r/HolyRomanEmperors • u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II • 15d ago
TIER LIST Ranking Every Holy Roman Emperor: Henry V
2
u/relaxitschinababy 15d ago
Otto II still stuck in mediocre....come on...
1
u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II 14d ago
I will put him in fair with henry V its between mediocre and decent.
2
u/Iosephus_1973 15d ago
Mediocre - I believe he should be mediocre. Quite some failures with one major success with the Concordate of Worms.
1
u/Twannyman 15d ago
Hmm I'm liable to say that just Concordate of Worms puts him in decent, but he feels like he should in between Mediocre and Decent, like an okay tier would be perfect for him
1
u/Great_AEONS Henry IV 15d ago
Decent, especially compared to his father and grandfather. Yes he ended up falling for the same pits they had but he came out of his issues in a stronger position than what you'd expect. That is if you ignore the fact that he was the last of his dynasty, but I won't put any more emphasis on that.
1
u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II 15d ago
I added a new tier between decent and mediocre, its called fair. Would you like to rank him in that tier?
1
u/Great_AEONS Henry IV 15d ago
No. Heinrich III is listed under "Decent" already and so he and his grandson are at around the same level in my perspective.
1
1
u/Odd-Discussion-8557 12d ago
He rebelled against his father when he was about to inherit anyway, thats a bit dumb
1
6
u/Objective-Golf-7616 Frederick II 15d ago edited 15d ago
I’ll have to plug for high mediocre, at most low decent. Henry V certainly wasn’t incompetent or without ability, it’s just he had much more failure than success, all in all.
Fortunately… we’re nearing the Staufen soon, so we’ll finally get some more ‘Greats’. (since it seems the top tier has been combined)