Emperors; Czars; Kings:(not dictators)name two each-greatest/worst, and why you think so!?

Question

Just a compariative survey to try and determine the different ways, that people relate to these three identities.

Please list two of each: the greatest in your opinon, and the worst/and why they are your choice.

The emperors can be Chinese, Japanese or Roman; the Czars - I only know of Russian ones; the Kings, there were quite a few: any country, region, etc.; just so long as their title was/is King.

Am just interested in the different ways that everyone relates to this three(3) identities.

Wotan

Answer 1

I completely disagree with Alexander III of Russia as a bad monarch. Alexander became tsar after the death of his own father, Alexander II. The future Alexander III was heavily influenced by the behaviour of his father, who married his mistress and had children by his mistress. Alexander III hated his father.

Alexander III was also heavily influenced by Pobdonestev, a radical nationalist russian who taught Alexander about the autocracy and that as Tsar Alexander was directly responsible to god. WIth this background and watching his father murdered in 1881, Alexander saw democracy and constitution as leading to anarchy.

I do agree with the choice of King John of England - but i also want to add to the list King Edward II of England, King Louis XVI of France and Nicholas II of Russia. All of these men were completely unprepared for the tasks of being monarchs.

But for sheer brutality and violence, we have to add Cixi, the Dowager Empress of China - who had her stepson murdered and her own cousin thrown down a well. Catherine the Great of Russia had her husband murdered and also had Ivan VI, a former tsar that was deposed, murdered. Catherine also arranged the Russian expansion into the Northern Caucasus which led to centuries of russian domination and brutality in Chechnya. You might want to add Ivan the Terrible and possibly Vlad the Impaler.

You might want to add the Roman Emperors Domician, Nero, Claudius, Caligula. We could even add the early French king Clovis or even Edward I of England.

But i think we need to establish the benchmark for what is a bad king / good king. Sometimes, those kings which history regards as Great monarchs were also the most violent. Under the reign of British Queen Victoria, although a constitutional monarch, the British Empire expanded and conquered.

Another possible candidate - Belgian King Leopold, whose colonial expansionism in the Congo has left a bitter legacy of hate and violence which also carried on into Rwanda and led to the 1994 genocide. Watch the movie hotel Rwanda. The belgians were no angels.

Answer 2

Hmmm - - -so many choices and what qualifies as 'best' and what qualifies as 'worst.' Inneptitude, brutality, blandness? That said here goes - - -
Since I have recently finnished a bio of Czar Ferdinand of Bulgaria who was once a Prince without a country in 1887 when the new nation of Bulgaria felt that they needed a Monarch to steer them through the stormy shoals of European Politics. Though Ferdinand fumbled many a time the sheer fact he survived several assasination and guided Bulgaria to unprecedent levels of respect and founded a (brief) dynasty easing into comfortable exile in 1918 , well it qualifies him as an extraordinary man.

Also high on my list Emperor Hadrian for the Romans due to his relatively long reign and his accomplishments.

As for 'worst' one can't get much worse then Czar Alexander the III rd (rhymed with t^rd) who reigned over Russia from 1881 to 1894 with an iron hand. Brutal foul tempered a truly annoying person whose policies sown the seeds of revolution.

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/hornton/890/AlexanderIII.html
"""History tends to view Alexander III as a brutish despot. His only accomplishment being to strengthen his autocratic rule at the expense of the working class and peasantry. To his credit he stabilized the Russian government and maintained peace with his European and Asian neighbors. History is blessed with perfect hindsight. Alexander III, however, had no such luxury. He had no idea that the causes he cared for and the means at which he obtained them would cause the eventual destruction of the way of life and government he cherished so deeply. His canceling of the planned constitution set into motion events that would eventually take Russia to the brink of annihilation. The Tsar's inability or unwillingness to prepare his son Nicholas at an early age to rule as absolute autocrat further exacerbated the future events that would sweep over his Empire. Finally, Alexander was hopelessly out of touch with the emerging realities of a modern industrialized Russia. Autocratic rule was established at a time in Russian history when the nation was illiterate, uneducated, and attacked from foreign powers on all sides. That time was no more. At a time when the Russian government should have begun adjusting itself to the changing realities of the 19th Century, Alexander instead clung to and strengthened the autocracy. This is his greatest failure. He was a loving father and devoted husband. There is no doubt that he loved his country and fully expected to answer to God as to his accountability as Tsar. History has made its judgement. Should we ever presume to know God's? ""

Though for sheer stupity & venality there are reasons why the British Royal Family avoids the name John. King John was a t^rd of the foulest sort. The brutality of the murder of his nephew Arthur, his cruel despotoc rule, his sheer ability to anger & annoy everyone who came in contact with him was amazing.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/king_john.htm
Peace........... o o o p p o o p p o o

Answer 3

Kings:
Worse: Almothir ibn maa al sama, he was very brutal and heartless, one of the worse kings (from arabia) that was before islam
Best: the king of ghasasena, was during the same time of almonthir ibn ma el sama. He wanted to create peace and tranquility between the arabs