The reason why Peter III did what he did was insane: dude was legit a fanboy for Frederick the Great, and was sending the dude literal fucking fan mail. I get the feeling the guy is just some time travelling history hipster who got too carried away.
Or maybe he was just smart enough to not dissimilate Prussia, because Russia have no conflicts with Prussia and also Prussian lands was pretty trash, on the other side it was benefiting France-big russian enemy and Austria with which Russia have conflicts in Balkans, so defeat of Prussia would result in practically no gains for Russia and destruction of balance in Europe. Also, everybody forgets that peace treaty with Prussia was not just “ oh God I love you Freiderick, there is white peace” but included Prussian obligation to help Russia in a war for Slesvig-Holstein( that means controlling almost all of baltic trade) and in a war for Swedish succession( coz Peter 3 had a claim on their throne) but it didn’t came to life, and coz he was literally killed by his wife, she did big job in vilification of his legacy so 300 years after some r&tards would call him the worst tsar of Russia, history is written by the winners
@@luden1577 But Russia needs ports there lol. Remember St. Petersburg? It can't be used on Winter due to cold temperature. That's not the case with Konigsberg.
@@arkcliref big brain right there, Russia hold Riga since northern war and I’m repeating once again, ports in Slesvig-holstein would benefit Russia 10 times more than useless prussian lands
It is 3 AM. I do not need sleep. I want to watch someone rank every Russian Tsar from Ivan the Terrible to Nicholas II. This is truly what I want from my temporary life.
The 1st is obviously Ivan VI (no, not Ivan IV). He was literally incapable of making any bad decisions (or any decisions for that matter) and he has a great portrait, so that's one good thing he caused and zero bad things.
But Peter the great is simply the best Russian Tsar ever with his 43 year reing, when created St petersburg and was so great ruler to give a lot succes to Russia, while Ivan the great did not do any bad decisions. He still didnt make much good decisions that top what Peter the Great did, so Ivan the sixth got for that reason sixth spot in the list.
Personally I kind of feel bad for Alexander II, he was genuinely trying to implement some desperately needed reforms and drag Russia into the modern era. Plus the bitter irony that he was assassinated by people mad he wasn't reforming Russia fast enough, only for them to get Alexander III out of it, is the sort of dark humour you so often hear associated with Russia.
I would have ranked him or Catherine first. Peter the Great adopted some modern ideas but he was an tyrant that adopted the more absolutist ideas without taking in any liberalism. And we all know what that led to.
To add even more irony to that he was assassinated on the day he was going to form the first Russian parliament. The liberals were literally this close to a parliamentary democracy and they threw it all away.
But it's quite normal that the people don't revolt against the tyrants but against the reformists. Tyrants rule with iron fist and don't tolerate any criticism. Reformers give the people hope for better future so they make them mad for not making reforms fast and effective enough. Look at China for example. Nobody revolted against Mao but against Deng Xiaoping they did. And there are a lot of other examples in history.
Yeah! Can't blame it but he kinda adopt some of change but ultimately he failed remember when he freed the serfs, he doesn't realize that the serfs doesn't have any other skills than planting crops and one of the biggest moves that he shouldn't do is marrying his mistress cause not only that the marriage is not oko with Alexander's family, it wasn't even oki with nobility and the people
About Ivan the Terrible's wife: For the time period Mercury was considered highly medicinal and was administered in enormous quantities by physicians. It's possible her mercury poisoning was the result of a well-intentioned (but obviously dumb in hindsight) medical therapy. Equally possible, Ivan may have been drinking lots of mercury for the same reason and this could have much to do with his mental deterioration in his life.
Throughout other parts of the world as well. The first Chinese emperor, Qin Shi Huang, took elixirs of mercury believing they would elongate his life. Instead, he died at 49.
Ivan had several things that could have led to his mental instability. A truly HORRIFIC and brutal early life, paranoia about constant backstabbing, Mercury poisoning, etc.
Ryan, toxic heavy metals had been used for centuries to cure many types of maladies. If they worked (most unlikely) it was the result more of a strong constitution than any efficacy of the "physic". I believe mercury was used as treatment for syphilis well into the 19th century. It wasn't until the early 20th century that Paul Erlich discovered an organic arsenic compound that actually worked. Today a shot or two of penicillin will do the trick. The work of Fleming, Florey, Chain was truly epoch making.
Kinda harsh on Peter II tbh. You don't exactly expect an eleven year old kid to guide the country on his own. His health also wasn't the best, so he died at the age of 14. Fun fact: He was the last of Romanov's male bloodline.
However his reign was not good and sadly the other Russian leaders somehow screw up less than he did (I was expecting that spectrum was going to put Nicholas II in the second worst place)
The funny thing is that Alexei the Peaceful was actually pretty tough on the whole. Remember the Salt Riot and the Copper Riot - major urban uprisings which were brutally and bloodily crushed. Do not underestimate Alexei Mikhailovich, he deserves a higher place...
@@appolyon3124 so slavery was common back then most of the historical figures you admire probably had slaves I'm not saying it's right but you shouldn't judge back then with modern morals
Timestamps for Tsars in chronological order: Ivan IV (the Terrible): 9:29 Feodor I (the Bellringer): 3:21 Boris Godunov: 7:10 Feodor II: 4:17 False Dimitry I: 4:30 Vasily IV: 4:49 Michael I: 8:38 Alexis I: 7:29 Feodor III: 6:54 Ivan V: 5:47 Peter I (the Great): 14:11 Catherine I: 5:19 Peter II: 1:52 Anna Ivanovna: 8:05 Ivan VI: 3:49 Elizabeth Petrovna: 10:53 Peter III: 0:59 Catherine II (the Great): 13:26 Paul I: 6:07 Alexander I (the Blessed): 11:31 Constantine: 4:02 Nicholas I: 2:51 Alexander II (the Liberator): 12:21 Alexander III (the Peacemaker): 6:30 Nicholas II: 2:15
Fun fact: after Peter III was dethroned and killed, there was a rumour in both Russia and Montenegro that he lived. That opportunity was used by a man from Dalmatia (modern day Croatia) who looked a lot like the former emperor. He came to Montenegro and managed to convince most of the people there that he was Peter III. Stephen the little (Šćepan Mali) as he was known soon became the ruler of Montenegro in the year of 1767 he was actually a good leader having almost completely stoped blood vengeance, theft and murder in Montenegro. He was later betrayed and killed by his friend working for the Ottomans, who weren’t happy with an idea of a Russian emperor in charge of Montenegro.
Being from Russia, I always wondered why Ivan was called The Terrible by the west. First and foremost, that's not the correct translation, in Russia we call him Иван Грозный, which translates as Ivan the Formidable. I think it gives a better idea to what kind of person he was. He was surrounded by enemies 24/7 but managed to hold the throne against all odds, and honestly he wasn't a bad ruler. Of course he was paranoid, but such were the times in Russia back then, he could be killed easily if he wasn't careful. Also, he was pretty damn smart. There are still his original letters you could read, that he sent to his opponents, and they contain some pretty sick burns. He was well educated and overall definitely not Terrible.
The original meaning of terrible was anything that causes terror. That meaning still applies, but mostly people stopped using it like that in favor of being a word for anything really bad. So, Ivan the Terrible is a name that used to make more sense in English but the language changed a bit.
Funfact: in the late 17th century tsar Peter the great came to amsterdam because he wanted to learn all about shipbuilding and tactics, when he was watching a demonstration battle he was so impressed that he took the colours of the Dutch flag and switched them around, creating the modern Russian flag.
Well, he was impressed and indeed had a high influence from Dutch people, but the flag of Russian Empire was kinda different tho. It was black-yellow-white. The modern one was proposed only in 1990-s.
@@Designer-Speech7143 "It remained in use until 1858, when the first official flag of the Russian Empire was decreed by Alexander II, which was a tricolour consisting of three horizontal fields: black on the top, yellow in the middle, and white on the bottom. A decree in 1896 reinstated the white, blue, and red tricolour as the official flag of the Russian Empire until the Revolution of 1917." Russian flag they use today is still used first
@@drpepper3838 My apologies then, I thought you meant official flag. Plus, I didn't know about it's reinstallation in 1896, seems I found something to search.
I would argue that Paul I should be higher on the list, since he multiple reforms, many of which were anti-aristocratic in nature and which ultimately led to his demise (such as lifting the ban on corporal punishments for the aristocracy, cruelty towards serfs by their owners becoming a crime, and it being harder to evade from serving in the army). History doesn't do him justice, as Paul I was preceded and succeeded by both Catherine II and Alexander I, respectively, which lasted way longer than him, both disliked him, and both are considered to be two of the greatest Russian monarchs
@@nebojsag.5871 What was worse, If you DID not allow your troops to rape and not treating your subjects as actual living things, you were a bad Tzar. Peter the great, for all his glory, was a malicious man, forced serfs into building the initial fortifications at modern day Petersburg and took many finns during his "great fury" and forced them into labour and his army acted like the Soviets in Ruthenia, Poland and Germany....
Alexander did not dislike Paul. Alexander always wanted to please Paul, surrounded himself with people who would please his father. But his father called him "grandmother's favorite" (Catherine loved her grandson very much and wanted to make her male copy out of him. She almost succeeded, but Paul ntervened). Alexander became victim of the conflict between Catherine and Paul. He rushed between his grandmother and father. Maybe you didn’t know, but when Alexander was born, he was taken away from his parents, just as Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, the daughter of Peter the Great, once took Paul away from Catherine and Peter 3. Paul became the victim of a conspiracy of aristocrats. Alexander knew about conspiracy, but did not intervene, as he thought that his father was simply overthrown, but did not expect that he would be killed. After that, he blamed himself for what happened, some called him a parricide (including Napoleon). Any bad event that occurred in Russia, whether it was the flood of St. Petersburg in 1824 or the invasion of Napoleon, he associated with God's punishment for all his sins. He was constantly haunted by the ghost of his father and, as contemporaries said, in the last years of his life he was in melancholy, that is, depressed. At the beginning of his reign, Alexander took up reforms, he had a lot of good goals, but 1812 was a turning point in his reign, and at the end he completely withdrew from power.Each person decides for himself whether Alexander was a great tsar or not, but for me he will always remain like a small hothouse flower who needed a psychologist in difficult moments of his life.
Please all vote for the French monarchs next time ! We have one that had the bright idea of dancing in the dark, carrying torches while wearing a flamable costume ! (yes, it ended exactly as you expect it to, though this fool survived and reigned for a long time afterwards...)
@@causantinthescot I disagree, he never managed to get a durable peace (not for lack of trying). He surely ranks very high but I cannot put him above Louis XIV for example.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine You have so many god-tier French kings actually : Philip Augustus, Saint-Louis, Philip the Fair, Charles V the Wise, Charles VI the Victorious, Louis XI the Universal Spider, maybe Francis I, Henry IV the great, Louis XIII the Just and Louis XIV the Sun king. You could add several kings of the Franks in he decides to go back to Clovis. If he does a video about them, it's not his top 3 that is going to be hard to determine, it's his top 10!
Well, Peter III was literally against his own country's interest. The ONLY thing he got out of that treaty with Prussia was the restoration of some territory of his home country (Holstein) that NO ONE in Russia cared about. He care more about Holstein than Russia and really could care less about ruling the country. That's why pretty much no one batted an eye when Catherine deposed him. Of course, Catherine was hard on trying to be as Russian as possible despite also from Germany. She converted to Russian Orthodoxy faith. She learn Russian pretty quickly. She's also adapt at playing politics getting the nobles on her side and getting influential army officer as her lover.
@@dyingearth All excellent points! Peter was useless, in the he literally did nothing and then got deposed sense, so def think his position is well earned. Still think Nicholas lucked out that someone so monumentally incompetent beat him to the bottom tho haha
@@jmequeenbee4339 One way Catherine got the military on board was to cancelled Peter's planned war against Denmark to reclaim some Holstein land. This is something the Russian military was utterly not interested in.
Nicholas II was very mediocre. But then he started WW1, prevented his army from doing better, and then left Russia to a bloody civil war. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.
12:56 this photo is from Senate Square in Helsinki, Finland, which is basically the most famous place of our country. The statue still stands there, even though we've been independent for over 100 years now, so you can see that we really appreciate tsar Alexander's reign. After he died things took a really sinister turn
Finns of all segments of the population collected money for this statue. Why remove the monument to the tsar, who gave many freedoms to the people? What a pity he left so early.
List of ranking requests: Every English/British Monarch Every Swedish Monarch Every Pope Every US President Every King of France Every Persian Monarch List of meme requests for April Fools Day: Every Brazilian Emperor, all two of them Every German Emperor, after unification, all three of them Every French Republic
@@saxo689 I'm not competent in history, so don't take my opinion seriously, but I'd say the best one is John XXIII or Paul VI because of the second vatican council. For the worst one, I really don't know, but I'm sure there's a very long list of bad popes where to choose from. What about you? Who would you pick as the best and worst one?
In Montenegro, there was a random peasant dude who falsely presented himself as Peter III after Peter was ousted. He was declared Emperor of Montenegro and is generally regarded as a progressive and centralist ruler.
As a Russian, this is the first time I hear about him, but I read the entire Russian Wikipedia about him and I liked him. He is a cooler Peter 3. He was a smart person, which cannot be said about original Peter 3. So many funny moments have been described in Wikipedia. For example, the Montenegrins swore allegiance to Catherine 2, but they did not consider that this contradicted their loyalty to her "husband" and the tsar. Or when the people learned that the Russians had left Montenegro, they broke into the prison and fell into despair when they did not find their tsar there, whom they wanted to release. But it turns out that the Russians released him before they left.
Actually, even though it seems that Saint-Petersburg is named after Peter The Great, it's named after the St Peter who is an apostle. Peter I never liked to show off and wasn't interested in "fancy" stuff. Hello from Saint-Petersburg :D
But let's be honest, Peter the Great didn't name this grand city he built St. Paulsburg or St. Josephsburg or St. Marysburg. He named it St. Petersburg. He chose this very particular saint for a very obvious reason...
Like literally he’s THE BEST EMPEROR EVER. Period. His ambasaddord took a small black kid who was a son of the village chief. Instead of making him his slave/servant Peter took him as his son, eductaed him (the kid was very smart already) and became his godfather. That kid would become a great general and also the grandfather of FREAKING ALEXANDER PUSKHIN, the writer who MADE modern russian and wrote Evgenin Onegin, the tale of Tzar Saltan and so many more. Peter the Great MADE Russia.
It's unfortunate that he overshadows his father Alexei as Peter essentially built on and finished what his father and grandfather started. Tsar Alexei's war against the Poles really crippled them and despite the Poles having a comeback, they lost eastern Belarus and Ukraine and were no longer the toppest dogs in Eastern Europe. And don't get me started on Alexei's military reforms where he improved on his father's reforms and had such an army that beat the Poles around for years until they got their shit together and managed to push the Russians back. The first time Russians ever took Vilno was in 1654, before that they could not even dare dream of doing anything like that.
@@pavelstaravoitau7106 Good point, and that's quite typical in history. No one remember Alexander the Great's father, even though Alexander the Great's father basically handed his son the best army in the world.
when you announced this would be your first video of 2022, i didn't think it would come out so soon into the year lmao. great work as always, can't wait to see you rank french and/or english monarchs!
Nicholas I must be higher, the crimean war was a disaster, the lack of significant reforms did not help either. However, he built 70% of all the railroads of the XIX century, he order the reorganization of all the laws in the country that were a mess and sometimes untraceable or lost. Also he started industrialising the country and did not offer as many serfs as his predecessors, he tried to improve their conditions, not with the best intent but it's still an improvement. He might have failed in many aspects, but he did more for Russia than Ivan VI who was practically a newborn and never ruled, than Ivan V who never truly ruled and only served to allow his sister Sophia to rule instead. And I also think that he should be higher than Ekaterina I who never wanted to rule nor was she capable to rule. Overall a pretty good video as usual, keep the good work.
Agree, Nicholas I done good job as ruler, build a lot of things what was used in success laters. And crimean war was stab to the back, he really don't want to have that war
He was also really beloved by the common people, was probably the Tsar most committed to the project of a multicultural Russian Empire as envisioned by Ekaterina II, and was responsible for the creation of the state ideology that lasted until 1917.
I will always feel bad for Nicholas 2nd, he would have made an excellent figurehead monarch if russia is went constitutional. And while a flawed man I still think what happened to his family was terrible even if it’s just common sense for the new rulers
Maybe if grampa Alex II have lived long enough to make the reforms he wanted, and Alex Junior wouldn't have go full altright out of rage and grief, Nick would have enjoyed his life as a decorative head of state and Olga would have been his successor. Maybe even Russian would have been a constitutional monarchy right now
@@MariaRodriguez-dx6sm Constitutional monarchy doesn't mean weak monarchy, perhaps they will still be autocrat depending on how the constitution is written.
One of the main things going against him was his wife. Yes it was a love match but Alexandra seems to have been an absolute moron with the habit of annoying everyone around her.
Nicholas II being 3rd worst surprised me. Though he was probably the only one of the Tsars that knew he was shit at his job. But like you said: “He tried, but his aim sucked”
@@Intel-i7-9700k He had this weird mindset of wanting to be like his father but also liked by the people. He was scared of reforming as he was by his grandfathers bedside when he died (Alexander II, aka The Reformer, was killed by a group of socialist who wanted to prevent the people from growing to like the monarchy more). I can see how that affected him. So he wanted to rule as an autocrat because he thought reformers would get killed. Problem was, he was too unprepaired and timid (he was apparently a very nice guy) to be an effective autocrat. I agree he should have let his ministers do more, though they did influence some of the decisions that made him immensely unpopular; after hearing that people died in the stampedes after his coronation the Tsar reportedly wanted to go see wounded people and cancel the scheduled ball cause he thought it looked bad (he was right) but his ministers and advisors convinced him the ball was more important,
He is just way too unprepared, iirc Alexander III didn't really educate him much on being a ruler and he pretty much didn't expect he will die before hitting 50 years old so when he died it comes to the unready Nicholas to rule all of Russia His mother did have some good influence on his early rule as he asked for her advice but ultimately it was useless anyway once his wife take over his mother position at court and we know how sucks she is handling country affairs Tl;dr a good man but being good doesn't excuse you from incompetence of ruling a vast country like Russia
Nicholas II was a decent and loving husband and father, but he was too weak and gullible to be a Russian leader, especially in a time of European unrest (then again, when has Europe ever rested?). Britain, who was Russia's enemy for centuries, who Rothschild's London banking cartel hated Russia, and whose monarchy were Nicholas's relative's, suckered poor trusting Nicholas into joining the war effort with the promise of getting Constantinople (Istanbul) back as the capital of Orthodox Christianity from a defeated Ottoman Empire. That was never England's intent (they broke a lot of promises to a lot of people to get them to join their war effort), and they actually used the war to destroy the Czar's and create yet another puppet government they could control through banking, this being Kerensky's government. While they would have preferred Kerensky over the Bolsheviks, they had no problem dealing with the Bolsheviks, and declassified documents pretty much show that when Lord Alfred Minor visited the early Soviets that Bronstein (Trotsky) and Lenin stopped everything they were doing and went to meet him like obedient dogs, since they knew they needed him. Sadly, even Nicholas's own relatives in the English monarchy turned their back on Nicholas, Alexandria, and their beautiful innocent children, not even giving them a safe place to live in exile, too worried about stirring up Marxist revolt in their own country after 4 years of brutal war. Essentially, condemning the last ruling Romonov family to a horrible death at the hands of Jewish Bolshevik barbarians.
@@jackprecip5389 I honestly think he had a chance at being at least an ok Tsar if his father had actually bothered to prepare him from an early age. Nicolas, by his own admission, was not ready for the job. Reportedly the first thing he did was lock himself in his office and cry. He was actually pretty happy with not being Tsar anymore but then those Communist barbarians butchered him.
So little attention is paid to one of the greatest rulers of Russia - Paul the First. He was not just a "transitional ruler". During the 5 years of his short reign, he managed to significantly improve the life of peasants and soldiers. He sided with the lawer classes, for which he was killed by elites.
Yeh I never understood that it is considered the truth that Alexander II was killed by liberals. Seems obvious the elites were behind it. He was about to have a constitution. Seems suspicious to me. Same with Alexander III, even though he was conservative he just dies from Kidney failure? Not bloody likely.
@@alkiskosh6536 Because positive effects of the Alexander II reforms was visible mostly in Poland and Finland, but in reality for majority of population (Russian peasants) life become much worse, and this half-hearted solution with abolishing of serfdom institute become a disaster with series of cronical hungers in the late XIX century
One thing I would like to add to the obscure image of Peter the III. is that he wasn't only a fanboy of Frederick the Great, he also adored his homeland called Holstein, which was captured by Denmark. One of his only reforms included replacing the colour of his soldiers' uniforms to blue in order to look like Holsteins'. His intentions with stopping the war with Prussia were on the one hand his admiration for Frederick and his army on the other hand he wanted to declare war with Denmark to regain his homeland.
Oh man, maybe way down the line when you've covered just about every nation on earth, take the number 1 from each and rank the greatest ruler of all time. But maybe that's too ambitious.
He was not because he was an emperor of the frankish empire which was given to his grandchildren which split into 3 bits which the eastern part became the Holy Roman Empire
I personally wouldn't put Catherine II as high. Her teritorial expantion was actually a defeat for Russia (look at the circumstances), she brutally suppressed the peasants' and Cossacs' uprisings and the way that she treated her son was so terrible that it looked like she just asked for Russia to be ruled by a mediocre at best. She totally didn't learn from her mother's mistakes. I would swap Alexander I and Catherine II in this ranking, that's for sure. Alexander was really a creator of the Russian empire, during his reign Russia became a major world power by defeating Napoleon. Generally I don't see any major mistake of Alexander. Yes, his last years were a return to conservatism but that was mostly because he didn't believe in liberalism anymore, he saw that his liberal experiments in Finland and Poland didn't work as he wanted to. But still he was probably the best tsar, maybe only Peter I could be compared to him.
Yes the teritorial expansion was a bad move but i heard that she was oen minded with people to worship there own gods i.e those people with different religion and about to his son, well she is a busy woman but doesn't even comfort him when she is with her man or teach her son but i heard she loved her son albeit not very affectionate
@@marka5004 Actually... a lot. In the absolute monarchy the dynasty was one of the most important things for a monarch, the way they grew children had much impact on their policy. By making her son hate her she screw up her political ideals that just dissapeared with her, there was no continuation.
To be fair to Peter III. He was from the HRE and was actually treated very well by Fredrick the Great before he was sent to Russia. While in Russia they didn't like him as much. So when he became Tsar and the only person who respected him needed his help he delivered.
It isn't exactly at the top of my priorities. I'm doing the other 3 countries suggested in my poll before I do any other country, and after that, I honestly don't know if I'm doing any other ranking video. I might do it eventually, but no promises.
@@spectrum1140 Pleeeease dont stop with the ranking videos. The idea is great and the execution is awesome. I ofc understand that a ranking for a small nation like Bulgaria would be quite difficult to research and isnt on the top of your list, but Bulgaria has a long and very interesting history with a lot of cool characters as monarchs, which are very rarely covered and talked about.
@@steffanyschwartz7801 1)I think you mean Ivan Asen the 2, as Ivan Asen the 3rd ruled only one year. 2)Its got to be Simeon the Great, because. Both of their reigns were equally successful culturally and militarily, however after the death of Ivan Asen, a kid-emperor takes power and immediately destabilises the country.
Nicholas I is too low on the list. Actually he did many things to improve economy, education, arts and prepare the reforms of Alexander II. The loss of Crimean war was not all that important and happened only in the Crimea, while all other fronts of the war were stalemate or victorious for Russia. Ivan IV "the Terrible" is too high on the list. Despite his early reign was one of the greatest periods for Russia, it was all thanks to good advisors around him while he was young. Once he started to rule tyranically on his own and repressed or executed the advisors, it all quickly went into disaster. The greatest Russian Tsar, of course, was Ivan III the Great. He created Russia as a great power, a giant state. He was actually called "tsar" in diplomatic letters, just never bothered to take the title officially. Also, he held not just the "Great Prince of all Rus" title, but the "Gosudar and the Great Prince of all Rus". Gosudar was basically equivalent to Tsar.
Nicholas II's reign was besmirched by the Soviet Union. But then again, I get why he would be towards the bottom of the list. He was not fit to rule, and I think Lenin capitalized on that when he allegedly ordered the family's assassination. I don't know if Nicholas deserved to be Canonized, but since he was, that is the way he should be remembered, rather than being one of the worst Tsars.
I'm writing through a translator, sorry to be silly. But in general, I'm a bit of a Russian historian and don't quite agree with the top. The first Nicholas was worthy of at least a wider mention, because he put the laws in order, under him began at least a bad, but industrialization. Already under him there was an opportunity for serfs to get out of dependence at the redemption. Well, and Sanya 2 himself deserves first place, as he was able to pull the country out of the collapse of the Crimean War. (And then there is not the tsar and not the emperor Ivan 3, which well actually surpasses his grandson and Petya the first put together)
Peter III was actually pretty popular among the Russian peasantry. The nobility, on the other hand... There's a reason why there were no less than three False Peter III rebellions
Peter III’s problem was that he had like zero political tact and very poor people skills. He managed to tick off everybody who mattered in record time.
There's three ways to do it in my opinion: 1. Ranking all holy roman emperors (this would not include the actual Austrian emperors tough) 2. Ranking all rulers of Austria (doesn't matter if they were emperor or not. Most of the time they were though) 3. Ranking all habsburg emperors (this is a bit wishy-washy, but with this you could go from the first habsburg hre emperor all the way to blessed karl) I'd like to see all three of these ideas, spectrum said to he only wants to do monarchs of France and England and afterwards do something else than this Ranking series
Thanks for your detailed video. For the sake of the discussion, I will enter some observations. Thank you for clearing up the 'Ivan the Terrible' moniker. He was Иван Грозный, meaning 'Fearsome' for having defeated the Kazans. He had a childhood so miserable and horrifying, it is beyond belief. From his earliest youth, he saw murder around him and was certain (justifiably certain) that he would be killed next. Imagine trying to get to sleep, knowing that all around you there had been murder and that you are the next logical - and defenseless - victim. In fact, as a teen during a palace coup, the coup enters his bedroom, and Ivan had to think, "This is it." But they didn't kill him. When you read his life, you wonder how he survived his upbringing. Sure, he had a violent temper and unleashed a terrible police force after yet another attempt on his throne. It is not to absolve Ivan, but his childhood was more terrifying than anything he did. And as you read about his life, you wonder why they didn't kill him when they had the (multiple) chance(s). Faults and all, he was a real leader. Ivan gave speeches that were so stirring, the Boyars (that Russian prince class that had usually been hostile to him) were brought to tears. And he rallied his population in crisis, and they loved him. I think they would object to the interpretation of 'Грозный' today. I would have ranked Catherine the Great #1, and Peter the Great #2. This is not some feminist twist. Here is my case: Peter WAS Great, undoubtedly. But he was a man, a big man, and he was a native Russian. Catherine was a young girl who spoke German (she dines with Frederick the Great before she moves to Russia) when she arrived in Russia as a betrothed to the mentally challenged heir to the throne. She learned Russian, won the people, maneuvered Peter 3 (who was a mentally challenged Romanov), read, corresponded with and brought to Russia many Western enlightenment figures such as Voltaire and Diderot, bought European art and created the Hermitage, and left Russia an entirely better place than when she arrived. She also paid homage to Peter the Great, that statue in St. Petersburg was her idea. Who else had the grace to honor those who ruled before them? But this is just a quibble, you make a good case for your rankings. Sidebar: The Romanov's problems began at childbirth. The elements of raising a child that they practiced would be scorned today. They were wrapped completely from birth, denied sunshine, kept in ridiculously warm environments, had terrible diets and had no disciplines. These and other child-rearing methods were certain to create mentally, emotionally and physically underdeveloped men who, unfortunately, were in line for the throne. Thanks again for your excellent work, I enjoyed it a lot.
i knew tsar peter III wasn't promising when the first thing i learned about him was a horrible histories clip where he put a rat on trial for killing a toy soldier.
As Russian, I can say, that Nicolas 2 is VERY UNDERRATED. He raised literacy level, medicine, began industrialisation. He's much better, than Little baby and Polish imposter
Did you raise your education? Medicine? These are funny anecdotes😂 There were 4 classes of parochial schools, and medicine. It wasn't. Just like Industrialization, 2/3 of our children died in our country. 12 gave birth, 3 of them survived.
@@dmitrisovtin6052 помогла ли конституция предотвратить гражданку? гражданская война началась из-за его действий. кто недооценивал Японию и считал ее аграрной страной?
Too bad Nicholas Alexandrovich (oldest son of Alexander II) died in 1865 at only 22. He was extremely well educated and would've been more liberal and modern emperor than Alexander III.
As a secular ruler, I think it is important to recognize two things: first, Nicholas was underprepared for civilian government. It was assumed that his healthy father would live far longer than he actually did, as the train crash cut his lifespan short. Thus, Nicholas only had a few years of civil training. Second, Nicholas was usually all alone in his endeavors. He was surrounded by people that were either incompetent, disloyal, or just didn’t have enough influence to get things done. Those who had both power, competence, and loyalty all made so many enemies that they were quickly assassinated. But the more important thing is his spiritual legacy. Nicholas was an extremely pious person with a compassionate heart and humble mien, and ruled his country with his subjects’ spiritual well-being in mind more so than temporal success. He died as a passion-bearer and a martyr and is glorified as a saint by the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians view Nicholas with a very high regard as a result, and is, from the perspective of the Orthodox Christians, one of the greatest tsars and rulers of Russia, alongside St. Vladimir the Great and St. Alexander Nevsky. This is hard to articulate and explain for those who are not Orthodox Christians (and we are not some monolith, mind you. This kind of attitude might be more common in ROCOR or Serbia than in other branches of the Church), but it is worth mentioning that not everyone just considers him some tragic failure. Meanwhile, monarchs like Peter and Catherine are despised and their memory is shameful for many Orthodox Christians, as they hated the Church and fought against it and wanted to make Russia more like Germany. Again, temporal success is very different from the spiritual well-being of the Orthodox Christians. No worldly treasure is worth what can be built up in Heaven.
Ranking Nicolas II in front of Feodor and false Dmitri can only be described by ignorance at worst or surface reasoning at best. Nicolas II was forced to solve huge problems piled up on him by his predecessors and the external political situation like the consequences of surfdom or Austro-German agression. Despite such factors Russian economy managed to be the fastest-growing the world.
@@8sins236 Good point. Beginning the history with William the Conqueror ignores a long list of Saxon and Danish kings, some with competent leadership credentials. I wonder how William would have fared against Alfred the Great rather than Harold II?
Ivan IV was also kind treated horribly abused in his early years by the Nobility as he became a ruler in 1533 at the age of 3 when his father died so the nobility was able to use him pass stuff that would benefit them it was only in 1547 at 17 when he became tzar
It would make for an awful video. We have little information to go on for the majority of pharaohs - not nearly enough to make a coherent video. It would make it subjective to the point of absurdity.
I always felt that Nicholas I was a bit underrated and worthy of more study. He was an authoritarian to the bone, but wasn't totally unreasonable and brutal (that's more an Alexander III thing) and seems like a much more complicated character and mind than he's given credit for. Montefiore's book on the Romanovs got me thinking about him. Mostly, I think it was the disaster of the Crimean War that did him in and destroyed his reputation historically especially in the English-speaking world.
As poet Thutchev wrote about Nicolas the 1: "You wasn't tsar, but an actor". Meaning, that he wasn't totally honest about his acts, wishes, aims. Foundator of Russian bearucracy, which will ultimately became most powerful political class that will usurp coutry entirerly in the next century. He haven't done the reforms by himself, but did everything that should be done in order to start them. In good terms, and in bad - also.
I wasn’t aware that those Tsars did so much and I heard some names of Tsars that I never knew existed. Thank you for this very interesting and informative peice
@@spectrum1140 Well, going by the rules set forth in Spanish King, it'll be from either Alfred I (he only ruled Wessex) or William the Conqueror (the first undisputed ruler of England) to George VI.
As a Swede, Peter the Great is still a name to instill some amount of discomfort. That being said, the ending of the Swedish "golden age" was most definitely a good thing. That amount of starvation... yikes. Let's not get confused though, Karl XII was beating the absolute ass of Peter in the beginning, with battles such as Narva being great examples. Shame (or not) he felt the need to advance further and further to satisfy his ego.
That's true. Karl XII, if I'm not mistaken, is kinda harsh autocrat with like unlimited affinity to a wars, some sort of Swedish Alexander the great. He fought and won Denmark in months, defeated huge Peter's army in the next one.. The first trouble was a Poland-Saxony. Huge country with little roads, lots of marshes, and a very troublesome nobility, August, a charismatic, who was able to recover twice from defeats and defend himself from polish Seim critics, with a support of polish cavalry marshal, strong army leader. August looked far more dangerous, that Peter on the early days. But while Karl fought August, Peter was reforming army and navy, testing them in his slow and steady conquest of Baltics shores, immediately building there new, much more modern, forts, and creating the main reason, why he won the war in result abd battle under Poltava. That was his artillery ofc and renewed kind of infantry. So while Carl was fighting with August, Peter recreated army, already tested it, already tied by marriages his nobility and nobles of northern Germany and Baltics shores.. Essentially, while Karl was, possibly, a superior soldier and military commander, Peter was on the different scale strategically. Btw his reign resulted in troubles of succecssion, which were really close to tightening Russian monarchy before Anna Ioannovna. She finally stepped over and crushed any opposition to the tsar's authority, which was other Peter's heirloom.
Bests tsars: Ivan the Third (creator of Russia), Elizabeth Petrovna (first University, barocco, russian army in Berlin, without executions), Paul the First (protect peasants, finish palace revolutions, alliance with Napoleon against Britain), Alexander the Second (free peasants, brought back local government, created an independent court with competition between the prosecutor and the lawyer, successfully completed the Caucasian war, helped to free our Orthodox brothers in the Balkans from the Turks). Worsts tsars: Ivan the Terrible (lost access to the Baltic Sea as a result of the lost Livonian war, brought the country of "oprichnina" to ruin from which the peasants fled to the Don and Siberia - this will cause the introduction of serfdom, having seven wives did not give the country enough heirs which will become one of the reasons for the Time of Troubles, ruined Novgorod), Peter the First (abolished local self-government introduced by the Chosen Rada during the juvenile Ivan the Terrible, made all the peasants disenfranchised like slaves, overlaid the peasants with a poll tax and recruiting kits, abolished the independence of the church by making state officials out of priests, publicly mocked church rites and abolished Cossack liberties which caused uprisings in Astrakhan and the Don, arranged the murder of his son and introduced testamentary succession to the throne which will make it possible to bring to power any person whom the guards support - regular palace coups), Peter the Third (returned East Prussia to Friedrich whose inhabitants had already sworn allegiance to Elizabeth Petrovna - thus in 200 year for the sake of access to this East Prussia Hitler would attack Poland, signed the manifesto of the liberties of the nobility which will increase the discontent of the peasants which will cause Pugachev's peasant war in the future), Alexander the First (supported the overthrow of his father and did not punish the killers, to the delight of Britain he got involved in a war with Napoleon - while the Russians and the French were killing each other Britain only strengthened itself by capturing the richest Dutch colonies, instead of limiting serfdom he simply banned the printing of advertisements about human trafficking in newspapers, took into Russia the indigenous Polish lands where there will be constant uprisings while leaving part of the ancient Russian land as part of Austria - Galicia, ignored the uprising of the Greeks led by Russian subjects - Kapodistria and Ypsilanti, knew about the secret societies of the Decemberists but did nothing leaving all the dirty work to his younger brother Nikolai).
Cruel fate made Ivan III great. In 1380 his predecessor Dmitri defeated The Golden Horde at the battle of Kulikovo, both sides took heavy losses. Dmitri was given the title Donbas, the chance to unify Russia was his - then the forward units of Tamerlane's army showed up. Rather than be annihilated, Donbas submitted. Russia was spared, it was the Ottoman Turks that ended up enduring Timurid wrath.
Little remark: as female emperor is called empress, the female tsar in russian is tsaritsa :) Though, it's probably inprononsouble if your language doesn't have letter "ц"
as a Russian myself, it was quite nice to see people in the west are interested in our history. though history is all we've got nowadays, unfortunately
As Russian myself I can say this is too superficially. Nicholas I and II and Paul are really underrated, Catherine II, Alexander I and Peter I are overrated. Nicholas I literally started the most significant part of industrialisation process building russian railroad system, Paul made some really good reforms, but they made nobility too angry ( btw he wanted to befriend the Napoleon and rush India thats why there is a version, that his murder was sponsored by british), Nicholas II is actually good tsar , he was able to find really competent people like Stolypin and Vitte ,but russian revolution is a list of sad dumb coincedences.Catherine and Peter tbh did some contoversial reforms absolutist and nobility oriented, they made worse enforced serfdom of russian peasants, which was headache to their descendants. imho Alexander II should be top 1.
@@greg2029 Не проводил реформы, которых от него ждали, не согласился на выгодный раздел сфер влияния с Японией в Китае и Монголии, начал заведомо проигрышную войну с Японией, после давки на Ходынке поехал на балл, не объявив траур, не выслушал МИРНЫХ демонстрантов, из-за чего началось Кровавое воскресенье, распустил первую Думу, распустил вторую Думу, набрал в третью Думу депутатов, которые не отражали интересов большей части населения, увеличил ценз, не дал Столыпину завершить реформу и наконец подпустил ко двору Распутина. Это на вскидку.
@@user-lv6fo7gy9p 1) "не проводил реформы" - именно поэтому в его правление началось активное освоение Дальнего Востока, были дарованы свобода слова, собраний, союзов, печати (даже клеветавшую на императора жёлтую прессу не закрывали тогда как при Временном правительстве запретили монархические газеты, а при большевиках все несоциалистические), отменил выкупные платежи, назначил Столыпина, проводившего земельную реформу не за счёт того чтобы отнимать землю у других а за счёт свободных земель в южной Сибири. 2) "не согласился на выгодный раздел сфер влияния с Японией в Китае и Монголии" никакой выгоды для России этот раздел не нес так как лишал Россию доступа к Порт-Артуру через южную Манчжурию и оставлял без незамерзающего порта на Тихом океане, Монголия в принципе к Японии не имела никакого отношения и Россия благополучно поддержала её независимость после Синьхайской революции без всякого договора с Японией. 3) Русско-японскую войну начала Япония с обстрела наших эскадр на рейде и атаки по кораблям охранявшим наше дипломатическое представительство в Корее (Варяг и Кореец). 4) "после давки на Ходынке поехал на бал, не объявив траур" Бал проводил французский посол и не приехать на него означало оскорбить посла державы союзника. Николай приехал, поприветствовал посла и уехал. А вместо формального объявления траура всем родственникам погибших были выплачены компенсации. 5) "кровавое воскресенье" это ответственность не Николая (которого тогда не было в городе) а генерал губернатора Петербурга великого князя Владимира Александровича. Для "мирной" демонстрации рабочие под руководством эсеровского провокатора Гапона силой взяли в храмах хоругви, начались беспорядки с выстрелов со стороны демонстрантов по полиции. И даже при этом всём император спустя несколько дней выступил перед рабочими и обеспечил пожизненную пенсию родственникам погибших которую потом отменят большевики. 6) "распустил первую думу, распустил вторую думу" Распустил неспособных к конструктивному диалогу провокаторов призывавших к амнистии для всех террористов убивавших жандармов и губернаторов. Почитайте Выборгское воззвание депутатов второй государственной думы и подумайте что бы сделали в любой другой стране с парламентом за такой призыв. 7) "набрал в третью думу депутатов, которые не отражали интересов большинства населения" о как интересно. Стоит правым победить на выборах как парламент тут же "не отражает интересы большинства населения") Действительно зачем парламент который занимается работой, а не перепалками и революционными лозунгами. 8) "не дал Столыпину завершить реформу". Столыпину которого сам же и назначил. Которому дал свободу действий в подавлении беспорядков и решительных действиях не устраивавших как разорявшихся дворян так и идеализировавших крестьянскую общину эсеров. И убил его эсер. Причём забавно что из того что он был связан с охранкой большевики делают вывод, что это был агент охранки среди эсеров, а не наоборот агент эсеров в охранном отделении. 9) "подпустил ко двору Распутина". Ну тут что называется каждый видит то что ему милее. Кто то обращает внимание на то что близ императора были Есенин, Блок, Врангель а жёлтой прессе падкой на скандалы конечно интереснее обмусоливать Распутина. Реальная деятельность его была сильно преувеличена прессой, а двор императора не был закрытым сообществом.
Here's additional note about Ivan the Terrible: his father, Vasiliy the 3rd, died, when Ivan was 3 years old, so regent council with Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya, took charge. Then after few years, she mysteriously died, being poisoned, and her lover, knyaz Nikita Belskiy, was sent in a far north settlement, where he died from starvation. So Ivan spent his whole childhood with presumable killers of his mother, while also watching boyars ruthlessly fight against each other for power. That shit will make everyone paranoid
NO WAY! JUST NO WAY NICHOLAS I is ranked that low!!! He wasn't a great ruler, of course, but he was DEFINITELY better than all the Feodors, Ivans V and VI, False Dmitry and so on, so on, so on. The only reason for this low position, in my opinion, is that Queen Victoria disliked Nicholas, and that influenced the perception of Nicholas in the west.
While he founded saint Petersburg it was actually more of an odd coincidence than an ego thing. Which is really strange. And then Stalin said fuck it and actually named the city after his "friend"(even though Lenin said he was a monster as he was dying. )
And then he went to Tsaritsyn, and just said, "Eh, that old bag Lenin was wrong about a lot of things anyway. Time to name this Tsar-city after the newest, and best, Russian tsa... oh, I mean, uh... people's champion revolutionary vanguard of socialism - ME!"
Lenin said that Stalin wanted more power for himself and need to remove from his position. He tried to warn his people of the party of stalin but Lenin was already so sick, that he couldn't do anything, while stalin gains power
Honestly, I would rank Catherine the Great above Peter. During her reign, she limited herself to fighting wars with the much weaker Ottoman Empire, and avoided antagonizing the European great powers by getting what she wanted from them through diplomacy instead of war, such as with the Partitions of Poland. Thus Catherine completed what her predecessors had set out to do by securing Russian dominance over Ukraine (and with it Crimea and the Black Sea) and most of Poland; not so great for those nations, of course, but no one was exactly asking them. Peter, on the other hand, fought a long and devastating war against an alliance of his enemies, only to secure much less land in the end. Their different approaches also meant that, while Catherine was highly respected in the West as a patron of the Enlightment (an image she deliberately built up through her correspondence with Voltaire etc.), Peter was mostly regarded as a semi-barbaric warmonger. Catherine also didn’t needlessly antagonize the nobility and the church by pushing unpopular domestic reforms too quickly, and unlike Peter she really didn’t face opposition from them during her reign (the peasants, of course, were another story).
Very interested to see how you approach the English monarchs rankings, specifically the figureheads like Elizabeth II. How do you compare her long reign and the stability it brought to, say, Henry V who nearly subjugated France before his untimely death?
@@vampmode9132 exactly, but by the time Victoria took power, the UK was a constitional monarchy and her decisions didn't have much to do with the prosperity of the empire.
Given how he handles the Spanish Monarchs, living ones will not be counted. So it's likely to be William the Conqueror (good place to start) -> George VI.
Here's a challenge, ranking Chinese Emperors of the five big dynasties (Han, Tang, Song, Ming, Qing), maybe also including the Qin, Jin, Sui and Yuan, split up into one video per dynasty.
A brief correction - Aleksey wasn’t named the Quietest for his nature - he was actually quite brutal at times, it’s actually sort of a title/customary form of address. If we were to translate it with more of a functional approach we would get Aleksey the Most Serene, and if you know European history you might have heard this “the most serene” title as a form of address or part of a title. When you call someone the most serene it’s is an indicator of sovereignty. A good way to translate this title in Russian would be Светлейший (the brightest, the most holy), but I guess that Russian translators fumbled with this one, so they called him “the quietest one”. Thanks for reading this and have a nice day!
The fact that a two month old wasn't ranked last says a lot
Well, he didn't fuck anything up, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
Anyone ranked below someone who obviously couldn't do anything caused more harm than good.
Yes the ugliest beta male simp Tsar was ranked the last.
TBF a ruler who ruled for too short of a period of time to actually do anything is probably better than a ruler who actively harmed their own country.
You either die an infant or you grow up enough to screw things up.
You can make a list of all Brazilian emperors, there is only 2 of them, it will be easy.
1. Pedro II
2. Pedro I
What are you talking about, this is insanely difficult... Both are fantastic.
@@wingedhussarswiss4703 Pedro II is still easily number 1
Could make the list taking on account the kings of Portugal and how good their reign was for Brazil itself as a colony
I asked about Mexican Emperors and I believe it was said that IF he did that, he'd probably combine the various American Emperors
@@JamesTobiasStewart sounds like a good idea to me
The reason why Peter III did what he did was insane: dude was legit a fanboy for Frederick the Great, and was sending the dude literal fucking fan mail. I get the feeling the guy is just some time travelling history hipster who got too carried away.
Practically the founder of the kaiserboo fan club
Reddit moment of knowing history right there
Or maybe he was just smart enough to not dissimilate Prussia, because Russia have no conflicts with Prussia and also Prussian lands was pretty trash, on the other side it was benefiting France-big russian enemy and Austria with which Russia have conflicts in Balkans, so defeat of Prussia would result in practically no gains for Russia and destruction of balance in Europe. Also, everybody forgets that peace treaty with Prussia was not just “ oh God I love you Freiderick, there is white peace” but included Prussian obligation to help Russia in a war for Slesvig-Holstein( that means controlling almost all of baltic trade) and in a war for Swedish succession( coz Peter 3 had a claim on their throne) but it didn’t came to life, and coz he was literally killed by his wife, she did big job in vilification of his legacy so 300 years after some r&tards would call him the worst tsar of Russia, history is written by the winners
@@luden1577 But Russia needs ports there lol. Remember St. Petersburg? It can't be used on Winter due to cold temperature. That's not the case with Konigsberg.
@@arkcliref big brain right there, Russia hold Riga since northern war and I’m repeating once again, ports in Slesvig-holstein would benefit Russia 10 times more than useless prussian lands
Peter III can be considered one of the best Prussian kings for how he resolved that war lmao
No. He abused Cathrine the Great. Wanted absolute power. And was killed.
@@rukminikrishna1938 its a joke
bruhhhhhh
@@rukminikrishna1938 It's a joke, Krishna boy.
@@rukminikrishna1938 you act like Catherine didn’t do the same thing 😂
Imagine Truman becoming president in 1945 and deciding to just peace out of WW2 with 0 concessions from Germany and Japan. That was Peter III.
Fun fact - treatment was ratificated by catherine after peter 3 death
Truman still cheated the soviets. FDR promised them Hokkaido and Truman did not even recognise Kurils lol. What a jerk
@@Admin-gm3lc Great thing he did too.
Preserving a reasonable balance of power
Funny because Hitler's hope was that this is what would happen in a repeat of the seven year's war.
@@Admin-gm3lc depends on how you view the war one could see this ‘cheating’ as good or bad. Did the soviets complain about this?
It is 3 AM. I do not need sleep. I want to watch someone rank every Russian Tsar from Ivan the Terrible to Nicholas II. This is truly what I want from my temporary life.
Same 😔
I feel you
If you’re actually serious, get some sleep
Drink water ig.
The 1st is obviously Ivan VI (no, not Ivan IV). He was literally incapable of making any bad decisions (or any decisions for that matter) and he has a great portrait, so that's one good thing he caused and zero bad things.
good over bad ratio: 1/0, undefined
Ivan VI > Catherine II + Peter I + Alexander II
@@Halestem undefined equates to infinity
@@Melonist not really
But Peter the great is simply the best Russian Tsar ever with his 43 year reing, when created St petersburg and was so great ruler to give a lot succes to Russia, while Ivan the great did not do any bad decisions. He still didnt make much good decisions that top what Peter the Great did, so Ivan the sixth got for that reason sixth spot in the list.
Personally I kind of feel bad for Alexander II, he was genuinely trying to implement some desperately needed reforms and drag Russia into the modern era.
Plus the bitter irony that he was assassinated by people mad he wasn't reforming Russia fast enough, only for them to get Alexander III out of it, is the sort of dark humour you so often hear associated with Russia.
I would have ranked him or Catherine first. Peter the Great adopted some modern ideas but he was an tyrant that adopted the more absolutist ideas without taking in any liberalism. And we all know what that led to.
I really wonder if Alexander II would have died of old age in the throne today we would have constitutional monarchy in Russia.
To add even more irony to that he was assassinated on the day he was going to form the first Russian parliament. The liberals were literally this close to a parliamentary democracy and they threw it all away.
But it's quite normal that the people don't revolt against the tyrants but against the reformists. Tyrants rule with iron fist and don't tolerate any criticism. Reformers give the people hope for better future so they make them mad for not making reforms fast and effective enough. Look at China for example. Nobody revolted against Mao but against Deng Xiaoping they did. And there are a lot of other examples in history.
Yeah! Can't blame it but he kinda adopt some of change but ultimately he failed remember when he freed the serfs, he doesn't realize that the serfs doesn't have any other skills than planting crops and one of the biggest moves that he shouldn't do is marrying his mistress cause not only that the marriage is not oko with Alexander's family, it wasn't even oki with nobility and the people
About Ivan the Terrible's wife: For the time period Mercury was considered highly medicinal and was administered in enormous quantities by physicians. It's possible her mercury poisoning was the result of a well-intentioned (but obviously dumb in hindsight) medical therapy. Equally possible, Ivan may have been drinking lots of mercury for the same reason and this could have much to do with his mental deterioration in his life.
Throughout other parts of the world as well. The first Chinese emperor, Qin Shi Huang, took elixirs of mercury believing they would elongate his life. Instead, he died at 49.
Ivan had several things that could have led to his mental instability.
A truly HORRIFIC and brutal early life, paranoia about constant backstabbing, Mercury poisoning, etc.
@@James_Wisniewski he got killed from Mercury Poisoning
@@James_Wisniewski Yes, and witness the legions of Terracotta figures that watched over him in his tomb (and may have been excellent chess players)
Ryan, toxic heavy metals had been used for centuries to cure many types of maladies. If they worked (most unlikely) it was the result more of a strong constitution than any efficacy of the "physic".
I believe mercury was used as treatment for syphilis well into the 19th century. It wasn't until the early 20th century that Paul Erlich discovered an organic arsenic compound that actually worked.
Today a shot or two of penicillin will do the trick.
The work of Fleming, Florey, Chain was truly epoch making.
Kinda harsh on Peter II tbh. You don't exactly expect an eleven year old kid to guide the country on his own. His health also wasn't the best, so he died at the age of 14.
Fun fact: He was the last of Romanov's male bloodline.
He was the last of Peter the Great's male bloodline. Ivan VI was the last male of the Romanov's bloodline. There's a difference.
@@mikeor-
Иван 6 приходился Романовым по матери Анне Леопольдовне.
@@mikeor- no he wasn't. If Ivan VI wasn't a romanov.
However his reign was not good and sadly the other Russian leaders somehow screw up less than he did (I was expecting that spectrum was going to put Nicholas II in the second worst place)
The funny thing is that Alexei the Peaceful was actually pretty tough on the whole. Remember the Salt Riot and the Copper Riot - major urban uprisings which were brutally and bloodily crushed. Do not underestimate Alexei Mikhailovich, he deserves a higher place...
It is a way to ensure peace
@@appolyon3124 so slavery was common back then most of the historical figures you admire probably had slaves I'm not saying it's right but you shouldn't judge back then with modern morals
@@appolyon3124 and?
@@appolyon3124I've seen worse
@@appolyon3124 as if slaves in the west had rights either😐😐🤣
Timestamps for Tsars in chronological order:
Ivan IV (the Terrible): 9:29
Feodor I (the Bellringer): 3:21
Boris Godunov: 7:10
Feodor II: 4:17
False Dimitry I: 4:30
Vasily IV: 4:49
Michael I: 8:38
Alexis I: 7:29
Feodor III: 6:54
Ivan V: 5:47
Peter I (the Great): 14:11
Catherine I: 5:19
Peter II: 1:52
Anna Ivanovna: 8:05
Ivan VI: 3:49
Elizabeth Petrovna: 10:53
Peter III: 0:59
Catherine II (the Great): 13:26
Paul I: 6:07
Alexander I (the Blessed): 11:31
Constantine: 4:02
Nicholas I: 2:51
Alexander II (the Liberator): 12:21
Alexander III (the Peacemaker): 6:30
Nicholas II: 2:15
THANK YOUUUU
Great!
Thank you for making my job easier 😊
Fun fact: after Peter III was dethroned and killed, there was a rumour in both Russia and Montenegro that he lived. That opportunity was used by a man from Dalmatia (modern day Croatia) who looked a lot like the former emperor. He came to Montenegro and managed to convince most of the people there that he was Peter III. Stephen the little (Šćepan Mali) as he was known soon became the ruler of Montenegro in the year of 1767 he was actually a good leader having almost completely stoped blood vengeance, theft and murder in Montenegro. He was later betrayed and killed by his friend working for the Ottomans, who weren’t happy with an idea of a Russian emperor in charge of Montenegro.
E da nađem nekog našeg
Being from Russia, I always wondered why Ivan was called The Terrible by the west. First and foremost, that's not the correct translation, in Russia we call him Иван Грозный, which translates as Ivan the Formidable. I think it gives a better idea to what kind of person he was. He was surrounded by enemies 24/7 but managed to hold the throne against all odds, and honestly he wasn't a bad ruler. Of course he was paranoid, but such were the times in Russia back then, he could be killed easily if he wasn't careful. Also, he was pretty damn smart. There are still his original letters you could read, that he sent to his opponents, and they contain some pretty sick burns. He was well educated and overall definitely not Terrible.
I though he was called that way because of his personality, not for being incompetent
all this also applies to Stalin, which is much more relevant
@@kremlinbasement7768 Nah, Stalin just sucks
@@jahoyhoy55555 why anime is watched mostly by right-wing supporters
The original meaning of terrible was anything that causes terror. That meaning still applies, but mostly people stopped using it like that in favor of being a word for anything really bad. So, Ivan the Terrible is a name that used to make more sense in English but the language changed a bit.
Funfact: in the late 17th century tsar Peter the great came to amsterdam because he wanted to learn all about shipbuilding and tactics, when he was watching a demonstration battle he was so impressed that he took the colours of the Dutch flag and switched them around, creating the modern Russian flag.
Also, almost all nautical terms in Russian are Dutch loanwords.
@@sozhran really? That's awesome to know!!!
Well, he was impressed and indeed had a high influence from Dutch people, but the flag of Russian Empire was kinda different tho. It was black-yellow-white. The modern one was proposed only in 1990-s.
@@Designer-Speech7143 "It remained in use until 1858, when the first official flag of the Russian Empire was decreed by Alexander II, which was a tricolour consisting of three horizontal fields: black on the top, yellow in the middle, and white on the bottom. A decree in 1896 reinstated the white, blue, and red tricolour as the official flag of the Russian Empire until the Revolution of 1917." Russian flag they use today is still used first
@@drpepper3838 My apologies then, I thought you meant official flag. Plus, I didn't know about it's reinstallation in 1896, seems I found something to search.
I would argue that Paul I should be higher on the list, since he multiple reforms, many of which were anti-aristocratic in nature and which ultimately led to his demise (such as lifting the ban on corporal punishments for the aristocracy, cruelty towards serfs by their owners becoming a crime, and it being harder to evade from serving in the army). History doesn't do him justice, as Paul I was preceded and succeeded by both Catherine II and Alexander I, respectively, which lasted way longer than him, both disliked him, and both are considered to be two of the greatest Russian monarchs
Agreed. Paul was doing great and he was betrayed in the end.
Being evil to your serfs was always supposed to be a crime on paper, but some tsars enforced it more than others.
@@nebojsag.5871 What was worse, If you DID not allow your troops to rape and not treating your subjects as actual living things, you were a bad Tzar. Peter the great, for all his glory, was a malicious man, forced serfs into building the initial fortifications at modern day Petersburg and took many finns during his "great fury" and forced them into labour and his army acted like the Soviets in Ruthenia, Poland and Germany....
Ты прав в России его незаслуженно забыли
Alexander did not dislike Paul. Alexander always wanted to please Paul, surrounded himself with people who would please his father. But his father called him "grandmother's favorite" (Catherine loved her grandson very much and wanted to make her male copy out of him. She almost succeeded, but Paul ntervened). Alexander became victim of the conflict between Catherine and Paul. He rushed between his grandmother and father. Maybe you didn’t know, but when Alexander was born, he was taken away from his parents, just as Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, the daughter of Peter the Great, once took Paul away from Catherine and Peter 3.
Paul became the victim of a conspiracy of aristocrats. Alexander knew about conspiracy, but did not intervene, as he thought that his father was simply overthrown, but did not expect that he would be killed. After that, he blamed himself for what happened, some called him a parricide (including Napoleon). Any bad event that occurred in Russia, whether it was the flood of St. Petersburg in 1824 or the invasion of Napoleon, he associated with God's punishment for all his sins. He was constantly haunted by the ghost of his father and, as contemporaries said, in the last years of his life he was in melancholy, that is, depressed. At the beginning of his reign, Alexander took up reforms, he had a lot of good goals, but 1812 was a turning point in his reign, and at the end he completely withdrew from power.Each person decides for himself whether Alexander was a great tsar or not, but for me he will always remain like a small hothouse flower who needed a psychologist in difficult moments of his life.
Please all vote for the French monarchs next time ! We have one that had the bright idea of dancing in the dark, carrying torches while wearing a flamable costume !
(yes, it ended exactly as you expect it to, though this fool survived and reigned for a long time afterwards...)
Gonna vote for venetian monarchs next :trollface:
Napoleon was the best!
@@causantinthescot I disagree, he never managed to get a durable peace (not for lack of trying). He surely ranks very high but I cannot put him above Louis XIV for example.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine
You have so many god-tier French kings actually : Philip Augustus, Saint-Louis, Philip the Fair, Charles V the Wise, Charles VI the Victorious, Louis XI the Universal Spider, maybe Francis I, Henry IV the great, Louis XIII the Just and Louis XIV the Sun king.
You could add several kings of the Franks in he decides to go back to Clovis.
If he does a video about them, it's not his top 3 that is going to be hard to determine, it's his top 10!
Then.. English monarchs all 61 of them
Nicholas II's greatest achievement was not being dead last on this list.
Well, Peter III was literally against his own country's interest. The ONLY thing he got out of that treaty with Prussia was the restoration of some territory of his home country (Holstein) that NO ONE in Russia cared about. He care more about Holstein than Russia and really could care less about ruling the country. That's why pretty much no one batted an eye when Catherine deposed him. Of course, Catherine was hard on trying to be as Russian as possible despite also from Germany. She converted to Russian Orthodoxy faith. She learn Russian pretty quickly. She's also adapt at playing politics getting the nobles on her side and getting influential army officer as her lover.
@@dyingearth All excellent points! Peter was useless, in the he literally did nothing and then got deposed sense, so def think his position is well earned. Still think Nicholas lucked out that someone so monumentally incompetent beat him to the bottom tho haha
@@jmequeenbee4339 One way Catherine got the military on board was to cancelled Peter's planned war against Denmark to reclaim some Holstein land. This is something the Russian military was utterly not interested in.
You know nothing about history, it seems.
Nicholas II was very mediocre. But then he started WW1, prevented his army from doing better, and then left Russia to a bloody civil war. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Nicholas II and Louis XVI are a good reminder for all monarchs: if you want a good successor, you better drill yours relentlessly into becoming one.
Yeah. Both of them were unexpected or unprepared to reign.
Logan roy takes that lesson to level 11.
Yes this should be mandatory for all monarchies
12:56 this photo is from Senate Square in Helsinki, Finland, which is basically the most famous place of our country. The statue still stands there, even though we've been independent for over 100 years now, so you can see that we really appreciate tsar Alexander's reign. After he died things took a really sinister turn
Finns of all segments of the population collected money for this statue. Why remove the monument to the tsar, who gave many freedoms to the people? What a pity he left so early.
🇷🇺 ❤️ 🇫🇮 . Hi from Saint Petersburg, can’t wait to visit Helsinki when the situation gets better
Great example of foreigners feeling on Russian Imperial heritage compared to the Soviet one.
@@nikolaysokolnikov2677 nah, we hated the empire and even assassinated one of the general governors of Finland. But Alexander II was a good guy!
@@sahiblindberg he was the greatest Russian ruler of all time, imo.
Too bad he was assassinated:(
List of ranking requests:
Every English/British Monarch
Every Swedish Monarch
Every Pope
Every US President
Every King of France
Every Persian Monarch
List of meme requests for April Fools Day:
Every Brazilian Emperor, all two of them
Every German Emperor, after unification, all three of them
Every French Republic
Heh, for April Fools I already have something better.
@@spectrum1140 I can't wait
Every Pope would make an endless video! But I'd watch the whole of it. And the first place is obvious.
@@renzoraschioni7954 who is best and worse in your opinion?
@@saxo689 I'm not competent in history, so don't take my opinion seriously, but I'd say the best one is John XXIII or Paul VI because of the second vatican council. For the worst one, I really don't know, but I'm sure there's a very long list of bad popes where to choose from. What about you? Who would you pick as the best and worst one?
In Montenegro, there was a random peasant dude who falsely presented himself as Peter III after Peter was ousted. He was declared Emperor of Montenegro and is generally regarded as a progressive and centralist ruler.
Шћепан Мали?
@@stefandjordjevic3030 Да. Yes.
@@stefandjordjevic3030 Postoji i knjiga ''Lažni car Šćepan Mali''
As a Russian, this is the first time I hear about him, but I read the entire Russian Wikipedia about him and I liked him. He is a cooler Peter 3. He was a smart person, which cannot be said about original Peter 3. So many funny moments have been described in Wikipedia. For example, the Montenegrins swore allegiance to Catherine 2, but they did not consider that this contradicted their loyalty to her "husband" and the tsar. Or when the people learned that the Russians had left Montenegro, they broke into the prison and fell into despair when they did not find their tsar there, whom they wanted to release. But it turns out that the Russians released him before they left.
NO WAY WHAT THATS SO INTERESTING =0
Nicholas II: but dad, I grew a beard"
Alexander III: "yeah, an ugly girly girl beard!"
Nicholas II: 😭
Oversimplfied
A man of culture
There’s going to be a tax for that
@@speedypichu6833 To the guillotine
Also my joke is about Peter the great’s beard tax
Actually, even though it seems that Saint-Petersburg is named after Peter The Great, it's named after the St Peter who is an apostle. Peter I never liked to show off and wasn't interested in "fancy" stuff. Hello from Saint-Petersburg :D
Thanks for saying that, the claim that Peter named Saint Petersberg after himself, instead of after the Saint, didn't sit right with me either.
But let's be honest, Peter the Great didn't name this grand city he built St. Paulsburg or St. Josephsburg or St. Marysburg. He named it St. Petersburg. He chose this very particular saint for a very obvious reason...
Peter the Great is really in a tier all of his own he's so cool. one of those incredible rulers that only appear once a century or so
Like literally he’s THE BEST EMPEROR EVER. Period. His ambasaddord took a small black kid who was a son of the village chief. Instead of making him his slave/servant Peter took him as his son, eductaed him (the kid was very smart already) and became his godfather. That kid would become a great general and also the grandfather of FREAKING ALEXANDER PUSKHIN, the writer who MADE modern russian and wrote Evgenin Onegin, the tale of Tzar Saltan and so many more. Peter the Great MADE Russia.
Also he was 2meters tall so his greatness was quite literal
It's unfortunate that he overshadows his father Alexei as Peter essentially built on and finished what his father and grandfather started. Tsar Alexei's war against the Poles really crippled them and despite the Poles having a comeback, they lost eastern Belarus and Ukraine and were no longer the toppest dogs in Eastern Europe. And don't get me started on Alexei's military reforms where he improved on his father's reforms and had such an army that beat the Poles around for years until they got their shit together and managed to push the Russians back. The first time Russians ever took Vilno was in 1654, before that they could not even dare dream of doing anything like that.
Fun fact: we don't call him "The Great" in Russia, but Peter the first
@@pavelstaravoitau7106 Good point, and that's quite typical in history. No one remember Alexander the Great's father, even though Alexander the Great's father basically handed his son the best army in the world.
when you announced this would be your first video of 2022, i didn't think it would come out so soon into the year lmao. great work as always, can't wait to see you rank french and/or english monarchs!
Nicholas I must be higher, the crimean war was a disaster, the lack of significant reforms did not help either. However, he built 70% of all the railroads of the XIX century, he order the reorganization of all the laws in the country that were a mess and sometimes untraceable or lost. Also he started industrialising the country and did not offer as many serfs as his predecessors, he tried to improve their conditions, not with the best intent but it's still an improvement. He might have failed in many aspects, but he did more for Russia than Ivan VI who was practically a newborn and never ruled, than Ivan V who never truly ruled and only served to allow his sister Sophia to rule instead. And I also think that he should be higher than Ekaterina I who never wanted to rule nor was she capable to rule. Overall a pretty good video as usual, keep the good work.
I agree he was way too harsh on Nicholas I. Lets not forget that his reign saw the golden age of Russian literature.
@@thrallfan1056 To be fair, a good portion of this literature was written by critics of the Tsar.
Agree, Nicholas I done good job as ruler, build a lot of things what was used in success laters. And crimean war was stab to the back, he really don't want to have that war
He was also really beloved by the common people, was probably the Tsar most committed to the project of a multicultural Russian Empire as envisioned by Ekaterina II, and was responsible for the creation of the state ideology that lasted until 1917.
I will always feel bad for Nicholas 2nd, he would have made an excellent figurehead monarch if russia is went constitutional. And while a flawed man I still think what happened to his family was terrible even if it’s just common sense for the new rulers
I mean one of Nicholas’ biggest problem is that he was a hard line Autocrat, he fully drunk the divine right of Kings Coolaid.
Maybe if grampa Alex II have lived long enough to make the reforms he wanted, and Alex Junior wouldn't have go full altright out of rage and grief, Nick would have enjoyed his life as a decorative head of state and Olga would have been his successor. Maybe even Russian would have been a constitutional monarchy right now
@@MariaRodriguez-dx6sm Constitutional monarchy doesn't mean weak monarchy, perhaps they will still be autocrat depending on how the constitution is written.
@@MariaRodriguez-dx6sm Alexander the 3rd was a great tsar, prioritizing your nation and your country is the best thing a ruler can do.
One of the main things going against him was his wife. Yes it was a love match but Alexandra seems to have been an absolute moron with the habit of annoying everyone around her.
Nicholas II being 3rd worst surprised me. Though he was probably the only one of the Tsars that knew he was shit at his job. But like you said: “He tried, but his aim sucked”
Well he didn't know that well enough then. He could have easily delegated reigning to his very capable ministers, but mostly chose not to.
@@Intel-i7-9700k He had this weird mindset of wanting to be like his father but also liked by the people. He was scared of reforming as he was by his grandfathers bedside when he died (Alexander II, aka The Reformer, was killed by a group of socialist who wanted to prevent the people from growing to like the monarchy more). I can see how that affected him. So he wanted to rule as an autocrat because he thought reformers would get killed.
Problem was, he was too unprepaired and timid (he was apparently a very nice guy) to be an effective autocrat. I agree he should have let his ministers do more, though they did influence some of the decisions that made him immensely unpopular; after hearing that people died in the stampedes after his coronation the Tsar reportedly wanted to go see wounded people and cancel the scheduled ball cause he thought it looked bad (he was right) but his ministers and advisors convinced him the ball was more important,
He is just way too unprepared, iirc Alexander III didn't really educate him much on being a ruler and he pretty much didn't expect he will die before hitting 50 years old so when he died it comes to the unready Nicholas to rule all of Russia
His mother did have some good influence on his early rule as he asked for her advice but ultimately it was useless anyway once his wife take over his mother position at court and we know how sucks she is handling country affairs
Tl;dr a good man but being good doesn't excuse you from incompetence of ruling a vast country like Russia
Nicholas II was a decent and loving husband and father, but he was too weak and gullible to be a Russian leader, especially in a time of European unrest (then again, when has Europe ever rested?). Britain, who was Russia's enemy for centuries, who Rothschild's London banking cartel hated Russia, and whose monarchy were Nicholas's relative's, suckered poor trusting Nicholas into joining the war effort with the promise of getting Constantinople (Istanbul) back as the capital of Orthodox Christianity from a defeated Ottoman Empire. That was never England's intent (they broke a lot of promises to a lot of people to get them to join their war effort), and they actually used the war to destroy the Czar's and create yet another puppet government they could control through banking, this being Kerensky's government. While they would have preferred Kerensky over the Bolsheviks, they had no problem dealing with the Bolsheviks, and declassified documents pretty much show that when Lord Alfred Minor visited the early Soviets that Bronstein (Trotsky) and Lenin stopped everything they were doing and went to meet him like obedient dogs, since they knew they needed him. Sadly, even Nicholas's own relatives in the English monarchy turned their back on Nicholas, Alexandria, and their beautiful innocent children, not even giving them a safe place to live in exile, too worried about stirring up Marxist revolt in their own country after 4 years of brutal war. Essentially, condemning the last ruling Romonov family to a horrible death at the hands of Jewish Bolshevik barbarians.
@@jackprecip5389 I honestly think he had a chance at being at least an ok Tsar if his father had actually bothered to prepare him from an early age. Nicolas, by his own admission, was not ready for the job. Reportedly the first thing he did was lock himself in his office and cry.
He was actually pretty happy with not being Tsar anymore but then those Communist barbarians butchered him.
So little attention is paid to one of the greatest rulers of Russia - Paul the First. He was not just a "transitional ruler". During the 5 years of his short reign, he managed to significantly improve the life of peasants and soldiers. He sided with the lawer classes, for which he was killed by elites.
Yeh I never understood that it is considered the truth that Alexander II was killed by liberals. Seems obvious the elites were behind it. He was about to have a constitution. Seems suspicious to me. Same with Alexander III, even though he was conservative he just dies from Kidney failure? Not bloody likely.
Rasputin is 1st obviously
Rasputin, the magic dude
Dmitri Ivanivich obviously
He wasn’t a tsar tho
@@fatcatseko7936 we know, but some people believe that he influence tsar Nicholas the 2nd.
@@blobfish_gamer7413 the influence could not bring him to power tho
As a Finn, I am very happy to see Alexander II ranked so high!
why
@@alkiskosh6536
Because positive effects of the Alexander II reforms was visible mostly in Poland and Finland, but in reality for majority of population (Russian peasants) life become much worse, and this half-hearted solution with abolishing of serfdom institute become a disaster with series of cronical hungers in the late XIX century
These continue to be both fun and informative, thank you very much!
One thing I would like to add to the obscure image of Peter the III. is that he wasn't only a fanboy of Frederick the Great, he also adored his homeland called Holstein, which was captured by Denmark. One of his only reforms included replacing the colour of his soldiers' uniforms to blue in order to look like Holsteins'.
His intentions with stopping the war with Prussia were on the one hand his admiration for Frederick and his army on the other hand he wanted to declare war with Denmark to regain his homeland.
Oh man, maybe way down the line when you've covered just about every nation on earth, take the number 1 from each and rank the greatest ruler of all time. But maybe that's too ambitious.
Hell yeah I’m so stoked to watch this
Ranking the Holy Roman Emperors would be nice.
I agree
Charlemagne going to be number 1 we already know.
He wasn't a Holy roman emperor
@@deaddok999 he was the first Holy Roman Emperor
He was not because he was an emperor of the frankish empire which was given to his grandchildren which split into 3 bits which the eastern part became the Holy Roman Empire
I personally wouldn't put Catherine II as high. Her teritorial expantion was actually a defeat for Russia (look at the circumstances), she brutally suppressed the peasants' and Cossacs' uprisings and the way that she treated her son was so terrible that it looked like she just asked for Russia to be ruled by a mediocre at best. She totally didn't learn from her mother's mistakes. I would swap Alexander I and Catherine II in this ranking, that's for sure. Alexander was really a creator of the Russian empire, during his reign Russia became a major world power by defeating Napoleon. Generally I don't see any major mistake of Alexander. Yes, his last years were a return to conservatism but that was mostly because he didn't believe in liberalism anymore, he saw that his liberal experiments in Finland and Poland didn't work as he wanted to. But still he was probably the best tsar, maybe only Peter I could be compared to him.
Yes the teritorial expansion was a bad move but i heard that she was oen minded with people to worship there own gods i.e those people with different religion and about to his son, well she is a busy woman but doesn't even comfort him when she is with her man or teach her son but i heard she loved her son albeit not very affectionate
What those a family business do how good her reign
@@marka5004 Actually... a lot. In the absolute monarchy the dynasty was one of the most important things for a monarch, the way they grew children had much impact on their policy. By making her son hate her she screw up her political ideals that just dissapeared with her, there was no continuation.
@@gordian2939 his probably not her successor the other one who she favor probably is the successor that 's why he destroy his mother last testament
These "experiments" didn't work because Russia was an authoritarian shithole that constantly violated the polish and finnish constitution.
If you do end up doing an English Monarchs list, I implore you to begin in 927 with Æthelstan and not with William the Conqueror
Or Alfred the Great who is mostly excluded
Or all the way from Offa
To be fair to Peter III. He was from the HRE and was actually treated very well by Fredrick the Great before he was sent to Russia. While in Russia they didn't like him as much. So when he became Tsar and the only person who respected him needed his help he delivered.
I feel sorry for Peter III of Russia. He should never have set in Russia.
Video 2 of asking for a ranking of Bulgarian Khans/Tsars.
Love your videos btw.
It isn't exactly at the top of my priorities. I'm doing the other 3 countries suggested in my poll before I do any other country, and after that, I honestly don't know if I'm doing any other ranking video.
I might do it eventually, but no promises.
Who is better. Ivan Asen the 3rd or Simon the great?
@@spectrum1140 Pleeeease dont stop with the ranking videos. The idea is great and the execution is awesome.
I ofc understand that a ranking for a small nation like Bulgaria would be quite difficult to research and isnt on the top of your list, but Bulgaria has a long and very interesting history with a lot of cool characters as monarchs, which are very rarely covered and talked about.
British monarchs would be fun, because I am a history nerd, and I have been to see many kings tombs. But hope the British monarchs come soon
@@steffanyschwartz7801
1)I think you mean Ivan Asen the 2, as Ivan Asen the 3rd ruled only one year.
2)Its got to be Simeon the Great, because. Both of their reigns were equally successful culturally and militarily, however after the death of Ivan Asen, a kid-emperor takes power and immediately destabilises the country.
I agree about Ivan the Terrible. Now if you ever do a list ranking which Tsars were the worst parents he's a top 3 pick easily.
He is top 1. He literally murdered his own son.
@@myaccount4699 So did Peter the Great. But he had his son executed for treason. So civil.
Nicholas I is too low on the list. Actually he did many things to improve economy, education, arts and prepare the reforms of Alexander II. The loss of Crimean war was not all that important and happened only in the Crimea, while all other fronts of the war were stalemate or victorious for Russia.
Ivan IV "the Terrible" is too high on the list. Despite his early reign was one of the greatest periods for Russia, it was all thanks to good advisors around him while he was young. Once he started to rule tyranically on his own and repressed or executed the advisors, it all quickly went into disaster.
The greatest Russian Tsar, of course, was Ivan III the Great. He created Russia as a great power, a giant state. He was actually called "tsar" in diplomatic letters, just never bothered to take the title officially. Also, he held not just the "Great Prince of all Rus" title, but the "Gosudar and the Great Prince of all Rus". Gosudar was basically equivalent to Tsar.
Good point. I think historians focus too little on the peaceful and smart builder-kings, Henry Tudor, Frederick I of Prussia, Ivan III
Nicholas II's reign was besmirched by the Soviet Union. But then again, I get why he would be towards the bottom of the list. He was not fit to rule, and I think Lenin capitalized on that when he allegedly ordered the family's assassination. I don't know if Nicholas deserved to be Canonized, but since he was, that is the way he should be remembered, rather than being one of the worst Tsars.
I'm writing through a translator, sorry to be silly. But in general, I'm a bit of a Russian historian and don't quite agree with the top. The first Nicholas was worthy of at least a wider mention, because he put the laws in order, under him began at least a bad, but industrialization. Already under him there was an opportunity for serfs to get out of dependence at the redemption. Well, and Sanya 2 himself deserves first place, as he was able to pull the country out of the collapse of the Crimean War. (And then there is not the tsar and not the emperor Ivan 3, which well actually surpasses his grandson and Petya the first put together)
Great Video, as usual!
Peter III was actually pretty popular among the Russian peasantry. The nobility, on the other hand...
There's a reason why there were no less than three False Peter III rebellions
Peter III’s problem was that he had like zero political tact and very poor people skills.
He managed to tick off everybody who mattered in record time.
@@michaelsinger4638 That I'm willing to agree with.
Remember kids: "reforms =\= always good"
I want to see a video of the Austrian Empire's Emperors next
Well making that video wouldn't take a lot of time as there's only 4 guys to rank
Wouldnt the habsburg Dynasty count as emperors because they were austrian by nationality
@@deaddok999 Austrian archidukes?
I guess?
There's three ways to do it in my opinion:
1. Ranking all holy roman emperors (this would not include the actual Austrian emperors tough)
2. Ranking all rulers of Austria (doesn't matter if they were emperor or not. Most of the time they were though)
3. Ranking all habsburg emperors (this is a bit wishy-washy, but with this you could go from the first habsburg hre emperor all the way to blessed karl)
I'd like to see all three of these ideas, spectrum said to he only wants to do monarchs of France and England and afterwards do something else than this Ranking series
Thanks for your detailed video. For the sake of the discussion, I will enter some observations.
Thank you for clearing up the 'Ivan the Terrible' moniker. He was Иван Грозный, meaning 'Fearsome' for having defeated the Kazans.
He had a childhood so miserable and horrifying, it is beyond belief. From his earliest youth, he saw murder around him and was certain (justifiably certain) that he would be killed next. Imagine trying to get to sleep, knowing that all around you there had been murder and that you are the next logical - and defenseless - victim. In fact, as a teen during a palace coup, the coup enters his bedroom, and Ivan had to think, "This is it." But they didn't kill him. When you read his life, you wonder how he survived his upbringing. Sure, he had a violent temper and unleashed a terrible police force after yet another attempt on his throne. It is not to absolve Ivan, but his childhood was more terrifying than anything he did. And as you read about his life, you wonder why they didn't kill him when they had the (multiple) chance(s).
Faults and all, he was a real leader. Ivan gave speeches that were so stirring, the Boyars (that Russian prince class that had usually been hostile to him) were brought to tears. And he rallied his population in crisis, and they loved him. I think they would object to the interpretation of 'Грозный' today.
I would have ranked Catherine the Great #1, and Peter the Great #2. This is not some feminist twist. Here is my case: Peter WAS Great, undoubtedly. But he was a man, a big man, and he was a native Russian. Catherine was a young girl who spoke German (she dines with Frederick the Great before she moves to Russia) when she arrived in Russia as a betrothed to the mentally challenged heir to the throne. She learned Russian, won the people, maneuvered Peter 3 (who was a mentally challenged Romanov), read, corresponded with and brought to Russia many Western enlightenment figures such as Voltaire and Diderot, bought European art and created the Hermitage, and left Russia an entirely better place than when she arrived. She also paid homage to Peter the Great, that statue in St. Petersburg was her idea. Who else had the grace to honor those who ruled before them?
But this is just a quibble, you make a good case for your rankings.
Sidebar: The Romanov's problems began at childbirth. The elements of raising a child that they practiced would be scorned today. They were wrapped completely from birth, denied sunshine, kept in ridiculously warm environments, had terrible diets and had no disciplines. These and other child-rearing methods were certain to create mentally, emotionally and physically underdeveloped men who, unfortunately, were in line for the throne.
Thanks again for your excellent work, I enjoyed it a lot.
@@dux_architectus I agree with you. They were both worthy of "The Great". BTW, you were great in "Брать".
i knew tsar peter III wasn't promising when the first thing i learned about him was a horrible histories clip where he put a rat on trial for killing a toy soldier.
I was JUST thinking when is the next ranking coming out?? 👏👏👏
love the 1812 ouverture
Thanks to Tchaikovsky and his genius 😅
As Russian, I can say, that Nicolas 2 is VERY UNDERRATED. He raised literacy level, medicine, began industrialisation. He's much better, than Little baby and Polish imposter
а ещё кровавое воскресенье, продолжение политики самодержавия, гражданская война, проигрыш в русско-японской и гражданская война
Did you raise your education? Medicine? These are funny anecdotes😂
There were 4 classes of parochial schools, and medicine. It wasn't. Just like Industrialization, 2/3 of our children died in our country. 12 gave birth, 3 of them survived.
@@Hehdks При Николае появилась первая конституция. Гражданку устроил вообще не он. Ты ведь в курсе, что Япония напала на Россию, а не наоборот?
@@i2972 ты вообще под наркотой сидишь, раз такой бред пишешь
@@dmitrisovtin6052 помогла ли конституция предотвратить гражданку?
гражданская война началась из-за его действий. кто недооценивал Японию и считал ее аграрной страной?
Too bad Nicholas Alexandrovich (oldest son of Alexander II) died in 1865 at only 22. He was extremely well educated and would've been more liberal and modern emperor than Alexander III.
Very, very good way to start 2022
Happy new year my friend
Hell yeah Nicholas II wasn't last
As a secular ruler, I think it is important to recognize two things: first, Nicholas was underprepared for civilian government. It was assumed that his healthy father would live far longer than he actually did, as the train crash cut his lifespan short. Thus, Nicholas only had a few years of civil training. Second, Nicholas was usually all alone in his endeavors. He was surrounded by people that were either incompetent, disloyal, or just didn’t have enough influence to get things done. Those who had both power, competence, and loyalty all made so many enemies that they were quickly assassinated.
But the more important thing is his spiritual legacy. Nicholas was an extremely pious person with a compassionate heart and humble mien, and ruled his country with his subjects’ spiritual well-being in mind more so than temporal success. He died as a passion-bearer and a martyr and is glorified as a saint by the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians view Nicholas with a very high regard as a result, and is, from the perspective of the Orthodox Christians, one of the greatest tsars and rulers of Russia, alongside St. Vladimir the Great and St. Alexander Nevsky. This is hard to articulate and explain for those who are not Orthodox Christians (and we are not some monolith, mind you. This kind of attitude might be more common in ROCOR or Serbia than in other branches of the Church), but it is worth mentioning that not everyone just considers him some tragic failure.
Meanwhile, monarchs like Peter and Catherine are despised and their memory is shameful for many Orthodox Christians, as they hated the Church and fought against it and wanted to make Russia more like Germany. Again, temporal success is very different from the spiritual well-being of the Orthodox Christians. No worldly treasure is worth what can be built up in Heaven.
Ranking Nicolas II in front of Feodor and false Dmitri can only be described by ignorance at worst or surface reasoning at best. Nicolas II was forced to solve huge problems piled up on him by his predecessors and the external political situation like the consequences of surfdom or Austro-German agression. Despite such factors Russian economy managed to be the fastest-growing the world.
Wow, this list really starts off with a banger.
I would like to see one too on ranking the medieval Kings of Jerusalem, Kings of Hungary, Bulgarian rulers, and Kings of Serbia.
ayo the video starts here 0:00
If you ever do the english monarchs, make sure to go from either Alfred the great or Aethelstan not William I
Or he could start with Egbert saying as how he's the earlierest some would call king of England.
@@8sins236 Good point.
Beginning the history with William the Conqueror ignores a long list of Saxon and Danish kings, some with competent leadership credentials.
I wonder how William would have fared against Alfred the Great rather than Harold II?
Ivan IV was also kind treated horribly abused in his early years by the Nobility as he became a ruler in 1533 at the age of 3 when his father died so the nobility was able to use him pass stuff that would benefit them it was only in 1547 at 17 when he became tzar
Ivan III was the first Tsar of Moscow, not Tsar of All the Russians. That was Ivan the Terrible.
I just moved to Russia, your podcast suggestion is more than welcomed
Im not a worst tsar who ever lived. I see this as absolut win
Nicholas II was dealt the worst possible hand anyone in his position could have been dealt.
Ranking every egyptian pharaoh at 10 mil subs?
Jesus dude RUclips videos can only last 12 hours
It would make for an awful video. We have little information to go on for the majority of pharaohs - not nearly enough to make a coherent video. It would make it subjective to the point of absurdity.
Umm there are just too many of them. Almost as much as Chinese emperors lol
@@zan4336 like 300 👍
Technically Vasili IV was the last of Rurikid Dynasty, as he was a member of said Dynasty, he just wasn't part of the senior branch.
I always felt that Nicholas I was a bit underrated and worthy of more study. He was an authoritarian to the bone, but wasn't totally unreasonable and brutal (that's more an Alexander III thing) and seems like a much more complicated character and mind than he's given credit for. Montefiore's book on the Romanovs got me thinking about him.
Mostly, I think it was the disaster of the Crimean War that did him in and destroyed his reputation historically especially in the English-speaking world.
As poet Thutchev wrote about Nicolas the 1:
"You wasn't tsar, but an actor". Meaning, that he wasn't totally honest about his acts, wishes, aims. Foundator of Russian bearucracy, which will ultimately became most powerful political class that will usurp coutry entirerly in the next century. He haven't done the reforms by himself, but did everything that should be done in order to start them. In good terms, and in bad - also.
I wasn’t aware that those Tsars did so much and I heard some names of Tsars that I never knew existed. Thank you for this very interesting and informative peice
Nice video hope you do the brits
How the hell did you manage to get to this video before I made it public??
.
@@spectrum1140 look at his profile pic... he is over the matrix
@@spectrum1140 Well, going by the rules set forth in Spanish King, it'll be from either Alfred I (he only ruled Wessex) or William the Conqueror (the first undisputed ruler of England) to George VI.
Now that I think about it. I know very little about Russian history... you've peaked my curiosity
As a Swede, Peter the Great is still a name to instill some amount of discomfort. That being said, the ending of the Swedish "golden age" was most definitely a good thing. That amount of starvation... yikes. Let's not get confused though, Karl XII was beating the absolute ass of Peter in the beginning, with battles such as Narva being great examples. Shame (or not) he felt the need to advance further and further to satisfy his ego.
That's true. Karl XII, if I'm not mistaken, is kinda harsh autocrat with like unlimited affinity to a wars, some sort of Swedish Alexander the great. He fought and won Denmark in months, defeated huge Peter's army in the next one.. The first trouble was a Poland-Saxony. Huge country with little roads, lots of marshes, and a very troublesome nobility, August, a charismatic, who was able to recover twice from defeats and defend himself from polish Seim critics, with a support of polish cavalry marshal, strong army leader. August looked far more dangerous, that Peter on the early days.
But while Karl fought August, Peter was reforming army and navy, testing them in his slow and steady conquest of Baltics shores, immediately building there new, much more modern, forts, and creating the main reason, why he won the war in result abd battle under Poltava. That was his artillery ofc and renewed kind of infantry. So while Carl was fighting with August, Peter recreated army, already tested it, already tied by marriages his nobility and nobles of northern Germany and Baltics shores.. Essentially, while Karl was, possibly, a superior soldier and military commander, Peter was on the different scale strategically. Btw his reign resulted in troubles of succecssion, which were really close to tightening Russian monarchy before Anna Ioannovna. She finally stepped over and crushed any opposition to the tsar's authority, which was other Peter's heirloom.
Yeah I don't even think Peter doesn't necessarily deserve the spot, that's for you to decide. But no one ever mentions it and it pisses me off
Ivan Mazepa served him right in northern war, hehe
Fränder, bröder, vår stormaktstid är över
Vårt rike blöder, fanan står i brand
Aldrig, aldrig, aldrig återvända
Svea stormaktstid till ända
I cannot agreed, that Nicolas I placed in the bottom.
Bests tsars: Ivan the Third (creator of Russia), Elizabeth Petrovna (first University, barocco, russian army in Berlin, without executions), Paul the First (protect peasants, finish palace revolutions, alliance with Napoleon against Britain), Alexander the Second (free peasants, brought back local government, created an independent court with competition between the prosecutor and the lawyer, successfully completed the Caucasian war, helped to free our Orthodox brothers in the Balkans from the Turks). Worsts tsars: Ivan the Terrible (lost access to the Baltic Sea as a result of the lost Livonian war, brought the country of "oprichnina" to ruin from which the peasants fled to the Don and Siberia - this will cause the introduction of serfdom, having seven wives did not give the country enough heirs which will become one of the reasons for the Time of Troubles, ruined Novgorod), Peter the First (abolished local self-government introduced by the Chosen Rada during the juvenile Ivan the Terrible, made all the peasants disenfranchised like slaves, overlaid the peasants with a poll tax and recruiting kits, abolished the independence of the church by making state officials out of priests, publicly mocked church rites and abolished Cossack liberties which caused uprisings in Astrakhan and the Don, arranged the murder of his son and introduced testamentary succession to the throne which will make it possible to bring to power any person whom the guards support - regular palace coups), Peter the Third (returned East Prussia to Friedrich whose inhabitants had already sworn allegiance to Elizabeth Petrovna - thus in 200 year for the sake of access to this East Prussia Hitler would attack Poland, signed the manifesto of the liberties of the nobility which will increase the discontent of the peasants which will cause Pugachev's peasant war in the future), Alexander the First (supported the overthrow of his father and did not punish the killers, to the delight of Britain he got involved in a war with Napoleon - while the Russians and the French were killing each other Britain only strengthened itself by capturing the richest Dutch colonies, instead of limiting serfdom he simply banned the printing of advertisements about human trafficking in newspapers, took into Russia the indigenous Polish lands where there will be constant uprisings while leaving part of the ancient Russian land as part of Austria - Galicia, ignored the uprising of the Greeks led by Russian subjects - Kapodistria and Ypsilanti, knew about the secret societies of the Decemberists but did nothing leaving all the dirty work to his younger brother Nikolai).
Иван 3 не бы царём. Он был Великим князем
@@Какой-тоКактус Использовать этот титул первым начал он, наследуя императорам павшей Византии через Софью Палеолог.
@@kendzi_seto и все же первым царем был Иван 4
Seriously, how does this guy not have WAAAAY more subscribers?
Wow, just wow. So nice to see people of the West taking interest in the history of my country. I respect you, sir!
You have read wiki a lot. Well done!
Still holding out for the HRE rankings 🤞
This is such a great video series good work man keep it up
Cruel fate made Ivan III great. In 1380 his predecessor Dmitri defeated The Golden Horde at the battle of Kulikovo, both sides took heavy losses. Dmitri was given the title Donbas, the chance to unify Russia was his - then the forward units of Tamerlane's army showed up. Rather than be annihilated, Donbas submitted. Russia was spared, it was the Ottoman Turks that ended up enduring Timurid wrath.
I think this guy wanted to make videos about ancient Rome, now he's rating world leaders. But still, I enjoyed this. Good job.
Little remark: as female emperor is called empress, the female tsar in russian is tsaritsa :)
Though, it's probably inprononsouble if your language doesn't have letter "ц"
One of the first things I learned about Peter the Great was that he enjoyed being pushed through hedges in a wheelbarrow, just for a laugh.
as a Russian myself, it was quite nice to see people in the west are interested in our history.
though history is all we've got nowadays, unfortunately
Very informative and enjoyed the content.. All the French Kings starting with Clovis I next, please!
As Russian myself I can say this is too superficially. Nicholas I and II and Paul are really underrated, Catherine II, Alexander I and Peter I are overrated. Nicholas I literally started the most significant part of industrialisation process building russian railroad system, Paul made some really good reforms, but they made nobility too angry ( btw he wanted to befriend the Napoleon and rush India thats why there is a version, that his murder was sponsored by british), Nicholas II is actually good tsar , he was able to find really competent people like Stolypin and Vitte ,but russian revolution is a list of sad dumb coincedences.Catherine and Peter tbh did some contoversial reforms absolutist and nobility oriented, they made worse enforced serfdom of russian peasants, which was headache to their descendants. imho Alexander II should be top 1.
agreed on everything 100%
Чувак, Николай Второй умудрился облажаться почти во всем. И слава богу.
@@user-lv6fo7gy9p в чем конкретно он облажался?
@@greg2029 Не проводил реформы, которых от него ждали, не согласился на выгодный раздел сфер влияния с Японией в Китае и Монголии, начал заведомо проигрышную войну с Японией, после давки на Ходынке поехал на балл, не объявив траур, не выслушал МИРНЫХ демонстрантов, из-за чего началось Кровавое воскресенье, распустил первую Думу, распустил вторую Думу, набрал в третью Думу депутатов, которые не отражали интересов большей части населения, увеличил ценз, не дал Столыпину завершить реформу и наконец подпустил ко двору Распутина. Это на вскидку.
@@user-lv6fo7gy9p 1) "не проводил реформы" - именно поэтому в его правление началось активное освоение Дальнего Востока, были дарованы свобода слова, собраний, союзов, печати (даже клеветавшую на императора жёлтую прессу не закрывали тогда как при Временном правительстве запретили монархические газеты, а при большевиках все несоциалистические), отменил выкупные платежи, назначил Столыпина, проводившего земельную реформу не за счёт того чтобы отнимать землю у других а за счёт свободных земель в южной Сибири. 2) "не согласился на выгодный раздел сфер влияния с Японией в Китае и Монголии" никакой выгоды для России этот раздел не нес так как лишал Россию доступа к Порт-Артуру через южную Манчжурию и оставлял без незамерзающего порта на Тихом океане, Монголия в принципе к Японии не имела никакого отношения и Россия благополучно поддержала её независимость после Синьхайской революции без всякого договора с Японией. 3) Русско-японскую войну начала Япония с обстрела наших эскадр на рейде и атаки по кораблям охранявшим наше дипломатическое представительство в Корее (Варяг и Кореец). 4) "после давки на Ходынке поехал на бал, не объявив траур" Бал проводил французский посол и не приехать на него означало оскорбить посла державы союзника. Николай приехал, поприветствовал посла и уехал. А вместо формального объявления траура всем родственникам погибших были выплачены компенсации. 5) "кровавое воскресенье" это ответственность не Николая (которого тогда не было в городе) а генерал губернатора Петербурга великого князя Владимира Александровича. Для "мирной" демонстрации рабочие под руководством эсеровского провокатора Гапона силой взяли в храмах хоругви, начались беспорядки с выстрелов со стороны демонстрантов по полиции. И даже при этом всём император спустя несколько дней выступил перед рабочими и обеспечил пожизненную пенсию родственникам погибших которую потом отменят большевики. 6) "распустил первую думу, распустил вторую думу" Распустил неспособных к конструктивному диалогу провокаторов призывавших к амнистии для всех террористов убивавших жандармов и губернаторов. Почитайте Выборгское воззвание депутатов второй государственной думы и подумайте что бы сделали в любой другой стране с парламентом за такой призыв. 7) "набрал в третью думу депутатов, которые не отражали интересов большинства населения" о как интересно. Стоит правым победить на выборах как парламент тут же "не отражает интересы большинства населения") Действительно зачем парламент который занимается работой, а не перепалками и революционными лозунгами. 8) "не дал Столыпину завершить реформу". Столыпину которого сам же и назначил. Которому дал свободу действий в подавлении беспорядков и решительных действиях не устраивавших как разорявшихся дворян так и идеализировавших крестьянскую общину эсеров. И убил его эсер. Причём забавно что из того что он был связан с охранкой большевики делают вывод, что это был агент охранки среди эсеров, а не наоборот агент эсеров в охранном отделении. 9) "подпустил ко двору Распутина". Ну тут что называется каждый видит то что ему милее. Кто то обращает внимание на то что близ императора были Есенин, Блок, Врангель а жёлтой прессе падкой на скандалы конечно интереснее обмусоливать Распутина. Реальная деятельность его была сильно преувеличена прессой, а двор императора не был закрытым сообществом.
Here's additional note about Ivan the Terrible: his father, Vasiliy the 3rd, died, when Ivan was 3 years old, so regent council with Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya, took charge. Then after few years, she mysteriously died, being poisoned, and her lover, knyaz Nikita Belskiy, was sent in a far north settlement, where he died from starvation. So Ivan spent his whole childhood with presumable killers of his mother, while also watching boyars ruthlessly fight against each other for power. That shit will make everyone paranoid
Elena organised deaths of two Vasiliy's brothers. It was big mistake of Vasiliy to marry on her. Orthodox church not supported this marriage.
The fact that a literal infant wasn’t last says a lot about the state of Russia’s monarchy for most of its history.
NO WAY! JUST NO WAY NICHOLAS I is ranked that low!!! He wasn't a great ruler, of course, but he was DEFINITELY better than all the Feodors, Ivans V and VI, False Dmitry and so on, so on, so on. The only reason for this low position, in my opinion, is that Queen Victoria disliked Nicholas, and that influenced the perception of Nicholas in the west.
While he founded saint Petersburg it was actually more of an odd coincidence than an ego thing. Which is really strange. And then Stalin said fuck it and actually named the city after his "friend"(even though Lenin said he was a monster as he was dying. )
And then he went to Tsaritsyn, and just said, "Eh, that old bag Lenin was wrong about a lot of things anyway. Time to name this Tsar-city after the newest, and best, Russian tsa... oh, I mean, uh... people's champion revolutionary vanguard of socialism - ME!"
Lenin said that Stalin wanted more power for himself and need to remove from his position. He tried to warn his people of the party of stalin but Lenin was already so sick, that he couldn't do anything, while stalin gains power
@@ekaterina472 can you please quote where he says that? I know Russian so you can send it to me in Russian if you want.
@@pavelstaravoitau7106
Lenin's Testament
@@ekaterina472 I am asking for the specific quote from it that supports your point.
Honestly, I would rank Catherine the Great above Peter. During her reign, she limited herself to fighting wars with the much weaker Ottoman Empire, and avoided antagonizing the European great powers by getting what she wanted from them through diplomacy instead of war, such as with the Partitions of Poland. Thus Catherine completed what her predecessors had set out to do by securing Russian dominance over Ukraine (and with it Crimea and the Black Sea) and most of Poland; not so great for those nations, of course, but no one was exactly asking them. Peter, on the other hand, fought a long and devastating war against an alliance of his enemies, only to secure much less land in the end. Their different approaches also meant that, while Catherine was highly respected in the West as a patron of the Enlightment (an image she deliberately built up through her correspondence with Voltaire etc.), Peter was mostly regarded as a semi-barbaric warmonger. Catherine also didn’t needlessly antagonize the nobility and the church by pushing unpopular domestic reforms too quickly, and unlike Peter she really didn’t face opposition from them during her reign (the peasants, of course, were another story).
Very interested to see how you approach the English monarchs rankings, specifically the figureheads like Elizabeth II. How do you compare her long reign and the stability it brought to, say, Henry V who nearly subjugated France before his untimely death?
By raw power surely Victoria is number one
@@vampmode9132 exactly, but by the time Victoria took power, the UK was a constitional monarchy and her decisions didn't have much to do with the prosperity of the empire.
Given how he handles the Spanish Monarchs, living ones will not be counted. So it's likely to be William the Conqueror (good place to start) -> George VI.
@@user-wm6zf4jg2z Victoria had huge influence behind the scenes, this wasn’t revealed until after her death though.
@@barnaby4232 Yeah absolutely. It was more nuanced than I made it to be
i love your videos man and i love historyy in general
Here's a challenge, ranking Chinese Emperors of the five big dynasties (Han, Tang, Song, Ming, Qing), maybe also including the Qin, Jin, Sui and Yuan, split up into one video per dynasty.
ivan the terrible is the definition of a good fella that turned 180 after losing their loved one
A tax on long beards, I wonder how expensive that was
A brief correction - Aleksey wasn’t named the Quietest for his nature - he was actually quite brutal at times, it’s actually sort of a title/customary form of address. If we were to translate it with more of a functional approach we would get Aleksey the Most Serene, and if you know European history you might have heard this “the most serene” title as a form of address or part of a title. When you call someone the most serene it’s is an indicator of sovereignty. A good way to translate this title in Russian would be Светлейший (the brightest, the most holy), but I guess that Russian translators fumbled with this one, so they called him “the quietest one”. Thanks for reading this and have a nice day!