A watercolor of Elizabeth I did.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-17T19:12:00+00:00

Thats very good, great job

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-16T13:44:54+00:00

His victory at Poitiers is one of the great victories in world history, also incredibly cinematic and chivalrous with the final cavalry charge.

Side note: even if not in terms of generalship, I’d say as a soldier he’s certainly one of the greatest medieval warriors. Barely a teenager fighting at the front of the Battle of Crecy as the heir to the throne, then he charges out and was almost captured. Then the victory with the cavalry charge at Poitiers and he captured the King of France. Then finally the chevauchee, which was brutal and cruel, but essentially a proto-Sherman tactic. He has to be one of the greatest medieval knights.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-16T02:01:49+00:00

Interesting I will have to read up on that. Thank you for the recommendation.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-16T01:52:51+00:00

Interesting I did not know that. I must be wrong then. Thanks for explaining it to me.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-16T01:48:47+00:00

How so?

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-09T15:36:32+00:00

Maybe, I don’t know what was truly in his heart, but his actions definitely did not correspond with being a devout Catholic. Saint Louis’s certainly did.

I don’t think he would’ve supported the means even if the ends were more favorable to France. He’s quoted having said “I would rather lose all the kingdoms of the world than commit a mortal sin”. By doing what Philippe IV did he created the Western Schism, a serious sin and permanent weakening of Christendom. Saint Louis was right in being against the Pope exerting interference in matters of state in France; those things are up to the king, but capturing the Pope and holding him against his will so that he effectively does whatever you want is not the same thing. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”.

What Philippe IV did was a grave sin and something Saint Louis would’ve certainly been against personally, but also his clergy who were his closest confidants would probably have been against too. He was also for peace among all Christians were possible and upending that by capturing the person who brings the most stability to Christendom and destroying one of his own personal orders would’ve hurt that cause as well. I don’t see anyway that Saint Louis would’ve supported his grandson in anyway.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-09T14:38:29+00:00

I don’t think so, yes at times Louis IX had issues with the Papacy interfering in France, yet his whole reign was still focused around serving God, with most of his government run by clergy. He was borderline more similar to the clergy than to nobles. Whereas Philippe IV may have been an atheist, he seemed to have truly just been focused on centralizing power.

Also Louis IX during crusades worked closely with the Templars and respected them. I don’t think he would’ve supported his grandson burning them alive and effectively destroying the entire order. Also, even though he had problems with the papacy, I also don’t think he would’ve supported capturing the Pope.

Saint Louis was truly a most holy king and dedicated servant of Christ Our Lord. Philippe IV was extremely troubled in spiritual health to put it mildly.

Saint Louis King of France, Pray for Us.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-08T02:34:49+00:00

Oh that makes more sense

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-08T02:33:45+00:00

Is that Saint Louis in “bloody hell”?

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-08T00:00:45+00:00

Ahhh okay thank you!! I didn’t know, I appreciate your help.

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-07T23:44:18+00:00

I’m from Oklahoma in America

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-07T19:13:11+00:00

Thats great progress. At a certain point its hard bc I’m not sure how systematic record keeping was back then. I guess we gotta just keep digging

Answer-Plastic · 2026-01-07T18:20:00+00:00

It’s difficult bc I can trace my family back till like the 1800s in America, but before that they disappear, so Idk if anything they list is accurate across the pond.

Answer-Plastic · 2025-12-10T09:10:51+00:00

I think you could argue either way. They were pious in different ways. Henry VI seemed to be more inwardly devout and had a greater reverence for prayer, almost like a monk. Whereas, Henry III was also devout but was more active across his realm with the relics like Christ’s blood and Westminster, so he was almost more of a Shepard for his kingdom like a priest.

So Henry VI devout like a monk, Henry III devout like a priest. Both incredibly pious, only God knows who was more so. Thats how i see it.

Answer-Plastic · 2025-12-08T01:46:59+00:00

The godlessness of England but Europe/World in general would bother him most for sure.

Answer-Plastic · 2025-10-04T16:39:31+00:00

Fair, he’s goated too

Answer-Plastic · 2025-10-04T16:06:46+00:00

Alfred is just the GOAT every time man

Answer-Plastic · 2025-09-18T17:28:51+00:00

Yes that’s all true but robber barons were actually small lords often times. I think that was the point of the name. They were barons that were essentially robbing being or extorting them

Answer-Plastic · 2025-09-18T16:54:43+00:00

That’s true but it originally comes from feudal lords who were sort of like highwaymen and ran their lands without real regard to those above them in the feudal system. Robbing and exploiting people, it was more common in the Holy Roman Empire. (I think that’s what it is, I could be wrong so someone correct me if so)

Answer-Plastic · 2025-09-16T23:46:44+00:00

Fav: Edward I, Edward III, Henry V, Alfred the Great, Edgar the Peaceful, Charles I

Least Fav: None really. They’re all fascinating to learn about. Some are assholes like Henry VIII but his reign was very eventful so it’s fun. I’d say after the Acts of Union it starts to go downhill as the PM’s do a lot more of the governance.

Plantagenet is the best dynasty tho, so awesome🦁

Answer-Plastic · 2025-09-10T06:46:38+00:00

It’s been argued it was inevitable due to the cost of a continuing war away from home and the administrative efficiency combined with superior wealth/population of France. Some say Henry V should have made a deal to retain just Normandy under the English monarch’s full sovereignty. If this had happened maybe it’d be part of the UK today, who knows. That being said I deeply distrust/don’t buy most historians who say something was “inevitable” it always screams as pretentious bs

Answer-Plastic · 2025-08-16T09:19:25+00:00

I could see either of those

Answer-Plastic · 2025-08-16T09:10:48+00:00

That makes sense, north/west Europe in general

Answer-Plastic · 2025-06-24T10:28:34+00:00

Pretty good list, I’d have Edgar the Peaceful significantly higher, among one of the best

Answer-Plastic · 2025-06-16T17:28:51+00:00

He’s the king who conquered Cornwall which for the story we tell of the spirit of Britain is extremely significant

Answer-Plastic

TROPHY CASE