Post your Plantagenet rulers rankings (including York and Lancaster)
Henry IV > Edward III > Edward I > Henry II > Henry V > Edward IV > Henry III > Edward V > Richard III > John > Richard I > Henry VI > Richard II > Edward II
No "Normans were vikings" or "French civil war" memeing allowed in this thread please
>No "Normans were vikings" or "French civil war" memeing allowed in this thread please
Why would anyone even mention the Normans?
The Plantagenet were a French family from Anjou, not from Normandy
>"French civil war" memeing
I'd say the argument falls on both sides.
It's retarded to talk about nations in the middle ages, however the HYW heavily influenced the formation of French and English national identities. So you can't really describe it as a French civil war, or an Anglo-French war. More as a war lead by French nobles who ruled England against the French king(s)
Now that that's out of the way. The Plantagenets are my favorite English dynasty.
No Margaret of Anjou?
come on, what are your justifications?
Henry IV murdered his cousin and stole the throne, how the hell does he rank so high? A Murderer and a usurper
the best;
Henry V (warrior king)
Edward III (builder king)
Edward I (fucked the scots and the welsh up)
John (kicked the jews out)
Richard I (fucked the muslims... ish)
worst;
Edward II (faggot, fucked too many men)
Richard III (murderer & usurper)
Henry IV (murderer and usurper)
Henry VI (spastic cuck weirdo)
>Richard III
>murderer
>usurper
I think it was Edward I who expelled jews from England
OP here, was saying that just because that's what any thread where you mention the name Plantagenet devolves into instantly
Just for proper monarchs I meant to keep it simple, otherwise would have included John Duke of Bedford right at the top of the list.
Richard was a fucking terrible king, Henry IV was the paragon of a middle ages king, he went on multiple crusades in eastern Europe, he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (very few English/British monarchs have even been there to this day), he was by far the best educated monarch of his dynasty, he took family very seriously, survived countless assassination attempts, developed excellent relationships with rulers around Europe before he was even king whilst Richard simply didn't bother for the most part.
Honestly Henry IV is the most underrated king of all time.
Henry V was excellent but I don't think he reigned long enough to be called the best
Edward III was indeed great but I think you might be confusing him with Henry III if you are calling him the builder king
Edward I kicked the Jews out not John
Richard I was a terrible king who bankrupted England for his glory pursuits without giving a shit about anything other than Aquitaine
and on Henry IV read my post above
Agreed, Richard "the lionheart" aka "dude crusades lmao" was a meme king romanticized beyond immagination by Disney&co.
>Just for proper monarchs
She was the leader of the Lancastrians, a French Queen. Her husband was Henry VI and was an impotent eunuch in the the Wars of the Roses, many people described Henry as a simpleton, with Margaret retaining the strategic decisions of the monarchy.
...
Not denying that she was de facto head of the Lancaster dynasty for quite a while but I was really simplifying it down to those who ruled in their own right rather than on behalf of another, or else we'd be including a pretty long list with people like Roger Mortimer and Isabella Capet.
Although I am interested to see where you would place her compared to the actual born members of the dynasty?
Even better, make a list of heirs who never got to wear their crown.
I would've liked to seen King Alphonso. How would you degenerate protestants reconciled that name to your Anglo Saxon utopia?
Reminder that England was the last acquisition of this Western French Empire
Kinda tough to rank how well someone who died when they were ten compared to monarchs who actually reigned for a decent amount of time though?
Well you're wrong because Ireland was added later?
True, but I was just thinkin the other day passively, it might make an interesting book, maybe titled "The Princes Who Never became Kings", or something similar.
It would be nice to write about this Princes, filling in the blanks with the background politics of the King and their replacements, coming to some sort of alternative conclusion to each fallen heir.
I actually like this idea, if it was a book of sort of comparing what little we know about princes who died prematurely, to who actually inherited and their decisions.
The major examples that would have the most evidence to lead toward actual analysis would most likely be Henry the Young King, The Black Prince, Geoffrey of Brittany. Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March would be an interesting one, seeing the whole Wars or the Roses side stepped, and if Edward of Westminster had lived to continue the Lancaster claim properly.
What other cool examples can you think that I've missed?
Well I was only thinking of Alphonso with a possible crusade against the Almoravids if he had become King.
Plus the obvious Princes in the Tower.
Interesting, honestly I don't know too much about Spain around that time, do you think Alphonso would have been particularly more Spanish compared to Edward II though? Considering they both had the same parents and Edward II didn't really seem to pay much attention to Spain, then again Edward II didn't pay much attention to anything that could really be considered constructive.
Would be cool seeing Parts of Spain under the English crown sort of like Gascony was.
Oh and speaking of the Princes in the Tower, Richard III himself had a son who died young as well, another possible one for the hypothetical book.
Well Spain was reconquisted by then, but from what I've read, his mother was pushing his Castilian heritage upon him.
So where would he crusade to, and what lands might he have tried to claim?
Never even thought about this kid before but this is turning out to be a pretty interesting alternate history
While Richard wasn't a good king, being a good general is what the Angevin Empire needed at the time with Philip Augustus expanding. He could have kept hold of Northern France, where as John couldn't hold together his own barons.
I mean compared to John England would have been better off with Louis VIII.
Well I would've taken North Africa before heading to take Egypt.
The Crusaders wanted to conquer Egypt, to me it would be logical to take North Africa first, then push on from there.
I don't know anything about post reconquista Spain, but it seems logical to finish of your enemies in North Africa.
North Africa could've been an alternate Crusade launch point, also surely it would've been easier to sail from Europe to Algeria-Tunisia.
John gets an undeserved bad reputation