What makes a good king during the middle ages?

Answer 1

The three must have factors that a medieval king must have to be proclaimed good kings are

1) They must have great swordsmanship in battle

2) They must be fair as so to not cause any rebellions

3) They must be truthful

Frankly, the above is wishful thinking.

The primary attributes of what historians have judged as "successful" kings during the European Middle Ages would have to include these traits:

1. Ruthlessness - virtually all "good" kings were very much aware of possible challenges to their power base, and, in order to stay on the throne long enough to leave a legacy, needed the ability to identify and eliminate those who whould challenge them. Thus, you will see that successful kings were adept at eliminating (killing, exiling, or destroying the political power of) those who might prove a threat to the throne. Sadly, many of these threats were from family members, so a successful king had to have the stomach to be able to destroy relatives and "friends".
2. Charisma - this is a nebulous ability, but roughly translates into the ability of a person to be able to inspire loyalty and admiration in others, usually through a combination of personality, words, and actions. This can be reinforced by other events, but there must be a base personality trait which attracts people to the king. Note that this is NOT the same thing as physical beauty; today, we often refer to charisma as "personal magnetism".
3. Competent administrator - good kings were either excellent administrators, knowing how to balance taxation, public opinion, and resource use to maximize their advantages, or they were good at picking loyal ministers which were able administrators. Running a kingdom is a significant logistical problem, and a king needed to be able to balance all the competing interests.
4. Adept military strategist - kings had no need to be good warriors, though many gained their kingdom on the strength of their warrior skills. Once a king, however, the more important ability was to be able to plan military campaigns properly, seizing on the enemy's weaknesses while minimizing one's own problems. In modern terms, a king needed to be a good general, but not necessarily a good field commander (especially if the king could find a loyal subordinate that was a good military commander). The King needed the ability to look at the larger picture and decide how to use the kingdom's army appropriately - when to hazzard it for the maximum gain, and when to hold it in reserve instead of risking it.
5. Skilled Diplomat and Politican - kings throughout the Middle Ages seldom ruled by "Divine Right" or similar theories. Rather, they kept their throne by their wits and political skills. This is a complementary skill to #1 (Ruthlessness), in that a King needed the ability to make strategic alliances with other kingdoms, the diplomatic skills to be able to play enemies against eachother, and political accumen to be able to survive in environments filled with intrigue, where failure usually resulted in death (or, at best, being deposed).
6. Proper Connections - few successful kings (if any) weren't born into the nobility somewhere. One needed the proper birth status to get anywhere. In addition, to go with #5, one needed to have the proper family ties with other powerful families, and know how to both nurture those ties, and acquire new connections. This all fed the #3, #4, and #5 requirements, as a successful king needed to know where to get competent retainers, who to trust (and who not to), and which connections could yield military advantage. "Who You Know" was just as important as "Who You Were".

Very few successful kings would be described as "nice" in any sense (personal or political). Good kings were fair with their subjects, as it reinforced loyalty and kept rebellion and intrigue down, though "fair" is certainly not a synonym for "just". However, virtually all were decisive (the ability to make quick and efficient decisions in crisis) and few let personal feelings get in the way of political necessity. I would also state that "truthful" is one thing a good king could NOT afford to be (except in small doses), given the level of political maneuvering that was required to keep one's behind on the throne.

Answer 2

1. Ruthlessness - virtually all "good" kings were very much aware of possible challenges to their power base, and, in order to stay on the throne long enough to leave a legacy, needed the ability to identify and eliminate those who whould challenge them. Thus, you will see that successful kings were adept at eliminating (killing, exiling, or destroying the political power of) those who might prove a threat to the throne. Sadly, many of these threats were from family members, so a successful king had to have the stomach to be able to destroy relatives and "friends".
2. Charisma - this is a nebulous ability, but roughly translates into the ability of a person to be able to inspire loyalty and admiration in others, usually through a combination of personality, words, and actions. This can be reinforced by other events, but there must be a base personality trait which attracts people to the king. Note that this is NOT the same thing as physical beauty; today, we often refer to charisma as "personal magnetism".
3. Competent administrator - good kings were either excellent administrators, knowing how to balance taxation, public opinion, and resource use to maximize their advantages, or they were good at picking loyal ministers which were able administrators. Running a kingdom is a significant logistical problem, and a king needed to be able to balance all the competing interests.
4. Adept military strategist - kings had no need to be good warriors, though many gained their kingdom on the strength of their warrior skills. Once a king, however, the more important ability was to be able to plan military campaigns properly, seizing on the enemy's weaknesses while minimizing one's own problems. In modern terms, a king needed to be a good general, but not necessarily a good field commander (especially if the king could find a loyal subordinate that was a good military commander). The King needed the ability to look at the larger picture and decide how to use the kingdom's army appropriately - when to hazzard it for the maximum gain, and when to hold it in reserve instead of risking it.
5. Skilled Diplomat and Politican - kings throughout the Middle Ages seldom ruled by "Divine Right" or similar theories. Rather, they kept their throne by their wits and political skills. This is a complementary skill to #1 (Ruthlessness), in that a King needed the ability to make strategic alliances with other kingdoms, the diplomatic skills to be able to play enemies against eachother, and political accumen to be able to survive in environments filled with intrigue, where failure usually resulted in death (or, at best, being deposed).
6. Proper Connections - few successful kings (if any) weren't born into the nobility somewhere. One needed the proper birth status to get anywhere. In addition, to go with #5, one needed to have the proper family ties with other powerful families, and know how to both nurture those ties, and acquire new connections. This all fed the #3, #4, and #5 requirements, as a successful king needed to know where to get competent retainers, who to trust (and who not to), and which connections could yield military advantage. "Who You Know" was just as important as "Who You Were".

Answer 3

Depends on what you mean by 'good', but if I were to guess it would be the following factors:

1) legitimacy;

2) military prowess;

3) savvy poitician or shrewd personality, at the very least a good people manipulator;

4) a good manager, or at the very least good at knowing who are good managers;

5) Knowing how to prosper in times of peace or knowing how to win and plunder in times of war.

Answer 4

A:The same things that made a man a good medieval king: intelligence and a good education, humility, compassion, self-respect, tactfulness, etc. A:There are a number of queens who were regarded as especially good. There were a few who were remarkable rulers in their own rights, but when people spoke of good queens, what they usually meant was queens who advocated for the church or for the common people. Others were women who commissioned churches or convents. A number of such women were made saints of the church.

Answer 5

I would pick King Louis IX of France, King Alfred the Great of England, and Charlemagne as three good medieval kings.

Answer 6

If you have the qualities of a good person such as honesty, bravery, empathy and the list goes on and in and on.

Answer 7

Lots of money. Lots of men. And a beard.