Throughout history, there have been good leaders and bad leaders. There have been dictators, and there have been benevolent kings. This list is about the greatest, most benevolent monarchs in history – those rulers who made life better for their people.
Reign: November 6, 1494 – September 7, 1566
Suleiman I, also known as Suleiman the Magnificent, reigned as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire for 69 years, longer than any other Sultan. His reign marked the beginning of the golden age of the Ottoman Empire. During his rule, the Ottoman Empire encompassed most of the Middle East, Southeastern Europe and Rhodes. Suleiman also made educational, legislative, taxation and criminal reforms.
Reign: March 24, 1603 – March 27, 1625
James I, also known as “the wisest fool in Christendom”, was the fist king of both England and Scotland. Under his rule, the two kingdoms were united. Literature and the fine arts flourished under his reign, he himself writing many books and poems. During his rule, international trade through the British East India Company increased dramatically.
Reign: 1674 – 1696
John III, also known as the Lion of Lehistan, was a military and political genius. Under his rule, Poland-Lithuania became a stable, flourishing state. John became known as the Lion of Lehistan after his victory against the Turks in the Battle of Vienna.
February 3, 1867 – July 30, 1912
When Meiji became Emperor of Japan at the age of 14, Japan was a primitive and isolated country. By the end of his reign, Japan was an industrial powerhouse. Meiji was a key player in making Japan a major world superpower.
Reign: October 30, 1611 – November 6, 1632
Gustav II Adolf, also known as Gustavus Adolphus, was the King of Sweden for 21 years. During his reign, Sweden became a major European power. Gustav II Adolf led his Protestant army against the Catholic armies of France and Spain. After his death in battle, Sweden became known as a military powerhouse.
Reign: January 16, 27 BC – August 19, AD 14
Augustus Caesar ruled as the Emperor of Rome for 41 years. During this time, Augustus improved the infrastructure and military of Rome. He also reformed the taxation process. His reign is known as Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, because during his reign diplomacy flourished.
Reign: 559 BC – 530 BC
Cyrus II, also known as Cyrus the Great, ruled Persia for 30 years. During his reign, the Persian Empire encompassed much of the Middle East, including Iran, Israel and Mesopotamia. Under Cyrus’s reign, human rights and military strategy were greatly improved.
Reign: May 31, 1740 – August 17, 1786
Frederick II, also known as Frederick the Great, ruled Prussia for 46 years. During his reign, the borders of Prussia expanded to encompass West Prussia and Silesia. Under his reign, the infrastructure, military and bureaucratic process of Prussia was greatly improved.
Reign: June 20, 1837 – January 22, 1901
Queen Victoria was ruler of the United Kingdom for 67 years, longer than any other British monarch. During her reign, the British Empire expanded to encompass one quarter of the land on the Earth, making it the largest empire ever. The United Kingdom flourished under her reign, with the Industrial Revolution taking place. Victoria lent her name to the Victorian Era, a time when the United Kingdom’s power was at its zenith.
Reign: May 14, 1643 – September 1, 1715
Louis XIV, also known as the Sun King, reigned as King of France for 72 years, longer than any other European monarch. Under his reign, France became the most powerful country in Europe. Louis ended feudalism in France and modernized the country. During his rule, the military and fine arts flourished. Louis believed strongly in the divine right of kings, saying that he was the sun and that his courtiers and France should revolve around him like planets.
the "fist" King???
He was correcting an error on the list, not stating that he was the first to comment, duh.
My bad.
LOuis XIV??? His building of Versailles drove France futher into debt which led to even HIGHER TAXES and higher food prices ultimately contributing to the French Revolution…
wrong louis—that was louis XVI
Awesome list! Thanks
Great List! More lists like this please!!
I'd have had a number 11 too, they deserve a mention!
Ferdinand & Isabella of Spain.
)
templars
first time i've replied to listverse.Great Work!!!
A little quote about James the 1 …
"Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus"
(Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen)
He was a hilarious homo*****ual
Believe he was bi*****ual, actually.
were all these monarchs really benevolent…. the victorian era encompassed a lot of countries…australia,new zealand, india etc etc… and what i believe is there were huge human right violations in all these colonised nations…..also by the sounds of it louis XIV does not sound overtly benevolent, just want to know what happened to someone in his reign who did not consider him to be the sun?( i expect it would not be really benevolent!!!! )
Yeah, I probably could have used some better wording there.
"This list is about the greatest, most benevolent monarchs in history – those rulers who made life better for their people"
Perhaps they did, but they sure as hell made life pretty miserable for everyone else! (<;
not to take anything from the list (the name is greatest monarchs) but the introduction talks about benevolence for the people. one question here: were these monarchs benevolent to the states they captures and all the states they won through war? the country they belonged to may have flourished but what makes you think they were benevolent? benevolence is towards everyone and not just a few set of group of people. according to me, you, my friend are greatly mistaken.
louis is not famous thats why Augustus is the best in my mind
Are you kidding? Louis XIV is probably the most famous French monarch, and during his reign all of Europe revolved around his actions. Anyone who knows a little about the Rennaissance has to know about him.
Agreed. While Augustus was a great ruler, Louis created greater benefits for the world today. Louis is probably more famous that Caesar too—I will be surprised if more than 5 people here know Caesar Augustus’s real name, what his background was, and how he came to be the emperor of Rome. Louis is pretty well known.
Didn’t really like Prussia… Hated history reports… How do you pronounce it anyway?
is this a trick question of some sort?
how do you pronounce "it"? — like '*****' without the 'sh'
or….wait….prussia
you pronounce it like russia. but with a 'p' in front of it.
you know … like 'prick' is pronounced like rick — with a 'p' in front
??
this is gonna be one of those days … i can tell already.
Hey oliveralbq – your reply reminded me of a scene from the U.K. comedy series "The Young Ones" wherein Vivian introduces his housemate Rick to some new friends "His name is Rick, the 'p' is silent". Did you channel that or was it just a coincidence? Aso – nice apology to WillMcIntrye39.
i channelled it, of course.
(it was hysterical, btw — young ones)
i probably would have never thought of explaining it that way if not for tyo.
Young Ones: Greatest show that lasted less than 20 episodes.
Although The Tick was good.
amen
to both things……..
I thought the first part rhymed with bruise.
benefit of the doubt — i should have asked you where you are from — or where you are..
with an accent (and i've only heard it with a polish accent, and portugese —- but i imagine other dialects alsso do this):
pruss-i-a
turning into 3 syllables, and rhyming the first part with 'moose' (not bruise, though, as the end of moose is a soft 's' and the end of bruise is the hard 's' sound (or 'z' sound)) —
english (amer), aussie, english (uk) — all just attach a p to russia
ˈprə-shə or (ˈprʌʃə)
http://www.forvo.com/word/prussia/
it actually didnt occur to me that you might have wanted to know in a certian accent — until i thought about the differentiation of the word aluminum everyone was talking about a couplw weeks back
– apologies
that link above has both examples.
I’m Inuit. Here in my town, most people don’t finish school. My parents dropped out. But, I’m one of the rare smart ones and actually want to finish school. By the way, we don’t have accents or anything. NWT, Canada
well, i hope you do finish school. education is very important. i am a part time actor and i work with a lot of people (18-24) who dont take their education seriously and drop out or keep failing in exams. i tell them they need to study and get a degree and that is what counts in todays world. a fool with a degree is preferred to a smart person without one. stay put.
good advice — i sat out 5 years between getting my m.s. and starting on the phd i'm working on. in that hiatus, i realized that what you said here is correct. good lookin out
yes. education is necessary but sadly the 'education system' here is india emphasizes more on literacy than education. they don't realize that to impart both is the empower. phd sounds good. i hope to do that someday too but wait, i'll tell you my dilemma.
I'm an electrical engineer who has no interest in electrical. I joined the next best option and became a software developer. A couple of months back I started acting in theater and have interests in and want to pursue philosophy and literature. subjects which are looked down upon here (that doesnt really bother me) and there are no good places to study these and no good opportunity to work. My family expects me to do an MBA from a top university and get a high paying job. I dont want that. well, frankly, I dont know what I want to do. Might as well go with the flow.
So there, I am sitting on my engineering degree too. But I hope I figure things out and get going.
it'll come in time.
my bachelors was in clinical psych, but i hate listening to people *****ing a/b their problems 24/7 — so for my masters work, i did concentrations in stats and experimental psych. i understand your dilemma –. just keep at it — luckily i figured mine out..
No kidding!
I was sort of a nut for school. I plowed through as if my life depended on it. Even after getting my MFA and getting sort of bogged down by life (long, boring, etc), I kept up the habit of reading 3 to 4 non-fiction books, usually sciences and history or biography, at all times.
I still do.
I instilled the same hunger and habits in my children.
Education in just not something you should leave. I know people have reasons, but usually the education would have made the situation better anyway. Just a bit later.
BTW, lalabhaiya, as a former script supervisor I can tell you, 98% of all actors are part-time actors!
i always liked school — but i was being pushed by parents that had 5 doctorates between them. (well, actually four — my mom just got another in 2005)
however, being on the ski team, soccer team, and tennis team, a majority of my friends thought i was weird.
now, dont get me wrong — the act of actually going to class *****ed me off, but i never understood the lack of desire to learn……
No, I totally get it.
It's one of the main problems with the school system. The majority of classes, whether in public or private schools, are aimed at the average common denominator.
This leaves the students at either end of the spectrum bored silly, and is why I was so eager when the school Psychologist wanted to test my kids when they were still in early grammar school. I knew I could get them out of the ordinary classroom, which they already found boring as all get-out, and into a more stimulating situation.
As a result, by the time they finished grammar school, they had finished all the work usually accomplished by the the end of middle school. By the end of Middle School, they had finished all of their High School studies, and by High School graduation they qualified to enter Uni as either second semester sophomores or as Juniors (it depended on the number of classes they took and the scores they earned in them).
I have always been of the opinion that most successful gang leaders, fellows who really have to know where and who multiple people are at any given moment, are, despite the fact that they have chosen a less than honest and upright career, the result of a super-bright kid in a lousy school and social environment.
Don't even get me started on extra curricula activities!
@segues:: ""The majority of classes, whether in public or private schools, are aimed at the average common denominator""
right — which is why we have a bunch of robot automatan stupid people running around. like renee pussman, armadillotron, and brock
I think you were lucky. *MY* parents had a so-so opinion of education. My father graduated from a one room school house in a farming community (meaning they took off time from school whenever the farm needed them) and my mother left school at 15 to attend "secretarial college".
None of my achievements ever meant anything to them. The only thing they ever made a big deal out of was when I was runner up to Miss Teen-Age California…because girls were supposed to be pretty, not smart.
my parents acted like fascist commies when i was in school. i happen to agree with you *now*, but then i just wanted them to get off my case. i never made (even up to this point) less than an 'a' except for when i got bumped down due to attendance.
secretarial college reminds me of a buildng i saw. i live right off on hwy 49 here in miss. the way to get to the crossroads (yes, the robert johnson crossroads, at the intersection of hwy 49 and hwy 61, about 125 miles from my house) …best way to get there from my driveway, go east 3 blocks, turn right on highway 49, and drive for a couple hours. the last time i did this, somewhere before hattiesburg (usm campus) i passed a dominoes pizza college (thats what it said anyway)……. i remember thinking —this s a modern incarnation of secretary school…….
the sucky-ist part of your post is the first sentence of the last paragraph. if my parents hadnt rode my ass, and cared *so* much about my achievements, i probably wouldnt have adopted the drive it took to successfully make it. on the other hand, in the sense of pos.feedback, your parents cheated you of self recognition — which sucks ass. thats why i tend to give you more credit than myself in education. because if it wasnt instilled in me i'd probably be running from bar to bar hustling people in darts and pool. youre the lucky one, because you were handed a situation that required more self awareness. that is invaluable, and sometimes i feel like i learned some of the lessons too late.
nwt — indeed — you should be good with the "brush-a"-rhyming pronounciation,although im sure that either way you say it, people will know what you are talking about.
That’s your answer to where I’m from question.
And seriously, most people are dumbasses in my class.
hahaha — that doesnt help much, does it?
the difference between social interaction and intelligent social interaction is huge.
Exactly the point I just made!
Ok we get it- you guys are clever! Now stop it because you're making me feel bad.
here, this should help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prussia
now dont ask how to click on the button which plays the audio. there – you are smarter now. now come on, thank me.
thank you
*rolls eyes*
j/k j/k
i get smarter every time i logon to this site
LITHUANIA!!!!
I don't know about the best ruler, but the worst King? Don King – he's screwed up boxing like you wouldn't believe.
true — don king is a chode.
but he just messed up boxing.
the burger king from those commercials — with his gianormous head and plastic face, looking all creepy like he wants to ***** your dog —- that screws up peoples dreams. no good at all.
Absolutely agree. Bob Arum as well.
Don King has the scariest hair I have seen on anyone!
do you remember those little things called 'trolls' — kids used to stick them on the ends of pencils, and straighten their hair, and then roll the pencil back and forth in their hands to give the troll 'crazy hair'
that is always exactly what don king has looked like to me.
Yes!
I loved those for some reason.
And when my nephew was young he was scared witless by them, so so all the other kids in the family would run around, chasing him with them, while he screamed in terror.
i am watching a 5 year old for the next couple hours.
i have one of these things
what i have just learned is that if i take this, and screw its hair all up, and run after this kid yelling 'don king is coming to get you', his reaction shows me that even 5 year olds hate don king.
into the closet he went. i layed this thing down in front of the closet, and the effect its having mirrors red brick dust on your stoop.
he's been in there at least 15min
he may be too afraid to exit, but you can bet for damn sure that don king isnt gonna go in.
you do know that everything that happens will be repeated to the child's parents, verbatim.
unless you are in very good standing with them, and they owe you a lot of money or you have some scandalous info on them, you are in *BIG* trouble.
shiiiiit……
i took a picture with my fone and sent it to her.
she was astounded i got him to shut up for more than 45 min.
(he has adhd, with the concentration on the h.d. part)
im in even better standing now
Read a good biography of Elizabeth before you put James I ahead of her. Her accomplishments were far more impressive and significant.
To be honest, the only thing she really did was come up with the Elizabethan Religious Settlement in 1559…which was mostly the work of Cecil and Bacon anyway. And she encouraged sponsored privacy on Spanish ships…a kind of retarded move, considering what happened and how lucky she was to keep her throne. She mostly kept out of conflict, which is, I suppose, a good thing. But she had no role in the creation of most of the artistic and literary marvels of the time.
Sorry, *piracy.
yeh but what about benevolence? poor laws? they were good.
I chose James over Elizabeth because James I successfully united two kingdoms of different religions. James tried to do it peacefully, where as had it been Elizabeth she probably would have killed all the Catholics in Scotland.
i think the math is a little off here and there.
Good idea for a list but kinda short on facts, me thinks.
great list..mr frater!
If James I was so great, then why did Guy Fawkes try to blow him up?
because he was playing truth or dare with natalie portman — its her fault.
she's mmuch much older tham people think.
NO NO – you got it all wrong, he was messing around with Daryl Hannah – wait that was Bud Fox
maybe because James I and about 90% of the rest of the population was Protestant and Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who along with others, wanted to aggresively instigate a catholic regime. against the will of the people = terrorist. but i agree that James wasnt that great….not bad…compared to his sons, but not as influential as Eliazabeth.
Cause there is a difference between historical greateness and humanity greatness (or something like that).
Nearly all superpowers in the circles of history are build with blood & bones.
The 'good rulers' are mostly sacked pretty fast by the more cruel & greedy ones
and these are also the ones to last longest, fear is (sadly) a greater force to rule
then love.
And of course there are always people like guy fawkes, jesus or buddha who
try to change something, but either fail or their ideas just get corrupted.
So that there could be a holiday with fireworks and everything later on.
Where`s Henry V? Who kicked the ***** out off the Frogs?
Well, other than that, Henry didn't really do much. He came within 20 miles of Paris, but that was his only achievement. If you want to talk about a warrior king, perhaps Edward III would be better. He repaired the country after the distasterous reign of his father, Edward II, and it was he, along with his son The Black Prince, who triumphed at the Battle of Crecy in 1346, leaving the flower of French nobility dead in the mud.
Edward I was better than Edward II and Edward III. Even Henry V. He killed William Wallace, kicked the ***** out off Scotland and Wales, and expelled the Jews from England. That`s what I call a real King!
Amber i agree with you and Doc Croc, if the list was just 'the greatest monarchs' without benevolence etc i would perosnally have included some of the earlier Kings of England as i find their stories more mythical and fascinating. people such as Richard the Lionheart, Athelred, Alfred the Great, Henry V, Edward III etc
Richard the Lionheart didn't do much but drain the English dry of money so he could go off making war. He had little interest in England – all he wanted was Aquitaine.
James I? Are you joking? He was ridiculed even in his lifetime. Nobody took him seriously. He was nicknamed "Queen James" due to his camp personality and mannerisms. In fact, there was a saying at the time: Elizabeth was King and now James is Queen. If anything, his tense relationship with Parliament and his belief in the Divine Right of Kings laid the foundations for the English Civil War that would abrupt during the reign of his son, Charles. James was also a perpetuator of the witch hunting hysteria at the time. Indeed, art and literature flourished under his rule, but he didn't cause that, did he? It just happened. It always annoys me when people claim that the monarch is responsible for the triumphs of other just because they happened to be ruling at the time.
For example, Elizabeth I, no matter how you look at it, simply gave a pretty speech before the Battle of Gravelines when the Armada came, and then sat back and let the others do the work. Yet she is often credited with this triumph. Plus, James was an avid persecutor of Catholics. As much as I find James hilarious (simply due to the fact that he once got annoyed that people were following him around and bellowed "Christ's Wounds! I'll show them my arse!"), I don't think he should be on this list.
James I was er, like, WORTHLESS. Even Bad King John did something good. He signed Magna Carta.
Yeah. But the Barons sort of forced his hand on that one so I don't think it counts as him doing it.
The Magna Carta was good for the barons and bad for the king, as it limited his ability to rule. I'm not saying it was a bad thing, it's an idea whose time had come, but I doubt that would be an example of "good" kingship, not if you want total control over your people.
Queen James…hehehe. Reminds me of LeBron
@ the lister, well.. I don't see honestly how the "Victorian era" was "better" for the people with the industrial revolution, in fact, it was one of the darkest periods for the common citizen..
Tough expecting it, I'm also kind of disappointed not to see King Dinis of Portugal, one of the greatest rulers ever, he really fits into your "most benevolent monarchs in history – those rulers who made life better for their people"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_of_Portugal
He basically got an "after-Reconquista" barren and poor Portugal and layed the foundations of the powerhouse Portugal would become in the Discoveries.
And he really was concerned about his people and made lots of improvements to the country in general.
Listverse definitely has a bias towards anything not Chinese. Try checking other list about chinese culture in this site. You will find most people dont give a ***** about it. This list definitely must have at least one emperor from China. Racist much?
are you related to brock or armadillotron?
Dude, what about India in that case? I dont remember Indian rulers taking the fight to other countries… And there was a lot of peace and harmony before the Brits (read East India Company) landed. Wouldn't you say I'm correct? And well, if you want an example, how about King Ashoka?
Er.. Indian Monarchs? Before we colonized India, they still lived a Neandathal-type lifestyle. I don`t get it.
your ignorance brings tears to my eyes. and about the we in 'Before we colonized India', i would like to know who all were with you and when you came to our land. What time are you talking about my friend, are you saying India didn't have civilization? I hope, I sincerely hope you are not studying or planning to study history. Still, this'll go on. please define the 'we'.
Eagerly waiting.
The "We," refers to Elizabeth I. Our Greatest Ruler. And Indians WERE backward. They lived under feudalism, which had been gone for centuries in England yet they still lived under feudalism. And they lived like these hunter-gatherers you used to live in Africa. And there homes were even worse than the *****holes that still live in today. And what would you prefer-India when we were there-or the way India is today-with it`s self-centred leaders? Or god forbid-like Pakistan? You might as well have Nero as your leader! But as least he played the Lyre!
You don't *****ing say ***** about Pakistan, *****. Learn friggin history first. The mughals were at least half a dozen times better than your pussy rulers. Even Tipu Sultan, the ruler of a small state, woul've whooped your ass had it not been for the traitor who gave you way inside. And hunter gatherers ?? Where the ***** do you learn your history, asswipe?
Lastly, I would prefer Pakistan as it is today than, god forbid, under a *****in retard like Cameron or Blair.
How can you trust anything that Pakistan does. It's like with the cricket team, you don't know wether they are playing for real or have been payed to fix the game-Pakistanis are easily corupted.(we all know they are really supporting the Taliban) And if the mughals were so hot, tell me where are they now? I know– In the past, gone.
Why don't you go brush you teeth, pommy!!!
lalabhaiya, I have to say: I never talked to an Indian before and I am impressed, you show a lot of knowledge, congratulations.
Indeed, India was kind of behind the british, but not by much and that doesn't make them "neanderthals". Brazil today is very far behind UK or the US, but that doesn't make us primitive.
On the other hand, India has shown many pacifist rulers and people to be followed (Mahatma Gandhi anyone?) while Europe is almost always in war. We can't judge one country based only on technology.
It was the neandathal Indians who taught the Brits about personal hygine. In fact the great Duke of Wellington was also a student of the Indian personal hygiene programme.
It the Indians taught us about hygiene, then how come there`s the "Untouchables?"
Before British colonized India, India had already taught the world how to count ; that is, the concept of zero and decimal numbers. The Roman could only count upto something like 4783 and that too with a never ending series of X's, V's, I's and C's.
And the Indians have already built the Taj Mahal in 1648 AD, when the British were learning multiplication!
Untouchability? Who on earth established slave-trade?
Are you really implying that the Brits established the slave-trade??? Slavery is as old as civilization. The Ottoman Empire was buit on slavery. I love how non-whites try to ascribe slavery to only whites when the rest of the world is just as guity of such a crime. He** slavery still exists in parts of Africa today.
At that time, europeans didn't see the connection between hygiene and health, doing primitive surgery without proper sanitation and ending up killing the patient, it took much time for them to change that, while most eastern civilizations already did so (or thought in a similar way). Isn't that enough?
II have been holding off making any sort of comment about about this piece of (supposedly) human rubbish, but this truly takes the cake, and then some…Armadillotron should be down on his knees every single day, thanking his maker (supposing he had one and was not the result of spontaneous generation, such a was believed maggots were, in jolly old England) for the voluntary respiratory system.
He's so stupid that if he had to think about breathing we'd be one Armadillotron short of the one we have now.
And the problem would be?
No problem for us! In fact, the benefits actually bring tears to my eyes…imagine! an entire comment section without a single post completely full of such biased, bigoted, uneducated, ill-conceived rantings that we might actually, once again, enjoy ourselves.
The only ones who *might* have a problem would be Armadillotron's parents…and I stress the *MIGHT*.
Even parents can only take so much.
The list is usually compiled by folks who live in England or America, etc. Therefore, we know about what we know. I am sure if you looked at a similar Chinese list written by folks in Beijing or Hong Kong, it would be populated by mostly Asian emperors with perhaps one or two Western counterparts.
Not racist – just what we know based on who we are, where we live, and the extent of education. That's the diff between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not knowing the information, stupidity is knowing it but not employing it.
Then that ***** of an author should have changed the topic to "10 Greatest Monarch based on my western knowledge and biased against oriental".
the dude does have a point. China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. 2000 years ago, they were already quite innovative. I don't see why no one would make an effort to search benevolent rulers among them. Surely among those emperors from different dynasties one of them were as "benevolent" as the ones on this list.
But then again, I don't find the rulers on this list very benevolent just by expanding borders and conquering neighbors.
The list isn't very detailed as I had hoped.
Elizabeth I was our greatest Monarch. She gave us a national identity, she killed Catholic fanatics, razed Ireland, traded in Slaves, created the English East India Company, discovered parts of The New World, helped to civilize Native Americans, defeated the Armada, basically, she was amazing. Don`t you wish she was around today? I know she was a woman, but that`s beside the point. We need strong leaders.
i always knew armadilos did not have a brain…. now u have proved it true… thanks!!!!!
I agree with you that Elizabeth I was your greatest Monarch…
But for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of one's own nation. However, you might want to tone it down a notch. It's one thing to be proud, it's another to be a culturally arrogant, ego-centric, patriarchal and borderline racist bigot.
he's not a borderline racist bigot.
he IS a racist bigot.
I didn't want to be "too insulting"
But yes, indeed you are right.
helped civilize the natives??..i wasn't aware they required european intervention. If anything Europeans are the ones in need of civilization lest tranquilization.
never breed f'n troll
hey armaDILDOtron,you're a funny guy!!!
I totally agree. And there are parts of the world today that could do with some Elizabeth I style civilizing, like Harlem, New York!
greatest monarch?
…
madame butterfly
Madama Butterfly
….Augustus wasn't a monarch. He didn't really want to meet the same end as his Great Uncle Julius Caesar, who worried many by making them believe that he was going to make himself king. And the hated Tarquin rulers were still a sore spot amongst Romans. He was "Emperor", from the Latin "imperator", meaning "General" or "Commander". It didn't the same connotations it does today. In the early empire, you normally had to be successful militarily in order to be a good candidate for the position. That's why most Roman Emperors adopted their heirs; Caesar adopted Augustus, who adopted tiberius who adopted Germanicus and later Caligular when Germanicus died. And Trajan adopted Hadrian, who adopted Antininous Pius, who adopted Marcus Aurelius…and so on. I really need a hobby.
Trajan the spaniard was a great monarch (yeah im saying this cuz i want to ***** you off). The empire was at its greatest extent during his command. Good guy. Good guy. Should have been on this list. He’s just always forgotten. I guess cuz he wasnt flashy. No particular fondness for boys or any egyptian mistress.
Ps: Who can blame you for quoting from machiavelli. That for sure must be a hobby. Culture.
Nice list but would be nice to have a bit more information.
James I was awful, but his Grandson wasn`t. Charles II was one of the best. He was called-"The Merrie Monarch." He liked to party, have shagfests, and was "A man of the people." He wasn`t a stupid, out off touch toff, like Prince Charles. God help us, when he becomes King..
It doesn't matter if he does – it's not like the royalty in the IK actually do anything any more – they're just there for ceremonial purposes.
UK. My bad!
Maybe.. But there still entertaining aren`t they?
Agreed – Charles II did a lot of good things but his biggest failing was in failing to provide a proper heir to the throne. His brother as a successor was a disaster and next thing you know, there was a new royal family. But he was an interesting character though and ruled wisely.
Really interesting list! I love how you used examples from many different nations. I agree with Arsnl, you probably need some more details about what the monarch did. With the little blurbs you were giving, you could make a horrible leader seem wonderful by just mentioning a few good things they did! Interesting choice for #1, I always had thought of Louis XIV as starting the downward slope towards bankruptcy and war in France, as he built the palace of Versailles….which could not have been cheap!
Louis XIV was horrible. He killed hundreds of people and pretty much used up France's money reservoir because he had to have his enormous castle in Versailles built. His soldiers were forced to build the castle as they were to always be loyal to the king. He had gold lining his castle, while many of his people died from lack of money and food. Although he did great things, he definitely wasn't the greatest monarch, Queen Elizabeth I is my pick.
Not Hywel Dda? King of the vast majority of Wales, reigned 920-950 (over ever growing regions of Wales), whose laws (set in writing) were just and good, based on compassion rather than punishment and showed plenty of common sense, and respect towards women.
This is interesting, I know very little of Welsh history (except during the Plantagenet conflicts) and I have to look it up. Sounds fascinating. Thanks for the info!
this list needed way more information…it disappointed me somewhat
I hope tomorrows list doesn't have anything to do with , governments , colonies , royals , or anything like that . In fact i hope its about babes,dragon ball Z ,beer , crab-people , guitars or defecating in zero gravity . These heavy political comments are messing with my ka…………………
dragon ball Z, defecating in zero gravity.
hahaha
good one.
happy dude?
we got to talk about freakazoid.
we didnt get crab people, but i was able to work cave-guy into the conversation.
This list has a terrible lack of information. You cant just say “the infrastructure, military and bureaucratic process of Prussia was greatly improved” and move on. We need examples, stories etc.
Also why isnt peter 1st here? He banned beards from the russian nobility. Yes that meant the rise of the peado-stache but still
Peter The Great, wasn`t called Peter The Great for nothing. He helped to modernize Russia. He was recently voted one off the greatest ever Russians.
oh man ……..the peado-stache is horrible but its all in the peado-smile actually .
Well in that case ol’pete was great. Who can see a paedo-smile under a beard. I sure cant. They were forced to come out in the open from their furry hiding places.
Ps: i only got only a 49% succes on that paedo smile site you posted. I dont know how i survived my childhood without getting my tail pipe blocked.
Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible?
WHERE is Charlemagne? Alfred the Great? Peter the Great? I'm flabbergasted that a list of this kind left these off, in favor of some of the choices that DID make it. Unbelievable.
Can you please justify this. Why are they greater?
It was very hard to make this list as there are so many other great monarchs. I did my best, but you can always submit another great monarchs list as a follow up to this one.
Well Von… I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh on you. I know from personal experience that writing these lists is not easy, and all in all, you didn't do such a bad job. In the vast tapestry of human history, coming up with only ten leaders must have been extremely difficult… and no doubt the list would have been rendered only more "western-centric" if I had written it. Nevertheless, I feel the omission of Charlemagne *at least* was an error. One would have to weigh his importance against a few of your choices, and wonder… if you follow me.
Yes, I did make a few mistakes when making this list. More detail should have been included and I did overlook Charlemagne. You weren't too harsh, you were simply voicing your opinion. I agree with you completely.
Charlemagne didn't even cross my mind when making this list. I needed to do more research. Thanks for your constructive criticism.
what was written was good.
it just seems like there could have been 3 more sentences in each entry.
on occasion, list writers will over explain things, which makes for some long reading for the people with short atttention spans.
do you remember, in amadeus, when emporer joseph says this to mozart: "my dear young man, don't take it too hard. your work is ingenious. it's quality work. and there are simply too many notes, that's all." – that is kind of what happens on some lists.
well, your list is good. it's quality work. and there are simply not enough notes, that's all.
There have been many great leaders, and many… bad as well. I suppose Siam was lucky at times.
Ffiffisop I do agree with you about the monarchy in Britain being fairly useless. All they do is bring in the tourists and litter the tabloids with their drunken antics. I'm not for the republican approach as I'm not so radical and they are pretty harmless.
To be honest is there any monarchies in the world that wield real power on the global stage?
Where`s Henry VIII? He was a bit mad and fat, but he modernized the country. And he gave birth to Elizabeth.
I believe Anne Boleyn gave birth to Elizabeth. Henry was the sperm donor.
Yeah, uh…. Henry did NOT "give birth" to ANYONE. Even bloated monarchs aren't that good.
But in all seriousness—Henry's reign was marked by an actual lowering of the state of civilization in Britain. His court was dictatorial, the king himself was capricious and and despotic, and under his leadership, English culture and liberty both suffered to varying degrees. Not a good choice.
But he started out ok…he got weirder and nuttier and nastier as the syphilis took over his his brain.
I agree, he was never a nice guy, never someone you'd want to hang out with and share a beer and tell tales, but at the start he was pretty much a regular guy.
I didn't know men can give birth. : )
I really don't see why Louis the 14th was such a great king.
His megalomania and hunger for power left France in a huge crisis after his death.
Ok, he did modernise the army, but his military successes were nothing compared to his failures in combat.
Rubbish list….most of these monarchs did not care about the people they represented, and instead squandered the tax collected by the exchequer either on war or lavish parties. I hope I don't start a controversy here but I would like to mention one particular great caliph of the Islamic empire. His name was Umar ibn-al khattab (Umar the first). He vastly improved the administration, infrastructure, education (etc) of an empire ranging from north Africa to the far corners of Persia. Despite ruling this huge empire he lived a life exempt from luxury (had few material possessions – in fact he did not even have money to buy a bed and slept on the floor). He would also regularly patrol at night to make sure that none of his citizens would sleep hungry.
100% agreed with you. Infact, if this list can be written with open mind and in an unbiased manner his name shall be on top of the list.
Where is elisabeth II? During her reign freedom of expression was extended and nowadays we CAN read so many interesting things about wags and the spice girls and peta from page 3 in all those interesting tabloids.
"peta from page 3"
lol Elizabeth gave us too much.
Interesting list. Left out a few that have been mentioned in the comments and lacking more info. Feels a bit like a rushed history report.
I was scrolling down this list expecting Charlemagne to be first. But he turned out to be missing ! That is an unforgivable error. I like the idea of the list, and there are some good selections, but the info is lacking a bit and there are too many missing monarchs.
And please, stop commenting and suggesting all these English kings……
Untouchables were a low caste group of people.Dont just go by the name.It has nothing to do with personal hygiene.Upper caste people looked down and didn’t allow them to use public wells and stuff.Wasn’t because they didn’t take bath or anything…it was just a *****ed up mentality they had.Caste system was cruel.
FYI one of the earliest civilisations in the world,the Indus Valley Civilisation is well known for their skillfully designed drainage systems and sanitary conditions.
Alright then, but Indians are still savages. Remember the Mutiny? And look what happened when we partitioned the country. HORRIBLE doesn`t describe it. India needs the old Viceroys like during the days of the Raj, not selfish bastards like the one at present.
do you even KNOW what happened to cause the country to split? I'm not even Indian but I wrote my extended essay on it and I must say, your comment comes off as extremely ignorant. You didn't ''partition" the country, you incited a war. Next time straighten your facts before you claim that you bettered the world -your view of "civilized" isn't the only view out there. You destroyed countless nations. In fact, I'd say you guys were the savages. You think bringing modernization and Christianity will turn people civilized? No, it won't. It's called Westernization. It amazes me how little respect you have for foreign cultures and their ways of thinking.
Another point,Indians did not live like hunter-gatherers right before British took over the country.In fact it was a booming place for trade and commerce.India was very wealthy at that time.It was called ‘Bird that lays golden egg’…(loosely translated).
No they didn`t, India was a dump. All countries, before they were colonized, the people lived like cavemen. And just look at countries that are no longer ruled by us, or other European countries. There leaders are all corrupt, and only care about power. Just look at the recent Rwanda elections. There leader says he`s not a dictator, yet he`s had his political opponents murdered! And what`s better? Rwanda now-or Rwanda when ruled by King Leopold II? And granted, we could be nasty and commited genocide now and again, but come on. They lived a primitive lifestyle. Animals live better than they did.
I totally agree with Armafillotron… it wud be great ot have u in India…. (as i presume u wud have definitely been to India with Elizabeth hyuk hyuk)….. Indians would the honour of ur presence…actually India is planning to send a single-manned spacecraft to pluto… and you fit the bill, i must say extremely well
When Indian mathematicians were busy finding the solution for quadratic equations of one variable, (the famous Sridharacharya's formula x= {-b+-sq. root(b*b-4*a*c)/2*a}, the Europeans were learning how to put on a dead bear's skin around their waist.
hahaha… nice one.
Oh and you should know that YOU GUYS were the people who put those dictators into power in the beginning to further your own interests and I guess you still haven't let up on that. Don't blame the leaders for coming into power -you guys put them in those positions of power solely because you thought they'd listen to you.
What did they do that was so great except exploit people for their own gain, just like multi national corporations do now
What tosh. Four sentences that you probably ripped from Wikipedia doesn't count as research or an informative list.
A great monarch by the standards of history was a person who:
1) Forwarded the economy
2) Either attacked or defended against the country's greatest enemy
3) Kept good relations with the people on the matters of land, taxation and religion
4) Provided an heir for the throne.
Henry VII may have been a dull cash counting king but there was more money in the royal treasury than there has been even to date, the only serious peasant uprisings came with the 'Pretenders' but they were quickly crushed, he captured a French city and he provided two sons.
Although Elizabeth will always be dear to England, there's still the fact she had no heir and thus we ended up with 'Queen' James. A man whom no one took seriously especially when he raved that witches were trying to kill him.
Im only talkin about India here.You seem to have gotten some of your facts wrong(hunter gatherer,personal hygiene concept).Believe what u wanna dude but what i said are concrete facts.
I like how you only acknowledge the crown of England in #9, and ignore the fact that he was James VI of Scotland for 35 years before he became attained that throne (not to mention the fact that he was also James I of Ireland). There's nothing like a rampant display of ignorance to raise one's hopes for a list.
Having now read the rest of it, I'm similarly impressed by your lack of research and the fact that you couldn't be bothered to give any of your subjects more than a couple of sentences each, nevermind attempt to explain their arbitrary positions on this silly list. This list ought to be taken down, rewritten (maybe by someone else) and resubmitted. It's a wasted opportunity.
I am most certainly not ignorant. Before you start insulting my intelligence, why don't you allow me a chance to defend myself.
I mentioned that James was the first king of Scotland and England (as in he was king of Scotland and then inherited the English throne).
The reason I didn't write a big, long paragraph on each person, which I could have done if I wanted to, is because I wanted people to be able to read it without getting bored. Who wants to spend thirty minutes reading a list with pages of information when you can just give fast facts for each person. Then, if someone wants to learn more, they can look them up and read in more detailed information about the person.
If you don't give the reasons for your choices in the list, then the list is nonsensical. If you don't include the most basic facts about some of your choices (such as what countries they were monarch of), then you appear ignorant. If you pander to the people who are too lazy/stupid to appreciate the inclusion of basic facts on your list, then you should acknowledge within the list that you intended it for children and/or people who eat crayons.
I didn't insult your intelligence. You compromised it yourself by suppressing it while you wrote this list.
This list is a little skimpy. There's no meat in this sandwich.
How about Peter the Great ?? IMO, he was one of the, if no THE, greatest monarch of all time.
Ferdinand and Isabella, Catherine the Great and Elizabeth I…
Catherine the great wasnt ….so great. Unless you consider giving loads of money to your lovers to be great. Hmm come to think of it (as a dude that i am) that is GREAT. Women you should give men presents. And atleast one PS3.
Cyrus the great is not Cyrus the second!
"Japan was a primitive and isolated country" prior to 1867? According to who, colonialist European powers who called any civilization it encountered 'barbaric', no matter how ancient and organized, because it didn't reflect their own?
I'd like to rename this list "Top 10 Greatest Monarchs, Provided You're White, Protestant, European and Don't Mind Your Leader Gaining Power Through Slavery and Genocide."
And Armadillotron? Your revolting ignorance is showing. Too bad you're too blinded by your own bullsh*t to see the world through more than just your narrow, self-serving, brown-tinted lens.
Prior to Meiji's rule, Japan was primitive compared to the rest of the world. Meiji helped to modernize the country. He improved the infrastructure, introduced Western technology and combined it with Japanese technology so as to make things more efficient.
The word "primitive" implies crudeness, ignorance and baseness, none of which are words I'd use to describe even Roman-era – and certainly not early 19th century – Japanese society.
Meiji Westernized Japan, he didn't civilize it. There was thousands of years of civilization there already.
Chaka, "primitive" is a relative term. Japan had civilization, yes. But it was still living in an essentially feudal existence–and an isolated, nearly xenophobic one at that—prior to the late 19th century. Regardless of what it had accomplished as a civilization, such a state of affairs that late in the history of overall human civilization is, for lack of a better word, "primitive."
Don’t know why u brought up the Mutiny(of 1857 i presume).British empire won that thing,carried out mass executions,blew rebels to pieces with canons,falsified reports of rape…there were thousands more indian casualties n they suffered horrendously.n yea the partition was bad but it was the British’s ‘divide n rule’ policy that ultimately brought it about,pitting hindus n muslims against each other and ***** like that.Just to make controlling the mass easier.The end result was the partition.
I would have put Henry IV of France, but that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
Very nice list, I like to talk about kings and monarchs A LOT.
The only bad thing on the list is that I think it could be a bit more detailed on what exactly evolved within each aspect that flourished with the monarch in question. But the lack of details doesn't make the list bad at all.
Normally I like short lists, but this needs a bit more info.
I was also expecting Charlemagne to get a mention, and a better explanation of each subject, my pennies worth anyway.
this list is embarrassing to world history
Margaret l of Denmark could have been a choice too.
Link to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmar…
She united the Scandinavia as the Union of Kalmar, thereby creating a Scandinavian superpower.
She did this almost with diplomacy only.
The Scadinavian economy flourished under her rule, and the Scadinavia develop as whole.
I find your lack of Ramses the Great disturbing.