Most impressive European Monarch

Who is the Greatest Monarch in European History

  • Charlemagne

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Otto the Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Canute

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Henry V(England)

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Sigusmund

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philip the Good

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ferdinand/Isabella

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Unos IV

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Louis the Great(Hungary)

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Philip II Augustus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Frederick the Great

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Charles V

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Gustavus Adolphus II

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Louis XIV

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Napoleon I

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Frederick I Barbarossa

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Richard the Lionheart

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Margaret I(Denmark)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A Tudor(I'm not putting down the individual ones)

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Charles IV

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • Total voters
    31

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,750
Las Vegas, NV USA
The only two genuine candidates in this case are Charlemagne and Napoleon. For the 'term' impressive is quite vague and if we were to look at what they caused Europe-wide, we could honestly say that both these men introduced Europe to a completely new era through their achievements and failures.
Yes. I see Charlemagne as the "founder of Europe". Napoleon didn't leave much of lasting value, even for France (he repudiated the metric system). I suppose his legal system is admired in France, but I don't think much of "Guilty until proven innocent"

It's true the Frankish Kingdom broke up after Louis I but those pieces became France, Germany and Italy.
 

Valens

Ad Honorem
Feb 2014
8,310
Colonia Valensiana
Charlemagne. The first and last one to conquer, rule and keep such a huge swath of western Europe.
Well, that works, but only to an extent. His domain was divided after his death and it did not last for much after. There is also a fact Charlemagne did not face a single serious rival or highly organized state structure in Central and even Western Europe.

Napoleon and Hitler's conquest are much more impressive in that regard, taking into consideration the opposition they faced.

In regard to the OP, I think more monarchs should have been included. But, anyway, my vote would go to Charles V, who held dominion over significant portions of richest territories in Europe and managed to defeat several coalitions of powerful rivals.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,750
Las Vegas, NV USA
Well, that works, but only to an extent. His domain was divided after his death and it did not last for much after. There is also a fact Charlemagne did not face a single serious rival or highly organized state structure in Central and even Western Europe.

Napoleon and Hitler's conquest are much more impressive in that regard, taking into consideration the opposition they faced.

In regard to the OP, I think more monarchs should have been included. But, anyway, my vote would go to Charles V, who held dominion over significant portions of richest territories in Europe and managed to defeat several coalitions of powerful rivals.
There were three periods of hegemony in Europe excluding Russia and Britain. Charlemagne, Napoleon I and Hitler. Charles V of Hapsburg would be on my list of 3. However he never ruled France so he's third after Charlemagne and Napoleon I. Hitler wasn't a monarch and not impressive in the way I use the word. I do have other words for him.
 
Last edited:

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,723
Netherlands
Well, that works, but only to an extent. His domain was divided after his death and it did not last for much after. There is also a fact Charlemagne did not face a single serious rival or highly organized state structure in Central and even Western Europe.
It wasn't. His son inherited. In any case ruling "western Europe" in that day and age is far more impressive then ruling a centralized state.
And you must have been impressive if you are known (and really known, not like other greats that are just great in their country) as "the Great" in every European language.
He even got his own medieval franchise, with books, statues, paintings etc ;)
Napoleon and Hitler's conquest are much more impressive in that regard, taking into consideration the opposition they faced.
Difference being they lost.
The latter being double stupid, since he repeated the mistakes of the first. Invading North-Africa and Russia worked well the first time, let's do it again and getting your country blockaded by Brits in the process.
In regard to the OP, I think more monarchs should have been included. But, anyway, my vote would go to Charles V, who held dominion over significant portions of richest territories in Europe and managed to defeat several coalitions of powerful rivals.
Also a worthy contender indeed. He kept his lands, despite all kinds of internal problems as well. Plus he abdicated, which I always find a true signal of greatness.