What Did His Contemporaries Think of King Louis the Great?
Abstract
King Louis the Great (1342–1382) is regarded as one of the greatest rulers in Hungarian history. He is the only Hungarian king to have been honoured with this epithet. The aim of this article is to analyze the sources that offer a characterization of the king. A prominent example is a hymn of praise to Louis, written around 1356 by Peter Suchenwirt, an Austrian poet and herald. His work provides a detailed account of Louis’s military campaigns, along with a brief description of each. His biographer, John of Küküllő, made many interesting observations about Louis in his work entitled Chronicon de Ludovico rege. We learn about the king’s passion for astrology, his linguistic abilities (he was said to have spoken German, Italian, and Latin fluently), and finally, the king’s physical appearance. Surviving portraits of the ruler confirm the chronicler’s opinion. Finally, some Italian chronicles and the opinions about King Louis contained therein, including those of anecdotal nature, are also discussed.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ignatianum University in Cracow
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
