Do you think that, on average, the Valois or the Bourbons were better French rulers?

Do you think that, on average, the Valois or the Bourbons were better French rulers?

  • The Valois were better

  • The Bourbons were better


Results are only viewable after voting.

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,743
SoCal
#1
Personally, I think that the Valois were better than the French Bourbons due to their ability to liberate huge parts of France from the English during the Hundred Years' War. I do think that the Valois had some bad policies--such as the Italian Wars of 1494-1559--but I think that their victory in the Hundred Years' War should certainly give them some credit. As for the Bourbons, they loved to wage war no less than the Valois did--especially during the 17th and 18th centuries. Plus, what works against the Bourbons are their absolutist tendencies. True, the Valois weren't exactly democrats, but the Valois' attitudes at least fit in more with their times than the attitudes of the Bourbons did. Not calling the Estates General at all between 1614 and 1789 was really, really stupid considering that it created a huge amount of pent-up anger that eventually exploded and brought France to revolution and to the Reign of Terror! :( Plus, it certainly doesn't help that, after the Bourbons were restored in 1815, Charles X's semi-absolutist tendencies resulted in the Bourbons once again getting overthrown in 1830. Finally, to top it all of, to the anguish of French monarchists everywhere, Charles X's grandson Henri, Count of Chambord refused to agree to a French monarchical restoration in the early 1870s because he didn't like the French tricolor flag--thus permanently dooming any hopes of such a restoration. :(

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?
 
Sep 2018
22
Salonica
#2
Valois.Well there have been some great valois rulers such as Charles V and some terrible valois rulers like jean II and charles vi however their overall achivevements of being great patrons of arts and most importantly kicking the english out of france is what in the end made france a military and spiritual stronghold of western Europe.Also like the bourbon's reign the valois reign was filled with rebellions like the Jacquerie(1358)and the harelle(1382)however nothing as groundbreaking as the french revolution happened.in adittion the france of the 14th century(first valois kings) was harder to govern than that of the 16th century (even thought it was during the reformation)for it had no national cohesion so in my opinion the valois did a good job kicking the english and simultaniously uniting the french people
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2013
705
Texas
#3
Personally, I think that the Valois were better than the French Bourbons due to their ability to liberate huge parts of France from the English during the Hundred Years' War. I do think that the Valois had some bad policies--such as the Italian Wars of 1494-1559--but I think that their victory in the Hundred Years' War should certainly give them some credit. As for the Bourbons, they loved to wage war no less than the Valois did--especially during the 17th and 18th centuries. Plus, what works against the Bourbons are their absolutist tendencies. True, the Valois weren't exactly democrats, but the Valois' attitudes at least fit in more with their times than the attitudes of the Bourbons did. Not calling the Estates General at all between 1614 and 1789 was really, really stupid considering that it created a huge amount of pent-up anger that eventually exploded and brought France to revolution and to the Reign of Terror! :( Plus, it certainly doesn't help that, after the Bourbons were restored in 1815, Charles X's semi-absolutist tendencies resulted in the Bourbons once again getting overthrown in 1830. Finally, to top it all of, to the anguish of French monarchists everywhere, Charles X's grandson Henri, Count of Chambord refused to agree to a French monarchical restoration in the early 1870s because he didn't like the French tricolor flag--thus permanently dooming any hopes of such a restoration. :(

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?
Wasn't there a French queen who openly admitted to having kids with other men, and that's why the Valois dynasty saw an improvement?
 
Likes: Futurist
Sep 2016
1,127
Georgia
#5
Also like the bourbon's reign the valois reign was filled with rebellions like the Jacquerie(1358)and the harelle(1382)however nothing as groundbreaking as the french revolution happened.
Because France was a different country by the end of 18th century and it's social/political/economical situation can't be compared with 14th century. Valois simply never had to deal with something like that. Rurik dynasty also never had to deal with such big changes in Russian society, like Romanovs had to. They had different problems.

Whether it were Valois or Bourbons on the throne, the emergence of representative body that would seriously limit King's power still would've happened. Now, would it have more smooth transition, be less violent and without needing to execute King himself is a different question.

We also shouldn't forget bloody Religious Wars during Valois reign, which lasted for 30 years.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,743
SoCal
#6
Because France was a different country by the end of 18th century and it's social/political/economical situation can't be compared with 14th century. Valois simply never had to deal with something like that. Rurik dynasty also never had to deal with such big changes in Russian society, like Romanovs had to. They had different problems.

Whether it were Valois or Bourbons on the throne, the emergence of representative body that would seriously limit King's power still would've happened. Now, would it have more smooth transition, be less violent and without needing to execute King himself is a different question.
I agree with this--though I would think that more pragmatic and compromising leadership on the part of the French Kings might have allowed them to hold onto a significant part of their power for a longer time period. Not calling the Estates-General at all for 175 years (1614 to 1789) was really, really stupid, IMHO. :(

We also shouldn't forgot bloody Religious Wars during Valois reign, which lasted for 30 years.
Yep--though AFAIK these wars were on the verge of ending when Henry III (Henri III) was assassinated in 1589.
 
Likes: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,127
Georgia
#7
I agree with this--though I would think that more pragmatic and compromising leadership on the part of the French Kings might have allowed them to hold onto a significant part of their power for a longer time period.
Yeah, that is interesting topic to discuss and speculate on. How situation would've developed under different approach.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,743
SoCal
#8
Yeah, that is interesting topic to discuss and speculate on. How situation would've developed under different approach.
You could have seen a situation develop in France similar to that of Imperial Germany in real life--as in, with the King/Kaiser having presidential-like powers but with the parliament also having some authority--and with this system being strong enough and stable enough to last for a long time without any significant wars.
 
Likes: Gvelion

Similar History Discussions