r/HolyRomanEmperors • u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II • 5d ago
Ranking Every Holy Roman Emperor Day 30: Richard
I don't know why I only had 9 upvotes and 3000+ views on my post.. like that's so low.
5
u/Impressive-Cry-7557 5d ago
not dumpster fire , but very bad , he was never Alphonso or Conrad and he just visited germany four times. He is like Wido and Lambert.
1
4
u/SeBoss2106 5d ago
Average reddit experience.
50.000 views, 200 votes, 14 comments
Anyway.
I hate the interregnum.
I'd put him at bad, considering he wasn't able to do anything really.
4
u/endlessmeat 5d ago
Also, with very limited knowledge, I'd say Richard was very bad.
As far as I know he was never emperor de facto, just had the title of king of the Romans won in a very contested election but never truly ruled in the Empire in any capacity.
But again, I defer to people that might know more than me about this one.
1
u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II 5d ago
Henry I, Conrad I, Conrad III, etc weren't emperors too. But some of them were good like Henry I and Conrad III.
2
u/endlessmeat 5d ago
But as far as I know Richard barely even set foot on the Empire. So having low legitimacy (and snatching the title in a turbulent period just for the prestige), little interest in the realm you're supposed to govern, and no deeds to speak of (other than getting the title) makes for a very bad king of the Romans.
But again, I come from this from a fuzzy memory and a very pro-Alfonso X point of view.
2
u/Herald_of_Clio 5d ago
Unlike William of Holland, I'm not sure if he even had a lot of influence in his home territory, which, in any case, was outside of the Empire. He had a relatively successful crusade, though, so maybe that bumps him up to bad? Complete nonentity as a Rex Romanorum, though.
2
1
u/sketchbookamy 5d ago
I don’t think we can dank this guy. Like he did nothing, a cinder block with a crown probably would’ve done more, literally just the guy they gave the crown to so nobody else could have it. Revive the Unrankable tier just for him
1
u/JellyOpen8349 Frederick II 5d ago
He barely actually ruled the empire. I would consider a new category for those who were King/Emperor in name only. Of the existing ones, I would pick „very bad“, since was unable or unwilling to assert his authority at all but at least that’s better than having power and actively suck at handling it.
1
1
0
u/Great_AEONS Henry IV 5d ago
Dumpster fire for same reasons as Willhelm. There's nothing to say about rulers like him.
1
u/Odd-Discussion-8557 2d ago
Plantagenets at that time were such a mess. Henry (III) was trying to conquer Sicily after having failed to defend any of his French possessions properly. And Richard was unsatisfied with just being Earl of Cornwall. Those two brothers feel like CK3 NPCs trying to press some weird claim, just to get a rebellion in their core land. After that whole spectacle, it was only logical for Edward I to focus on the British Isles
13
u/endlessmeat 5d ago
I think the lesser known emperors are probably going to get a little less traction, and also it's difficult to keep people engaged with such long series. But don't worry, I think it comes and goes and it'll pick up again at some point