Alright, I've thought about the rankings and think I have a pretty good way forward. From now on, any and all of the Kings will be given a simple number, a W.A.R., that will allow us to look at how they were as a ruler and leader in their own time.
Now, with 87 Kings to rate, it's fair to say that most of them are going to fall around the middle of the chart, in the -2 to +2 range. We normally only remember the exceptional monarchs, for better or worse, and so it will be here. Honestly, a King pulling better than a +/-5 will almost certainly have multiple episodes of the podcast dedicated to them. And we'll never get a true +/-10; as the rating indicates, a score that high (or low) would mean nobody, in all of the history that is written or yet to be put to paper, could ever do so well (or poorly).
So there it is. I like the idea of rating much better than the idea of ranking. Hopefully this puts the kings in context with one another; if nothing else, I hope it provides a simple number for people to use to know any given monarchs overall importance to history using evidence, empirical data, and the history as we know it today.
As always, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this idea. Tomorrow I'll post up the metrics I'm going to use to come up with a King's number and throw out a few examples. I'll be curious to know your thoughts!