Most overated leader in history.
Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Next
twister @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:14 pm
King Henry VIII
His personality was quite amazing; his intelligence, learning, and curiosity impressed even the world-weary ambassadors who littered his court. His thirst for knowledge was insatiable, though it never became the near-mania that haunted Philip II. Henry VIII didn't spend his declining years surrounded by slips of paper detailing the most minute occurrences in his realm. But he did spend his entire reign reading dispatches, scribbling notations, meeting with diplomats and politicians. Very little occurred in England that escaped his attention; indeed, very little occurred in Europe that escaped Henry VIII. He prided himself on this and well he should; the Spanish ambassador reported that Henry knew of the fall of Cadiz before the Holy Roman Emperor.
He was usually genial company. He loved music and wrote his own. He enjoyed dancing and entertainment. He held countless banquets and tournaments. He enjoyed all physical activities and excelled at most of them. Hunting, archery, tennis, jousting - the king made his court into an endless round of competition and celebration. When he grew older, these former pleasures became torments; like most former athletes, Henry became fat as he aged and the once-loved pastimes became bitter reminders of the ravages of time. And he ruled over a country where almost half the population was 18 years old or younger! Youth was everywhere, staring the old king in his face. We can imagine the effects. Quite naturally, he sought reassurances - from women, his courtiers, his council. Affairs could distract him, but love affairs were never his grand passion. Despite his licentious reputation, Henry VIII was really a 16th century sexual prude; among his European contemporaries, he philandered the least. State affairs indulged his taste for war and glory; family affairs gnawed at his conscience and pride. But Henry VIII did not want distractions. He wanted a grand mission, a defining statement. In the end, he got his wish, though in the most improbable way possible.
He began life as a second son, destined for the church. It was the dream of Henry VII for his eldest son, Arthur, to be king and for his second son, Henry, to be the highest churchman in England. And so, for the first ten years of his life, Henry was a student of theology. And for the next thirty years of his life, he remained a dutiful son of the church. It is ironic, then, that his most significant historical achievement was the destruction of the Roman Catholic faith in England. The impact of the Henrician reformation forever altered the course of English history. Henry VIII, who had indulged in endless diplomatic squabbles and foreign wars, left no grand achievement beyond his own borders. Vast amounts of money were spent on these foreign entanglements - and many lives lost - but, in the end, nothing changed in the European balance of power. England, constantly pulled between the two great continental powers of France and the Holy Roman Empire, nearly bankrupted itself in an attempt to become respected and feared.
Why did Henry ultimately fail in those tasks normally reserved for monarchs? Ultimately, he was a victim of his times. The 16th century was a confusing mess of changing loyalties, betrayals, near-constant fighting, and most importantly, a rising skepticism of that great institution of the fading medieval world, the Roman Catholic church. With the advent of the printing press a century before, literacy and intellectual debate grew rapidly. The High Renaissance in Italy occurred during the first 20 years of Henry VIII's reign. It was a time of unparalleled scientific experiment, intellectual fervor, and spirited debate. In such a time, traditional views of kingship were bound to change for both the ruler and those he ruled.
(As evidence of this confusion, one need only remember that Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor crowned by the Pope, led the brutal sack of Rome in 1527. Charles, supposedly the anointed defender of the papacy, actually ordered his imperial army to loot, pillage, and kill their way through Rome and the Vatican. The pope ended up fleeing to relative safety in his nightshirt.)
While reading any biography of Henry VIII, one must remember the flavor of his times and judge him, if at all, by sixteenth-century standards. It's always amusing to read descriptions of Henry as the lustful tyrant torn between bedding and beheading innocent women; in truth, he blushed at dirty jokes and was more faithful than many 20th century husbands. He was married to Katharine of Aragon for over twenty years and had just a handful of mistresses. He waited years to physically consummate his relationship with Anne Boleyn, and despite being in the prime of his life, remained faithful to her until marriage. Was this sexual prudery a result of his early church training? Perhaps. Whatever the case, it was a hallmark of his life. Henry VIII was always an incurable romantic.
His personal and political decisions were always grandiose, melodramatic, and played for great effect. He loved pomp and pageantry, even as he loathed to deal with the consequences of his actions. Like his father, he was caught in the transition from medieval England to renaissance England. And like his father, he was well-versed in English history and desperate to continue the Tudor dynasty, to secure his claims to Ireland, Scotland, and France, to raise England to the status of its continental neighbors, and to expand his God-given right to rule all Englishmen. When reading about Henry's political and dynastic ambitions, one is always struck by the wide scope of his desires. Though most came to naught in the end, he actually planned invasions of France, plotted to join Charles V's invasion of Italy, and intended to seize the Scottish throne. The word 'ambitious' hardly does Great Harry justice.
His political ambitions failed and he bequeathed a woeful mess to his nine-year-old heir, Edward VI. His greatest achievement was a dubious one, and one for which he was often eager to distance himself - the Henrician reformation, the end of Roman Catholicism in England and the birth of the Anglican church. The king, for all his contradictions and failures, helped destroy the greatest institution in medieval Europe. Once Germany and England fell to the new heresy, its spread across Europe was inevitable and invincible.
Yes, he ruled and major changes happened under his rule that would change England and Europe for centuries to come. But still too this day though articulate and intelligent he is still remember as one of the greatest kings of England but was overrated as a leader.
canucker @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:32 pm
Most leaders are overrated IMO. They do not lead alone, there are always those in the wings that do alot of the work.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:33 pm
Twister Twister:
On NERO...a little history of the man his reign was short and terrible.
Nero's Early Life and Reign
The death of Claudius in 54 A.D., generally thought to have been planned and carried out by his wife Agrippina Minor, secured for her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus the place as emperor which she had so carefully arranged. Before his death, Claudius, though he already had a son Britannicus, had adopted Lucius, who changed his name to Nero Claudius Caesar, (a great-great-grandson of Augustus) at Agrippina's instigation; instrumental too in the transfer of power was the influence of Seneca, Nero's tutor, and of Sextus Afranius Burrus, the praetorian prefect. Since Nero was only an adolescent, the early part of his reign was characterized by direction from these older figures, including Agrippina herself. Some scholars see a struggle between Agrippina against Seneca and Burrus for control of the young emperor, and when Agrippina began to show favor to Britannicus, a legitimate (though slightly younger) heir and possible rival, Britannicus' murder was arranged (55 A.D.) and Agrippina's authority displaced.
Nero's Dissolute Nature
The traditional portrait of Nero's dissolute life derives at least in part from the years which fallowed soon after his accession; the attraction of Poppaea Sabina who was married first to Rufrius Crispinus end then to Otho (himself a close friend of Nero), may have had same connection with the divorce, exile, and murder of Nero's first wife, Octavia, Claudius' daughter. Poppaea became Nero's mistress in 58 A.D., and the next year Agrippina herself was murdered, with Nero's knowledge. Burrus and Seneca continued in their guidance until 62 A.D. when the former died and the latter entered retirement. In their place that year appeared a counselor, Gaius Ofonius Tigellinus, who had been exiled in 39 A.D. by Caius (Caligula) for adultery with Agrippina, but who returned to find favor with Nero and a post for himself as praetorian prefect, from which position he exerted a further degenerating influence on Nero.
Nero's Marriage and the Burning of Rome
Poppaea and Nero married in 62 A.D., and she bore a daughter to him the next year, but the child died only a few months later. The events of 62 and the next few years did little to improve public perception of Nero. In 62, at Tigellinus' instigation, a series of treason laws were put to deadly use against anyone considered a threat. In 64 A.D. a great fire left much of the city in ruins, and while it is not certain that Nero himself had the fires set, it is true that his ambitious building campaign, which followed the fires (and in particular the construction of the Domus Aurea), represented to many a private selfishness at a time when public reconstruction was most needed. In 65 A.D. Nero's artistic inclinations, present since his accession, became truly public, and in a display which shocked conservative tastes he appeared on stage and sang for audiences.
Nero's Fall From Power
His enemies had become numerous, and that same year a plot to assassinate Nero and to replace him with Gaius Calpurnius Piso was both formulated and betrayed; among those forced to commit suicide in connection with the Pisonian conspiracy were Seneca, Lucan, Petronius, and Tigellinus' colleague in the prefecture (his replacement, Nymphidius, was to be influential in the accession of Galba three years later). Poppaea died in 66 A.D., and the next year Nero left Rome altogether for a tour of Greece, during which his extravagances alienated him further still from general citizens and military commanders alike. More crucially, in his paranoia after the conspiracy he ordered a popular and successful general, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, to commit suicide, a decision which left other provincial leaders in doubt about his next move and inclined toward rebellion rather than inaction.
The Year of the Four Emperors
In 68 A.D. Vindex revolted in Lugdunensis, as did Clodius Macer in Africa. Galba declared his allegiance to the Senate and the Roman people, rather than to Nero. Such unrest in the provinces, coupled with intrigue at Rome among the praetorians (orchestrated at least in part by Nymphidius), provided Nero's enemies, especially within the Senate, with their chance to depose him. He committed suicide on 9 June 68 A.D.
A Historical Assessment of Nero as Emperor
Nero, last of the Julio-Claudians, had been placed in the difficult position of absolute authority at a young age coupled with the often-contradictory efforts of those in a position to manipulate him. Augustus, however, had not been much older when he began his bid for power, and so a great deal of the responsibility for Nero's conduct must also rest with the man himself. Nero's reign was not without military operations (e.g., the campaigns of Corbulo against the Parthians, the suppression of the revolt of Boudicca in Britain), but his neglect of the armies was a critical error. He left Rome not to review his troops but to compete in Greek games, and as a further slight had left a freedman, Helius, in his place at Rome to govern in his absence. The suspicion which surrounded him after the treason trials and the conspiracy set the stage for a series of civil upheavals, "the Year of the Four Emperors," which included the rise to power of men, such as Otho in Lusitania and Vespasian in Judaea, whom Nero himself had sent to the frontiers, unaware that they were to become his successors.
I never said at any point that Nero was a great leader, but he is always mentioned as one of the leaders of the Roman empire.. primarily due to his calious disregard to the Roman empire. In taking over an Empire that Cladius left after his untimely death.. Nero rose to power. At the time Nero was overrated and helped by his mother to ascend to the throne over Britannicus.
Nero's Early Life and Reign
The death of Claudius in 54 A.D., generally thought to have been planned and carried out by his wife Agrippina Minor, secured for her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus the place as emperor which she had so carefully arranged. Before his death, Claudius, though he already had a son Britannicus, had adopted Lucius, who changed his name to Nero Claudius Caesar, (a great-great-grandson of Augustus) at Agrippina's instigation; instrumental too in the transfer of power was the influence of Seneca, Nero's tutor, and of Sextus Afranius Burrus, the praetorian prefect. Since Nero was only an adolescent, the early part of his reign was characterized by direction from these older figures, including Agrippina herself. Some scholars see a struggle between Agrippina against Seneca and Burrus for control of the young emperor, and when Agrippina began to show favor to Britannicus, a legitimate (though slightly younger) heir and possible rival, Britannicus' murder was arranged (55 A.D.) and Agrippina's authority displaced.
Nero's Dissolute Nature
The traditional portrait of Nero's dissolute life derives at least in part from the years which fallowed soon after his accession; the attraction of Poppaea Sabina who was married first to Rufrius Crispinus end then to Otho (himself a close friend of Nero), may have had same connection with the divorce, exile, and murder of Nero's first wife, Octavia, Claudius' daughter. Poppaea became Nero's mistress in 58 A.D., and the next year Agrippina herself was murdered, with Nero's knowledge. Burrus and Seneca continued in their guidance until 62 A.D. when the former died and the latter entered retirement. In their place that year appeared a counselor, Gaius Ofonius Tigellinus, who had been exiled in 39 A.D. by Caius (Caligula) for adultery with Agrippina, but who returned to find favor with Nero and a post for himself as praetorian prefect, from which position he exerted a further degenerating influence on Nero.
Nero's Marriage and the Burning of Rome
Poppaea and Nero married in 62 A.D., and she bore a daughter to him the next year, but the child died only a few months later. The events of 62 and the next few years did little to improve public perception of Nero. In 62, at Tigellinus' instigation, a series of treason laws were put to deadly use against anyone considered a threat. In 64 A.D. a great fire left much of the city in ruins, and while it is not certain that Nero himself had the fires set, it is true that his ambitious building campaign, which followed the fires (and in particular the construction of the Domus Aurea), represented to many a private selfishness at a time when public reconstruction was most needed. In 65 A.D. Nero's artistic inclinations, present since his accession, became truly public, and in a display which shocked conservative tastes he appeared on stage and sang for audiences.
Nero's Fall From Power
His enemies had become numerous, and that same year a plot to assassinate Nero and to replace him with Gaius Calpurnius Piso was both formulated and betrayed; among those forced to commit suicide in connection with the Pisonian conspiracy were Seneca, Lucan, Petronius, and Tigellinus' colleague in the prefecture (his replacement, Nymphidius, was to be influential in the accession of Galba three years later). Poppaea died in 66 A.D., and the next year Nero left Rome altogether for a tour of Greece, during which his extravagances alienated him further still from general citizens and military commanders alike. More crucially, in his paranoia after the conspiracy he ordered a popular and successful general, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, to commit suicide, a decision which left other provincial leaders in doubt about his next move and inclined toward rebellion rather than inaction.
The Year of the Four Emperors
In 68 A.D. Vindex revolted in Lugdunensis, as did Clodius Macer in Africa. Galba declared his allegiance to the Senate and the Roman people, rather than to Nero. Such unrest in the provinces, coupled with intrigue at Rome among the praetorians (orchestrated at least in part by Nymphidius), provided Nero's enemies, especially within the Senate, with their chance to depose him. He committed suicide on 9 June 68 A.D.
A Historical Assessment of Nero as Emperor
Nero, last of the Julio-Claudians, had been placed in the difficult position of absolute authority at a young age coupled with the often-contradictory efforts of those in a position to manipulate him. Augustus, however, had not been much older when he began his bid for power, and so a great deal of the responsibility for Nero's conduct must also rest with the man himself. Nero's reign was not without military operations (e.g., the campaigns of Corbulo against the Parthians, the suppression of the revolt of Boudicca in Britain), but his neglect of the armies was a critical error. He left Rome not to review his troops but to compete in Greek games, and as a further slight had left a freedman, Helius, in his place at Rome to govern in his absence. The suspicion which surrounded him after the treason trials and the conspiracy set the stage for a series of civil upheavals, "the Year of the Four Emperors," which included the rise to power of men, such as Otho in Lusitania and Vespasian in Judaea, whom Nero himself had sent to the frontiers, unaware that they were to become his successors.
I never said at any point that Nero was a great leader, but he is always mentioned as one of the leaders of the Roman empire.. primarily due to his calious disregard to the Roman empire. In taking over an Empire that Cladius left after his untimely death.. Nero rose to power. At the time Nero was overrated and helped by his mother to ascend to the throne over Britannicus.
Uhh…why not just post the links? www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm
What legitimate historians (and not the Internet variety), by the way, every used the term “great” as a descriptor for Nero’s leadership?Nero
twister @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:37 pm
Louis XIV (14th) - (1638-1715) The Sun King, as he was known, was an absolute monarch who had the longest reign in European history from 1643 to 1715. His reign can be divided into three parts:
1634-61 when his kingdom was ruled by Louis14th’s chief minister.
1661-85 upon the death of his chief minister Louis 14th, in 1661, became his own chief minister and ruled alone. During this period of glory he spent massive amounts of money and turned Versailles into a palace. (Eg. The Hall of Mirrors)
1685-1715 was filled with problems. In 1685 he revoked the rights of the protestant Huguenots which forced them to leave and France lost their skills. Louis 14th died as King in 1715.
It is believed that she vigorously promoted the persecution of the Protestants, and that she urged Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes (1598), which granted a degree of religious freedom to the Huguenots (the members of the Protestant Reformed Church). Louis himself supported such a plan; he believed that, in order to achieve absolute power, he had to first achieve a religiously unified nation — specifically a Catholic one. He had already begun the persecution of the Huguenots by excluding them from public office and by quartering soldiers in their homes.
Louis continued his attempt to achieve a religiously united France by issuing an Edict in March 1685. The Edict affected the French colonies, and expelled all Jews from them. The public practice of any religion except Catholicism became prohibited. The Code Noir also granted sanction to slavery, but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and a Catholic priest had to baptise each slave.
In October 1685, Louis increased the persecution of the Huguenots by issuing the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes. The new edict banished from the realm any Protestant minister who refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. Protestant schools and institutions were banned. Children born into Protestant families were to be forcibly baptised by Roman Catholic priests, and Protestant places of worship were demolished. The Edict precluded individuals from publicly practising or exercising the religion, but not from merely believing in it. The Edict provided "liberty is granted to the said persons of the Pretended Reformed Religion [Protestantism] … on condition of not engaging in the exercise of the said religion, or of meeting under pretext of prayers or religious services." Although the Edict formally denied Huguenots permission to leave France, 200,000 of them left in any event, taking with them all their skills in commerce and trade. The Edict proved economically damaging, and Sébastien Le Prestre, Marquis de Vauban, one of Louis XIV's most influential ministers, publicly condemned the measure.
Louis may have acted against the Huguenots to foster a mutual hatred between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, thereby hoping to discourage any alliances between nations of varying faiths. If he indeed had this aim, the plan failed utterly. In 1686, both Catholic and Protestant rulers joined the League of Augsburg, designed to check Louis's ambitions.
Louis XIV placed France in a dominant position in Europe. Even with several great alliances opposing him, he could continue to increase French territory. For his vigorous promotion of French national greatness, Louis XIV became known as the "Sun King". Voltaire compared him to Caesar Augustus and called his reign an "eternally memorable age". The Duc de Saint-Simon offered the following assessment: "There was nothing he liked so much as flattery, or, to put it more plainly, adulation; the coarser and clumsier it was, the more he relished it … His vanity, which was perpetually nourished – for even preachers used to praise him to his face from the pulpit – was the cause of the aggrandisement of his Ministers."
At the same time, however, Louis's efforts did not bring prosperity to the common people of France. His numerous wars and extravagant palaces effectively bankrupted the nation, forcing him to levy high taxes on the peasants. As the nobility and clergy had exemption from paying these taxes, the peasantry came to resent them. The peasantry also opposed the royal absolutism established by Louis. The French Revolution picked up on such sentiments in 1789.
French Revolution - (1789-1793) By 1789 the French government was troubled. King Louis 16th was forced to call the Estates General that had not met since 1614 for financial reasons. The revolution was marked with violence when the Third Estate (Common people) declared themselves the National Assembly and upset the balance of power. The storming of the Bastille (prison) which represented the King’s power was an example of violence. The National Assembly modernized France but was later dissolved. 1792 France became a republic and started what became known as the French Revolutionary Wars. As a result Louis 16th was guillotined (i.e., head chopped off) on Jan. 21, 1793.
Consequences:
Freedom and individualism were promoted
Land and the people on it were freed from feudal obligations
Legal system was improved.
For bankrupting his country the persecution of prostestants.. i think over weighs anything done by Louis the 14th in the positive. His actions lead directly to the French Revolution 70 years later. He was over rated as a leader
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:41 pm
Twister Twister:
King Henry VIII
His personality was quite amazing; his intelligence, learning, and curiosity impressed even the world-weary ambassadors who littered his court. His thirst for knowledge was insatiable, though it never became the near-mania that haunted Philip II. Henry VIII didn't spend his declining years surrounded by slips of paper detailing the most minute occurrences in his realm. But he did spend his entire reign reading dispatches, scribbling notations, meeting with diplomats and politicians. Very little occurred in England that escaped his attention; indeed, very little occurred in Europe that escaped Henry VIII. He prided himself on this and well he should; the Spanish ambassador reported that Henry knew of the fall of Cadiz before the Holy Roman Emperor.
He was usually genial company. He loved music and wrote his own. He enjoyed dancing and entertainment. He held countless banquets and tournaments. He enjoyed all physical activities and excelled at most of them. Hunting, archery, tennis, jousting - the king made his court into an endless round of competition and celebration. When he grew older, these former pleasures became torments; like most former athletes, Henry became fat as he aged and the once-loved pastimes became bitter reminders of the ravages of time. And he ruled over a country where almost half the population was 18 years old or younger! Youth was everywhere, staring the old king in his face. We can imagine the effects. Quite naturally, he sought reassurances - from women, his courtiers, his council. Affairs could distract him, but love affairs were never his grand passion. Despite his licentious reputation, Henry VIII was really a 16th century sexual prude; among his European contemporaries, he philandered the least. State affairs indulged his taste for war and glory; family affairs gnawed at his conscience and pride. But Henry VIII did not want distractions. He wanted a grand mission, a defining statement. In the end, he got his wish, though in the most improbable way possible.
He began life as a second son, destined for the church. It was the dream of Henry VII for his eldest son, Arthur, to be king and for his second son, Henry, to be the highest churchman in England. And so, for the first ten years of his life, Henry was a student of theology. And for the next thirty years of his life, he remained a dutiful son of the church. It is ironic, then, that his most significant historical achievement was the destruction of the Roman Catholic faith in England. The impact of the Henrician reformation forever altered the course of English history. Henry VIII, who had indulged in endless diplomatic squabbles and foreign wars, left no grand achievement beyond his own borders. Vast amounts of money were spent on these foreign entanglements - and many lives lost - but, in the end, nothing changed in the European balance of power. England, constantly pulled between the two great continental powers of France and the Holy Roman Empire, nearly bankrupted itself in an attempt to become respected and feared.
Why did Henry ultimately fail in those tasks normally reserved for monarchs? Ultimately, he was a victim of his times. The 16th century was a confusing mess of changing loyalties, betrayals, near-constant fighting, and most importantly, a rising skepticism of that great institution of the fading medieval world, the Roman Catholic church. With the advent of the printing press a century before, literacy and intellectual debate grew rapidly. The High Renaissance in Italy occurred during the first 20 years of Henry VIII's reign. It was a time of unparalleled scientific experiment, intellectual fervor, and spirited debate. In such a time, traditional views of kingship were bound to change for both the ruler and those he ruled.
(As evidence of this confusion, one need only remember that Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor crowned by the Pope, led the brutal sack of Rome in 1527. Charles, supposedly the anointed defender of the papacy, actually ordered his imperial army to loot, pillage, and kill their way through Rome and the Vatican. The pope ended up fleeing to relative safety in his nightshirt.)
While reading any biography of Henry VIII, one must remember the flavor of his times and judge him, if at all, by sixteenth-century standards. It's always amusing to read descriptions of Henry as the lustful tyrant torn between bedding and beheading innocent women; in truth, he blushed at dirty jokes and was more faithful than many 20th century husbands. He was married to Katharine of Aragon for over twenty years and had just a handful of mistresses. He waited years to physically consummate his relationship with Anne Boleyn, and despite being in the prime of his life, remained faithful to her until marriage. Was this sexual prudery a result of his early church training? Perhaps. Whatever the case, it was a hallmark of his life. Henry VIII was always an incurable romantic.
His personal and political decisions were always grandiose, melodramatic, and played for great effect. He loved pomp and pageantry, even as he loathed to deal with the consequences of his actions. Like his father, he was caught in the transition from medieval England to renaissance England. And like his father, he was well-versed in English history and desperate to continue the Tudor dynasty, to secure his claims to Ireland, Scotland, and France, to raise England to the status of its continental neighbors, and to expand his God-given right to rule all Englishmen. When reading about Henry's political and dynastic ambitions, one is always struck by the wide scope of his desires. Though most came to naught in the end, he actually planned invasions of France, plotted to join Charles V's invasion of Italy, and intended to seize the Scottish throne. The word 'ambitious' hardly does Great Harry justice.
His political ambitions failed and he bequeathed a woeful mess to his nine-year-old heir, Edward VI. His greatest achievement was a dubious one, and one for which he was often eager to distance himself - the Henrician reformation, the end of Roman Catholicism in England and the birth of the Anglican church. The king, for all his contradictions and failures, helped destroy the greatest institution in medieval Europe. Once Germany and England fell to the new heresy, its spread across Europe was inevitable and invincible.
Yes, he ruled and major changes happened under his rule that would change England and Europe for centuries to come. But still too this day though articulate and intelligent he is still remember as one of the greatest kings of England but was overrated as a leader.
His personality was quite amazing; his intelligence, learning, and curiosity impressed even the world-weary ambassadors who littered his court. His thirst for knowledge was insatiable, though it never became the near-mania that haunted Philip II. Henry VIII didn't spend his declining years surrounded by slips of paper detailing the most minute occurrences in his realm. But he did spend his entire reign reading dispatches, scribbling notations, meeting with diplomats and politicians. Very little occurred in England that escaped his attention; indeed, very little occurred in Europe that escaped Henry VIII. He prided himself on this and well he should; the Spanish ambassador reported that Henry knew of the fall of Cadiz before the Holy Roman Emperor.
He was usually genial company. He loved music and wrote his own. He enjoyed dancing and entertainment. He held countless banquets and tournaments. He enjoyed all physical activities and excelled at most of them. Hunting, archery, tennis, jousting - the king made his court into an endless round of competition and celebration. When he grew older, these former pleasures became torments; like most former athletes, Henry became fat as he aged and the once-loved pastimes became bitter reminders of the ravages of time. And he ruled over a country where almost half the population was 18 years old or younger! Youth was everywhere, staring the old king in his face. We can imagine the effects. Quite naturally, he sought reassurances - from women, his courtiers, his council. Affairs could distract him, but love affairs were never his grand passion. Despite his licentious reputation, Henry VIII was really a 16th century sexual prude; among his European contemporaries, he philandered the least. State affairs indulged his taste for war and glory; family affairs gnawed at his conscience and pride. But Henry VIII did not want distractions. He wanted a grand mission, a defining statement. In the end, he got his wish, though in the most improbable way possible.
He began life as a second son, destined for the church. It was the dream of Henry VII for his eldest son, Arthur, to be king and for his second son, Henry, to be the highest churchman in England. And so, for the first ten years of his life, Henry was a student of theology. And for the next thirty years of his life, he remained a dutiful son of the church. It is ironic, then, that his most significant historical achievement was the destruction of the Roman Catholic faith in England. The impact of the Henrician reformation forever altered the course of English history. Henry VIII, who had indulged in endless diplomatic squabbles and foreign wars, left no grand achievement beyond his own borders. Vast amounts of money were spent on these foreign entanglements - and many lives lost - but, in the end, nothing changed in the European balance of power. England, constantly pulled between the two great continental powers of France and the Holy Roman Empire, nearly bankrupted itself in an attempt to become respected and feared.
Why did Henry ultimately fail in those tasks normally reserved for monarchs? Ultimately, he was a victim of his times. The 16th century was a confusing mess of changing loyalties, betrayals, near-constant fighting, and most importantly, a rising skepticism of that great institution of the fading medieval world, the Roman Catholic church. With the advent of the printing press a century before, literacy and intellectual debate grew rapidly. The High Renaissance in Italy occurred during the first 20 years of Henry VIII's reign. It was a time of unparalleled scientific experiment, intellectual fervor, and spirited debate. In such a time, traditional views of kingship were bound to change for both the ruler and those he ruled.
(As evidence of this confusion, one need only remember that Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor crowned by the Pope, led the brutal sack of Rome in 1527. Charles, supposedly the anointed defender of the papacy, actually ordered his imperial army to loot, pillage, and kill their way through Rome and the Vatican. The pope ended up fleeing to relative safety in his nightshirt.)
While reading any biography of Henry VIII, one must remember the flavor of his times and judge him, if at all, by sixteenth-century standards. It's always amusing to read descriptions of Henry as the lustful tyrant torn between bedding and beheading innocent women; in truth, he blushed at dirty jokes and was more faithful than many 20th century husbands. He was married to Katharine of Aragon for over twenty years and had just a handful of mistresses. He waited years to physically consummate his relationship with Anne Boleyn, and despite being in the prime of his life, remained faithful to her until marriage. Was this sexual prudery a result of his early church training? Perhaps. Whatever the case, it was a hallmark of his life. Henry VIII was always an incurable romantic.
His personal and political decisions were always grandiose, melodramatic, and played for great effect. He loved pomp and pageantry, even as he loathed to deal with the consequences of his actions. Like his father, he was caught in the transition from medieval England to renaissance England. And like his father, he was well-versed in English history and desperate to continue the Tudor dynasty, to secure his claims to Ireland, Scotland, and France, to raise England to the status of its continental neighbors, and to expand his God-given right to rule all Englishmen. When reading about Henry's political and dynastic ambitions, one is always struck by the wide scope of his desires. Though most came to naught in the end, he actually planned invasions of France, plotted to join Charles V's invasion of Italy, and intended to seize the Scottish throne. The word 'ambitious' hardly does Great Harry justice.
His political ambitions failed and he bequeathed a woeful mess to his nine-year-old heir, Edward VI. His greatest achievement was a dubious one, and one for which he was often eager to distance himself - the Henrician reformation, the end of Roman Catholicism in England and the birth of the Anglican church. The king, for all his contradictions and failures, helped destroy the greatest institution in medieval Europe. Once Germany and England fell to the new heresy, its spread across Europe was inevitable and invincible.
Yes, he ruled and major changes happened under his rule that would change England and Europe for centuries to come. But still too this day though articulate and intelligent he is still remember as one of the greatest kings of England but was overrated as a leader.
How is Henry VIII overrated? www.englishhistory.net seems rather vague as to how he is an overrated leader. You need to go a little deeper into the analysis than simply Xeroxing a website and adding your obligatory “he was overrated as a leader.”
Henry VIII
twister @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:43 pm
Throughout all of this the only point I was trying to make was that for the most part all Monarchy leaders.. Kings and Queens have been overrated in what they have done... I chose to name a few.. a few that you picked up on.. yes I suppose I could have used links.. but I like reading stuff... I just used a little of what has been given to me over and over by quickly discerning some links from decent historical sources.... The Roman times, Fuedal England and 1700's europe are not my historical area of study.. took a few classes but didn't really charge me up. I did like the french Revolution topics.. and What the Sun King did eventually lead to the revolution.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:50 pm
Twister Twister:
Louis XIV (14th) - (1638-1715) The Sun King, as he was known, was an absolute monarch who had the longest reign in European history from 1643 to 1715. His reign can be divided into three parts:
1634-61 when his kingdom was ruled by Louis14th’s chief minister.
1661-85 upon the death of his chief minister Louis 14th, in 1661, became his own chief minister and ruled alone. During this period of glory he spent massive amounts of money and turned Versailles into a palace. (Eg. The Hall of Mirrors)
1685-1715 was filled with problems. In 1685 he revoked the rights of the protestant Huguenots which forced them to leave and France lost their skills. Louis 14th died as King in 1715.
It is believed that she vigorously promoted the persecution of the Protestants, and that she urged Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes (1598), which granted a degree of religious freedom to the Huguenots (the members of the Protestant Reformed Church). Louis himself supported such a plan; he believed that, in order to achieve absolute power, he had to first achieve a religiously unified nation — specifically a Catholic one. He had already begun the persecution of the Huguenots by excluding them from public office and by quartering soldiers in their homes.
Louis continued his attempt to achieve a religiously united France by issuing an Edict in March 1685. The Edict affected the French colonies, and expelled all Jews from them. The public practice of any religion except Catholicism became prohibited. The Code Noir also granted sanction to slavery, but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and a Catholic priest had to baptise each slave.
In October 1685, Louis increased the persecution of the Huguenots by issuing the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes. The new edict banished from the realm any Protestant minister who refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. Protestant schools and institutions were banned. Children born into Protestant families were to be forcibly baptised by Roman Catholic priests, and Protestant places of worship were demolished. The Edict precluded individuals from publicly practising or exercising the religion, but not from merely believing in it. The Edict provided "liberty is granted to the said persons of the Pretended Reformed Religion [Protestantism] … on condition of not engaging in the exercise of the said religion, or of meeting under pretext of prayers or religious services." Although the Edict formally denied Huguenots permission to leave France, 200,000 of them left in any event, taking with them all their skills in commerce and trade. The Edict proved economically damaging, and Sébastien Le Prestre, Marquis de Vauban, one of Louis XIV's most influential ministers, publicly condemned the measure.
Louis may have acted against the Huguenots to foster a mutual hatred between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, thereby hoping to discourage any alliances between nations of varying faiths. If he indeed had this aim, the plan failed utterly. In 1686, both Catholic and Protestant rulers joined the League of Augsburg, designed to check Louis's ambitions.
Louis XIV placed France in a dominant position in Europe. Even with several great alliances opposing him, he could continue to increase French territory. For his vigorous promotion of French national greatness, Louis XIV became known as the "Sun King". Voltaire compared him to Caesar Augustus and called his reign an "eternally memorable age". The Duc de Saint-Simon offered the following assessment: "There was nothing he liked so much as flattery, or, to put it more plainly, adulation; the coarser and clumsier it was, the more he relished it … His vanity, which was perpetually nourished – for even preachers used to praise him to his face from the pulpit – was the cause of the aggrandisement of his Ministers."
At the same time, however, Louis's efforts did not bring prosperity to the common people of France. His numerous wars and extravagant palaces effectively bankrupted the nation, forcing him to levy high taxes on the peasants. As the nobility and clergy had exemption from paying these taxes, the peasantry came to resent them. The peasantry also opposed the royal absolutism established by Louis. The French Revolution picked up on such sentiments in 1789.
French Revolution - (1789-1793) By 1789 the French government was troubled. King Louis 16th was forced to call the Estates General that had not met since 1614 for financial reasons. The revolution was marked with violence when the Third Estate (Common people) declared themselves the National Assembly and upset the balance of power. The storming of the Bastille (prison) which represented the King’s power was an example of violence. The National Assembly modernized France but was later dissolved. 1792 France became a republic and started what became known as the French Revolutionary Wars. As a result Louis 16th was guillotined (i.e., head chopped off) on Jan. 21, 1793.
Consequences:
Freedom and individualism were promoted
Land and the people on it were freed from feudal obligations
Legal system was improved.
For bankrupting his country the persecution of prostestants.. i think over weighs anything done by Louis the 14th in the positive. His actions lead directly to the French Revolution 70 years later. He was over rated as a leader
1634-61 when his kingdom was ruled by Louis14th’s chief minister.
1661-85 upon the death of his chief minister Louis 14th, in 1661, became his own chief minister and ruled alone. During this period of glory he spent massive amounts of money and turned Versailles into a palace. (Eg. The Hall of Mirrors)
1685-1715 was filled with problems. In 1685 he revoked the rights of the protestant Huguenots which forced them to leave and France lost their skills. Louis 14th died as King in 1715.
It is believed that she vigorously promoted the persecution of the Protestants, and that she urged Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes (1598), which granted a degree of religious freedom to the Huguenots (the members of the Protestant Reformed Church). Louis himself supported such a plan; he believed that, in order to achieve absolute power, he had to first achieve a religiously unified nation — specifically a Catholic one. He had already begun the persecution of the Huguenots by excluding them from public office and by quartering soldiers in their homes.
Louis continued his attempt to achieve a religiously united France by issuing an Edict in March 1685. The Edict affected the French colonies, and expelled all Jews from them. The public practice of any religion except Catholicism became prohibited. The Code Noir also granted sanction to slavery, but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and a Catholic priest had to baptise each slave.
In October 1685, Louis increased the persecution of the Huguenots by issuing the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes. The new edict banished from the realm any Protestant minister who refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. Protestant schools and institutions were banned. Children born into Protestant families were to be forcibly baptised by Roman Catholic priests, and Protestant places of worship were demolished. The Edict precluded individuals from publicly practising or exercising the religion, but not from merely believing in it. The Edict provided "liberty is granted to the said persons of the Pretended Reformed Religion [Protestantism] … on condition of not engaging in the exercise of the said religion, or of meeting under pretext of prayers or religious services." Although the Edict formally denied Huguenots permission to leave France, 200,000 of them left in any event, taking with them all their skills in commerce and trade. The Edict proved economically damaging, and Sébastien Le Prestre, Marquis de Vauban, one of Louis XIV's most influential ministers, publicly condemned the measure.
Louis may have acted against the Huguenots to foster a mutual hatred between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, thereby hoping to discourage any alliances between nations of varying faiths. If he indeed had this aim, the plan failed utterly. In 1686, both Catholic and Protestant rulers joined the League of Augsburg, designed to check Louis's ambitions.
Louis XIV placed France in a dominant position in Europe. Even with several great alliances opposing him, he could continue to increase French territory. For his vigorous promotion of French national greatness, Louis XIV became known as the "Sun King". Voltaire compared him to Caesar Augustus and called his reign an "eternally memorable age". The Duc de Saint-Simon offered the following assessment: "There was nothing he liked so much as flattery, or, to put it more plainly, adulation; the coarser and clumsier it was, the more he relished it … His vanity, which was perpetually nourished – for even preachers used to praise him to his face from the pulpit – was the cause of the aggrandisement of his Ministers."
At the same time, however, Louis's efforts did not bring prosperity to the common people of France. His numerous wars and extravagant palaces effectively bankrupted the nation, forcing him to levy high taxes on the peasants. As the nobility and clergy had exemption from paying these taxes, the peasantry came to resent them. The peasantry also opposed the royal absolutism established by Louis. The French Revolution picked up on such sentiments in 1789.
French Revolution - (1789-1793) By 1789 the French government was troubled. King Louis 16th was forced to call the Estates General that had not met since 1614 for financial reasons. The revolution was marked with violence when the Third Estate (Common people) declared themselves the National Assembly and upset the balance of power. The storming of the Bastille (prison) which represented the King’s power was an example of violence. The National Assembly modernized France but was later dissolved. 1792 France became a republic and started what became known as the French Revolutionary Wars. As a result Louis 16th was guillotined (i.e., head chopped off) on Jan. 21, 1793.
Consequences:
Freedom and individualism were promoted
Land and the people on it were freed from feudal obligations
Legal system was improved.
For bankrupting his country the persecution of prostestants.. i think over weighs anything done by Louis the 14th in the positive. His actions lead directly to the French Revolution 70 years later. He was over rated as a leader
Okay, thanks Wikipedia, but how exactly is Louis XVIII overrated? You just aped a website and then tacked on your erroneous conclusion at the end. You didn’t address anything. Nice try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France
Also, you may want to employ your researchin’ via web surfin’ skills in your hunt to establish Louis XVIII as main cause for the French Revolution. You claimed his actions directly led to the French Revolution? Really? Let’s see the causational links and while you are at it, perhaps you could address the American Revolution, the Ancien Regime, economic issues and the Enlightenment too? Thanks Wikipedia.
Wikipedia
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:58 pm
Twister Twister:
Throughout all of this the only point I was trying to make was that for the most part all Monarchy leaders.. Kings and Queens have been overrated in what they have done...
You have yet to demonstrate this.
$1:
“yes I suppose I could have used links.. but I like reading stuff...”
Read books, as they will provide a greater depth than the cursory garbage that the Internet offers. Besides, all you did was Xerox information – you didn’t link it to your original erroneous assertion. That’s the vital component of constructing a persuasive argument – correct conclusions buttressed by competent, tangible, verifiable and relevant evidence. You merely tacked on your conclusion – although it wasn’t even addressed in your borrowed text – with little analysis or relevance.
$1:
“just used a little of what has been given to me over and over by quickly discerning some links from decent historical sources”
Internet websites are not “decent” historical sources.
$1:
“The Roman times, Fuedal England and 1700's europe are not my historical area of study”
Really? Then why use them as examples?
$1:
“took a few classes but didn't really charge me up. I did like the french Revolution topics.. and What the Sun King did eventually lead to the revolution.”
Really? Hmm… you may want to employ your researchin’ via web surfin’ skills in your hunt to establish Louis XVIII as main cause for the French Revolution. You claimed his actions directly led to the French Revolution? Really? Let’s see the causational links and while you are at it, perhaps you could address the American Revolution, the Ancien Regime, economic issues and the Enlightenment too?
twister @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:59 pm
I did read quite a bit though on Henry the VIII what makes you think he wasn't overrated... which point of history?
Nero was overrated by the people who placed him in power.. mainly his mother. No one ever said he was a great leader, but he is always as I said before mentioned with the other truly great leaders of the Roman Empire I suppose as a contrast.
I just find it rather strange that as leaders each ruled had a major reformation that happened within their rules that ended up changing thier country and world forever.
Nero... the eventual fall of rome. His short reign destabilized enough.. Titus did come in and also put forward many changes. But it was Nero's inability to care for almost anything except power that was his demise. Louis the 14th by bankrupting his country his acts towards the protestants lead to the eventual french revolution.
King Henry the eigth through his reformation of the anglican and removal of the Roman Church in England changed the world. However they are all overratted (as I would call them) you apparently disagree with me so tell me why these leaders except Nero.. he was insane and is neither overrated nor underrated as a leader.. But
I would be interested in knowing why the Sun King Louis 14th and King Henry the eigth were not over rated... Inspire and Impress me... as only mustang 1 can
twister @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:06 pm
Oh an also.. the reason why I "gleaned things from historical texts on th internet". it's quicker than dialing and going through my library of books I have in my basement.. the sites that I borrow some information from are accurate that Is why I refer to them and use points from them.. and in some cases xerox them becuase it is a quick way to try and explain something. rather than pouring over literature. If you would like a report done for next week I could do that and submit it.. but only for extra credit....
Blue_Nose @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:18 pm
Twister Twister:
If you would like a report done for next week I could do that and submit it.. but only for extra credit....
Who are you to take informal internet forums so lightly?!?!?!
Since Mustang1 gives such discredit to the internet, you're justified to ignore his less than humble opinions on this site.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:25 pm
Twister Twister:
I did read quite a bit though on Henry the VIII what makes you think he wasn't overrated... which point of history?
Argumentative fallacy aside, you made the assertion and you need to substantiate it (aping someone else’s work and then failing to apply it to your argument is all you’ve done). If not, retract it, but I’m not here to make your arguments.
$1:
“Louis the 14th by bankrupting his country his acts towards the protestants lead to the eventual french revolution.”
And what about the American Revolution, the Ancien Regime, and the Enlightenment? How does Louis XIV relate to those causes?
$1:
“However they are all overratted (as I would call them) you apparently disagree with me so tell me why these leaders except Nero.. he was insane and is neither overrated nor underrated as a leader”
No, they are not. It’s your supposition – you establish its legitimacy. Lose the blatant argumentative No more or less so than any other source. You just have to check their sources to determine reliability. fallacies as it only calls your debating tactics into question. If you want a list as to why these two individuals are indeed legitimate leaders – ones worthy of possessing a decent historical legacy, I’ll oblige, but only if you answer my question regarding Louis XIV and the French Revolution and you directly respond on point to my examples. I think that’s more than fair – your call.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:26 pm
lily lily:
$1:
Internet websites are not “decent” historical sources.
No more or less so than any other source. You just have to check their sources to determine reliability.
Jheeeesh, Mustang. Where do you get your info from?
You've never posted a link or 2 in defence of your arguments?Lily,
This exchange is none of your concern. You have openly targeted and baited me and like Dayseed I will respond in kind if you continue to openly stalk me. You have instigated this exchange – make no mistake about that.
As for your moronic attempt to matter, he goes:
$1:
“Jheeeesh, Mustang. Where do you get your info from?”
From academically verifiable sources, moron. I quote sources all of the time (in this very thread too) – read my posts first, halfwit, and perhaps we can avoid me having to address your woeful ignorance. The fact that you don’t know about what your puking out is typical of your intellectually shallow approach.
$1:
“You've never posted a link or 2 in defence of your arguments?”
Wrong, dummy! Bravo! Tell you what – you go back over my posts (there’s roughly 700 and you scan again – ask for help if you need it) and see if you can’t find sources. Okay? Read very carefully and scan for brackets with names or URLs. Now go along as the adults are having a discussion on history that doesn’t concern you.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:35 pm
Twister Twister:
Oh an also.. the reason why I "gleaned things from historical texts on th internet". it's quicker than dialing and going through my library of books I have in my basement.. the sites that I borrow some information from are accurate that Is why I refer to them and use points from them.. and in some cases xerox them becuase it is a quick way to try and explain something. rather than pouring over literature. If you would like a report done for next week I could do that and submit it.. but only for extra credit....
Come on? Wikipedia? I’m not asking for a detailed historiography, but sources aren’t too far out of the question when what you are suggesting (Louis XIV as a major cause of the French Revolution?) is a little historically contentious. Besides, why not just post the link instead of Xeroxing basic narrative history? You still didn’t make the links from your source to your argument and that was the real point anyway, but I’ll wait and see if you want to further this as I’m game to continue.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:41 pm
blue_nose blue_nose:
Twister Twister:
If you would like a report done for next week I could do that and submit it.. but only for extra credit....
Who are you to take informal internet forums so lightly?!?!?!Since Mustang1 gives such discredit to the internet, you're justified to ignore his less than humble opinions on this site.
Oh good, the little cheerleader is here to offer his sage-like advice. You are just pissed that Dayseed and I school your worthless ass on other threads so now you are trying to get in some cheap shots (again, another unsolicited highjack – interesting) here. You are a little coward that will run when confronted, aren’t’ you blue_nose?
Do you have anything of substance or relevance to add to the thread, suck?
Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Next