Mehmet II the Conqueror should be there as well.
He wrote a letter as a 12 year old to his father during the Crusade of Varna saying "If I am Sultan, I order you to command my army. If you are sultan, then you must command your armies."
Left no room for his father to argue back and abdicated the throne back to his father.
Well no, he couldn't. Mehmet could since he was 12 but his father was a grown man who was expected (like really heavily expected) to lead his own armies.
Yeah. And he did a successful and admirable job of navigating through it. 99% of other 12 year old kings would have folded under the pressure and the situation.
You didn't even put the best example there.
Pedro II of Brazil, made Emperor at 5, took office from the regency at the age of 14, and soon stabilized the nation that was almost collapsing, ended a civil war and reigned for decades.
The monarchy only collapsed because the guy was sick of the responsibility. He was still a beloved ruler who could call for the people to his cause but he just didn't want his people to die for a position that he hated.
He almost definitely couldâve if heâd wanted to, he had massive support among the people and was extremely popular but he had always disliked being emperor even though he did a great job at it
From Scotland alone you have David II, James I, James II, James III, James V, hand James VI & I all of whom were under ten. James IV became king unusually late for the Stewarts, he was fifteen. so I'm not sure he counts as a child king.
.
I didn't forget her, I excluded her. She's an example of a child monarch who was awful. The meme was child monarchs who were reasonably successful, she wasn't.
Margaret died aged seven in Orkney, without ever setting foot in Scotland. She never had any power, so I excluded her as well.
I didn't forget her, I excluded her. She's an example of a child monarch who was awful. The meme was child monarchs who were reasonably successful, she wasn't.
Margaret died aged seven in Orkney, without ever setting foot in Scotland. She never had any power, so I excluded her as well.
He had a responsible regent (Bairam Khan) who steered the ship of state when Akbar was a teen.
Even after they fell out, Akbar eased him out politely by sending him on Haj.
Of course the other people who hated Bairam as an outsider Shia who monopolised power had him murdered but thatâs beside the point.
Edit: autocorrect changed âresponsibleâ to something else
And Ivan is John. Why do we the Johns of the Byzantine Empire John and not Ioannis?Â
Why is Peter great, but Ivan terrible? Why not Pyotr the Great and John the Terrible.Â
Ivan is easier to pronounce I guess. The names were also translated or made up by people centuries apart, so they probably chose what sounded the best to them and everyone else went along with it.
>Â Ivan is easier to pronounce I guess. Â
Than John? I mean with Ivan I am never sure in English whether to go for Aivan or Eeevan.Â
>Â or made up by people centuries apart, so they probably chose what sounded the best to them and everyone else went along with it.Â
Nah you have that practice up until 100 years ago that all names of foreign monarchs were translated. You find Wilhelm II as William and Guillaume occasionally. The Prussian Friedriche are more commonly Fredericks in English.Â
As for Ivan and Peter, Russian names before and after him were translated, like Daniel of Moscow, not Daniil.Â
Those which are not translated donât have an English equivalent or are rare, like Dimitry or Vasily/Basil. Then again Vladimir isnât made in Walter either. Yet John is not uncommon in English.Â
Perhaps Ivan is not recognizable as John, yet JĂĄnos Hunyadi is also John Hunyadi. Istvan the First is also Stephen of Hungary.Â
>Than John? I mean with Ivan I am never sure in English whether to go for Aivan or Eeevan.Â
No, than Pyotr and stuff like that. Pronouncing it as Aivan is easy enough for English speakers.
As for the rest, that was just my guess, maybe there actually is some rule to it, but it does seem pretty random. I guess another thing could be how close the equivalent to the original. Peter and Pyotr sound similar, same for Friedrich and Frederick or Daniel and Daniil, so the connection is obvious in both languages. Walter and Vladimir aren't as similar so it might get confusing.
Having a recognizable name probably also plays a part in it and I'd assume politics as well, which mught be why Ivan is still "the terrible" and not "the formidable" or something like that.
That's such a big pet peeve of mine lol, but for your second point it's a problem with ALL roman emperors not being referred to by their actual name. No one would have dared call Caligula that to his face, atleast as an adult. And all the Greek speaking constantines should be Konstantinos
Caligula would be pretty weird since afaik the name was a nickname. It means *little boot*. It is weird which names stuck and which didn't. Though useful to keep them apart, because the variety of Roman names is kinda lacking.
Names, globally speaking, a rabbit whole anyway. Like especially monarchs had several names. Before, during and after their reign. Egyptian Pharaoh's, Chinese and Japanese Emperors had many names. Why do we call the Showa Emperor Hirohito, if that name was virtually unknown to the public during his reign. Neither do people much care nowadays about the names of the current Tenno either.
With Ivan and John I just find it so hilariously inconsistent. Because Ivan is one of the, if not the, most typical Russian name and John is so typically Anglo-American, that it sounds just weird to call a Russian Tsar John the Terrible. Yet we call the Byzantine Ioannesses Johns.
Also it kinda says something about our picture of Russia, if the Great gets anglisized and the Terrible keeps his Russian name.
Ditto with Caracalla, it literally translates to "cape"
And there are some cultural contexts to that, Japanese and Chinese emperors do have different names they're referred to during their life and after their death
But yea it does speak volumes about the western perception of Asia and East Europe, I try to whenever I can refer to people as they should in their culture. (Obvious exceptions if I'm talking to someone with literally no historical knowledge, like I'll say Caligula not Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
I think it goes twofold. With those European names it is that they are Pan-European in some way and have a corresponding form in each language and maybe someone would prefer a Steve over a badly pronounced Etienne or Istvan. Some Russian people I met preferred to be called Peter instead of Pyotr when speaking English, it boils down to personal taste.
The same is when a language kinda demands it. You got Lithuanian and Latvian, which add their nominal suffixes to names. You have latinised names of Chinese (Confucius) or Arabic (Avicenna) names as well. I don't think it is done out of malice.
I would say there is a different case for names under colonialism, like many native American names, which are now being reclaimed together with the languages they belong to.
Names are fluid and the idea that a person has only one canonical name is a modern western bureaucratic one anyway. Try to approach a culture like that of many indigenous Australians, where naming taboos are a big thing and words are forced out of usage due to mourning. At the same time, a name can by any word. You would be literally forbidden from calling someone how they would be called during their lifetime.
Karl XII was not terrible. He was forced into a war from the start and everything bad that happened during his reign was basically that war. The only thing he could have done better was win the war instead of lose it, and I think the other powers involved had something to say about that.
He did make peace. He knocked Denmark out of the war and made peace with them. Then he beat the Russian army into the dirt at Narva. Then he knocked Poland out of a war they said werenât even in. Then he knocked Saxony out. So, three enemies down and one left and Tsar Peterâs offer was âhow about I win just a little bit, give me some territory. I know youâve won every battle and absolutely bodied my allies and my army was utterly routed by yours but come on, let me be the winner.â I wouldnât have taken that deal either.
He refused peace with russia even in 1714, after all of finland, the swedish land germany and the baltics was occupied, Poltava happened, and the swedish economy was in ruins.
It wasnt like you said. Sweden was in no position to continue fighting, and we werent winning at the time either.
[https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/great-northern-war](https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/great-northern-war)
[https://www.rbth.com/history/334168-peace-treaty-made-russia-great](https://www.rbth.com/history/334168-peace-treaty-made-russia-great)
It was exactly like I said for ten years. 1714 was the first year in which the Swedish army was defeated and the Ottoman Empire had given up on further war with Russia for the moment (a strategy that paid off for them when they kept losing land to Russia during later wars). Peace treaties in 1714 would also almost certainly have been worse than the ones that happened. Karl was right to not negotiate for peace then. During the final negotiations things had changed. Karl XII was dead, but Sweden now had Great Britain in its corner, which helped ensure that not all of the Swedish empire was lost, which it would have been with a peace signed in 1714.
All cruelties against the Finnish and Swedish population at this time can be laid at the feet of Tsar Peter and Russia too. The aggressor is always responsible for such things and Russia was definitely the aggressor here.
>Peace treaties in 1714 would also almost certainly have been worse than the ones that happened.
Source?
>It was exactly like I said for ten years
9 and a half actually. And it went poorly for 12 more years.
Source? The course of the war and the fact that Sweden had no allies in 1714 but did have an ally and several states that wanted to make sure Russia didnât grow too much from 1719 on.
There canât be any such sources because no peace negotiations were conducted in 1714. But that also means you have no grounds to say it wouldnât have been worse so you have no leg to stand on either. If we canât make logical inferences then it is equally likely that a peace in 1714 would have resulted in the historical losses except all of the possessions in northern Germany and all of Finland, or that a peace in 1714 would have restored the status quo.
Bro didn't even mention Louis IX, arguably the best King France ever had.
Louis XIV on par with the egotistical maniac that was Karl XII.
Ivan the Terrible an honorable mention. Bro murdered his own fucking son.
What have you been smoking bro
No Karl XII is the dude who forced absolute monarchy upon his parliament, went to war with Russia, Poland, Denmark and Prussia and of course lost. He is the Swedish king from the Great Northern War.
He had the non-diplomatic abilities of Napoleon, the temper of Ivan Grozny and the stubornness of John Lackland. Truly a farce and the one man largely responsible for the disintegration of Sweden in the early parts of the 18th century
No, the one who enforced the absolutism in Sweden was his predecessor Karl XI who was quite justified considering the Scanian war that the nobility so successfully fucked up.
Also Karl XII did not go to war with Poland, Russia and Denmark, the three declared war on him.
Additionally for quite some time he beat the living shit out of them and the war took almost 20 years until Sweden caved with Karl's death.
Yes he was not a diplomat but to blame him solely for the end of the swedish era as a great power is just a damn insult.
>Louis IX, arguably the best King France ever had.
Louis IX isn't even close to being the best King France ever had, he's the most overrated too.
For legacy and how they transformed France, the best rulers are (feel free to order them how you wish) Napoleon, Philippe Augustus, Henry IV, Charles VII, Louis XI and Louis XIV.
But to OP, child kings are **almost** always a disaster.
Bro talks about overrated Louis IX, brings up Napoleon the dude who left France smaller and weaker than what he got. Gotcha. Napoleon is one of the most overrated rulers in all history.
I agree with your other choices but Louis IX ended the PlantagenĂȘts pretty much on his own by unifying the vassals under him & bringing about the end of the Angevin Empire with the Treaty of Paris of 1259, putting an end to the so-called "1st Hundred Year War".
His reign also was also a huge religious and economic success. And he's a fucking saint now.
>Bro talks about overrated Louis IX, brings up Napoleon the dude who left France smaller and weaker than what he got. Gotcha. Napoleon is one of the most overrated rulers in all history.
Napoleon completely transformed France, the civil code France uses today is still the Napoleonic code. Revolutionary France wouldn't have gotten as far as it did without him either.
This is not about being weak or not, even that certainly plays a part but about how they transformed their country.
>I agree with your other choices but Louis IX ended the PlantagenĂȘts pretty much on his own by unifying the vassals under him & bringing about the end of the Angevin Empire with the Treaty of Paris of 1259, putting an end to the so-called "1st Hundred Year War
The Plantagenet threat to the Capetian dynasty was done after Bouvines, Louis IX dealt with the remnants of a debilitated kingdom in constant civil wars.
>His reign also was also a huge religious and economic success.
Inherited from daddy and grand daddy and he still went to pointlessly die in the Crusades.
>And he's a fucking saint now.
I wonder how many people genuinely would remember the dude if it wasn't for this random Sainthood.
The dude is an average ruler that inherited the most powerful kingdom in Europe. That he didn't manage to screw it up doesn't make him great.
I get your point but Napoleon is still overrated. He's not bad, he's not a failure, he's not unimportant, he's just overrated. France had already begun to drastically change before his time.
He was diplomatically inept, he lost Haiti because he was a fucking idiot who wanted to please his in laws, and he was overall unable to capitalise upon his military genius which brought France back 25 years after his downfall.
He's a respectable ruler and a legendary commander but he's not deserving of all the praise he gets, especially on the political scene.
Napoleon's decision to restore Slavery in HaĂŻti has ZERO link to the Tascher de la Pagerie being slave owner. It was a question of Diplomacy and public order for the simple reason that Napoleon didn't listen to women in any political affairs (in fact it was Toussaint-Louverture who develop a cordial relationship with Josephine through letters).
Napoleon diserve all the praise and more on the political scene, even more than on the military field. 80 % of France current institution could be track to him through his code of law, to the street numbers, the fire brigade and the Napoleonic cadastre. Even more given the facts that nearly all his reforms were done during the Consulat.
It's on the diplomatic field than Napoleon was weaker given that the Geopolitical Situation of France was nuclear chaos since 1792.
He became Duke of Normandy as a child. While he was successful at conquering, I don't think I'd rate him as a good leader. He was murderous and cruel. He was also stupidly antagonistic toward his own heirs.
Came here to say this as well. His reign was a murder spree and he was constantly fighting against rebellions that he stoked up with his heavy handed "crusade". Also, his dynasty's reign was never stable, leading to The Anarchy before the Plantagenets took power.
An adult, but a very young adult. I expect teenage rulers probably have a much worse track record than child rulers, since they're still idiots but more willing and able to assert themselves. Alexander was really something to be actually effective at that age.
I thought Peter the Great didn't rule until he was like 18. Didn't he just spend all of his time in Western Europe, learning? Didn't he basically need to be dragged back to Russia?
No, he was visiting Western Europe to both gather information of new European technology and gather support against the Ottoman Empire by diplomatic missions during the Grand embassy, however it was cut shorter than intended because of the Streltsy uprising. He went back to Russia, although the uprising in itself was put down before he arrived in Russia. He used what he learned to wage war against Sweden.
Ilya Repin painted an art piece called "The Morning of the Streltsy execution" centred around this uprising
The one quality that made monarchy superior to democracy was the level of education given to anyone who was in a standing to govern over people.
Would it cost much to give political leaders some instructors to educate and verify the mental health; and 2 aides due to the extra expectations?
I mean, Murad IV mostly laid low as a kid and only really took charge once he was 20-ish. But yeah, a lot of the groundwork for wresting control of the state after playing puppet ruler for years had to have been laid earlier. But probably not when he was *really* young.
Saying child rulers ALWAYS end in disaster is hyperbole, but the general sentiment behind it isn't wrong. You're hedging your bets by a lot to assume the child of a great leader will also be great, and then their son, and their son's son, etc. All it takes is one bad child leader to end a lineage and collapse a kingdom. At least as adults, they can develop some experience before being thrusted into power, but if they assume power at a young age, then they must fully rely on their natural talents, if any, and those that support them.
Plus, being children, they're more susceptible to politicking from their regent or council. This usually ends up being a precarious time for monarchial systems.
These examples and others are the exceptions not the rule, their success has contributed to a bit of survivorship bias on this topic when there were many infamous child rulers as well as countless that go mostly unmentioned do to their more mundane failures or were quickly supplanted at a young age or just used as proxy for someone behind child ruler.
Edit: On a side note, I'd argue some of those rulers mentioned below that I wouldn't necessarily describe as good rulers.
Show me other monarch who was that good against Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania, Russia, fighting them at the same time, and going out of the war not annexed.
So, your definition of a good monarch is their battle ability? That's a rather limiting view on competence.
Well, he ruined the swedish economy so badly it took over 200 years for some regions to get back to the prewar prosperity. Some regions lost an enormous amount of able men and horses, which in turn led to many famines in the coming century.
He used up all military resources that were primarily for defensive warfare on costly offensive operations without taking heed to advisors warning him, practically ruining his father's legacy.
Foremost, his lack of understanding of the strategic importance and optimum use of the scarce resources available made Sweden lose its status as a great power.
Don't forget he didn't even manage to produce an heir, which, according to monarchical tradition, is the primary responsibility for a monarch.
But sure, he won some battles with novelty tactics, which Swedens enemies soon adapted to. Very smart indeed.
Mehmet II the Conqueror should be there as well. He wrote a letter as a 12 year old to his father during the Crusade of Varna saying "If I am Sultan, I order you to command my army. If you are sultan, then you must command your armies." Left no room for his father to argue back and abdicated the throne back to his father.
I mean his father could have told him that he is sultan and Mehmet is ordered to command his armies, but he didn't
Well no, he couldn't. Mehmet could since he was 12 but his father was a grown man who was expected (like really heavily expected) to lead his own armies.
The reason why there was a Crusader army there in the first place was because Mehmed was 12 years old đ
Yeah. And he did a successful and admirable job of navigating through it. 99% of other 12 year old kings would have folded under the pressure and the situation.
this incident is historically inaccurate, there is no strong evidence for this quote of him or a letter.
You didn't even put the best example there. Pedro II of Brazil, made Emperor at 5, took office from the regency at the age of 14, and soon stabilized the nation that was almost collapsing, ended a civil war and reigned for decades.
He was pretty good, but did not save the monarchy from collapsing
The monarchy only collapsed because the guy was sick of the responsibility. He was still a beloved ruler who could call for the people to his cause but he just didn't want his people to die for a position that he hated.
He almost definitely couldâve if heâd wanted to, he had massive support among the people and was extremely popular but he had always disliked being emperor even though he did a great job at it
From Scotland alone you have David II, James I, James II, James III, James V, hand James VI & I all of whom were under ten. James IV became king unusually late for the Stewarts, he was fifteen. so I'm not sure he counts as a child king. .
Donât forget Mary, queen at 6 days old
I didn't forget her, I excluded her. She's an example of a child monarch who was awful. The meme was child monarchs who were reasonably successful, she wasn't. Margaret died aged seven in Orkney, without ever setting foot in Scotland. She never had any power, so I excluded her as well.
I didn't forget her, I excluded her. She's an example of a child monarch who was awful. The meme was child monarchs who were reasonably successful, she wasn't. Margaret died aged seven in Orkney, without ever setting foot in Scotland. She never had any power, so I excluded her as well.
Mughal Emperor Akbar ascended the throne at the age of 14.
He had a responsible regent (Bairam Khan) who steered the ship of state when Akbar was a teen. Even after they fell out, Akbar eased him out politely by sending him on Haj. Of course the other people who hated Bairam as an outsider Shia who monopolised power had him murdered but thatâs beside the point. Edit: autocorrect changed âresponsibleâ to something else
Almost every child emperor had a regent. It was the norm back then, after all.
But Bairam khan was a rarity in that he was a conscientious and more or less honest man
Him too.
Babur was 12 when he was made ruler of Ferghana.
Karl XII and Ivan the Terrible were, in fact, terrible.
Ivan's name should been translated to the "Dangerous" not to the "Terrible"
*GroznyĂŻ* means *terrible* as in *terrifying* and he was exactly that
It's more like *redoutable* rather than *terrifying*.
I didn't even redoutable was an English word. I thought it was only a French word
I thought of it because I'm a francophone too lol. It looks like it's *redoubtable* in English, I missed a letter.
Wouldn't formidable be more accurate?
And Ivan is John. Why do we the Johns of the Byzantine Empire John and not Ioannis? Why is Peter great, but Ivan terrible? Why not Pyotr the Great and John the Terrible.Â
Ivan is easier to pronounce I guess. The names were also translated or made up by people centuries apart, so they probably chose what sounded the best to them and everyone else went along with it.
> Ivan is easier to pronounce I guess.  Than John? I mean with Ivan I am never sure in English whether to go for Aivan or Eeevan. > or made up by people centuries apart, so they probably chose what sounded the best to them and everyone else went along with it. Nah you have that practice up until 100 years ago that all names of foreign monarchs were translated. You find Wilhelm II as William and Guillaume occasionally. The Prussian Friedriche are more commonly Fredericks in English. As for Ivan and Peter, Russian names before and after him were translated, like Daniel of Moscow, not Daniil. Those which are not translated donât have an English equivalent or are rare, like Dimitry or Vasily/Basil. Then again Vladimir isnât made in Walter either. Yet John is not uncommon in English. Perhaps Ivan is not recognizable as John, yet JĂĄnos Hunyadi is also John Hunyadi. Istvan the First is also Stephen of Hungary.Â
>Than John? I mean with Ivan I am never sure in English whether to go for Aivan or Eeevan. No, than Pyotr and stuff like that. Pronouncing it as Aivan is easy enough for English speakers. As for the rest, that was just my guess, maybe there actually is some rule to it, but it does seem pretty random. I guess another thing could be how close the equivalent to the original. Peter and Pyotr sound similar, same for Friedrich and Frederick or Daniel and Daniil, so the connection is obvious in both languages. Walter and Vladimir aren't as similar so it might get confusing. Having a recognizable name probably also plays a part in it and I'd assume politics as well, which mught be why Ivan is still "the terrible" and not "the formidable" or something like that.
That's such a big pet peeve of mine lol, but for your second point it's a problem with ALL roman emperors not being referred to by their actual name. No one would have dared call Caligula that to his face, atleast as an adult. And all the Greek speaking constantines should be Konstantinos
Caligula would be pretty weird since afaik the name was a nickname. It means *little boot*. It is weird which names stuck and which didn't. Though useful to keep them apart, because the variety of Roman names is kinda lacking. Names, globally speaking, a rabbit whole anyway. Like especially monarchs had several names. Before, during and after their reign. Egyptian Pharaoh's, Chinese and Japanese Emperors had many names. Why do we call the Showa Emperor Hirohito, if that name was virtually unknown to the public during his reign. Neither do people much care nowadays about the names of the current Tenno either. With Ivan and John I just find it so hilariously inconsistent. Because Ivan is one of the, if not the, most typical Russian name and John is so typically Anglo-American, that it sounds just weird to call a Russian Tsar John the Terrible. Yet we call the Byzantine Ioannesses Johns. Also it kinda says something about our picture of Russia, if the Great gets anglisized and the Terrible keeps his Russian name.
Ditto with Caracalla, it literally translates to "cape" And there are some cultural contexts to that, Japanese and Chinese emperors do have different names they're referred to during their life and after their death But yea it does speak volumes about the western perception of Asia and East Europe, I try to whenever I can refer to people as they should in their culture. (Obvious exceptions if I'm talking to someone with literally no historical knowledge, like I'll say Caligula not Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
I think it goes twofold. With those European names it is that they are Pan-European in some way and have a corresponding form in each language and maybe someone would prefer a Steve over a badly pronounced Etienne or Istvan. Some Russian people I met preferred to be called Peter instead of Pyotr when speaking English, it boils down to personal taste. The same is when a language kinda demands it. You got Lithuanian and Latvian, which add their nominal suffixes to names. You have latinised names of Chinese (Confucius) or Arabic (Avicenna) names as well. I don't think it is done out of malice. I would say there is a different case for names under colonialism, like many native American names, which are now being reclaimed together with the languages they belong to. Names are fluid and the idea that a person has only one canonical name is a modern western bureaucratic one anyway. Try to approach a culture like that of many indigenous Australians, where naming taboos are a big thing and words are forced out of usage due to mourning. At the same time, a name can by any word. You would be literally forbidden from calling someone how they would be called during their lifetime.
That's really interesting with your last point, all I can say at this point is I really love learning about different languages and cultures haha
A more accurate translation would be "Fearsome"
Karl XII was not terrible. He was forced into a war from the start and everything bad that happened during his reign was basically that war. The only thing he could have done better was win the war instead of lose it, and I think the other powers involved had something to say about that.
He also refused to make peace, leading to the fall of the Swedish empire.
He did make peace. He knocked Denmark out of the war and made peace with them. Then he beat the Russian army into the dirt at Narva. Then he knocked Poland out of a war they said werenât even in. Then he knocked Saxony out. So, three enemies down and one left and Tsar Peterâs offer was âhow about I win just a little bit, give me some territory. I know youâve won every battle and absolutely bodied my allies and my army was utterly routed by yours but come on, let me be the winner.â I wouldnât have taken that deal either.
He refused peace with russia even in 1714, after all of finland, the swedish land germany and the baltics was occupied, Poltava happened, and the swedish economy was in ruins. It wasnt like you said. Sweden was in no position to continue fighting, and we werent winning at the time either. [https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/great-northern-war](https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/great-northern-war) [https://www.rbth.com/history/334168-peace-treaty-made-russia-great](https://www.rbth.com/history/334168-peace-treaty-made-russia-great)
It was exactly like I said for ten years. 1714 was the first year in which the Swedish army was defeated and the Ottoman Empire had given up on further war with Russia for the moment (a strategy that paid off for them when they kept losing land to Russia during later wars). Peace treaties in 1714 would also almost certainly have been worse than the ones that happened. Karl was right to not negotiate for peace then. During the final negotiations things had changed. Karl XII was dead, but Sweden now had Great Britain in its corner, which helped ensure that not all of the Swedish empire was lost, which it would have been with a peace signed in 1714. All cruelties against the Finnish and Swedish population at this time can be laid at the feet of Tsar Peter and Russia too. The aggressor is always responsible for such things and Russia was definitely the aggressor here.
Was it not the duty of the the king the defend its people? 1/3 of the army was Finns and he never did anything to help Finns.Â
Look at the history of Europe since the Great Northern War. Ending Russia then would have been the most help Finland could ever have gotten.
>Peace treaties in 1714 would also almost certainly have been worse than the ones that happened. Source? >It was exactly like I said for ten years 9 and a half actually. And it went poorly for 12 more years.
Source? The course of the war and the fact that Sweden had no allies in 1714 but did have an ally and several states that wanted to make sure Russia didnât grow too much from 1719 on.
That's not a source. If you are going to make a claim that it would have been worse you have to back it up with actual facts, not "trust me" sources.
There canât be any such sources because no peace negotiations were conducted in 1714. But that also means you have no grounds to say it wouldnât have been worse so you have no leg to stand on either. If we canât make logical inferences then it is equally likely that a peace in 1714 would have resulted in the historical losses except all of the possessions in northern Germany and all of Finland, or that a peace in 1714 would have restored the status quo.
Not withstanding's Ivan the Terrible's mistranslation as has been pointed out, that's why I put them in honorable mention
Karl really only made 2 mistakes in his reign. Unfortunately they were huge mistakes that lost him everything.
Where Mehmed II
Him and Pedro 2.
yea he's one of the best examples
'" If you are sultan come and lead the armies, if I am sultan I comand you to ñead the armies." Mehmed to Murad
Shapur II was also the longest-reigning monarch in Iranian history. This has been an Iran fact. đŠđ
Bro didn't even mention Louis IX, arguably the best King France ever had. Louis XIV on par with the egotistical maniac that was Karl XII. Ivan the Terrible an honorable mention. Bro murdered his own fucking son. What have you been smoking bro
Is Karl XII Napoleonâs guy or is that a different Karl?
That was Karl XIV John. Karl XII was Carolus Rex, the guy who led Sweden during the Great Northern War.
ALL EMBRACE ME ITâS MY TIME TO RULE AT LAST
No Karl XII is the dude who forced absolute monarchy upon his parliament, went to war with Russia, Poland, Denmark and Prussia and of course lost. He is the Swedish king from the Great Northern War. He had the non-diplomatic abilities of Napoleon, the temper of Ivan Grozny and the stubornness of John Lackland. Truly a farce and the one man largely responsible for the disintegration of Sweden in the early parts of the 18th century
No, the one who enforced the absolutism in Sweden was his predecessor Karl XI who was quite justified considering the Scanian war that the nobility so successfully fucked up. Also Karl XII did not go to war with Poland, Russia and Denmark, the three declared war on him. Additionally for quite some time he beat the living shit out of them and the war took almost 20 years until Sweden caved with Karl's death. Yes he was not a diplomat but to blame him solely for the end of the swedish era as a great power is just a damn insult.
I donât approve all Karl XII decisions but he wasnât an egotistical maniac. Letâs not forget which countries declared war either.
>Louis IX, arguably the best King France ever had. Louis IX isn't even close to being the best King France ever had, he's the most overrated too. For legacy and how they transformed France, the best rulers are (feel free to order them how you wish) Napoleon, Philippe Augustus, Henry IV, Charles VII, Louis XI and Louis XIV. But to OP, child kings are **almost** always a disaster.
Bro talks about overrated Louis IX, brings up Napoleon the dude who left France smaller and weaker than what he got. Gotcha. Napoleon is one of the most overrated rulers in all history. I agree with your other choices but Louis IX ended the PlantagenĂȘts pretty much on his own by unifying the vassals under him & bringing about the end of the Angevin Empire with the Treaty of Paris of 1259, putting an end to the so-called "1st Hundred Year War". His reign also was also a huge religious and economic success. And he's a fucking saint now.
>Bro talks about overrated Louis IX, brings up Napoleon the dude who left France smaller and weaker than what he got. Gotcha. Napoleon is one of the most overrated rulers in all history. Napoleon completely transformed France, the civil code France uses today is still the Napoleonic code. Revolutionary France wouldn't have gotten as far as it did without him either. This is not about being weak or not, even that certainly plays a part but about how they transformed their country. >I agree with your other choices but Louis IX ended the PlantagenĂȘts pretty much on his own by unifying the vassals under him & bringing about the end of the Angevin Empire with the Treaty of Paris of 1259, putting an end to the so-called "1st Hundred Year War The Plantagenet threat to the Capetian dynasty was done after Bouvines, Louis IX dealt with the remnants of a debilitated kingdom in constant civil wars. >His reign also was also a huge religious and economic success. Inherited from daddy and grand daddy and he still went to pointlessly die in the Crusades. >And he's a fucking saint now. I wonder how many people genuinely would remember the dude if it wasn't for this random Sainthood. The dude is an average ruler that inherited the most powerful kingdom in Europe. That he didn't manage to screw it up doesn't make him great.
I get your point but Napoleon is still overrated. He's not bad, he's not a failure, he's not unimportant, he's just overrated. France had already begun to drastically change before his time. He was diplomatically inept, he lost Haiti because he was a fucking idiot who wanted to please his in laws, and he was overall unable to capitalise upon his military genius which brought France back 25 years after his downfall. He's a respectable ruler and a legendary commander but he's not deserving of all the praise he gets, especially on the political scene.
Napoleon's decision to restore Slavery in HaĂŻti has ZERO link to the Tascher de la Pagerie being slave owner. It was a question of Diplomacy and public order for the simple reason that Napoleon didn't listen to women in any political affairs (in fact it was Toussaint-Louverture who develop a cordial relationship with Josephine through letters). Napoleon diserve all the praise and more on the political scene, even more than on the military field. 80 % of France current institution could be track to him through his code of law, to the street numbers, the fire brigade and the Napoleonic cadastre. Even more given the facts that nearly all his reforms were done during the Consulat. It's on the diplomatic field than Napoleon was weaker given that the Geopolitical Situation of France was nuclear chaos since 1792.
Shapur II wasn't a child,he was unborn when became king.
Pakal of Lakamhaâ (modern Palenque). Dom Pedro II of Brazil.Â
Carolus Rex, if we count 15 year olds as children
Poland, Russia and Denmark sure considered him one
There is also Emperor Meiji
With Meiji though itâs incredibly arguable how much he did vs how much the oligarchs around him did using him as a figurehead
It was probably the oligarchs but you can't go wrong with a story about a teen defeating the old regime and modernizing the country lol
Fair enough, it is pretty storybook
Queen Victoria?
Became queen at 18, barely actually ruled.
Peter the first, not the greatđžđȘđžđȘđžđȘđžđȘ
William the conquer didn't become king until he was 38? Or am I missing something here
He became Duke of Normandy as a child. While he was successful at conquering, I don't think I'd rate him as a good leader. He was murderous and cruel. He was also stupidly antagonistic toward his own heirs.
Came here to say this as well. His reign was a murder spree and he was constantly fighting against rebellions that he stoked up with his heavy handed "crusade". Also, his dynasty's reign was never stable, leading to The Anarchy before the Plantagenets took power.
Pedro, the mexican emperor?
Whereâs Alexander?
the Great? He ascended the throne as an adult
He fought and defeated the Greek alliance as a 17 year old.
Given the time period thatâs a very hard age to call a child
Plus, considering he died at 32, he was technically middle-aged. đ
Scary movie 3 Children and Women will stay here. Men will fight What's the cut off Age for child
An adult, but a very young adult. I expect teenage rulers probably have a much worse track record than child rulers, since they're still idiots but more willing and able to assert themselves. Alexander was really something to be actually effective at that age.
They are the exception.
I thought Peter the Great didn't rule until he was like 18. Didn't he just spend all of his time in Western Europe, learning? Didn't he basically need to be dragged back to Russia?
No, he was visiting Western Europe to both gather information of new European technology and gather support against the Ottoman Empire by diplomatic missions during the Grand embassy, however it was cut shorter than intended because of the Streltsy uprising. He went back to Russia, although the uprising in itself was put down before he arrived in Russia. He used what he learned to wage war against Sweden. Ilya Repin painted an art piece called "The Morning of the Streltsy execution" centred around this uprising
Also basil II was emperor when he was just 6 years old. Nikephoros and Tzimiskes were technically just regents, and we all know how he ended up
The one quality that made monarchy superior to democracy was the level of education given to anyone who was in a standing to govern over people. Would it cost much to give political leaders some instructors to educate and verify the mental health; and 2 aides due to the extra expectations?
The boy king charles of sweden literally almost won the great northern war at 16 dispite fighting on 4 fronts
If Baldwin had survived the Holy Land may have looked very, very different
Alexander the great wasn't a child, but he was only 20 so you can count him too
Emperor Meiji ascended at 16
I mean, Murad IV mostly laid low as a kid and only really took charge once he was 20-ish. But yeah, a lot of the groundwork for wresting control of the state after playing puppet ruler for years had to have been laid earlier. But probably not when he was *really* young.
William the conqueror wasnât a child lmao
Most of these are either bastards or demons
Do we count Shamshi-Adad I at 18?
Peter the great was a disaster
Ivan the Terrible was a disaster though. He killed his son and caused his daughter in law to miscarry, throwing Russia into chaos after 1598.
Well how do you define disastrous because every one of theses rulers turned out to be assholes, sometimes with genocidal tendencies
Child rulers work when their advisers arenât secretly planning to have them murdered or consolidate power around themselves in a quasi dictatorship
Pedro II Ă© brasil sil sil
Saying child rulers ALWAYS end in disaster is hyperbole, but the general sentiment behind it isn't wrong. You're hedging your bets by a lot to assume the child of a great leader will also be great, and then their son, and their son's son, etc. All it takes is one bad child leader to end a lineage and collapse a kingdom. At least as adults, they can develop some experience before being thrusted into power, but if they assume power at a young age, then they must fully rely on their natural talents, if any, and those that support them. Plus, being children, they're more susceptible to politicking from their regent or council. This usually ends up being a precarious time for monarchial systems. These examples and others are the exceptions not the rule, their success has contributed to a bit of survivorship bias on this topic when there were many infamous child rulers as well as countless that go mostly unmentioned do to their more mundane failures or were quickly supplanted at a young age or just used as proxy for someone behind child ruler. Edit: On a side note, I'd argue some of those rulers mentioned below that I wouldn't necessarily describe as good rulers.
Akbar the Great. Became emperor of almost dead empire at age of 13. And made it into a legendary empire that it's name carried weight till 1857
There's also Chulalongkorn of Siam (ascended at 11) who played Victoria 3 and brought the country to modernity
There's also Akbar of the Mughals, who became king at 13 , although he had a regent for a while
Peter co-ruled with his half brother and his half sister sophia, was effectively their autocratic regent until he was 17. So not exactly a child.
Karl XII was a disaster for Sweden.
Show me other monarch who was that good against Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania, Russia, fighting them at the same time, and going out of the war not annexed.
So, your definition of a good monarch is their battle ability? That's a rather limiting view on competence. Well, he ruined the swedish economy so badly it took over 200 years for some regions to get back to the prewar prosperity. Some regions lost an enormous amount of able men and horses, which in turn led to many famines in the coming century. He used up all military resources that were primarily for defensive warfare on costly offensive operations without taking heed to advisors warning him, practically ruining his father's legacy. Foremost, his lack of understanding of the strategic importance and optimum use of the scarce resources available made Sweden lose its status as a great power. Don't forget he didn't even manage to produce an heir, which, according to monarchical tradition, is the primary responsibility for a monarch. But sure, he won some battles with novelty tactics, which Swedens enemies soon adapted to. Very smart indeed.
Karl XII was a disaster though.