Most Influential Medieval Europeans

[Rufus]

Post your top 5.

This is off the top of my head, but:

5. Simon de Montfort - pioneer of reforms that led to development of Parliament and representative, limited government

4. Geoffrey Chaucer - democratized literature and wrote the first major works in English. Without him, no Shakespeare, arguably.

3. William the Conqueror - established a strong, effective government for England and ensured a strong English role in Continental affairs for centuries. Also ushered in strong French influence to Anglo-Saxon culture and language to produce medieval and modern English hybrid.

2. Justinian the Great - his Roman code of law arguably formed the basis for the laws of most modern European countries

1. Charlemagne - father of modern France and Germany; spread Christianity and firmly established the strength of the Church in the heart of the Continent.

I admit my knowledge of medieval history outside of England is very limited, so looking forward to other responses

[Auxilia]

Good call on all of those, Rufus Here are a few of mine:-

Jan Hus - an early critic of the abuses of the Roman church who died for his beliefs, but whose beliefs lived on after his death and inspired.....

....Jan Zizka - a superb military thinker who shaped an armed gang into a fighting force that was more than a match for any army that stood against it, and that only suffered ultimate downfall due to internal divisions.

Joan of Arc - arguably a mere figurehead but who persuaded the French that the English were beatable.

Ferdinand and Isabella - the 'Catholic Kings' who united Spain - completed the Reconquista, and then translated that fanaticism into the foundations of an Empire that lasted into the last century.

Owain Glyndwr - for giving us Welsh a last decent stab at nationhood https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Brian Boru: Giving the irish the will to fight against viking encroachment

Jan ziska: For all the reasons aux said and much, much more

Skanenberg: Fighting against overwhelming force and protecting his country from any turk inroads

Any of the english war captains who fought in the early times of the HYW( 1346 through 1399)

Any Ottoman sultan after Nicopolis to the siege of malta in 1565


There are loads more though mates.

[Pindar]

1) Augustine

2) Guttenburg

3) Charlemagne

4) Aquinas

5) Urban II/ William the Conqueror

Honorable mention: Gregory VII

[lonewolf371]

This is based on what seems to have some prevalence in this thread that the Medieval period lasted form the fall of the Roman Empire to the Reconquista and Renaissance.

1) Emperor Justinian I
Recreated in part Roman Empire, set the stage for countless clashes with other kingdoms in Italy.

2) Emperor Leo III
This is a surprising one. Many people believe that Muslim expansion in Europe was halted at the battle of Tours, but this is hardly the case. At Tours Moslem expansion was already almost stretched to its limit and dying out, whereas at Byzantium massive forces of Saracens were attempting to overthrow the remaining Romans. Leo III led the Byzantines against the Saracens and defeated two of their massive fleets in addition to halting a massive siege of Constantinople and forcing the Saracens to retreat out of Asia Minor. He also afterwards led a clash with the Pope over the subject of iconoclasm (er something rather, worship of icons if you please).

3) Charlemagne
Set traditions for use of heavy cavalry in Western Europe, in addition to becoming a subject for poets and ambitious kings many years after.

4) Pope Urban II
For obvious regions, he was probably the sole largest architect of the Crusades which later lead to the Renaissance as Crusaders brought back home Moslem ideas and news of places beyond (China). The Crusades were probably the most influential event regarding the eventual outcome of the Renaissance and Urban II was responsible for that.

5) Richard Coeur de Lion
He was probably the sole largest architect of the Third Crusade, in addition to the fact that he set the precedant for the Hundred Years War with his conflicts with France.

[redrooster]

If "european" means any person residing on the continent.

1) Augustine

2) Averroes (ibn Rushd)

3) Gutenberg

4) King John "Lackland" for signing the Magna Carta

5) Emperor Frederick II/Pope Innocent III (opposite ends of the state/religion spectrum)

[-Isapostolos-]

To name a few other important people:

)Enrico Dandalo (sp). The Doge who ferried and helped the crusaders of the 4th crusade take Constantinople by sea. The Turkish conquest of Anatolia and Europe were a matter of time thanks to his efforts and their peoples condemned for 500 years of muslim rule.

)Alexius Komnenos who triggered the crusading era (you could also thank Alp Arslan or Romanos Diogenes)

)El cid

)any of the Medici

)The Norman Sicilian Robert Guiscard and his line

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Macchivelli

[Red Peasant]

Erasmus.

[meravelha]

1) Augustine

2) Guttenburg

3) Charlemagne

4) Aquinas

5) Urban II

(not plagarism but commendation)

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]1) Augustine

2) Guttenburg

3) Charlemagne

4) Aquinas

5) Urban II

(not plagarism but commendation)



Ahhh, a man of sound judgement. A salute https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[meravelha]

It seems to me that significant structural changes to the state of affairs are very rarely effected by generals.

Systemic change requires that the behaviours of a very large numbers of people change.

So it is that ideas, presented and adopted by a widening circle of people, change what is considered to be possible or desirable; shift the aganda. We might have included Luther if we'd considered him 'medieval'.

Charlemagne is an interesting case. Not merely for the creation of the Christian West or the Holy Roman Empire, but for adoption of the informal ties of homage as the basis of Carolingian government.

Urban II for appealing over the heads of sovereigns to the laity - giving official sanction to the mass movements of popular piety that were at length destined to break the church militant ;)

[Hurin_Rules]

1) Augustine

2) Guttenburg

3) Charlemagne

4) Aquinas

5) Urban II/ William the Conqueror

Honorable mention: Gregory VII

OMG, Pindar and I actually agree on something.

Maybe there is a God after all.

Well, ok, I'd make a few slight changes. I'd probably add Otto the Great rather than William the Conqueror, and maybe add Innocent III as an honourable mention, but that's quibbling ~:cheers:

[spmetla]

1) Emperor Justinian
2) Charles Martel (You guys are all forgetting him!!!)
3) Charlemagne
4) Pope Urban II
5) Emperor Alexius

Looking at some of the earlier posts the Dark Ages are being included as medieval europe which influenced my list.

[JANOSIK007]

Do you Auxilia and B K o Bohemia have any Czech rootes or are you just bohemian history enthusiasts?

I would also include Hus and Zizka.

Lot of Westerners miss the importance of these poeple. On my History 101 course my professor merelly mentioned Hus's name and that was all (in fact he mispronounced it, he said John Has-u as in a).

Zizka is definitelly one of the best generals who gets forgotten by historians. To mold peasantry into a fighting unit able to destroy not one crusaders army is briliant. He's famous for transforming ordinary wagons into war wagons and using them in battles. His armies set up walls of these things and from protected positions the rebels would shot down any approaching soldiers. Also the weapons they used were noteworthy. Some were just converted tools like 'cepy' which were used to beat out the seeds from wheat.

And from my culture I would add Svatopluk (9th c.) and Samo (7th c.). I know they're out of the Medieval period, but since some put Charlamagne on their lists I decided to put these two. First one was a King of newly established (by his grand Uncle Mojmir) Great Moravian Empire. He managed to make it independent from Frankish influence and even expanded its borders by incorporating Bohemia, southern Poland including Krakow, Panonia (present day Hungary), some parts of Austria, and snatched some from Bulgarian kingdom. Samo was a Frankish merchant who united western Slavic tribes and managed to free them from raiding Avars. He also defeated the Frankish invasion.

[Red Peasant]

Augustine was extremely influential but he operated in a classical Christian milieu, not medieval. Also, he was North African, not European.

And personally, I think the Roman Empire of Justinian most definitely belonged to the world of [late] antiquity, not to the medieval world. At best, it was transitional.

[Hurin_Rules]

The medieval period has generally been reckoned to have lasted from the Fall of Rome to the Reniassance. For the Fall of Rome, any dates between 312 (the Battle of Milvian Bridge) and 476 CE (deposition of the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus) are reasonable. The Renaissance began in Italy in the 14th century, and in northern Europe at the end of the 15th.

Augustine could therefore be seen as a medieval figure. I grant that scholars nowadays speak of Late Antiquity as its own distinct and transitional period, but I would have to argue that by the time of his death in 430 CE, the Middle Ages had begun in many areas of Europe.

Your point that he was not really a European, however, is well taken.

[noramis]

Frederick II is listed, but hardly at all. His unique personality, wit and ideas rocked conventional thinking at the time.

[Mount Suribachi]

You definately have to include one or more of Jan Huus/William Tyndale/John Wycliffe as they were the forefathers of the Reformation, and in their own way were just as important as Luther.

[fenir]

Augustus Ceasar Alexius Komnenos,

Just a note, the letter for aid that the vatican has always said came, has never ever been produced, most historians do not believe it was ever sent.
It is now considered to be non exsistant, unless someone can produce the letter, Augustus Ceasar Alexius I did not request any help from the West. In fact they where the source of all his troubles.



NOTE: Medieval is considered to be from ~873AD So Justianian cannot be in this time period.
And while he did produce and code the great laws of the Romans, he was in fact a tyrant.

Though I would say Augustus Ceasar Alexius I would be my choice. Also King John of England, as he signed the first Manga Carta, therefore the English are the fathers of modern Demoracy.
Along with him, Simon de Montfort.

Charlemagne, is also not a medieval period role.


fenir

[Hurin_Rules]

Augustus Ceasar Alexius Komnenos,

Just a note, the letter for aid that the vatican has always said came, has never ever been produced, most historians do not believe it was ever sent.
It is now considered to be non exsistant, unless someone can produce the letter, Augustus Ceasar Alexius I did not request any help from the West. In fact they where the source of all his troubles.



NOTE: Medieval is considered to be from ~873AD So Justianian cannot be in this time period.
And while he did produce and code the great laws of the Romans, he was in fact a tyrant.

Though I would say Augustus Ceasar Alexius I would be my choice. Also King John of England, as he signed the first Manga Carta, therefore the English are the fathers of modern Demoracy.
Along with him, Simon de Montfort.

Charlemagne, is also not a medieval period role.


fenir

The actual letter has not been produced, but there is a later copy that might be genuine. I think the jury is still out.

Where do you get the date of 873 from? No offense, but that is just plain wrong. I am a professor of medieval history at a Canadian university and have never read or heard anyone claiming a start date of 873. You will find that most textbooks have the Middle Ages beginning with the fall of Rome (c. 312-476). Most encyclopedias will as well. Charlemagne is one of the most important medieval figures, and I have never met a single historian who would describe him as anything other than a medieval figure. Justinian perhaps you might consider a late antique figure, but Charlemagne is most assuredly medieval.

[noramis]

We always learned it was 1066 and the battle of hastings...

[fenir]

Encyclopedia Britannica, 8:107:2b
Period ~395AD until ~ 1000AD or UK 395AD -1066AD

Qoute:
This decline, persisted throughout the period of time sometimes called the "Dark Ages", or "The Early Middle Ages".
End Quote:

Mainly because i can't be bothered getting any others, that will have to do as an example, sorry, very lazy today. And you said encyclopedia's.

I guess it depends on which side of the world u are taught? As i know in both New Zealand and when I was in the UK, we were taught, Dark Age --then--->Medieval......Which is the Middle Ages.
Hence Middle Ages

[Hurin_Rules]

Ok, now I understand where you are coming from, but I think you're confusing some things. Note that the encyclopedia said the Dark Ages were synonymous with the EARLY Middle Ages. The Middle Ages therefore includes this period. The EARLY Middle Ages (sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages, although historians don't use that term much anymore) lasted from the fall of Rome to about 1050-1066. Then the High Middle Ages began, and lasted till about 1300. Then, the Late Middle Ages began, and lasted till about 1500 or so. Now, some areas did not have a late Middle Ages-- Italy went right into the Renaissance in 1300. But the central point is that the "Middle Ages" include the Early Middle Ages. 'Medieval' is just an adjective that means exactly the same as the substantive Middle Ages. Medieval comes from the Latin medio (middle) and aevum (age). So the terms Medieval period and Middle Ages are synonyms.

Now, some historians have recently introduced a new periodization, which calls what used to be called the Dark Ages 'Late Antiquity' (actually, they have late antiquity ending slightly earlier than the Dark Ages did, but lets not complicate things). That's why I said you might consider Justinian to be a late antique figure. But even those historians who speak of 'late antiquity' consider Charlemagne's empire to have begun a new age, and a distinctly medieval one.

I know this can be complicated; I usually take the first class of all my courses to explain this in detail, as it trips a lot of people up. Anyway, that's where things stand with historians right now. Charlemagne was a medieval figure any way you slice it.

~:cheers:

[fenir]

Pax vobiscum Hurin Rules,

there was more to my post...i don't know what happened to it. ~:mecry:

I will try and fill in quickly. ~:confused:

IT DID IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fenir]

Hurin Rules, I re-re-re read your post, sorry i am just far to tired lately.

Yes, you have it in a nutz sack.






Now, some historians have recently introduced a new periodization, which calls what used to be called the Dark Ages 'Late Antiquity' (actually, they have late antiquity ending slightly earlier than the Dark Ages did, but lets not complicate things). That's why I said you might consider Justinian to be a late antique figure. But even those historians who speak of 'late antiquity' consider Charlemagne's empire to have begun a new age, and a distinctly medieval one.


I want to know more..........send me info?
Anything? I do miss studing history.
About that only thing i miss from University is the books. It's like having your own personal library.

e-mail in the profile i think

fenir

[Hurin_Rules]

I want to know more..........send me info?
Anything? I do miss studing history.
About that only thing i miss from University is the books. It's like having your own personal library.


If you're interested in that period, I would recommend Peter Brown's book, The World of Late Antiquity. If you don't have access to a library, you can get it in paper back at Amazon.com for pretty cheap. It is aimed at the general reader rather than academic specialists and gives a good overview of the period. It also shows how the different successors of the Roman empire (Islamic, Byzantine and Latin Christian) gradually diverged and became their own distinct civilizations.