book partly because all of the Anglo-Saxon land and wealth records became obsolete after the invasion and the “harrowing of the north”.
Look up the horrifically overlooked Harrying of the North. William was a genocidal maniac, who also turned England from an Orthodox free country into a Catholic feudal tyranny.
He destroyed the north of his kingdom
I'm so thankful to see you put Harold Godwinson on this list. Guy fuckin crushes one of the most formidable people to ever challenge for the English throne in Harold Hardrada (I prob spelled that wrong). Last of the Vikings kings, guy was easily the most experienced militarily of the 3... I just didn't see that one coming... An then still gave William hell after marching his army at across the country at breakneck pace
Harold Godwinson is a personal favourite of mine, even if he reigned only for 9 months and is mainly remembered for losing at Hastings. But he lost after hours of well-balanced fighting, he had fought at Stamford Bridge less than three weeks before and had marched his army from London to York and back at an incredible pace.
Would love to see Russian Czars, French Kings, and U.S. Presidents.
there is already a video pn the russian tsars
already did tsars, but French kings and us presidents would be great
Yeah, regarding US presidents, I'm not really sure if I want to step on that landmine.
@@spectrum1140 it would be extremely interesting tho, you could just cap it at like 2000 to not get many people mad
@@spectrum1140 wise man
I gotta call out yet also credit discussing Edward I without mentioning that he conquered Wales. It’s too important not to mention, but also his reign wasn’t just about conquering Wales so it’s nice to see him spoken of without that
William II was called Rufus because it's Latin for Red-Haired.
It's a Roman cognomen.
I like the inclusion of the AngloSaxon kings who are so often forgotten. Richard III deserves a better rank, certainly better than Edwig, Eardred, Edward V ( who never ruled) and Sven Forkbeard, and even Richard I who was a miserable king. A very enjoyable video!
Would have had Henry VII in the top 3. I cannot express enough how good of a monarch this bloke was.
He was quite irresponsible and immature, the stars just happened to align for him. Why do you think he's so good?
@@ie2428
1. Brought about military and political stability after the Wars of the Roses
2. Used said stability to reform and grow the English economy
Sure he had an air of 'Michael Corleone' about him. But England in the late Middle Ages wasn't a particularly pleasant place to be.
@@ie2428 Henry VIII was the irrresponsible and immature one. Henry VII was a fairly unpleasant man and had no compunction about executing anyone he considered a threat, but he was fiscally responsible and pretty adept at diplomacy.
@@elainechubb971 ohhhh see I read that as Henry VIII as opposed to Henry VII
he is my fav King
Bloody fanstastic champ, for next one of you're episodes I recommend doing Polish ones. There were many of them and well, you already touched on western and eastern, so what about central?
HARDMODE: Don't put a Hungarian as number 1.
If you want to do central europe, then do the centre of central europe, bohemia
Henry III should be way lower.
He bungled multiple invasions of France which didn't achieve the goal of retaking the Angevin lands. He turned most of his own nobles against him. Started a massive feud with Simon De Montfort, leading to the devastation of the second barons war, and his powers being further limited than they were already (thanks magna carta) with the provisions of Oxford. He only got saved in the end by his own son, and the fact that most nobles hated De Montfort more than him. An absolute train wreck from start to finish.
I said this in a comment too.
After his regent (William Marshall), best frenemy (Simon De Montfort) and his own son (the future Edward I), Henry III managed to have a long reign where his was never close to being the most important person in the kingdom.
He also had a terribly unpopular Queen Consort too in Eleanor of Provence, which didn't help.
Some important buildings and institutions were created, but that was more despite of him and inevitable during such a long reign.
this would be a good place to mention Louis VIII of France, who was king of England just before Henry.
Henry VII ended the war of the roses, united the two houses of Lancaster and York, formed powerful marriage and trade alliances abroad in a time where England's international power had been decimated by the Hundred years war, and turned the deficit he inherited into a surplus that he left behind.
I love how the bottom half of the list bounces back and forth between random kings in the 18/19th century and then even more random and obscure medieval kings
My friends and I went through and ranked all pre-Act of Union monarchs for fun a while back. We came up with similar rankings, but our top five were: 1) Edward III 2) Edward Longshanks 3) Alfred the Great 4) Henry II and 5) Tie between Athelstan and Henry V
No Elizabeth I???
We did it in a bracketed tournament format, Elizabeth was knocked out by Longshanks in the third round.
@@ZosimusNova Ah! It sounds like a typical NCAA tournament, when you anxiously scan the brackets to see how far your team is likely to go, only to see it's been seeded lower than you (a fan) thinks fair and is up against Gonzaga or UNC in the third round! So she (presumably) wasn't' seeded as high as I (a fan) would have liked. Well, I'd never win the office pool anyway. Whether it's basketball, Halloween candy, or monarchs, there's a lot of subjectivity, which is part of the fun.
@@elainechubb971 Elizabeth was a good queen for sure, but even then I'd still have her in the tier just below our top monarchs I think, as her reign was not without some major failures, like the Counter-Armada.
These monarch videos are good to watch to see your perspective and such, it is also a good intermediate video to put between the episodes of the new Punic Wars episodes.
Richard I was a great warrior king but not a great king of England. Think he deserves to be higher up though. His crusading accomplishments set him apart from any of the other middling monarchs.
Eh. For a tier list of"Monarchs of England" he is probably too high. Great guy, maybe. Great soldier, sure. Great monarch... he never really did the job.
His main contribution to the kingdom was getting captured on his way home from Crusades and had to be ransomed at a cost that bankrupted the kingdom. This also dragged down his brother who inherited the bankrupted realm.
His capture wasn't entirely his fault as he was under papal protection as a crusader but he also was a complete muppet to put himself in that situation.
If you mark John down for being forced to sign magna carta, you have to mark Richard down for playing a huge role in creating the scenario that forced it.
@@cronoros to really understand how stupid that capture affair was you only need to understand that doing what he did would get you killed even today let alone in the middle ages
@@cronoros
But unlike John, Richard managed to defeat the French king and regain all the lands that were lost while he was imprisoned in Austria and Germany. Things were going very well before Richard died and all the English nobility supported Richard and were loyal to him. It’s only after Richard died that John, being incompetent, lost the lands once more to the French king.
@@cronoros
Richard did not create that scenario. Before Richard died everything was actually going very well. He had reconquered all the lands lost in France and defeated the French king. But John was unable to hold back the French king like Richard nor was he was popular among the Barons like Richard since he kept losing.
@@joellaz9836 don't get me wrong, John absolutely was not a good king but neither was Richard really. Richard was a good general and soldier but not a good king.
Note the verbiage you used "regain", "reconquered" - as in Richard lost them cos he was not there to hold them. He could win them back in war but ruling them was a different matter.
And while things were OK when he died, he never settled the succession (an ongoing issue true...) leading to a war and ultimately a king who had no power base of his own. John was a worse ruler in his own right but his line ruled for centuries.
If given more time, how well Richard would have ruled long term is an open question also given his record in aquitaine prior to becoming king versus what experience he might have gained since becoming king.
That’s not a British accent, it’s really cool that you’ve taken such an interest in our history that you’d make this. You must be great at quizzes! 😝 I’m British and this is educational.
I'm honestly glad that Harold Godwinson was placed so high up, poor guy gets so much shit and in my opinion doesn't get enough credit. When his nation was in turmoil he stepped up, he put down Welsh raiders, marched up and down the length of England to crush a massive invasion by Norwegian Vikings after Northern English forces couldn't hold them back, and then he marched his dogged and tired army all the way back down to the very south of England to face off against William. A lot of people also don't realize that the English very nearly defeated the Normans even after having to march up and down England and already after having put down a massive invasion force. Every charge William sent up the hill after the English was crushed and forced back, it got so bad that the morale of the Normans nearly broke when they thought William had died, he had to ride in front of his army with his helmet off to prove he was still with them, and even then it got so bad that they seemingly began to retreat (this may have been a trap, but it's not impossible that they genuinely were trying to retreat, since they were suffering very bad casualties, even the Knights). There is a good chance Harold would have defeated the Normans and William would have been ever after remembered as the Bastard rather than the Conqueror had Harold's infantrymen not given into their bloodlust and chased the retreating Normans down hill therefore losing their position on the hill and falling prey to the Norman Knights who cut the disorganized and panicked footmen down like grass. Even with the annihilation of the infantry and the death of their King, the elite Huscarl axemen of Harold still fiercely held their position on the hill and fought to the death against the overwhelming Norman Knights. So I'd say, Harold deserves way more respect than he gets.
So umm, guess it's time to update the list
I'd say Elizabeth II is top 10. She helped forge a new identity for Britain after WW2, as well as unite the Commonwealth Realms under her, simultaneously running 14 countries. She was a strong leader who remained popular and was pretty much the gold standard constitutional monarch, keeping prime ministers in line. Only problem was having terrible children. Not a good look when the moral and spiritual heir of the country constantly cheats on his wife, sending her spiralling into mental illness. Not to mention Andrew being a pedo. Other two children also went through messy divorces that were wide on display for the public to watch. She very much failed in raising good heirs to the country.
Henry V should be higher like this is the person who won the 100 years war for England before his son, his son’s advisors and Joan of Arc caused a defeat in the 100 years war.
Let's not forget that Henry II took some pretty heavy defeats against the Welsh,like the Battle of Ewloe.
He blubbered like a baby when Becket was taffered.
This is very misleading. Henry was never decisively defeated by the Welsh princes. Each time, at Ewloe and Crogen, he battled the Welsh indecisively and then outmaneuvered them politically. By the late 1170s the Welsh Princes, especially Rhys of Deheubarth, had submitted to Angevin hegemony, with Rhys even being appointed Justiciar for Southern Wales thus being incorporated in the Angevin feudal structure. Henry was never defeated entirely in any of his endeavors, quite the opposite in fact. He won even if he seemed to lose (Hosler, "Henry II: A Medieval Soldier at War 1147-1189"). This is classic medieval Realpolitik, of which Henry was THE master. War is not merely a question of battles, it is the enforcement of a political principle. At this Henry was undefeated for 35 years until the very last days of his life when he was dying man. Truly a peerless monarch.
@harry This is completely speculative. Henry time and again made way for John to prove himself, for instance in John's disastrous expedition in Ireland in 1185. That John was such a dastardly man is not something to be laid entirely at Henry's feet. John had his father's administrative zeal but not his genius.
@@duncancurtis1758 And then Henry II cleverly got almost everything he wanted in the Compromise of Avranches and was able to completely hijack the Becket cult for his own ends. Its difficult to see what Henry really lost, practically. He could still intervene and often did in ecclesiastical matters. Famously, he often commanded appointments to church offices. For instance, in the election of the Bishopric of Bath he told the abbot, "I order you to hold a free election, but forbid to elect anyone but Richard my clerk." Three guesses who became Bishop of Bath? And this was AFTER the Becket affair. Henry had the absolute power of an Roman emperor (Cantor, "The English: A History of Politics and Society to 1760).
@@CommonSwindler But he couldn't conquer the Kingdom of Gwynedd.
Jesuits, who were Catholic, were actually the first to implement educational reform across Europe, making mathematics compulsory. In fact, in the 16th and 17th century mathematics was only truly taught in Jesuit schools. Others only did very basic maths (like primary level).
George V should be much higher for his innovations that started the modernisation of the British monarchy and bringing the institution closer to the people: cutting the German ties, changing the dynastic name, founding the OM, CH & OBE decorations, setting the rules for British royal titles and marriages that still endure to this day, as well as WWI and recognising that Edward VIII would be a disastrous king. Also, the Empire was at it's greatest extent during his reign.
Queen Anne should be ranked higher than her sister Mary II, who was a fairly passive joint monarch in deference to her husband. Also, i think the first portrait you show as Anne is actually Mary (I may be wrong).
Henry VIII deserves a higher rank for his break with Rome - it remains the most nation-defining act in English history, even if he was a monster. Charles II too, for re-establishing the monarchy after the ghastly Cromwell, rebuilding London after the Great Fire, and (inadvertently) fathering so many of the ancestors of today's non-royal dukes.
Henry VI and Richard II, while not great rulers, were great patrons of learning and culture, so maybe deserved a higher rank. Ditto, George II and George IV for the same reasons.
Loved that you included the Anglo-Saxons and Danes (and wisely left out Matilda).
Although where was Lady Jane Grey?
Agreed with you up until you said Henry VI deserved to be higher. Lost of all England's French territories to end the Hundred Years' war, a puppet of powerful Dukes (Somerset and Suffolk), which fostered the start of the War of The Roses. If he let Richard of York manage control of the French territories, it would have been a different story.
Let's not also forget he frequently turned into a vegetable and couldn't rule.
I agree with all your points. Perhaps I should clarify: Henry VI should be *slightly* higher, if only for his founding a number of important colleges. It was his one lasting achievement.
Amazing video! Ranking of Monarchs/Emperors video are always funny and informative!
Whenever you make these tier lists I make a list in Word for myself too. First I go to the corresponding Wikipedia article, then I copy all the names into it (even the disputed ones) and then I start playing the video and sorting the names in my list at the same time. There are always some names that get left out.
So this time the people who were left out were
- all the disputed claimants
- king Phillip of Spain and
- both Cromwells
(and I can see why these people were left out)
I had to check the date of this video when you mentioned Elizabeth II being alive
I feel Charles II is ranked lower than he should be, in my opinion. Unlike his father and brother, Charles II was actually able to dissolve parliament and rule competently as an Absolute Monarch.
Aside from that, he also steered the country through three catastrophic events, the Great Fire of London, Great Plague and most of the Popish Plot. In fact, he even personally dispelled the Popish Plot himself. As well as going to London with his brother to assist the Firemen during the Great Fire of London.
Personally, a favourite of mine.
Thanks for including the music used in the video!
RIP queen Elizabeth. Our longest reigning monarch.
Spectrum: the queen is alive and hasn’t finished yet
Me: …
As always good video, Kingdom of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, next please!
I love your videos so much!!! So simple yet they really make my day.
Henry VII super underrated, retook the kingdom from exile, eliminated the various dynastic threats, and unlike his son understood Englands strength and thus sought to avoid war while maximising income by playing the great powers off each other. In my opinion the best Tudor monarch and most overlooked English King.
I think Elizabeth I is still better than him but he is definitely underrated
New Spectrum video just as I get home from work! Neat!
Aethelstan should be higher than 9 IMO. Man literallly founded the first England that's close to the borders we have today. First true King over all the Anglo-Saxons, no longer divided into Mercia, Wessex and other petty kingdoms.
It would be nice to do the same about Non-European monarchies and empires, The Ottoman Sultans, the Arabian Caliphs, the Japanese Emperors extra
Umar wins the Caliph tanking, IMHO.
Although he was helped by having an all-time great general in Khalid Ibn Al-Walid.
Don't know as much about Ottomans, but Mehmet II and Suileman I are the normie choices.
@@Jackaljkljkl would be more interesting to divide up tbf . All 14 United Umayyad caliphs. All 23 rulers of an Independent emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba till 1031. All 37 Abbasid caliphs from Baghdad etc .
I agree with Jack in Umar (ra) being the best caliph. Very competent and a fairly just leader, the grain stores and the welfare benefits handed out to the poor was something ahead of its time. He had a great general in Ibn Waleed and he avoided appointing kinsmen to political offices to minimise nepotism (something that was Uthman's biggest flaw).
I guess Meiji would be one of the top contenders for japanese emporers but I don't know much of their medieval history so their could be better ones. Mehmet II would probably sweep the ottoman rankings.
even though i agree with richard the lionheart being more of a general than a king, i think he still deserved to be 6 spots higher at least.
Great video! One small issue at 12:35, and it's a common misconception to fall under, but Alfred was never deemed "king of England", he definitely laid the foundations for England to emerge later down the line though.
To be completely fair to Edward IV, the earl of Warwick did have a ton of power. A French dignitary once joked that England had two kings, Warwick and another who’s name he’d forgotten. Capable as he may have been Edward didn’t want Warwick to call the shots and for himself to be a figure head.
I got most if not all of my information from the documentary: Britain’s bloody crown.
Edward IV’s biggest mistake was probably his marriage, he was scheduled to marry a French princess, the match had been set up by Warwick. Instead he married Elisabeth Woodville, and this marriage created another phase of the war of the roses which played out after Edward IV’s death.
The documentary from which I got my information theorizes that Edward IV married Elisabeth Woodville to assert his dominance over Warwick, and possibly also because Elisabeth’s family had fought against his family. Edward IV had a reputation for taking mercy and showing good faith to his ex enemies as he actually did towards Warwick and his own brother. Marrying Elisabeth Woodville was perhaps another attempt at showing good faith to an ex enemy. But considering the alliance he could’ve made with France, eh you be the judge.
Elisabeth Woodville was also rumored to be very beautiful and she played hard to get.Edward apparently fell head over heels for her, which is probably another reason he married her.
I must again emphasize that all of my info is from the documentary Britain’s bloody crown.
My girlfriend very much approved of Edward IV in Britain's Bloody Crown, lol
@@Jackaljkljkl she approved of Edward and Elisabeth Woodville?
@@Kovu2004 No, I mean the actor mostly, lol
@@Jackaljkljkl oh that makes sense
warwick was dead during Ed's second reign.
Considering its factoring in to your Henry VIII decision, I'm going to disagree heavily on that his leaving the church benefitted English education. Frankly, the great powers who stayed Catholic, primarily France and Austria, remained competitive with England in terms of the arts and sciences, despite having to spend drastically more on their defense budget and being a part of all the continental upheaval that went on in the period. I hear this claim a lot from people of Spanish and Portuguese extraction, including by way of their respective colonies, and honestly, this seems to have been more of an issue with the Iberian monarchies. Yes, they allowed the church to control education, but so did France, Austria, and the Italians, who all produced huge contributions to the scientific world at a rate comparable with the British. Unfortunately, the Iberians don't seem to have invested in their education, or most other areas of their infrastructure, very much at all, due to a variety of factors, but probably most importantly their colonies, which provided wealth without the need for educated citizens, which set Spain and Portugal (and their colonies) up for failure in the long run. It also didn't help that Spain in particular was spending huge amounts of its colonial wealth on European wars, and that Portugal was spending theirs trying to remain independent of Spain.
More to the point, however, politically, Henry VIII's leaving was a disaster for English foreign policy. Fifty years prior, England had contended for control of the French throne. Henry's reign is the final end to English continental ambitions, by making England into such a pariah that Spain could actually attempt to invade, without anyone else in Europe caring. The story of the Spanish Armada is often touted as a miracle by the English, but the fact that it got as far as it did, or that it required a miracle at all, is evidence of just how incompetent English diplomacy and soldiery had become under the Tudors. Leaving the Church cost England a generation of educated men and the entirety of their continental ambitions, and very nearly their sovereignty, and we don't see England pulling away from its peers in terms of education until the 1800s, and even then, not by much. Call me crazy, but founding the largest empire on earth while Europe was devastated by the Naopleonic Wars, probably had a lot more to do with the slight British edge on education than leaving the church. It's also telling that we don't see anything similar in northern Germany, Scandinavia, or the Netherlands, until their economies each took off.
So, yeah. I'd be interested in a rebuttal, but I really don't think it's as simple as Catholic country=bad education, and I think Henry VIII probably did more long term harm than good, even if he didn't ultimately cost England its sovereignty.
I also just wanted to add that Jesuits, who were Catholic, were actually the first to implement educational reform across Europe, making mathematics compulsory for the first time. In fact, in the 16th and 17th century mathematics was only truly taught in Jesuit schools. Others only did very basic maths (like primary level).
I have to respecfully disagree on the scientific achievements and educational part of your argument. I agree that there were great scientific discoveries in Italy during the Renaissance particularly--Galileo the prime example--and some in France, e.g., Pascal. But nothing to compare with the advances in practical science particularly in England, Scotland, and British North America. Here is a very incomplete list: Newton and Darwin, steam power (Stephenson), mechanized spinning and weaving (French contributions, too), logarithms, early mathematical work ultimately leading to the computer, powered flight (airplane), telephone, telegraph, television ... Note: by the 19th century, science, engineering, and other inventions became much more international, so it's harder to talk only of separate nations being birthplace of various advances. I want to add that the first scientific association started in England as the Royal Society, under the auspices of Charles II.
One big problem with Roman Catholic countries in the later Middle Ages and early modern times was that a large number of brilliant and ambitious young men or boys (and to a lesser extent young women) were drawn into careers in the Church and were usually celibate, thus diminishing the gene pool. Cardinal Wolsey was a very successful Chancellor of England (until he lost the favor of Henry VIII) but could not leave sons who might also have contributed a lot to the country. But Elizabeth's great chancellor, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, left more than one son to carry on serving the country (and, of course, becoming rich doing so), first among them being Robert Cecil. In the Georgian era, William Pitt the Elder was prime minister, and so was his son, William Pitt the Younger. (And in the U.S., there were John Adams and John Quincy Adams.) A remarkable number of famous people have been children or grandchildren of members of the clergy, mostly Protestant but also Eastern Orthodox (Tesla) Sir Christopher Wren was the son of an Anglican clergyman. The father of the Wright Brothers was a Methodist bishop. (There's a long list in Wikipedia.)
@@elainechubb971 Look, Britain's record is impressive, I don't think anyone can deny that, but prior to the late 1700s and early 1800s it was actually rather mediocre compared to France and Italy, and those two nations did not fail to produce important technologies throughout the 1800s either. Britain had great success with the steam engine, and Newton and Clerk-Maxwell were incredibly important to the study of mathematics, but there were already practical steam engines and advanced theories of mathematics in existence in Europe prior, so they were very much standing atop the shoulders of giants already. Britain had iron, coal, a burgeoning empire, and internal stability all in one place, which made it a very likely place for the industrial revolution to arise, but there is much more to the modern world than that, and France and Italy in particular have very comparable contributions. France gave us Pasteur, for instance, who essentially built germ theory for us, including the principles of heat treatment and vaccination, which together have likely saved billions of lives, and Italy's Volta basically single-handedly gave us useable electricity for the first time with his voltaic pile, which batteries today still essentially mirror in principle.
More importantly though, even if Britain was special in that regard, that would not make Catholicism the culprit, because there are multiple Protestant countries with records far less impressive than Britain. The matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that most European nations stayed Catholic, but it's very difficult to argue that every Protestant country suddenly or even gradually greatly surpassed its Catholic neighbors. One doesn't cross from the Netherlands to Belgium and suddenly find a drastically worse standard of living, or Brandenburg to Bavaria. Without that connection, then even if we could definitively say that Britain has a leas on every other country (and I do dispute that), then the cause of that lead being the disadvantage of Catholicism seems far less likely than Britain's natural resources and political stability, both products of geography, not human society.
So which place would you put Elizabeth II in now that her reign has come to an end?
extra😎
I want to add:
1.Canute the Great died in 1035 not 1025
2. Athelstan was king of the English from 927-939
3. Edward III (date for the reign has an error)
AEthelstan took office in 924, and since Alfred and the elder were included it makes sense to start then
John might not be great, but at least he was here! Part of the reason John was in trouble with the barons and had no money is that Richard had spent all of the money on wars, that he has then lost, while spending less than one whole year in England.
I agree
John had an immense amount of resources on his side. Half of the kingdom of France and all of England was under his control. He was utterly defeated by phillip Augustus, who ruled a fraction of the land, and his alliance with Otto the 4th fell apart completely. Richard had previously humiliated phillip by kicking him out of the lands that John gave to him. John's own meddling caused him his own situation with Richard having to fix it.
How the hell is Victoria ranked higher than Henry II? She was a figurehead that did basically nothing, Henry II was the man who built the mighty Angevin Empire and established English common law
I didn't understand what you meant by 'she did nothing', after all, it's a constitutional monarchy.
0:32 So uhhh update pls?
Great video as always. What about polish monarchs next ?
Napoleon was really kinda defeated under the reign of George (later IV.) the Prince Regent because George III. couldnt rule anymore at that point. George IV. also was alot more active especially in cultural matters than many people think and did some important work in unifiying the kingdom with his big tour through the kingdoms. Underway he also lifted the ban on scottish highland culture that was in place since the last jacobite rebellion. Today we mainly see all those horrible caricatures joking about his fatness and the conflict with his wife but atleast the british did have the right to do so under his rule.
Great stuff. Many thanks for that. As an Englishman with a great interest in history it was a splendid whistle stop tour.
14:13 actually people in the middle ages were as tall as modern humans, the decrease in height started in the 1600s until the 1800s, the average height in middle age europe was 1,73 meters and during the 1600 to 1800 was 1,67 meters.
1,88 m would still be very tall in the middle ages
I read somewhere that Napoleon used tall soldiers in the front ranks, in order to intimate the enemy.
When these guys inevitably died more than others and had fewer offspring, it reduced France's average height by two inches.
“It was Walpole”.
name a time that it isn’t Walpole. Its literally always Walpole.
It’s Always Wapole!
Any possibility of doing Scottish monarchs sometime?
Loved your list on the Tsars keep up your great work!
Do Poland next. Have fun with the many elected dynasties after the main Piast branch died out in 1370). ;)
*sad Lithuanian noise*
Don’t think I’ve really seen too much of English rulers discussed in bulk, looks neat.
IDK if I’d put Edward VII so low. His personal charisma helped a lot getting England and France allied right before WWI. I’d put him in the bottom half of B tier.
As soon as you post this the Queen goes and gets covid. Well done mate
Now that Queen Elizabeth II have pass, I figure she's either below or above her father George VI.
I think she was even better constitutional monarch than he was. She should probably be in the S tier
u are soo underrated. hope u get 100k!
Henry II should be higher on this list. He ended the anarchy in England that was the result of the war of succession between his mother, the Empress Mathilda, and his uncle, King Stephen. He expanded English holdings in France to the point where the English crown controlled more French territory than the French crown. And most importantly, he was the godfather of the English Common Law, a legal system that is still being used in the UK, Ireland and in every former English colony (the USA, Canada, India, Australia, Kenya, etc.). That puts Henry II up there with Napoleon, Justinian and Hammurabi.
Yoooo I’ve been waiting for this, English history is one if my favorite subjects!
One minor quibble- the image you used for Edward IV was actually his father, Richard of York. Still love the video 👍
His "father" ;)
Welp, time to update the list. What ranking does Elizabeth II get?
>25 I would say
Thank you for this list. I have a request. Kind of an addendum to your list. Now that Queen Elizabeth II has passed on. Where would she be on your updated list?
Maybe somewhere like 30th in my opinion. Britain's standing in the world decreased during her reign and she didn't really do anything besides attending ceremonies and banquets. She was popular so she isn't 40th or something but she didn't have much of an impact on britain for a monarch.
We need this lift to be updated
I don't think anyone gives George the 4th enough credit, he was actually incharge alot of the time when his father went mad and he Kick-started he did alot for the arts and architecture, infect just visit Brighton it's a wonderful place
Good video dude
Good choice of Elizabeth I as number 1. She WAS Belphoebe and Gloriana! The Queen regnant in every sense who would "have but one mistress here and no master" and whose reign saw England's independence preserved and then set the nation on the path leading to imperial global hegemony.
Last years of her reign weren't the greatest though
Great work my friend i really like these videos
I think if Henry V would've lived longer he might've been the best English monarch ever
Yep.
It could have changed so much, with England possibly conquering France in its entirety and making England a superpower far sooner
@@michaelshkop8478 You know England never intended to conquer France right ? The Plantagenets themselves came from France, and Henri V was the first to have English as his mother tongue. I think England was lucky to lose de the 100 Years War, remaining an island is what made it gradually a superpower. And arguably, if Henry did become king of France, the court would have been moved the richer area where most people are: in France, in Paris in particular. Which would have probably reversed to linguistic shift that was just beginning toward English, and would have made England unrecognizable (probably more influenced by France than the opposite).
I think it was the best outcome for England as you know it.
edit: Alternatively, it also could have ended up with no major differences in the long term, as a simple temporary personal union. After all, personal unions often went back to division historically in Europe, most of the time actually.
Henry V is the reason we've even having this discussion in English. He's the greatest ENGLISH monarch by a mile.
i think that after you make a few more of these, maybe at some sort of channel milestone you could throw together every single emperor/ruler from all of your ranking videos (or at least some from each vid) and put together a general ranking for all of them.
Henry V was a beast and my personal favourite, but I still would not put him above Alfred. Oh well, cool to see the Anglo-Saxon rulers anyway.
Where would you rank king Edward the 7th ? Awesome channel ,great content, but I didn’t see him in this episode great work my friend!!!!!
Never mind I found him lol still awesome content bro, I would suggest maybe ranking the pharaohs of Egypt next
Damn, no Lady Jane Grey mention?
Ranking popes next?
It's gonna be great one