Kaiser Wilhelm II. Was an important influence for breaking off World War One (he could have instead **not** given Austria the “blanco cheque”), his henchmen propped up Lenin to weaken Russia (supported him with money and arranged secretive travel towards russia) and was kinda to blame for Hitler because of the conditions Germany ended up in after WW1 (horrible hyper-inflation because of reparations) ultimately enabling Hitler.
I mean in a way the earlier ones always impact those who come afterwards. So one could argue it was charlemagne or even some roman emperor.
But on the other hand, Wilhelm II. was also very impactful for the 20th century. Had Wilhelm II not lost WWI, the world would look very different today.
I would say Leopold II of course. Obligatory mention of atrocities of course first.
He had a profound impact due to his personal belongings in Congo, he had aot of wealth flowing into his personal treasury which he used to build big magnificent buildings such as the Antwerp Central Station.
Him owning Congo was also an incentive for Belgians to go to Congo, either as a typical colonizing adventurer, but also for humanitary work, religious missions, and whatever.
Due to him starting the colonisation of Congo we had a colony some decades later as a true state colony, and afterwards the subsequent independence and it’s trouble.
So he definitely had a long lasting effect on Belgium itself, up until the 70s or something and you could argue of course until now.
Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia made a deal about attacking Sweden following the [Treaty of Tilsit](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freden_i_Tilsit) in 1807, which led to the loss of the whole eastern part of the country (Finland), that had been an integral part of the kingdom for 700 years.
here it comes
Charles IV, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, had a long and successful reign. The Empire he ruled from Prague expanded, and his subjects lived in peace and prosperity.
When he died, the whole Empire mourned. More than 7,000 people accompanied him on his last procession.
The heir to the throne of the flourishing Empire was Charles’ son, Wenceslas IV, whose father had prepared him for this moment all his life. But Wenceslas did not take after his father. He neglected affairs of state for more frivolous pursuits. He even failed to turn up for his own coronation as Emperor, which did little to endear him to the Pope. Wenceslas “the Idle” did not impress the Imperial nobility either.
His difficulties mounted until the nobles, exasperated by the inaction of their ruler, turned for help to his half-brother, King Sigismund of Hungary. Sigismund decided on a radical solution. He kidnapped the King to force him to abdicate, then took advantage of the ensuing disorder to gain greater power for himself. He invaded Bohemia with a massive army and began pillaging the territories of the King’s allies.
It is here that my story begins…
Sweden has a few (domestic) candidates, and it is not easy point out an obvious winner, but most would probably say [Gustav Vasa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Vasa) who very simplified pulled Sweden out of the [Kalmar Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union), established hereditary monarchy and became the ancestor to a decently successful but rather mad dynasty with some very colourful members.
Holy Roman Emperor & King of Bohemia Charles IV. Cemented the position of the Kingdom of Bohemia as an integral part of the empire and made Prague its capital where he founded the oldest university in Central Europe.
Sigismund II Augustus – Architect of the Union of Lublin, and him dying heirless led to the elective monarchy of Poland-Lithuania.
If we are talking about Spain as we know it then Juan Carlos, taking an absolute monarchy and making it a democracy. If we go back in time the Catholic Monarchs.
Long term Carol I , he was from a German family moved to Romania and was given the throne and led a long period of modernizing the country.
Alexandru Ioan Cuza was kicked out for his support of the farmers by giving them land. He took away land from the church and nobility gave it to the farmers and basically removed serfdom. Nobility wasn’t very happy and brought carol as a compromise.
Henry VIII, his break from the church & the matter of his succession completely changed the country.
Ironically for possibly Englands most absolutist king his legacy for the monarchs that followed him was the opposite with a curtailment in their power.
United Kingdom as a whole – we were the longest ruled over nation by them, and we don’t really want to talk about it anymore unless it’s about getting the other part back.
If we had to choose a monarch, it would be Queen Mary I, while she was Catholic, she began the plantations in Ireland which lead to the direct total takeover of the island in the following monarchies among Elizabeth I as well as James I, solidifying our occupation for centuries.
Contemporarily speaking, no flame burns bright enough against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. She won the nation’s heart eventually, yet we would criticise her more for her domestic affairs than her relationship with our country. She upheld an exceptionally cordial and warm relationship with us.
Charles V.
He consolidated the Dutch counties and duchies into an entity we currently know as the Netherlands. It is not unthinkable that without him the Netherlands would be a Bundesland of Germany now.
From Italy, Vittorio Emanuele II.
– Gave all power to fascism because it defended the rich from workers claims (the Fasci di Combattimento were born as an anti-union strike force paid by Italian industrialists during the “Biennio Rosso”).
– Ran away like liquid shit when fascism got defeated.
– Killed monarchy in Italy
Denmark: Valdemar Atterdag (meaning return of the day) would be a good candidate. Withouth his efforts Denmark might not have existed as a country.
well… aside from Vittorio Emanuele II who just founded the country, Vittorio Emanuele lll is very responsible for the fascist dictatorship because after the march on Rome he just appointed Mussolini as PM without hesitation. and let him do whatever.
D Afonso Henriques – the first Portuguese king. Fought his own mother to make the kingdom of Portugal, she wanted us to be annexed by a Spanish kingdom.
D João II, the king that made all navigation possible.
Louis XIV for heavily centralising and culturally unifying the country;
Napoleon Bonaparte for introducing the Civil Code and organising the country (and others he invaded) very rationally (e.g. country divided evenly and managed by a prefet, sous-prefet, and maire; he did the same for every administration) and eliminating birth privileges as much as possible (e.g. instituting public Lycees, and anonymous competitive exams for the most prestigious institutions and roles).
King Casimir the Great. Rebuilt Poland after the fragmentation, modernised it and gave up on regaining the west, instead turning towards the east and defining our foreign policy for the next 500 years.
For Ireland, it would be Henry II of England who invaded in 1171 leading to a very complex history between Ireland and England for the next 800 years.
Of the native Irish kings before Henry, the most prominent would probably be Brian Boru who almost united the country before being killed in battle, or Mael Seachnail mac Ruanaid who was one of the main leaders that halted the Viking advance into Ireland in the 840s and restricted them to coastal towns.
James IV. Picking a fight with Henry VIII of England that he couldn’t win and starting Scotland on a political decline that got it eaten by England.
The most talented and most misguided king Scotland ever had.
**The Catholic Monarchs**, because they completed the Reconquista that lasted almost 800 years and they were the ones who laid the first stone of the Spanish Empire.
Gustav Vasa broke us off catholic church and forced us in to lutheranism when Finland was part of Sweden. Vasa wanted catholic churches money and property to pay for new strong Sweden.
Tsar Alexander I won Finnish war against Sweden and after being part of Sweden for 700 years Finland became part of Russia for the next hundred years.
Tsar Alexander II is known here as a good tsar because he gave finnish people rights and we got to have our own currency Markka. That we exist as a nation might be because Alexander II gave us freedom to develope Finland independently from Russia even as we were part of the empire.
England: maybe Henry VIII. He adopted Protestantism and founded the Church of England. Conflict between Catholics and Protestants would be a regular thing in England from that point forward.
UK: no idea, maybe Victoria? I’m not sure how much influence she had or if she just happened to be on the throne when it happened, but the Victorian era is an immensely important time in the history of the UK.
James VI unified the crowns of Scotland and England, which probably inevitably led to the eventual political union of the two countries 100 or so years later.
Ireland has a few. Brian Ború booted the Vikings out and gave legitimacy to an all-Ireland state; Henry II who oversaw the first British occupation of Ireland; Henry VIII who created division through the reformation and James I who started the Ulster plantation which eventually led to the partition of Ireland
I’m going for William the Conqueror.
Won 1066, ended Anglo-Saxon rule and laid the foundation for modern Britain.
If he hadn’t invaded, the language, society and culture of the island would have been vastly different.
For example…
**Governance:**
– The Norman idea of the monarch as the ultimate landowner still exists in modern Britain. Legally, all land in the United Kingdom belongs to the Crown, with others holding it through a system of tenure.
– The Domesday Book revolutionised administrative records. Modern taxation, land registry systems can be traced back to this book.
**Culture:**
– He revolutionised the language, made Modern English take a lot of loan words from French, which explains the large number of cognates between the two languages.
– Norman castles and churches, like the Tower of London or the Durham Cathedral, are commonplace throughout the country.
**Feudalism:**
– The hierarchical system brought on by the Normans influenced the British class system, which is still embedded into British society today. For instance, titles like “Duke”, “Baron”, and “Count” were brought in *by* the Normans.
– The division of land into manors with responsibilities for lords was commonplace in Norman times and soon grew to influence modern landlord-tenant relations.
Theoretically, if William never won at Hastings, English would have retained its Old English character and align more closely with the Scandinavian languages, British society would have had striking similarities to Nordic societies, and the British Empire may have never existed.
Man, we could’ve been a Nordic country…
Maria Theresia and her son Joseph, as they instituted mandatory school attendance in the 18th Century (don’t remember exactly)
Maria Theresia and Joseph II. a lot of institutions and structures can be traced back to their reign.
mandatory school attendance, ban of torture, religious tolerance, our civil code…
I’d say Jiří of Poděbrady (George of Poděbrady), whom Czechs elected as the first protestant king in the world. Most Czechs will say Charles IV, because he lived in much more peaceful times and he could leave behind a greater architectural and cultural legacy. But I think that Jiří’s dedication to peace and finding unorthodox solutions was at least just as impactful.
Jiří of Poděbrady lived in some of our hardest times, he grew up in the first half of 15th century, surrounded by war and anguish. He himself was ill and physically suffering for most of his life, his face was deformed from injuries. He was very ambitions and skilled politician, but he focused on ways to prevent conflict and create religious tolerance between Catholics and protestants. He proposed a creation of a union of European states and international peace organization that could address disputes in peaceful ways and cooperate. He didn’t want the pope to play a major role in that, though, so… he didn’t get far enough with his plans. He was elected, he didn’t come from any great dynasty, his ancestors weren’t monarchs. He didn’t live in such prosperous times as other kings, he couldn’t leave grand universities and castles behind. But I think his efforts and dedication to peace and religious tolerance played a crucial role in our history.
I’d say it was D. Afonso Henriques. After all he founded this crazy beautiful country that is Portugal 🇵🇹
Henry the 8th. He reconquered Ireland and declared himself King which lead to a few centuries of misery under English/British rule.
He also broke away from the Catholic Church which cause more division between English and Ireland.
I would also add Queen Victoria as she was queen during the famine which almost wiped out our language, traditions and culture. It also caused mass immigration, starvation and death.
I wonder if for most of central Europe Charlemagne is the right answer, also counting historic ripple effects. But then you could also go right back and say Julius Caesar,
Peter the Great. His rule wasn’t the best for the average Russian, but it was definitely pivotal. He literally pivoted the whole country towards Western Europe so hard that the nobles *forgot how to speak Russian* in a couple of generations.
Henry II maybe for Ireland? 800 years of colonial rule followed.
The first Anglo-Norman intervention in Ireland came in 1167. Henry II of England, wary of the power his generals were amassing there, landed with a large army in 1171, and by 1175 had succeeded in gaining nominal control of most of the island.
I can think of many, but I would say John I or D.João I
He peserved the independence of Portugal, humiliated the Castilians in the battle of Aljubarrota, founded the best and most legendary Portuguese dynasty and began the impulses for the creation of the Portuguese Empire with the conquest of Ceuta and the colonization of the Azores and Madeira.
He is so well-liked by the Portuguese that he received the nickname “O de boa memória” or, translated into English, “The well-remembered one” and also one of the few portuguese monarchs receiving the title of “The Great”.
I’m Irish.
Probably Queen Victoria (the horrible, fat, horny auld cu#t).
She watched at least 1 million Irish starve to death and at least 1.5-2 million flee Ireland during her reign. There was a potato blight all across Europe in the mid 1840’s but other monarchies redistributed foodstuffs and fed their people, Vicky done nothing and watched a hellish chaos ensue.
A monster that the Brits now make (revisionist) films about.
“Aw poor Victoria! She sure did love Albert!”. Get fucked.
I’m not having a great day but writing this helped lol
Do Lord Protectors count? Because out of a long line of English rulers who made a point of expropriating Irish land and brutalising Irish people, the one who was arguably the most ambitious on both counts made a hell of a point of not being a monarch.
Mahmut II, followed closely by Abdülhamid II. The first for starting the process of Tanzimat or westernization and the second for ending it.
Valdemar Atterdag (1340-1375). Followimg decades of events worthy of Game of Thrones by the nobility, the country basically didn’t exist anymore. Valdemark fought to bring the fractured pieces of the country back together through diplomacy, wars, and strategic marriages. If it hadn’t been for him, I doubt Denmark would exist today.
His daughter Margrethe I (1376 – 1412) who united all the Nordic countries, which had a lot of impact long-term.
She empowered the North in opposition to both the Hansas and the Baltic templars.
She put in place laws to control nobility and made them accept to be liable to the law. (Continuing her father’s work to undo the damage that the nobility had caused).
She reinstated the monetary system and put in place a lot of laws reinstate a civilised society.
Christian IV (1588-1648) for the negative impact. In his desire to be the awesome-est king ever, that everyone would say that, yeah, he is the most awesome king (yes, I am comparing him to Trump), he ruined it all. He drained the national finances with endless wars, didn’t win anything of significance, lost some of significance, and had built a lot of buildings with the nations money.
The worst was that he set the scene for his son to lose the Danish heartland of Skåne/Scania 💔 to Sweden only a few years into the son’s reign, which devastated Scania.
The Swedish occupation of Denmark (Skåne and the other regions of Denmark) during the war was brutal on the common population, causing famine, extreme poverty, and desertation of large areas. It took up to 50 years to rebuild.
But honestly, those bonehead Danish kings had it coming, and the Swedes won rightly. But all the ordinary people paid the price.
That’ll probably Leopold II, overall. Claimed Congo as his personal property, then ‘donated’ it to the state when it was a complete disaster. Which led to Belgium becoming a colonial nation with all the dirty bells ‘n’ whistles. Leading to our long-standing involvement in African politics, resource wars, etc. Leopold II was a very active monarch overall, building international alliances, fighting for a place at the table of world leaders, starting megaprojects, ‘building the nation’ with dreams of autocratic rule.
But there is also Albert I. Lesser known as a figurehead, but arguably with an equally important impact. He denied German passage through the country in 1914, thereby relucantly plunging Belgium into its most disruptive war in its history to date, of which we still feel the impact today. Among which is the creation of a cohort of disgruntled veterans among the Flemish population, inadvertently giving an impulse to the Flemish independence movement and the eventual emergence of the complex federal state that we have today.
I’d also wager Leopold I was quite significant, being the very first king, and also the one who kicked off the industrial development of the nation, although it’s debatable how much of that is just him being in the right place at the right time. Also ‘being first’ is obviously significant, but he has little merit there too.
Difficult to say. A few key figures are important for Belgium
– Charlemagne
– Charles V
– Maria Theresia
– Napoleon
– Leopold II
Not exactly a monarch but Count Roger II since he’s responsible for our unique identity. Before his rule, Malta was under the control of the Emirate of Sicily. With norman rule (beginning 1091), Muslims (most of the population) was allowed to stay. After 133 years, Christianity began to increase and the Arabic language had soon evolved into its own dialect as it had somewhat separated from the motherland in North Africa.
This is important as in 1224, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II came to Malta to prevent a Muslim uprising and expelled all Muslims within the next 25 years. By then Malta was slightly less than half Christian but all were speaking the Arabic dialect. This allowed for Maltese to form its own language and unique identity.
Basically, without Count Roger II, we would just be some Italian offshoot with nothing unique.
I’m Irish, so too many to name for all the wrong reasons Henry II, James, William III, Elizabeth I, Victoria.
46 comments
Indirectly, Vittorio Emanuele III. If it wasn’t for his fear of Fascism, we would have never had Fascism at all.
In the case of Hungary, it would be one of our Luxembourger kings (we had three of them in succession in the middle ages). Sigismund probably.
[Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor)
Kaiser Wilhelm II. Was an important influence for breaking off World War One (he could have instead **not** given Austria the “blanco cheque”), his henchmen propped up Lenin to weaken Russia (supported him with money and arranged secretive travel towards russia) and was kinda to blame for Hitler because of the conditions Germany ended up in after WW1 (horrible hyper-inflation because of reparations) ultimately enabling Hitler.
I mean in a way the earlier ones always impact those who come afterwards. So one could argue it was charlemagne or even some roman emperor.
But on the other hand, Wilhelm II. was also very impactful for the 20th century. Had Wilhelm II not lost WWI, the world would look very different today.
I would say Leopold II of course. Obligatory mention of atrocities of course first.
He had a profound impact due to his personal belongings in Congo, he had aot of wealth flowing into his personal treasury which he used to build big magnificent buildings such as the Antwerp Central Station.
Him owning Congo was also an incentive for Belgians to go to Congo, either as a typical colonizing adventurer, but also for humanitary work, religious missions, and whatever.
Due to him starting the colonisation of Congo we had a colony some decades later as a true state colony, and afterwards the subsequent independence and it’s trouble.
So he definitely had a long lasting effect on Belgium itself, up until the 70s or something and you could argue of course until now.
Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia made a deal about attacking Sweden following the [Treaty of Tilsit](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freden_i_Tilsit) in 1807, which led to the loss of the whole eastern part of the country (Finland), that had been an integral part of the kingdom for 700 years.
here it comes
Charles IV, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, had a long and successful reign. The Empire he ruled from Prague expanded, and his subjects lived in peace and prosperity.
When he died, the whole Empire mourned. More than 7,000 people accompanied him on his last procession.
The heir to the throne of the flourishing Empire was Charles’ son, Wenceslas IV, whose father had prepared him for this moment all his life. But Wenceslas did not take after his father. He neglected affairs of state for more frivolous pursuits. He even failed to turn up for his own coronation as Emperor, which did little to endear him to the Pope. Wenceslas “the Idle” did not impress the Imperial nobility either.
His difficulties mounted until the nobles, exasperated by the inaction of their ruler, turned for help to his half-brother, King Sigismund of Hungary. Sigismund decided on a radical solution. He kidnapped the King to force him to abdicate, then took advantage of the ensuing disorder to gain greater power for himself. He invaded Bohemia with a massive army and began pillaging the territories of the King’s allies.
It is here that my story begins…
Sweden has a few (domestic) candidates, and it is not easy point out an obvious winner, but most would probably say [Gustav Vasa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Vasa) who very simplified pulled Sweden out of the [Kalmar Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union), established hereditary monarchy and became the ancestor to a decently successful but rather mad dynasty with some very colourful members.
Holy Roman Emperor & King of Bohemia Charles IV. Cemented the position of the Kingdom of Bohemia as an integral part of the empire and made Prague its capital where he founded the oldest university in Central Europe.
Sigismund II Augustus – Architect of the Union of Lublin, and him dying heirless led to the elective monarchy of Poland-Lithuania.
If we are talking about Spain as we know it then Juan Carlos, taking an absolute monarchy and making it a democracy. If we go back in time the Catholic Monarchs.
Long term Carol I , he was from a German family moved to Romania and was given the throne and led a long period of modernizing the country.
Alexandru Ioan Cuza was kicked out for his support of the farmers by giving them land. He took away land from the church and nobility gave it to the farmers and basically removed serfdom. Nobility wasn’t very happy and brought carol as a compromise.
Henry VIII, his break from the church & the matter of his succession completely changed the country.
Ironically for possibly Englands most absolutist king his legacy for the monarchs that followed him was the opposite with a curtailment in their power.
United Kingdom as a whole – we were the longest ruled over nation by them, and we don’t really want to talk about it anymore unless it’s about getting the other part back.
If we had to choose a monarch, it would be Queen Mary I, while she was Catholic, she began the plantations in Ireland which lead to the direct total takeover of the island in the following monarchies among Elizabeth I as well as James I, solidifying our occupation for centuries.
Contemporarily speaking, no flame burns bright enough against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. She won the nation’s heart eventually, yet we would criticise her more for her domestic affairs than her relationship with our country. She upheld an exceptionally cordial and warm relationship with us.
Charles V.
He consolidated the Dutch counties and duchies into an entity we currently know as the Netherlands. It is not unthinkable that without him the Netherlands would be a Bundesland of Germany now.
From Italy, Vittorio Emanuele II.
– Gave all power to fascism because it defended the rich from workers claims (the Fasci di Combattimento were born as an anti-union strike force paid by Italian industrialists during the “Biennio Rosso”).
– Ran away like liquid shit when fascism got defeated.
– Killed monarchy in Italy
Denmark: Valdemar Atterdag (meaning return of the day) would be a good candidate. Withouth his efforts Denmark might not have existed as a country.
well… aside from Vittorio Emanuele II who just founded the country, Vittorio Emanuele lll is very responsible for the fascist dictatorship because after the march on Rome he just appointed Mussolini as PM without hesitation. and let him do whatever.
D Afonso Henriques – the first Portuguese king. Fought his own mother to make the kingdom of Portugal, she wanted us to be annexed by a Spanish kingdom.
D João II, the king that made all navigation possible.
Louis XIV for heavily centralising and culturally unifying the country;
Napoleon Bonaparte for introducing the Civil Code and organising the country (and others he invaded) very rationally (e.g. country divided evenly and managed by a prefet, sous-prefet, and maire; he did the same for every administration) and eliminating birth privileges as much as possible (e.g. instituting public Lycees, and anonymous competitive exams for the most prestigious institutions and roles).
King Casimir the Great. Rebuilt Poland after the fragmentation, modernised it and gave up on regaining the west, instead turning towards the east and defining our foreign policy for the next 500 years.
For Ireland, it would be Henry II of England who invaded in 1171 leading to a very complex history between Ireland and England for the next 800 years.
Of the native Irish kings before Henry, the most prominent would probably be Brian Boru who almost united the country before being killed in battle, or Mael Seachnail mac Ruanaid who was one of the main leaders that halted the Viking advance into Ireland in the 840s and restricted them to coastal towns.
James IV. Picking a fight with Henry VIII of England that he couldn’t win and starting Scotland on a political decline that got it eaten by England.
The most talented and most misguided king Scotland ever had.
**The Catholic Monarchs**, because they completed the Reconquista that lasted almost 800 years and they were the ones who laid the first stone of the Spanish Empire.
Gustav Vasa broke us off catholic church and forced us in to lutheranism when Finland was part of Sweden. Vasa wanted catholic churches money and property to pay for new strong Sweden.
Tsar Alexander I won Finnish war against Sweden and after being part of Sweden for 700 years Finland became part of Russia for the next hundred years.
Tsar Alexander II is known here as a good tsar because he gave finnish people rights and we got to have our own currency Markka. That we exist as a nation might be because Alexander II gave us freedom to develope Finland independently from Russia even as we were part of the empire.
England: maybe Henry VIII. He adopted Protestantism and founded the Church of England. Conflict between Catholics and Protestants would be a regular thing in England from that point forward.
UK: no idea, maybe Victoria? I’m not sure how much influence she had or if she just happened to be on the throne when it happened, but the Victorian era is an immensely important time in the history of the UK.
James VI unified the crowns of Scotland and England, which probably inevitably led to the eventual political union of the two countries 100 or so years later.
Ireland has a few. Brian Ború booted the Vikings out and gave legitimacy to an all-Ireland state; Henry II who oversaw the first British occupation of Ireland; Henry VIII who created division through the reformation and James I who started the Ulster plantation which eventually led to the partition of Ireland
I’m going for William the Conqueror.
Won 1066, ended Anglo-Saxon rule and laid the foundation for modern Britain.
If he hadn’t invaded, the language, society and culture of the island would have been vastly different.
For example…
**Governance:**
– The Norman idea of the monarch as the ultimate landowner still exists in modern Britain. Legally, all land in the United Kingdom belongs to the Crown, with others holding it through a system of tenure.
– The Domesday Book revolutionised administrative records. Modern taxation, land registry systems can be traced back to this book.
**Culture:**
– He revolutionised the language, made Modern English take a lot of loan words from French, which explains the large number of cognates between the two languages.
– Norman castles and churches, like the Tower of London or the Durham Cathedral, are commonplace throughout the country.
**Feudalism:**
– The hierarchical system brought on by the Normans influenced the British class system, which is still embedded into British society today. For instance, titles like “Duke”, “Baron”, and “Count” were brought in *by* the Normans.
– The division of land into manors with responsibilities for lords was commonplace in Norman times and soon grew to influence modern landlord-tenant relations.
Theoretically, if William never won at Hastings, English would have retained its Old English character and align more closely with the Scandinavian languages, British society would have had striking similarities to Nordic societies, and the British Empire may have never existed.
Man, we could’ve been a Nordic country…
Maria Theresia and her son Joseph, as they instituted mandatory school attendance in the 18th Century (don’t remember exactly)
Maria Theresia and Joseph II. a lot of institutions and structures can be traced back to their reign.
mandatory school attendance, ban of torture, religious tolerance, our civil code…
I’d say Jiří of Poděbrady (George of Poděbrady), whom Czechs elected as the first protestant king in the world. Most Czechs will say Charles IV, because he lived in much more peaceful times and he could leave behind a greater architectural and cultural legacy. But I think that Jiří’s dedication to peace and finding unorthodox solutions was at least just as impactful.
Jiří of Poděbrady lived in some of our hardest times, he grew up in the first half of 15th century, surrounded by war and anguish. He himself was ill and physically suffering for most of his life, his face was deformed from injuries. He was very ambitions and skilled politician, but he focused on ways to prevent conflict and create religious tolerance between Catholics and protestants. He proposed a creation of a union of European states and international peace organization that could address disputes in peaceful ways and cooperate. He didn’t want the pope to play a major role in that, though, so… he didn’t get far enough with his plans. He was elected, he didn’t come from any great dynasty, his ancestors weren’t monarchs. He didn’t live in such prosperous times as other kings, he couldn’t leave grand universities and castles behind. But I think his efforts and dedication to peace and religious tolerance played a crucial role in our history.
I’d say it was D. Afonso Henriques. After all he founded this crazy beautiful country that is Portugal 🇵🇹
Henry the 8th. He reconquered Ireland and declared himself King which lead to a few centuries of misery under English/British rule.
He also broke away from the Catholic Church which cause more division between English and Ireland.
I would also add Queen Victoria as she was queen during the famine which almost wiped out our language, traditions and culture. It also caused mass immigration, starvation and death.
I wonder if for most of central Europe Charlemagne is the right answer, also counting historic ripple effects. But then you could also go right back and say Julius Caesar,
Peter the Great. His rule wasn’t the best for the average Russian, but it was definitely pivotal. He literally pivoted the whole country towards Western Europe so hard that the nobles *forgot how to speak Russian* in a couple of generations.
Henry II maybe for Ireland? 800 years of colonial rule followed.
The first Anglo-Norman intervention in Ireland came in 1167. Henry II of England, wary of the power his generals were amassing there, landed with a large army in 1171, and by 1175 had succeeded in gaining nominal control of most of the island.
I can think of many, but I would say John I or D.João I
He peserved the independence of Portugal, humiliated the Castilians in the battle of Aljubarrota, founded the best and most legendary Portuguese dynasty and began the impulses for the creation of the Portuguese Empire with the conquest of Ceuta and the colonization of the Azores and Madeira.
He is so well-liked by the Portuguese that he received the nickname “O de boa memória” or, translated into English, “The well-remembered one” and also one of the few portuguese monarchs receiving the title of “The Great”.
I’m Irish.
Probably Queen Victoria (the horrible, fat, horny auld cu#t).
She watched at least 1 million Irish starve to death and at least 1.5-2 million flee Ireland during her reign. There was a potato blight all across Europe in the mid 1840’s but other monarchies redistributed foodstuffs and fed their people, Vicky done nothing and watched a hellish chaos ensue.
A monster that the Brits now make (revisionist) films about.
“Aw poor Victoria! She sure did love Albert!”. Get fucked.
I’m not having a great day but writing this helped lol
Do Lord Protectors count? Because out of a long line of English rulers who made a point of expropriating Irish land and brutalising Irish people, the one who was arguably the most ambitious on both counts made a hell of a point of not being a monarch.
Mahmut II, followed closely by Abdülhamid II. The first for starting the process of Tanzimat or westernization and the second for ending it.
Valdemar Atterdag (1340-1375). Followimg decades of events worthy of Game of Thrones by the nobility, the country basically didn’t exist anymore. Valdemark fought to bring the fractured pieces of the country back together through diplomacy, wars, and strategic marriages. If it hadn’t been for him, I doubt Denmark would exist today.
His daughter Margrethe I (1376 – 1412) who united all the Nordic countries, which had a lot of impact long-term.
She empowered the North in opposition to both the Hansas and the Baltic templars.
She put in place laws to control nobility and made them accept to be liable to the law. (Continuing her father’s work to undo the damage that the nobility had caused).
She reinstated the monetary system and put in place a lot of laws reinstate a civilised society.
Christian IV (1588-1648) for the negative impact. In his desire to be the awesome-est king ever, that everyone would say that, yeah, he is the most awesome king (yes, I am comparing him to Trump), he ruined it all. He drained the national finances with endless wars, didn’t win anything of significance, lost some of significance, and had built a lot of buildings with the nations money.
The worst was that he set the scene for his son to lose the Danish heartland of Skåne/Scania 💔 to Sweden only a few years into the son’s reign, which devastated Scania.
The Swedish occupation of Denmark (Skåne and the other regions of Denmark) during the war was brutal on the common population, causing famine, extreme poverty, and desertation of large areas. It took up to 50 years to rebuild.
But honestly, those bonehead Danish kings had it coming, and the Swedes won rightly. But all the ordinary people paid the price.
That’ll probably Leopold II, overall. Claimed Congo as his personal property, then ‘donated’ it to the state when it was a complete disaster. Which led to Belgium becoming a colonial nation with all the dirty bells ‘n’ whistles. Leading to our long-standing involvement in African politics, resource wars, etc. Leopold II was a very active monarch overall, building international alliances, fighting for a place at the table of world leaders, starting megaprojects, ‘building the nation’ with dreams of autocratic rule.
But there is also Albert I. Lesser known as a figurehead, but arguably with an equally important impact. He denied German passage through the country in 1914, thereby relucantly plunging Belgium into its most disruptive war in its history to date, of which we still feel the impact today. Among which is the creation of a cohort of disgruntled veterans among the Flemish population, inadvertently giving an impulse to the Flemish independence movement and the eventual emergence of the complex federal state that we have today.
I’d also wager Leopold I was quite significant, being the very first king, and also the one who kicked off the industrial development of the nation, although it’s debatable how much of that is just him being in the right place at the right time. Also ‘being first’ is obviously significant, but he has little merit there too.
Difficult to say. A few key figures are important for Belgium
– Charlemagne
– Charles V
– Maria Theresia
– Napoleon
– Leopold II
Not exactly a monarch but Count Roger II since he’s responsible for our unique identity. Before his rule, Malta was under the control of the Emirate of Sicily. With norman rule (beginning 1091), Muslims (most of the population) was allowed to stay. After 133 years, Christianity began to increase and the Arabic language had soon evolved into its own dialect as it had somewhat separated from the motherland in North Africa.
This is important as in 1224, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II came to Malta to prevent a Muslim uprising and expelled all Muslims within the next 25 years. By then Malta was slightly less than half Christian but all were speaking the Arabic dialect. This allowed for Maltese to form its own language and unique identity.
Basically, without Count Roger II, we would just be some Italian offshoot with nothing unique.
I’m Irish, so too many to name for all the wrong reasons Henry II, James, William III, Elizabeth I, Victoria.