|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:08 am
(just trying to create more topics)
I was taking a test the other day and one of the questions was who did I think was the most successful king of this error, and which one just frankly sucked as a King and why.
My answers were Peter I and....James III XD
Peter I of rush, I mean he got the title Peter The Great for a reason right?
James III....he failed one to many times trying to get England, and I just kinda saw him as a sad figure ._. But, he was never really king, I guess. Maybe a prince for awhile before James II was booted. ^^;; I kinda blanked.
I'm sure there were better figures to use, but those were the first that came to my mind. Anyone intrested in sharing whom they think was the best/worse king of this time-frame? Charles XII? Louis XIV? William III?
Poor Charles XII =/ was sad when he died.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:38 am
Arg...Jaaten no like being limited to fifty year span...
Anyway, on to the topic at hand: Worst: James II o' England.
James came into England with widespread sympathy, a parliment in his favor, and the only restriction placed on him was "be a private Catholic s'il vous plait". Within a decade he had squandered all his goodwill, and pissed of the people to the point that they accepted William of Orange as king without a fight... Not a ringing endorsement for him.
Best:Charles XII of Sweden (yes, that's right, Sweden)
If only because he was a capible administrator, and managed to hold off Peter I (and ofter beat him, dispite having a much smaller military) for decades. Any man who can stand up to Peter while not leaving his government in the hands of sycophants has my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:55 pm
Bah, I don't enough kings, and with history being my strongpoint.
The only constructive thing I could add, is that George III was not a insane-buffon as the American school system would have most believe. Indeed he was fully compotent (and mostly justified) in going to war with the colonies.
I love our school system, so much propoganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:01 pm
Lieutenant_Charon Bah, I don't enough kings, and with history being my strongpoint. The only constructive thing I could add, is that George III was not a insane-buffon as the American school system would have most believe. Indeed he was fully compotent (and mostly justified) in going to war with the colonies. I love our school system, so much propoganda. Well, the view of him as insane is not (well 'twasn't presented as such in My history classes) because of his decisions in the revolution, but because he actually as mentally ill (probably from arsenic in his wigs 'n such) Now was he insane for going to war with the colonies? No, not too bright perhaps, as all we really wanted was a couple of seats in parliment... As for American propaganda, psh. That was nothing. How many times have you heard about the American colonization of the Philippines, and the subsequent killing of oh...about 250,000 natives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:28 pm
Peter I of Russia and Louis XIV of France are my picks for the Best Kings out of the names in the first post of this thread. However, I personally favor James Francis Edward Stuart (James III, The Old Pretender). I like his story. And, due to my extreme laziness, I'm not going to pick one that is a bad King, because I can't pick one.
But, seriously, mucho respect to James III and Peter I of Russia. I declare Peter I of Russia as my top pick for Best King during that time. I "wikipedia"'d it. He really improved a lot of things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:42 pm
Jaaten Syric Lieutenant_Charon Bah, I don't enough kings, and with history being my strongpoint. The only constructive thing I could add, is that George III was not a insane-buffon as the American school system would have most believe. Indeed he was fully compotent (and mostly justified) in going to war with the colonies. I love our school system, so much propoganda. Well, the view of him as insane is not (well 'twasn't presented as such in My history classes) because of his decisions in the revolution, but because he actually as mentally ill (probably from arsenic in his wigs 'n such) Now was he insane for going to war with the colonies? No, not too bright perhaps, as all we really wanted was a couple of seats in parliment... As for American propaganda, psh. That was nothing. How many times have you heard about the American colonization of the Philippines, and the subsequent killing of oh...about 250,000 natives? Yes, another thing cleverly passed over. That and our government's constant manipulation of South America, the dozens of massacres against the Native Americans, so on and so forth. And 250,000? I think a million is closer to the full number of deaths, what with disease. I've made it a point ot learn about all the unsavory things of our history, or at least as much as I can. Heh, I had one textbook which praised Herbert Hoover on his handling of the depression, talking about the economic reforms he enacted. My god that was irritating to read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
