>Defeated rebellious nobles
>Hated by political opponents but none were able to overthrow him
>Centralised France
>Nicknamed the 'universal spider'
>Significantly reduced the Habsburg Burgundian Inheritance
What does LULZ think?
Louis XI the most underrated French King?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
A real Sith Lord
He isn't underrated. It's just that the Anglos conquered the world and only their royal lineage entered the popular media. If you never studied French history in your life, the only rulers you're going to know from pop culture are Napoleon and Louis XVI.
Uh bro Charlemagne
Uhhhh bro Charlemagne wasn't French
He was king of France and a sucessor to Clovis, and from there, he expanded eastwards
>He was king of France
Incorrect.
Francia is latin for France. He governed a kingdom that was created by people that gave France it's name (Franks), "founded" by Clovis, a catholic baptised in Reims which had Paris as it's main city. Their kingdom had borders around the Pyrennes, the Alpes and until Charlemagne, the eastern side of the Rhine.
That was France. It doesn't matter that later that country would split, the western side, which just happens to be one with Paris/Reims, was France.
It eventually became France, but it wasn't France. Concession accepted.
It was already France. It has been since the 5th century. Charlemagne was just the height of it's power during the middle ages.
Frankia != France.
Francia = France but bigger with other future states inside.
A nation cease to be a nation when it colapses and it's culture it's replaced. After the franks conquered Gaul no such thing happened to France again (it kinda colapsed in WW2 but wasn't replaced)
It's Francia of the Vth century equal to XVth century France? Of course not! But so isn't XVIII century France, and just like that history goes. Nations change over time, but they always have a starting point when the basis of a nation is created and everything that cames before could trace it's origins to, and in the case of France, this is obviously with CLOVIS. And that's where France began, and has been morphing from ever since.
So in other words, NOT FRANCE. Thank you, again.
Sadly I can't say thanks to such a moron who wastes my time with such stupid and pointless remarks with nothing of substance to even argue.
Take as much time with you need the fact that Frankia is not France.
Farewell anon
"Frankia" is Francia is France.
You might as well say Anglia wasn't England, or that Germania and Italia aren't Germany and Italy that matter.
>Bro they derived their name from them that means they are the same fucking thing!
Then the King of the Romans of the 11th century is the same as that of the Roman Kingdom.
>He was king of France and a sucessor to Clovis, and from there, he expanded eastwards
That also applies to Germany, Burgundy and Lorraine. The Franks were not the Kings of France, Germany or Burgundy however. They were the Kings of Francia and those kingdoms only developed out of the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, they were not a part of it. People in the Middle Ages knew this shit, they were later conceptualized as the Kings of France, Germany and Italy but the truth of the situation was only Italy existed as a sub Kingdom during the Carolingian Empire and had little to do with the eventual Kingdom of Italy in the HRE.
You can't just say that the Franks were kings of (x) when said thing didn't even exist until they no longer did.
"Germany", that is to say "East Francia" across the Rhine only became part of the Frankish World in 843 after said eastward expansion happened with the saxon wars
Sorry, 772 saxon wars.
I had 843 in my mind for whatever reason
That was still just Francia. They weren't being exclusive with the term. They didn't exclude it from being Francia, so it makes no sense for retard nationalism to throw it out. Otherwise 'France' is just the conquered part of Belgium. Which is of course fucking stupid. Because Belgium, nor France, nor Germany existed while the real conception of the Carolingian Empire did.
The Carolingian dynasty emerged after the Merovingian dynasty which created France. Clovis, it's founder, through his catholic baptism, sealed the unity of gallo-romans and Franks Salic under a common destiny. He was baptised in Reims, close to Paris which he made his "capital". France is a mix (principally) of those three ethnicities (German, Celt, Latin). The Franks Salic (even though their language took loooong to evolve) romanised themselves. Many of the things that would define France were created with Clovis in the 5th century. Notoriously, catholicism, Paris centralization and roman-frankish culture.
Charlemagne, much later, would add what we now call "Germany" east of the Rhine to his dominions. But he was already king Frankorum as were his ancestors, but the "germans" (I.e. saxons) weren't
>the Merovingian dynasty which created France
France did not exist at that point.
>Paris centralization
The centralisation of the Franks was completely different in nature from that of 13th century France. France wouldn't even develop until the collapse of central power from the Carolingian dynasty. You can't conflate an administration which ceased to exist in the 9th century to one which only started to exist in the 13th. It's completely nonsensical.
> roman-frankish culture.
You're working backwards here.
>But he was already king Frankorum as were his ancestors, but the "germans" (I.e. saxons) weren't
They were part of Francia, they shared the same political community, same conception of state and political allegiance. It was not until the end of the 10th century where this ended. There was no clear delineation between West and East Francia until the death of Otto II.
>France did not exist at that point.
Oh boy, again that...
>You're working backwards here.
I don't. Frankish-roman culture made France. For the franks it was instrumental for their sucess that they conquered a former roman province like Gaul to inherit some of it's traditions. The french language also it's a great testement to that as is a germanic influenced, but latin on it's absolute core language.
>They were part of Francia
They were CONQUERED by the franks who, as said previously, emerged much earlier before Charlemagne's wars.
>Oh boy, again that...
Yes, a 10th century state didn't exist in the 5th century.
>Frankish-roman culture made France
Made, was not made by. You can say the same thing about Germany being made from a Frankish culture as well. Again that's just working backwards. You're assigning something which existed before France did to France.
>They were CONQUERED by the franks
So was Gaul. Your point being? They can still exist within a political community even after a conquest of a region. Most of the 'conquest' essentially only applied to Saxony. The Alemanni had been part of the Frankish political community for centuries even before they were finally integrated for good under Charles. The Duke of Bavaria was the nominal subject and vassal of Francia a century before the Carolingians even took power.
>Yes, a 10th century state didn't exist in the 5th century
Yep, and it turns out that a 19th century French also didn't exist in the 10th century. There were no capetians in Paris in 1875, hell there weren't even kings there, but that doesn't matter, it seems that to you historical continuity doesn't exist or exist only when it's convenient to exist.
>Made, was not made by
It was both. That was the whole point of the previously mentioned importance of the franks settling in Roman Gaul. Had they settled in Denmark or other non roman places there wouldn't be no roman culture to emulate. Frankish-Roman culture made and was made in France.
>So was Gaul. Your point being?
My point was and still is, that the franks were a tribe that became a kingdom after conquering Roman Gaul in the V century and there they develop a dinasty and a culture that created a kingdom that would change many times in the future, of course, but still was created there. And after the creation of said kingdom, they will, after centuries, expand to the east and spread the aforementioned roman-frankish culture to those people.
I also add that I wouldn't be answering this thread anymore. It completely deviated from the original question about Louis XI and it has been running in circles for more than a hour.
>Royal lineage
Kek German nobles are ruling over Bongland today. France had the same dynasty from the 10th century until the revolution. The Capetians are ruling Spain and Luxembourg today.
Oh no. A German dynasty rules over a west-germanic people.
le schnoz
why he looks like a love child of an Anglo and an Ashkenaz?
He fought against the Burgundians, the rebelious French Lords (Brittany, Bourbon, Alencon, Vendome etc), the peasant revolts, the German Imperials, the Flemish, the Aragonese, the Castillians, the Savoys, the English, the Milanese, the Venetians, the Genoeses, the Swiss, the Napolitans, the Pope
AND HE F...ING WON EVERYONE
>the peasant revolts
What peasant revolts? There were localized complaints at the beginning but that was it, the post-war period isn't really known for major revolts, they only ramp up in Henri II's time.
He's dragged down by his seething hatred of his father blinding him
Destroying the professional state army that Charles the Victorious had built because of his daddy issues was just plainly short sighted and stifled French ambitions for a good century
Francia was never a fucking title holy shit
The title used by the Carolingians was Rex Francorum, meaning King of the Franks, and I mean the Franks as in the people themselves, not the land they lived on, not king of Francia, because that wasn't a fucking concept back then
Louis' title was Rex Franciae, meaning King of France, there was no debelopment of Francia into France at all, in fact you could argue Francia is the concept of France being applied to the past by modern minds.
You homosexuals derailed the thread only a few actually discussed Louis XI. France did not become "France" until there was a definitive split into West Francia. Regarding Louis XI he managed to have a successful reign despite being dealt a shitty hand
Shitty hand? His father left him a france in an extremely strong position. A professional standing army, nobles who had been humbled and curbed, a treasury that had not been exhausted, diplomatic opprotunities opened, and England ousted from the continent. The only weakness in his position was the defiance of Burgundy, which was led by a retard who killed speed ran the death of a state. I
Charles organised the Public Weal against him. The Burgundians were extremely potent, Charles main error was overextending himself later on but early in Louis reign he was a serious threat. Mary was way older than the Dauphin there's no way that marriage could have been arranged.
Not "only an exceptional leader could beat him" level of serious. And this seems like a ridiculous justification to discredit the possibility of a marriage. The serious one would be to hint at Brittany. But this only became an alternative possibility after his death.
>Charles main error was overextending himself later on
He was the original Chad incelchud. Imagine being the richest and arguably the most powerful noble in Europe and not breeding lmao
He's overrated. He had nothing better to do than fire his fathers' advisors only to fight the same opponents and hire them again later. Charles fucked himself. He could've accepted a marital solution with Mary of Burgundy instead of war. He gained Roussillon and Provence, sure, but he left the problems of Flanders and Burgundy (and indirectly Roussillon) to his successors.
"Centralized" is really just an empty buzzword on the subject of french history if you don't flesh it out further. It's easy to see why for his father (justice, military, customs, taxation), not so much here.
Sure