What is the greatest dynasty in European history?
>>455948
Without specifying what would qualify "greatness?"
Hard to argue with the Hapsburgs, I guess.
Habsburg
Capet
Hohenzollern
Carolingian
Ottoman (not European per se, but a part of European history like you said)
>>455984
Speaking of Carolingian, how did they lose all their power so quickly?
>>455948
Nerva-Antonine
>>455989
THIS IS MAH NIGGA RIGHT HERE
Herclians did some amazing shit. Maybe them, or the habsburgs, hard to argue with the kaiseriech
If we mean greatest by the line with the most "good" leaders, then Rurik, Valois and Plantagenet
>>455948
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
/thread
I like the Flavian, Domitian gets a bad rap
>>455988
Frankish inheritance laws were inherently disruptive ( constantly dividing your land between your sons isn't exactly a way to create a stable state)
>>457040
>established in 19th century
Into the trash.
>>455989
>Nerva-Antonine
/thread
>>455948
The less inbred one.
>>457040
house of hanover was better desu
Hapsburg, Hanover, and Romanov are the biggest ones that come to mind.
Hapsburg definitely edges out for their longevity and overall influence over the entire continent.
>>455948
Caesar.
>>455948
Haspergers and Ottomans are probably the most relevant, and most famous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capetian_dynasty
There's no debate.
>>458482
This desu both houses were also continuosly ruling while france and britain changed their ruling house every century or so .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnenos
Rothschild
>>458532
This
house of Aviz
Cohen
/thread
>>455948
Julio-Claudian
>>459414
What are you one about? Augustus alone can't save that line.
>>459430
What about germanicus and claudius
>>458505
Habsburgs shit on them
>>459637
Not in 1648 :^)
>>459713
>what is being backstabbed
Perfidious Francia at work
Hrolf the Ganger. 1003 years so far.
Capet
Rurikid
Romanov
Hungary is full of pretty based houses though
>>456038
Tudor tho. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I are goat. Henry VII is also underrated. Even VIII's son Edward VI was gr8 because he inaugurated the true coming of Protestantism in England. Had he lived longer all the Catholics would have been gassed and Anglicanism would never have been a thing.
>>462116
>Hungary is full of pretty based houses though
none of them european, they are turkic
Vasa
>Started with 81th claimant of the throne when everyone closer to succession than that family was massacred
>Gustav Vasa escapes North, into the wilds
>Raises militia out of farmers and homesteaders in rural Sweden
>Retake all of Sweden
Literally pulling yourself up by the bootstraps.
>>455948
Habsburg by a large margin.
>>459414
>Julio-Claudian
Garbage dynasty and Augustus is one of my historical idols.
>>462227
This
Whatever you might personally think about them: they had the most and longest influence on europe.
>>455948
Bourbon
>>455984
>Habsburg
Why are they even mentioned, they lost their family seat to the Swiss and where never able to retake it. Their marriage politics made their empire but it also made them inbreed as fuck.
>>462171
OP said "in European history", buddy.
Guess where Hungary is located?
>>462583
The only significant territory that the spanish Habsburgs got by marriage was Flanders, they conquered most of their empire by arms, sometimes even when they had the dynastic legitimacy (see Portugal). In let's be fair, the Habsburgs that hegemony over Europe before the 30 Years War were the ones in Madrid, not the austrian ones even when those managed to survive for more time.
Is there some meta-meme about ignoring France or something?
It's objectively the Capetians.
>>462636
Pic related.
>>462612
>The only significant territory that the spanish Habsburgs got by marriage was Flanders,
How did they get Spain?
>>462636
Nah, /his/ is full of frenchboos (including myself tbqh famille)
Its objectively the Habsburgs. The Capetians are closely behind.
>>462681
>The Habsburgs were briefly relevant during the Renaissance
I don't even...the Habsburgs were major European players from the 1400s until WWI
>>462583
>Why are they even mentioned
Because they're one of the most important and widespread houses in Europe.
> they lost their family seat to the Swiss and where never able to retake it.
>hurf hurf durf I'm a retard that skims wikipedia
The castle in Switzerland was not relevant when the Habsburgs rose to power under Rudolph I when he defeated Ottokar and therefore conquered Austria. It was then that Austria become their family seat.
> Their marriage politics made their empire
Wow the marriages of Capet made much of its European dominance as well, who would have guessed.
The Capet dynasty is probably the most prominent of all dynasties in Europe, but there's no need to be reductive to the Habsburgs.
>>462612
>The only significant territory that the spanish Habsburgs got by marriage was Flanders
Flanders, Spain, and Bohemia were all inherited through very lucky deaths.
Now I despise it when people attribute ambition of a leader to exploit the weakness of his opponents as luck, but the Spanish and Bohemian throne were effectively given to the Habsburgs on the lucky coincidence of having no other and better heir, respectively.
In saying that, the Habsburgs conquered Austria and Italy, and certainly had some of the most tenacious opponents in European history (the Swiss and the Dutch) to fight against when claiming their sovereignty. The Dutch may be less respected because they don't have the pikemen meme, but from the Burgundians to the Spanish, they were notably vicious in resisting and feuding with their leaders. So its fair to say that what the Habsburgs did control of Switzerland and the Netherlands, while failing to keep them, they fought hard for.
But Spain and Bohemia weren't conquered in any fashion.
>>462612
>In let's be fair, the Habsburgs that hegemony over Europe before the 30 Years War were the ones in Madrid, not the austrian ones even when those managed to survive for more time.
This is an incredibly retarded thing to say.
Really stupid.
The Habsburgs in Spain were the direct result of the Austrian Habsburgs. Without the conquest by Rudolph I, the marriage of Maximilian I to Marie of Burgundy and his marrying of his son to Joanna of Castile, there would have been no Spanish Habsburgs. Charles V, the most notable of all Spanish Habsburgs, would not have been conceived if it wasn't for his Austrian grandfather. After Charles V? Some hegemony. Philip II fumbled with the Netherlands and England, squandered the riches of the new world, and after that there isn't much to note since becoming Habsburg-Bourbon, apart from being marred by the true faces of inbreeding. The military power of the Spanish waned in the very late 16th and 17th century.
>>462959
>the Habsburgs were major European players from the 1400s until WWI
WWI is a real stretch. To say that was still the Habsburgs, I don't even think that's true.
And from the very LATE 1400s. The Habsburgs were a nothing in Europe (big in the HRE, not in the rest of Europe) until Maximilian I's late reign.
>>462655
>Pic related.
>a shitload of titles of regions that are within France
Capet is most impressive if you consider its cadet branches with it.
For a single house, its still pretty much the most 'greatest' since greatness in history typically just refers to breadth.
The Habsburgs are awesome and relevant, but their power is overstated.
>>462075
PRIMOGENITOR
![Entrevista+Elite+-+Maio+2010[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9C9Mf0G.jpg "Entrevista+Elite+-+Maio+2010[1].jpg")
>His country is ruled by a foreign dynasty
>>464360
>WWI is a real stretch. To say that was still the Habsburgs, I don't even think that's true.
you can say that all you want but its still true. Franz Joseph I was a Habsburg and he ruled Austria Hungary from ~1860s to 1917. All the Holy Roman Emperors from the late 1400s onward were also Habsburgs too, with the exception of a brief time in the 1700s.
>very LATE 1400s
I give you that
>>466143
>still true
still not true*
>>462959
And the Capetians were major players from the 800s until today.
>>466162
>until today.
Based retard bro.
1. Capetian
2. Hapsburg
3. Plantagenet
4. Medici
5. Rothschild
>>466175
>>466162
I never meant to diss the Capetians. Frankly, I don't know enough about them to say anything. I only took slight at that anon's statement that the Habsburgs were irrelevant after the Renaissance
>>466181
Who do you think rules Spain right now?
>>466189
Nobody rules Spain right now, they can't form a goverment.
>>466189
Certainly not the Capetians.
>>466187
They weren't irrelevant, though they were no longer the most powerful dynasty in Europe. The Capetians were indisputably the most powerful on two occasions: during the later Middle Ages, and again in the 17th and 18th centuries. Relatively speaking, the Habsburgs were upstarts and didn't last very long.
I'd still say they're the second most important dynasty in Western history though.
>>466211
Yes the Capetians. Bourbons are Capetians you know, just like the Valois were.
>>466182
This except replace Rothschild with Normans.
>>466219
And was it the Capetians who ruled France when the Bourbons took hegemony there?
Retard.
>>466215
Of course I wouldn't say most powerful. But the Austrian Habsburgs were a force to be reckoned with in the 18th century and more than held their own against France and their Prussian lackeys. They also got effective control of Italy during the 18th, which France did not seriously contest until the Napoleonic Wars. I won't deny that the Austrians did suffer some big setbacks during the century, but all the ancien regimes paid heavily for their wars of the 18th century.
>>466237
What are you even talking about? Yes the Capetians ruled France until the Revolution.
>>466245
Until 1848 actually.
>>466245
>implying cadet branches of a dynasty are that simply equivalent to their parent dynasty
>>466258
It's not a cadet branch, it's the main branch. The Bourbons were the direct descendants in agnatic patrilineal succession of Saint Louis.
>>466242
don't forget many successful campaigns against Ottomans
>>466278
good point
>>466162
>major players
>today
not really sure I would call that being 'major players'
is simply being a surviving royal family being a 'major player' at this point? then there are a shitload of other 'major players' out there
>>466308
Just following the same logic where Habsburgs are still considered important in WW1.
>>466348
my logic is that neither of them actually were and its just as petty either way
Arpad.
>>466274
>it's the main branch
>main
>branch
If it was Capet, it would be called Capet.
It's the Bourbon dynasty and it overtook its parent house. In the same manner that Capet was dissolved centuries before, its hegemony as 'Capet' had ended, and its branches lived on.
>>466387
It wasn't "overtaken" or "lost hegemony" or "dissolved". None of Philip the Fair's sons had sons of their own, so the throne passed to his brother's son, Philip of Valois. That's all.
>>466452
>house of Capet
>no dissolution
Check again.
>>466471
I just explained what happened, there was no dissolution. Capetians are still around today.
And if you want their official name it's not "House of Capet" but "House of France".
>>466452
And then the Valois died the country was ravaged by Religious Wars and the only Prince du Sang left was a Bourbon
>>466490
Yes. Again Valois and Bourbon are Capetians, it's all the same dynasty.
>>462154
The Tudors where fucking shit.
Only Henry VII and Elizabeth were good.
8 destroyed the county and his first two fucktard heirs didn't help.
>>466549
>where
*were
Shoutout to the O'Neill Dynasty
They ruled for 1000 years, and were frequently elected kings of Ireland. Lasted centuries under English rule, rallying often France and Spain to their assistance.
When they left, Ireland was helpless against the English for another 300 years.
Porcii
I don't know which one is greater but Habsburg and Ottoman Dynasties share 1st and 2nd place. Damn. They should've joined their houses. Fugging catholic and sunni beliefs.
And Romanovs, 3rd, maybe.
>>466565
Then they went to spain and ended up blandaing with natives in the caribbean. Nice end to that story.
The Macedonian Dynasty
Attila
>>462548
nice
>confusing a singular house for a collective dynasty
>this thread
embarrassing
>>468589
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dynasty
>>466752
They actually were the enemies they both deserved the wars between them slowly destroyed both empires.
According to Crusader Kings 2, Capet > Habsbourg.
capet isn't as cool as habsburg desu
>>470797
you're aware CK2 takes place before the greatest part of the rise of the hapsburg dynasty
>>470878
>fucking warrior saints and quasi god-kings aren't as cool as inbreeding retards who just blobbed a lot of land through marriages and then wiped themselves out within a few decades
Habsburg, then Carolingian
>>466184
>empire of mexico
that was a beautiful dream i have once or twice
>>473455
>his understanding of habsburg history and character is memes
retard tier desu
>>473455
>fucking warrior saints
Warrior saint*.
>quasi god-kings
Nigga you literally just described what Habsburg >Holy>Roman>Emperor's claimed themselves to be too.
>>462186
>tfw you live city called Vasa
feels good to live in eastern sweden
Not mentioning the herclian dynasty? The nerva antione are also really good ones. Of a more modern, Hapsburgs, Ottomans and i guess the capets.
>>474414
/his/ memes forbid any positivity towards byzantines
>>474428
>tfw you will never fight a losing battle to protect the backwards barbarians west of you
>tfw they will never thank you for your sacrificed
>>455948
Habsburg
>>473455
hi Pierre
>>468849
This
>>468589
Is true though, and no single, or better known as "direct", house has really existed/ lived in absolute dominance for more than a few hundred years.
The direct Capetian house is comparable to the direct houses of Habsburg and Piast in terms of length for this reason. The collective dynasties of Capet and Habsburg live on today, but they're derivative and mixed, respectively, and not necessarily direct, or else they wouldn't be under different titles. At any rate, they're not the same.
If we vaguely judge the greatness of a dynasty by
>unity under one name
>number of foreign titles
>length of collective dynasty
>size/length of de facto territorial possession
Then you pretty much have a tie between Roman, Medieval, and Early-Modern dynasties.
And this is because there is no objective prioritization of length, size, and unity.
At best, dominant dynastic presence is perceivable by era. You're pretty much arguing apples and oranges after that considering how drastically the contexts change between each of them.
And of course the two most obvious are
>Medieval: Capet
>Early-Modern: Habsburg
But the Piast and Jagiellonian dynasties are essentially the Central and Eastern European equivalents, respectively.
And both Capetian and Habsburg dominance are a bit deceptive.
It's much fairer to say that, dynastically and territorially, France as a whole dominated the Medieval period. As the Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, Angevins, and the houses that took part in conquering the Levant, and the dying Byzantine Empire, may have been rivaled by the Holy Roman Empire in the scale of their territories, but the French were clearly still the most dominant Medieval ethnicity.
Concerning the Capetians specifically though, the crowns of Hungary and Poland were held for such short periods as to be nothing more than another couple notches on the belt. Really, the greatest extents of the Medieval Capetians was France, Naples, and Portugal, since the houses of Aragon and Castile were both based on non-Capetian Burgundian houses.
And while the scale of Charles V's Empire might appear to rival Charlemagne's; only the Neapolitan territories symbolized any kind of conquest, while in contrast, the greatest portions of Charlemagne's were won through conquest. And while no single Capetian king ever held as much territory as Charles V; the far more consistent, centralized control of a Capetian (French in general) King was no doubt comparable at the dynasty's peak.
>>475569
Well Spanish Habsburgs squandered everything on constant wars in the 16th and 17th century. But the Austrian Habsburgs were comparable to the French Dynasties because they successfully maintained a compact realm till their demise in WWI. Arguably, they achieved as much central control of their lands as the French, with the exception of Hungary.
