Alright, I want you to tell me your nation's greatest leaders. EG: Cyberxkhan tells me Vietnam's greatest leaders, ETC. They don't have to be in any particular order.

I'm making this thread so that everybody around the world can learn about the history of others/answer the leader question in one thread, unlike HuaynaCapac357. ;) Sorry if I sound like an idiot! :sad:

Here's the USA's greatest leaders in my opinion:
1. President Washington
2. President Lincoln
3. President (Theodore) Roosevelt
4. President (Franklin) Roosevelt
5. President Eisenhower

Please share your history with us!

http://www.thirstytheologian.com/President%20Reagan%201982.jpg

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOO! YEAH!!!!!!! REAGAN, REAGAN, REAGAN!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

Canada

1. Sir John A. Macdonald
2. Sir Wilfred Laurier
3. Sir Robert Borden
4. Mackenzie King
5. Lester B. Pearson

EDIT: Put in the name of the country.

1. Sir John A. Macdonald
2. Sir Wilfred Laurier
3. Sir Robert Borden
4. Mackenzie King
5. Lester B. Pearson

Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier: PLEASE state the country that you are from!

http://www.thirstytheologian.com/President%20Reagan%201982.jpg

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOO! YEAH!!!!!!! REAGAN, REAGAN, REAGAN!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
:huh: :ack: :twitch:
*avoids political flame war
America:
1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. George Washington
4. Eisenhower
5. Theodore Roosevelt
Coming from someone here since 1639. :p

Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier: PLEASE state the country that you are from!

Look at his location and you should know some of those people or at the very least where ottawa is.

Vietnam... (even for a Vietnamese, my opinion may differ than my countrymen because of my views, but...)

1. Quang Truong (late 1700s) - Vietnamese who reunited the country after a terrible 200 YEAR CIVIL WAR and defeated a massive Qing DYnasty Invasion, a THai Invasion, and was planning for an invasion of Southern CHina before he died of mysterious circumstances at the young age of 40. If he lived, I think Vietnam would be a much richer place...

2. Trung Trac/Trung Nhi (40 - 43 CE) - okay, so they lost their rebellion, like Boadicea, but... they led the first massive rebellion against China since China conquered Vietnam, they actually succesffully DROVE the chinese out, and they probably ould've kept them out if the CHinese general didn't tell his soldiers to strip themselves naked and embarass the entire army of VIetnamese women... and speaking of which, they were young women riding on huge elephants beating the crap out of everyone. you don't see that in history every day!

3. Le Loi (early 1400s) - Another great leader loved by us. He drove out the Ming who had temporarily occupied Vietnam, and founded a great dynasty, the Le.

4. Ly Thuan Kiet (early 1000s) - A general who attacked China and won back sizable territory from it. I think he also repelled an invasion, but im not so sure.

5. Forgot his name :) (mid 1200s) - General and Admiral who repelled three Mongol invasions. WHat more do I need to say?


:)
ANd Ho Chi Minh isn't on this list... for obvious reasons.

FDR FTW!

FDR PWNs little Ronie.

For Romania, it's quite hard to say who the greatest leaders were, because it was known by so many names and divided in so many states in the past 2500 years, and on top of that add that about 1900 years ago it's population and culture was totally revolutionized by the Roman Empire.

Going all the way back in time, to the time of the Kingdom of Dacia, then Burebista is by far the best Dacian king of all times. Though Decebalus is more known, he is more known because Trajan defeated him. :p It's true, it was kinda impossible to defeat the Roman Empire at its maximum height under Emperor Trajanus, but don't forget even before the war begun, he still hadn't managed to put together a country even 2/3 of the one Burebista ruled.

During 106-271, Dacia was a Roman province, so the only leaders I could list here are Roman Emperors. ;)

In Wallachia (in Romanian called "Tara Romaneasca" so don't come telling me it's not Romania - the first one can be debated but this can't really be), the greatest kings IMHO were Basarab I who founded it and defeated the Hungarians in the middle of their expansion in Europe, and Mircea cel Batran (Mircea the Elder) who achieved some of the most important results of all of our rulers.

In Moldova (another of the 3 Romanian principalities of the middle ages), there is no contest - Stefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great, aka Stephen the Great and Holy) is by far the most important king, having won 40 battles and losing 2! Including imposing huge defeats on the biggest empire of the time - the Ottoman Empire, again when it was in it's expansion.

In Transylvania it's really hard to tell, since there were so many Romanians there that became kings somewhere else (like many Hungarian kings being of Romanian origin).

Mihai Viteazu, or "Michael the Brave" cannot be included in any of those though. He started as the ruler of Wallachia, but he managed to unify all the 3 Romanian principalities overpassing all the interests of the neighboring countries - which are not negligible (like Hungary, Poland and the Ottoman Empire, which were much bigger in that time than they are now). He conquered those and achieved the so-called "millenary dream" of uniting the Romanian principalities and most of the regions inhabited by Romanians. You could say he is the one who made Wallachia the dominant one in the 3 principalities, something which is still seen to this day (for example, the capital, Bucharest, is very off the center of the country, it's way south; why? Because it's in the middle of Wallachia, which is in the south).

Since Romania became a fully independent country with nobody having any right of messing with its business in any field at all, Romania had 4 kings (of which I met one, the only one alive today). I would not call the one who made the unification (that was not called a "king" - "rege", but a "leader" - "domnitor"), Alexandru Ioan Cuza, one of the best leaders of all times, but he still achieved very good things nonetheless. Of those 4 kings, Carol I was the best, though Ferdinand of Hohenzollern was not to be ignored either.

In the communist times, between 1945 and 1989, Romania had no good leaders. Period.

Since the revolution of 1989, the current president is by far the best of them all. Still, I would go back to the Monarchy any day. But that's another topic.


So if I were to post simply a list of names, in chronological order, beginning from 86 BC and ending with 2007 AD, I'd say the most important ones were: Burebista, Basarab I, Mircea cel Batran, Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul, Carol I.



Note I did not mention one single king between 1600 and 1900, which can be partially due to my somewhat less knowledge of the period, but is probably due to the fact that there was not 1 single person to bring a great boost to the country, the good changes being brought rather a succession of good leaders than to 1 genius leader.

An extremely tough question for a brazilian! It so much easier for us to name the worst ones!

Anyways, I will try. Most brazilians, I am sure, would place either Vargas or JK as the number one. They both sucked, though Vargas was far worse.

Here are some leaders of our past that I admire, in no particular order:

-Emperor Pedro II
Even though he was a monarch with absolute powers, his reign was far more liberal than the Old Republic that replaced it. He allowed irrestrict freedom of press (he was constantly mocked by the papers), freedom of religion and he also prevented either the Conservative or the Liberal parties to gain too much power, by alternating the years in which each party would rule. This prevented the sort of corrupt and authocratic parties that we would later experience.

-Castelo Branco
I'm sure the lefties will hate me for this. He was the first military ruler of the 1964 revolution / coup, some call him the first military dictator. But he was no such thing. He was from the moderate wing of the Army and was constantly struggling against the hardliners who wanted a full blown dictatorship, lead by Costa e Silva (who, unfortunately, was his successor). The 1964 movement saved Brazil from the insanity of Goulart, and was necessary. Castelo Branco wanted to stabilize the country and give it back to a civilian. He refused to extend his term. He opposed all the purges which were proposed during his term against dissidents, even though some took place. His economic reforms not only controlled the hyper-inflation created by Goulart's buffoonery as it laid the foundation for the spectacular economic growth that Brazil would experience in the following years. He understood that the communist threat needed to be defeated, but he did not believe that the method to do that would be with an anti-communist dictatorship, as unfortunately happened. He tried, and failed, to keep the Army outside of the political decisions.

-Prudente de Morais
Dealt reasonably with the economic crisis that he inheritted, reverted the authoritarian measures implemented by the tyrant Floriano Peixoto (the Iron Marshall), solved to Brazil's favour border disputes with Argentina, expelled the british from the Ilha da Trindade peacefully. Only downside is that he instituted state of exception after an assassination attempt, but back in the Old Republic this was common practice and presidents have done that for lesser reasons.

Not a particularly great list, but that's the best we have, folks!

For the United States...

1. James K. Polk
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Abraham Lincoln
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Canada

1. Sir John A. Macdonald
2. Sir Wilfred Laurier
3. Sir Robert Borden
4. Mackenzie King
5. Lester B. Pearson

EDIT: Put in the name of the country.

Not much else to say Canada-wise, so I shall cover my nation-that-is-a-province (as opposed to my country, Canada), Québec :

1. Jean Lessage
2. René Lévesque
3. Robert Bourassa
4. Adélard Godbout
5. Lucien Bouchard

even thuogh im not Chinese, im close enough to be able to list their greatest leaders. :D

1. Taizong - Ruled China at its height of power in the Tang Dynasty.

2. Qianlong/Kangxi - Both ruled China at the height of its power during the Qing Dynasty. If things had gone differently, i think these guys would be the ones who would be responsible for making China a world power... two centuries earlier.

3. QSH - not a great guy (but better than Mao), but nevertheless united China under one manner - which would have worldwide implications. Did much domestic programs and policies.

4. Zhuge Liang - thuogh technically not a leader, he lead armies, eh? Great general, at least in legend. :D

5. Xuanzong - a very cultured man, right person at the wrong time in my opinion. He also ruled the Tang at its territorial height, stretching as far as mordern day Afghanistan. If things had gone better, Central Asia couold've been under Chinese domination and/or influence much much much more earlier, and Islam maybe wouldn't be as so dominant in Central Asia.

Hey Mirc, I always though Queen Marie was a great ruler of Romania. An avid supporter of war agaisnt Germany, she managed to persuade her useless husband to declared war. Great for her constant work in keeping morale of Romanians high up even when the Austrians were pounding deep into Moldova. Her greatest achievement was most likely uniting Romania with Translvania and Moldova after the war. Marie, Warrior Queen of Romania gets my vote as one of the greatest Romanian Rulers. But what do you think of her?

For Germany:

Frederic the Great
Bismarck
Otto the Great
Frederic II. von Hohenstauffen
Frederic the Wise
Helmut Schmidt

Adler

Sweden:

Birger Jarl (Earl Birger) — medieval kingmaker who put a stop to the unruly form of royal succession based on the principle of two great families bumping each other off vendetta-style. Founder of Stockholm too.
For medieval times, he was the man who picked up the pieces of this underpopulated and cold place and put them together as a normal functional European kingdom. Never king himself, he had his son elected as such, and spawned the dynasty ruling Sweden through the High Middle Age.

Gustaf I Wasa — unifier of the nation.
Badass... Born as a the nobleman Gustaf Eriksson Wasa, he broke out of prison in Denmark to raise the rebellion at the news of his father's execution, along with 50+ other men of the cream of the Swedish higher nobility, in the 1521 "Stockholm Bloobath" perpetrated by the king of the Great Nordic Union, Christian II. He then clawed himself to the top by 1523 (bankrolled by the merchants of Lübeck).
The Swedish ruler who in his time faced by more and bigger rebellions than any other, hence the man who had most Swedes in history killed. Still, whatever the methods, before old king "Gösta" Sweden was a medieval elective kingdom (or in fact three) in the old Germanic fashion, part of the Nordic Union, where every county was pretty much independant and there was zero sense of national unity. After Gösta did the dirty on everyone, all these things had changed to the oppsite.
Otherwise he was a semi-literate but highly intelligent and absolutely ruthless Renaissance barbarian. This is the king who went on record stating that the only use he ever had for books, was to ram them down the barrel of a cannon to keep the ball and powder in place.

Axel Oxenstierna — Chancellor of the Realm
Forget Gustavus II Adolphus! This is the man who made him, and Sweden, both the 17th c. empire, and the administrative structure of Sweden to this day.
His collegue Cardinal Mazarin of France is on record stating that if all the chancellors of Europe found themselves on a ship and had to elect a captain, if going by brains and merits alone Oxenstierna would take the cake.
No fighter, but an absolutely formidable administrator and diplomat. He first badgered the young Gustavus Adolphus into making up with the higher Swedish nobility (Gustavus father Charles IX had cheesed them off no end through the 1597 "Linköping bloobath"). He then got king and nobility to rally around a new national project, consisting of raising armies to make war and thus make Sweden great and powerful. And while Gustavus was busy doing that, it was Oxenstierna who skillfully mixed administration, trade and diplomacy to allow Sweden, pop. 1,5 million, to keep a standing army 150 000 strong, punching way above its actual weight.
In this his task was somewhat similar to that of Cardinal Richelieu in France. Both had to formulate a common project to divert the energies of the nobility away from rocking the ship of state all the time. The French system succeeded to a great extent by making access to the machinery of the state a matter of privilege, a (near) exclusie prerogative of the aristocracy. Oxenstierna toyed with the idea, but discarded it as inefficient, in favour of a much more meritocratic bureaucracy. France later needed a correction of the system known as the French Revolution, at a time when Sweden enjoyed parlamentariansm more akin to the British system.

Hjalmar Branting — first Social Democrat Prime Minister.
Himself very much from the upper crust, went to school with King Gustaf V, and was claimed to at a very young age have pelted the Royal Person with snow-balls in a display of anti-monarchist sentiment. Cute anecdote aside, he was instrumental in setting up the über-powerful Soc. Dem. party in 1889, turning the Swedish socialist movement both democratic and peaceful. The fact that he himself was an old school-chum of the king's probably helped smooth the way.

Per-Albin Hansson — WWII Prime Minister, soc. dem.
For that fact alone, managing the highly sensitive task of steering Sweden through WWII without coming to harm (keeping both local varieties of Nazis and Bolsheviks down and out, and a great coalition of all parties together). Even more important was that in the 1930's he formulated the Soc. Dem. political vision of the "folkhemmet" (the nation as the "the People's Home"), on which post-WWII Sweden was built. The beauty of it wasn't just that it was a Soc. Dem. vision, but that Hansson through it simultaneously managed to co-opt and re-formulate every pet idea of the liberals and conservatives as social democratic, which laid the ground for a string of election victories from 1932-1976.

Britain: Rather hard, but I'd be inclined to say:

(1) William Gladstone.
(2) Clement Attlee.
(3) Elizabeth I.
(4) Er...
(5) That's it.

Italy, in cronological order:

Enrico Dandolo (Venice)
Lorenzo de' Medici (Florence)
Pope Julius II (Vatican state)
Giuseppe Garibaldi
Camillo Benso count of Cavour

Turkey

Mete Han(Motun)
Bilge Khan(Tonyukuk etc.)
Attila
Alpaslan
Melikshah
Kılıjarslan I
Alaaddin Keykubat
Murat I
Mehmet II
Selim I
Suleiman I
Mahmut II
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Hey Mirc, I always though Queen Marie was a great ruler of Romania. An avid supporter of war agaisnt Germany, she managed to persuade her useless husband to declared war. Great for her constant work in keeping morale of Romanians high up even when the Austrians were pounding deep into Moldova. Her greatest achievement was most likely uniting Romania with Translvania and Moldova after the war. Marie, Warrior Queen of Romania gets my vote as one of the greatest Romanian Rulers. But what do you think of her?

I think she was a very important leader, too. But tbh I wouldn't put her above any of those I listed at the end. :) As I said, there were many good leaders, but if we have to select a few, it gets harder... :)

THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE/UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS/THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:

::: Peter The Great (He gave us St. Petersburg!!!)
::: Vladimir Lenin (You might not agree with me (of course you wont) but Lenin had a hard job. come to power in a hard time and had to make some hard decisisions. He cared about Russia, even enough to allow some Capitalism so that his country would not fall apart.
::: Ivan The Great (We all know why he's great!)
::: Catherine The Great (Back you accursed Turks!)

As for some of the others:

::: Stalin (You're an . .. .. .. .. .. .. ....)
::: Ivan The Terrible (eh, sorta f**ked up isn't he?)
::: Borris Yeltsin (Was it the booze that got our your poor ability to run a country?)
::: Vladimir Putin (Get on the god damn ball or stop playing with damnit!)

THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE/UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS/THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:


::: Catherine The Great (Back you accursed Turks!)


:lol: :lol:

At elementary school have the teacher us taught,how Baltaci Mehmet Paşa(he was at his 80 years) has enjoyed Catherine The Great s intimate friendship.So every turkish kid knows she was great leader,in bed too...;)

So you dont have to curse Turks,we respect her.;)

Ireland hasnt had any good leaders since the stone age.

Greatest Chinese Leaders

1. Kang Xi, Whooped Russian Ass and was the probably the last Great Emperor of China that rule a state stronger in economy, science and millitary than Europe. Expanded China into present day borders. Tripled the treasury the Amount

2. Hong Wu, Peasant Boy who became a monk then got kicked out because he stoled some pig. Grew up, led a rebellion and kicked the Mongolians out of China!

Ireland hasnt had any good leaders since the stone age.

I know next to nothing about Irish politics, but given that Ireland has evolved into one of the most prosperous and best places to live in the world, I'm wont to beg to differ.

Anyway, my list for Canada:

- Lester Pearson
- Pierre Trudeau
- Wilfred Laurier
- Sir John A MacDonald
- HRH Queen Victoria*
- Jean Chretien

I know many Canadians will balk at this one, but she played a vital role in the building of our nation, hence why we (officially) celebrate her birthday.

Rafik Bahaeddine Al-Hariri

His assassination in Valentine's day 2005 is why my country is witnessing its end.

Saladin ruled over Lebanon once, I guess I could put him on the list.

There is also Ryad Al Soloh, the independence guy. When was it the last time you've seen a prime minister take a bullet for his country, and not in an assassination attempt?

I know next to nothing about Irish politics, but given that Ireland has evolved into one of the most prosperous and best places to live in the world, I'm wont to beg to differ.

Anyway, my list for Canada:

- Lester Pearson
- Pierre Trudeau
- Wilfred Laurier
- Sir John A MacDonald
- HRH Queen Victoria*
- Jean Chretien

I know many Canadians will balk at this one, but she played a vital role in the building of our nation, hence why we (officially) celebrate her birthday.

Well, provided you live in the RoC, anyway :-p

We in Québec use that day to celebrate the 1837-38 rebels AGAINST Victoria, instead :-D

Australia:

1. Prime Minister John Curtin - Saw us through WW2, a great statesman. Pacifist who had to introduce conscription, wartime leader who hated war. Very interesting character all round.
2. Prime Minister Robert Menzies - Looms large in Australian history partly just because he led for 26 years before and after WW2. Bit of a reactionary old bastard but more liberal than the current Liberal Party, which he founded.
3. Prime Minister Edmund Barton - Probably gets a lot of credit simply due to being first, but he was a major architect of Federation in the 1890s so there's a good reason he was the first PM.
4. Governor Lachlan Macquarie - Just to get some pre-federation represenation. Fought the old colonial interests, was instrumental in getting freed convicts some measure of social equality.
5. Prime Minister Edward Gough Whitlam - This would raise some hackles among more conservative Australians as he's our most divisive historical figure, but he set in motion a great deal of the modernising reforms that had ramifications in later Prime Ministerships.

Ireland hasnt had any good leaders since the stone age.

I thought Michael Collins was universally loved in Ireland...Not saying you do or anything though.

United States

Presidents:
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
James Monroe

Others:
George Marshell
Benjamin Franklin
Martin Luther King jr.
Stephen Colbert

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. James K. Polk
5. Franklin Roosevelt

And a special shout-out to Andrew Jackson for being so thug-rich.

James K. Polk? The guy started an aggressive war against Mexico.

My leaders would be:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Roosevelt
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. William Henry Harrison (died a month after taking office)

For UK

1) Victoria- Changed Britain to a Constitutional Monarchy, made Britain become the de facto power of Europe

2) Elizabeth- Goldne age of England

USA

1) James Polk- Manifest Destiny

For Holland -

Johan van Oldenbarneveldt
Johan de Witt
Willem van Oranje
Willem Drees

:)

Turkey

1.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
2.Mehmed II
3.Suleiman I
4.Beyazid
5.Atilla
6.Alaaddin Keykubat

USA:

Washington- Independence
Jefferson- Bought us Louisiana (A good thing??)
FDR- AWESOME :) :) :) Stopped the Depression, lead us through WWII, handicapped but still powerful, cared about the common man. And an Episcopalian!
Lincoln- Freed the slaves, great guy.
Martin Luther King Jr.- Nonviolent, lead the civil-rights moevment, minister, peace and love, etc.

So:
Washington
Jefferson
FDR
Lincoln
MLK Jr.

Australia (Prime Ministers only)

1) Chifley - very short term but achieved a lot of reforms during that time.
2) Menzies - very influential leader during the Cold War. Our longest serving PM.
3) Deakin - one of the main architects of Federation
4) Curtin - leader during WWII.
5) Whitlam - very short term (and was sacked) about achieved a lot of significant modernising reforms during this time. Finally got rid of the White Australia Policy after 75 years.

Most of what can be said for the USA has been said, but I'll throw my 2 cents into the ring:

Presidents
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Eisenhower (There's a lot of Ike love on this thread. This makes me happy)
5. I need someone early...Polk? Jefferson?

Treasury Secretaries and Central Bankers
1. Hamilton. America's first "economist". I made this category solely to give him recognition. :)
2. Volker. He broke inflation, and in so doing caused a recession. It took guts not to bow to political pressure.
3. Greenspan. Led us through the late 80s and 90s, though he may have created an environment favorable to the current credit crisis. The only reason that he makes third, but not second, is that he's a bit too recent to judge objectively.

1. Bobby Brown
2. Willie Ormond
3. Jock Stein
4. Walter Smith
5. Alec McLeish

Australia (Prime Ministers only)

1) Chifley - very short term but achieved a lot of reforms during that time.
2) Menzies - very influential leader during the Cold War. Our longest serving PM.
3) Deakin - one of the main architects of Federation
4) Curtin - leader during WWII.
5) Whitlam - very short term (and was sacked) about achieved a lot of significant modernising reforms during this time. Finally got rid of the White Australia Policy after 75 years.

Chifley woulda been next on my list. I didn't wanna include ALL the great Labor leaders of the past because it might have made me look biased.

Though it's interesting that most of the really interesting and reforming leaders have been ALP.

For France

1) De Gaulle, who manage to transform a bitter defeat into a final victory, and France is still in the top countries. He was also a man with honnor and integrity, who for instance, paid the electricy bill for the private appartments at the presidential palace, or refuse a president retirement advantages.

2) Napoleon, not only for his military victories, but because of everything he created (code civil, many schools, and administrative organization of France)

3) Charlemagne.... To bad his empire was split...

^, what about Charles VII the Victorious? During his reign, France was reunited and on its way to a great power.

^, what about Charles VII the Victorious? During his reign, France was reunited and on its way to a great power.
Because Jeanne d'Arc gave the initial impulse... And with a good help from his wife familly.

Well, he was a good monarch, but I don't think he did much more than some others. He's among the efficient leader, but I'm not he should be in the top V.

I don't care for leaders, I want to get rid of them.

Ironic, given your nickname...

Ironic, given your nickname...

:lol: Yeah.

http://www.thirstytheologian.com/President%20Reagan%201982.jpg

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOO! YEAH!!!!!!! REAGAN, REAGAN, REAGAN!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

WOOT! Trying very hard not to start flame war... but REAGON PWNED ALL

From the very short history (so far) of Australia I can think of 2 great leaders we have had.

1. John Curtin
2. Gough Whitlam

Because Jeanne d'Arc gave the initial impulse... And with a good help from his wife familly.

Well, he was a good monarch, but I don't think he did much more than some others. He's among the efficient leader, but I'm not he should be in the top V.

Then who is in your top five, you only gave 3

I'm keeping a slot free for myself when I will run for president

You could have François 1er, who did a lot to advance France culture.

Henri IV, who ended the religion wars, and financed expedition that allowed Canada to become French, until the evil English took it.

Or Louis XI, who started leading France out of the middle ages. And by war, by cunning and with sheer guile, Louis XI overcame France's feudal lords, and at the time of his death, he had united France and laid the foundations of a strong monarchy

Don't forget, that the French king was at first less powerfull than most of his vassals. Wehn Hugh Capet became king, he possessed minor properties near Chartres and Angers. Between Paris and Orléans he possessed towns and estates amounting to approximately 400 square miles (1,000 km²).But his authority ended there, and if he dared travel outside his small area, he risked being captured...

So I think it's quite impressive to see how the kings managed to unit France on the long run.

And now, even if we still have some regionalism, I think France is a very united country. Probably more than most others.

UK: Scots, Welsh, are strong indepedant mind from the English.
Spain: Basque and Catalogne are independant minded.
Italy: large difference between North and South.
Belgium: no comment...


etc.

I don't see how Louis XIV can't be on any list of top French leaders. Leroy was simply the dominant figure in all of Europe for decades. I'd be inclined to add Cardinal Richelieu too, although I must admit that most of my knowledge of him comes from Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds.

Was Henri IV that Navarre Protestant King that converted to Catholicism for the crown?

Mind if I asked your 5 worst rulers of France

I don't see how Louis XIV can't be on any list of top French leaders.

I dislike his hairstyle to much
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Portrait_louis_xiv.jpg/250px-Portrait_louis_xiv.jpg

He also forgot to put toilets in his Versailles palace, and then can really piss some people.

Mind if I asked your 5 worst rulers of France
Several candidates:

Charles the Fat, ssually considered lethargic and inept, who bribed the vikings to be spared there wrath.

Louis X le Hutin, his reign was short and unremarkable, dominated by continued feuding with the noble factions within the kingdom.

Charles VI , who became mad, killed several of his knights, forcing his uncle to assume regency (and this creating a feud with Burgundy). During one attack in 1393, Charles could not remember his name, did not know he was king and fled in terror from his wife. He did not recognize his children, though he knew his brother and councillors and remembered the names of people who had died. In later attacks, he roamed his palaces howling like a wolf, refused to bathe for months on end and suffered from delusions that he was made of glass

Pétain is of course infamous for his role during WWII.


Louis XIX deserve a special mention, he was King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes.

I thought his rule was too short to actually be considered a monarch of France

I thought his rule was too short to actually be considered a monarch of France
He is included in some lists, and not in others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Van_Acker
Van Acker was born in Bruges on April 8, 1898 in a family with 12 children. Van Acker only went to school until his 10th year. Van Acker became a member of the city council of Bruges in 1926. The following year the 29 year old Van Acker was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. During the Second World War, Van Acker organized the Vlaamse Centrale der Illegale Partij.

After the Second World War, Van Acker became Prime Minister of Belgium in four different cabinets (the first two in 1945-1946 were back to back) and served as Minister of Labour and Social Services, Minister of Public Health, Minister of Mobility and Minister of Mining (which led to his nickname). From 1961 until 1974 he served as President of the Chamber of Representatives. He was named Minister of State in 1958.

The first three cabinets led by Van Acker were short-lived because of the crisis pertaining to Leopold III which held Belgium in its grip from 1944-1951. During his fourth cabinet, Van Acker realized various social themes which led to Van Acker being known as the father of Belgian social security.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3213/125554087e6a148f011odh7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

A great man that was the voice of raison and moderation in a very troubled time

Several candidates:

Charles the Fat, ssually considered lethargic and inept, who bribed the vikings to be spared there wrath.

Louis X le Hutin, his reign was short and unremarkable, dominated by continued feuding with the noble factions within the kingdom.

Charles VI , who became mad, killed several of his knights, forcing his uncle to assume regency (and this creating a feud with Burgundy). During one attack in 1393, Charles could not remember his name, did not know he was king and fled in terror from his wife. He did not recognize his children, though he knew his brother and councillors and remembered the names of people who had died. In later attacks, he roamed his palaces howling like a wolf, refused to bathe for months on end and suffered from delusions that he was made of glass

Pétain is of course infamous for his role during WWII.


Louis XIX deserve a special mention, he was King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes.

Any list of bad french rulers can't possibly be complete without Jean the Good, the king who lost France. Not only did he suffer humiliating defeats to a nation with a fraction of France's population, he was actually taken hostage after a catastrophic battle.

Even during the Vichy regime France was never that humiliated.

As far as being humiliated...meh. John II only ever lost one significant battle (and that owing mostly to some of his sub-commanders deciding to abandon him). He lost it against one of the greatest military minds of the time, the Black Prince. Moreover, he did not start the war.

Despite being taken prisoner to england and having his country generally fall apart in his absence (not that he could do much about it, seeing as he was not absent by choice), the treaty he finally reached with England was relatively tame (Significant english territorial gains, but French recovering some territories as well, and England in theory renouncing claims to the throne of France), and far better than the later Treaty of Troyes that followed Agincourt.

He wasn,t the best king ever, but given the worthless hand he was dealt (a crap political and military structure, a war already started with a much more modern England (preventing any reform if he had thought of making one), he could have done far worse.

(And worse humiliation than Vichy? Give me a break. The treaty of Troyes (made the king of england heir to the French throne), and the surrender of Vichy (turned all of France in either out-and-out puppet German land or a puppet regime) have the treaty of Bretigny (makes part of France english, English renounce claims to the french throne and several other parts of France) beaten by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as being humiliated...meh. John II only ever lost one significant battle (and that owing mostly to some of his sub-commanders deciding to abandon him). He lost it against one of the greatest military minds of the time, the Black Prince. Moreover, he did not start the war.

The french forces at Poitiers outnumbered the english ones by more than 6 to 1. Edward the Black Prince was a great commander, but he used pretty much an identical tactic employed at Crécy. It is remarkable that the french fell for it again.

There's no way around it, Jean lost to an army that was a fraction of his own and to a tactical scheme that he should know well. That's humiliation. It was him, after all, who named his commanders. And he was notorious for naming incompentent men, not only as military commanders but also as administrators.


Despite being taken prisoner to england and having his country generally fall apart in his absence (not that he could do much about it, seeing as he was not absent by choice), the treaty he finally reached with England was relatively tame (Significant english territorial gains, but French recovering some territories as well, and England in theory renouncing claims to the throne of France), and far better than the later Treaty of Troyes that followed Agincourt.

The ransom they had to pay for Jean was equivalent to an entire year of France's income. And as far as bad rulers go, how about this: when France was on the brik of economical collapse caused in no small part by him, his account books in captivity show his purchasing of expensive horses and his keeping of a full court around him.


He wasn,t the best king ever, but given the worthless hand he was dealt (a crap political and military structure, a war already started with a much more modern England (preventing any reform if he had thought of making one), he could have done far worse.

Thought of reform? Are we talking about the same Jean? He only cared about his court, his wine and the general good life. He was drinking while his country was dissoluting.


(And worse humiliation than Vichy? Give me a break. The treaty of Troyes (made the king of england heir to the French throne), and the surrender of Vichy (turned all of France in either out-and-out puppet German land or a puppet regime) have the treaty of Bretigny (makes part of France english, English renounce claims to the french throne and several other parts of France) beaten by any stretch of the imagination.
No, you give me a break. The surrender of France in WW2 was a natural consequence of the failure of both France and England to keep Germany disarmed. It was both France and England that later failed to stop the german advance, both were equally unprepared to deal with the german assault and are equally to blame. I don't excuse the french leaders for what they did during Vichy, but I think the surrender in itself gets alot more bad press than it deserves.

Plus the germans were actually stronger than the french in WW2, while the english were far weaker back in 1356. It is far more humiliating to be taken captive by a nation with 1/5th of your population and an even smaller fraction of your wealth than to be defeated by the best army in the world, full of innovative tactics. Of course the english were better organized, but it was Jean's duty to organize his country. It was not at all an impossible task to defeat the English with the cards he had at hand. He just chose to occupy himself with other issues.

You can't possibly compare Pétain, or even Laval, to a moron like Jean II. Pétain was at least concerned with saving what was left of France, Jean just couldn't care less.

James K. Polk? The guy started an aggressive war against Mexico.

Good. Do you not like the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, and arguably Texas?


Martin Luther King Jr.- Nonviolent, lead the civil-rights moevment, minister, peace and love, etc.

:( Historical inaccuracies make me sad.

The number ratio at Poitiers is open to question. I've seen figures ranging from "not far to even number" to "six on one". As far as being taken by a strategy that already worked once (more accurately, a repeat of a variation on one), it's hardly the first or last time in human history.

Beyond that, I never said he wanted to do reform, or would have done them. I said - and I maintain - that he couldn't have reformed had he wanted to. You don't reorganize your whole nation in the middle of a war, particularly not when that reorganizing involves weakening your nobility in any form.

He wasn't a brilliant monarch by any stretch of the imagination, but I contend he might not be in place on a list of the worst either.

(Neither might Pétain, I add. They were both the victims of any number of factors, most of which they couldn't have done all that much to change.)

Charles the Simple deserves some mention among bad French rulers. After a series of Viking raids he finally conceded Normandy to the Vikings. He managed to get deposed like his uncle, Charles the Fat, for general incompetence.

What's wrong with "conceding" Normandy to the Vikings? It stopped the raids, didn't it?

Amusing fact, which I hope is really true: Rollo, the Viking leader, was supposed to kiss Charles' foot as part of the ceremony where he was given control of Normandy. Being a burly Viking, he refused to do this, but a compromise was reached whereby one of his men would do it instead. At the ceremony, the Viking given this task didn't kneel down to kiss Charles' foot - instead he bent down, picked up the foot and raised it to his lips, causing Charles to topple over backwards.

All the same, I don't see how allowing part of his domain to be ruled by someone else makes someone a bad king. I'd say it's a good indication that that king cares about some things more than his own personal power. If Charles had refused to give Normandy as a fief to Rollo and allowed the raids to continue instead, would he have been a better king?

If Charles had refused to give Normandy as a fief to Rollo and allowed the raids to continue instead, would he have been a better king?
Especially considering what a pillar of strength the Normans became for furthering all things French later in the Middle Ages.

Especially considering what a pillar of strength the Normans became for furthering all things French later in the Middle Ages.
And making England at last a civilized country by invading it. To bad the English screwed it later :mischief:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. James K. Polk
5. Franklin Roosevelt

And a special shout-out to Andrew Jackson for being so thug-rich.

Great choices. But I'd make a couple arrangements.
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. T. Roosevelt
4. Polk
5. Jefferson

::: Catherine The Great (Back you accursed Turks!)


You know, Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians don't like her as well...

As for Poland:

1) Boleslaw Chrobry / Wielki (Boleslav the Great) - mostly for conquests (Lusatia - modern Saxony and part of Brandenburg in Germany; Bohemia; Moravia; Slovakia; parts of Prussia; parts of Ukraine, including capture of Kiev), being the first king, establishing church hierarchy, importing saint Adalbert, establishing diplomatic relations with Byzantines and stuff like this
2) Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great) - he didn't manage to do all that he could, but having inherited the weak, barely living state, surrounded by enemies, he doubled or more its territory, vassalised certain other duchies, created university at Cracow, built a great number of city walls, castles, etc., he simply turned the newly re-established, crippled Kingdom of Poland into a strong state once more.
2,5) Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk (Casimir the Jagiellonian) - he was not the greatest ruler, but I think he deserves a honorary mention. During his reign polish-lithuanian union was the biggest teritorially, he defeated Teutonic Order and regained for Poland access to the sea, he assured Jagiellon succession in the kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary; also, the fundaments for polish parliamentarism were laid during his reign.
3) Zygmunt II August (Sigismund II August) was not the most successful king when it comes to wars. He captured Livonia (Latvia and part of Estonia), but lost some parts of Belarus to Muscuvy. Yet, his reign, together with reign of his father, are considered the height of polish culture. Of religious freedom, of political freedom. During his reign a pernament union was established between Poland and Lithuania.

And making England at last a civilized country by invading it. To bad the English screwed it later :mischief:

Arent you a witty Frenchman

In no particular order...

George Washington is largely responsible for the fact that this nation is a Republic rather than a monarchy. He could have been King, but he turned it down, knowing better. He wasn't perfect, as a man, but he made an invaluable contribution to this nation.


John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy were both instrumental in the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Many others would not have been able to hold their restraint and composure enough to prevent a nuclear war. Those thirteen days saved millions, if not billions of lives.


Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander of World War II and was a brilliant strategist, tactician, and overall leader. He was also President of the United States for two fine terms.


Robert E. Lee was Commanding General of the Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War, but his inclusion on this list comes not for his wartime efforts, but for his actions during and after the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia and the end of the war. Robert E. Lee was given the opportunity to disperse the Confederate Army and continue the conflict through guerilla warfare, which could have lasted years or even decades longer, but instead opted for reconciliation. He ordered his troops to surrender, to go back to their homes, and to get on with their lives thereby preventing an ongoing conflict that could have been still be going on today.


Martin Luther King, Jr. was a civil rights leader during the 1950s and 1960s. His peaceful approach to ending the inequities between the races kept our country from spinning out of control and into a racial turmoil that could have been disasterous for our soul as a nation.

I think that the Leaders on Mount Rushmore are the greatest, except put FDR instead of TR, and add MLK.

Portugal:

Rei Afonso Henriques - kicked Spain and Moors out of Iberia and founded a nation.

Rei Dom João II - superb statesmen, started portuguese golden age

Infante Dom Henrique - Founder of portuguese navigators academy and many overseas enterprises

Rei Dom Manuel I - another superb statesmen who carried the work of D. João II and discovered the ocean route to India through Vasco da Gama and created the empire.

Rei D. Dinis - for the economical and agricultural development of a young nation.

Doutor Mário Soares - President and Prime Minister of Portugal after the 25 de Abril revolution, developing the countries devastated economy and social lifes and joining the european union.

Doutor António Oliveira Guterres - superb statesman that in only 7 years of prime minister turned Portugal into one of the most growing economies of the late 20th century.

Portugal:

Rei Afonso Henriques - kicked Spain and Moors out of Iberia and founded a nation.

Spain didn't even exist. He simply broke his county from the kingdom of Leon, defeated his own mother the countess, proclaimed himself king and eventually succeeded in bribing the Pope to confirm his title. Of course, his success in the wars against the muslim Taifas (small kingdoms) to the south (doubling the territory he controlled) did increase his reputation and helped him in being recognized as king by the other kings of western Europe.


Rei Dom João II - superb statesmen, started portuguese golden age

No argument there!


Rei Dom Manuel I - another superb statesmen who carried the work of D. João II and discovered the ocean route to India through Vasco da Gama and created the empire.

He squandered a lot of the fruits of João II's work. He also complied with the castillan demand that the jews should be expelled from the Iberian Peninsula, and in doing so harmed the kingdom immensely. In only João II had guarded himself and his son better against Isabella's assassins...


Doutor Mário Soares - President and Prime Minister of Portugal after the 25 de Abril revolution, developing the countries devastated economy and social lifes and joining the european union.

Oh, please... :rolleyes: everyone knew the EU was the only option left by then. Soares was mostly irrelevant before the revolution and played a dubious role during the two critical years that followed it. I won't argue that he became one of the most influential actors during that period. But his legacy was a "partidocracy" that has that eventually placed all power in the country on the hands of mediocre people who support each other through their little clubs (Masons, Opus Dei, not to mention the political parties themselves...), vetting admittance to the political and economic live - only those who agree to perpetuate their corrupt system are allowed in.


Doutor António Oliveira Guterres - superb statesman that in only 7 years of prime minister turned Portugal into one of the most growing economies of the late 20th century.

You MUST be joking. The guy basically spend 4 years spending EU money and a further 3 inflating a stock and real estate bubble that finally exploded by 2002 (as it happened elsewhere). Because he had already inflated real estate (a consequence of having Portugal join the Euro zone with its low interest rates form the start) the country sunk into an economic depression (or should I say a swamp?) and has been stagnant since then - the current government has given um on waiting for the economy to improve and is simply putting forth some false statistics claiming a little "economic growth".

You know, Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians don't like her as well...

As for Poland:

1) Boleslaw Chrobry / Wielki (Boleslav the Great) - mostly for conquests (Lusatia - modern Saxony and part of Brandenburg in Germany; Bohemia; Moravia; Slovakia; parts of Prussia; parts of Ukraine, including capture of Kiev), being the first king, establishing church hierarchy, importing saint Adalbert, establishing diplomatic relations with Byzantines and stuff like this
2) Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great) - he didn't manage to do all that he could, but having inherited the weak, barely living state, surrounded by enemies, he doubled or more its territory, vassalised certain other duchies, created university at Cracow, built a great number of city walls, castles, etc., he simply turned the newly re-established, crippled Kingdom of Poland into a strong state once more.
2,5) Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk (Casimir the Jagiellonian) - he was not the greatest ruler, but I think he deserves a honorary mention. During his reign polish-lithuanian union was the biggest teritorially, he defeated Teutonic Order and regained for Poland access to the sea, he assured Jagiellon succession in the kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary; also, the fundaments for polish parliamentarism were laid during his reign.
3) Zygmunt II August (Sigismund II August) was not the most successful king when it comes to wars. He captured Livonia (Latvia and part of Estonia), but lost some parts of Belarus to Muscuvy. Yet, his reign, together with reign of his father, are considered the height of polish culture. Of religious freedom, of political freedom. During his reign a pernament union was established between Poland and Lithuania.

Missed a few:

Jan Sobieski III - IMO one of our best generals if not the best. Austria, if it wasn't for him, you could be muslim! (not that it's a bad thing).

Józef Piłsudski - Polish-Soviet war. Yes, he might have not been the greatest, but he has accomplished alot during his life. (yes he was born in a lithuanian village. But lithuanian towns pre WWII were mostly 65% polish, 35% lithuanian/jew/russian/ukrainian anyway)

Missed a few:

Jan Sobieski III - IMO one of our best generals if not the best. Austria, if it wasn't for him, you could be muslim! (not that it's a bad thing).


He was a good general, but Poland barely profited from his victories, and he was a weak monarch, with no achievements but Wilanow palace perhaps. I left him out of the list on purpouse.


Józef Piłsudski - Polish-Soviet war. Yes, he might have not been the greatest, but he has accomplished alot during his life. (yes he was born in a lithuanian village. But lithuanian towns pre WWII were mostly 65% polish, 35% lithuanian/jew/russian/ukrainian anyway)

Again, while there was some greatness in him, because of what he's done in 1926 and later on, I left him out.

:( Historical inaccuracies make me sad.

Please, name some historical inaccuracies. Name one time when MLK advocated violence or inequality. Also, MLK was a Baptist minister. He was inspired by Gandhi's idea of satyagraha (sp?), which means to have love for all men, nonviolent resistance, and peace.

You MUST be joking. The guy basically spend 4 years spending EU money and a further 3 inflating a stock and real estate bubble that finally exploded by 2002 (as it happened elsewhere). Because he had already inflated real estate (a consequence of having Portugal join the Euro zone with its low interest rates form the start) the country sunk into an economic depression (or should I say a swamp?) and has been stagnant since then - the current government has given um on waiting for the economy to improve and is simply putting forth some false statistics claiming a little "economic growth".


And its because arguments and people who don´t even know what they are talking about that Portugal fell into a self caused depression, needless to say that in a nations that are those who come to build and tohse who come to fill their pockets from others efforts, destroy, sell to spain the gains and then put the blame on the formers, kinda like, whos blame is this? Put it on the "jews", and other minorities and let me buy another paradise island in Brazil and when things get though, i´ll just run for President of the EU suported by my CIA american friends....

Save Portugal from mediocracy pls...start thinking with your heads and less with your pockets and help those who need...Guterres was a genius out of his time, but of course a country were mediocracy is prized like no other would never aprove such a leader, they rather prefered the "cherne" or the corrupted followers who just spend all the money on golden bathroom´s and local goverments mansions, afterall, we portuguese love luxury, too bad we don´t invest in the future, only in parties, big brothers, Operação Triunfos and so on...

Now lets compare- Guterres

to Cavaco - Cavaco had a very good first 4 yeras but the mess he did in the following 4 almost screwed the first 4, and we have to admit he is doing am excellent job as president now (and no im not being sarcastic, i´m being honest here).
to Durão Barroso - cashed in the Guterres money and investments, launched a fake crisis and left with the tresury to Brazil, Switzerland and EU, very clever indeed.
to Santana Lopes - transformed the goverment into a circus and cashed in the remaining money that Barroso hadn´t the time to flee with, oh yes, and built a Casino, very important social (economic maybe) indeed.

as for Guterres- his wife died from a fatal disease and instead of the countries support after developing the economy and helping the most in need, the media just moked him, long goes the saying that when in need people people are in their best hour, but money and power corrupts everything, and when they thought they were already "living it large" they just dismissed him like a rag, poor of us....
As for his believes, he his and was a catholic, not a manson or any other fake arguments you are sugesting.

as for the current Socrates- he his doing much better then Durão or Santana in infrastrutures and public works, but he still follows the same cruel and exploitive line in social and economic terms then the previous, he overtaxes, he crushes the middle economic class and the youth university degree is underpayed and undersecured, nedless to say that for the fisr timein history, the growth-death rate is at a deficit!! And no its not because old people live longer, but beacuse younger people don´t have money to support more then one child!!! or even one!!!

You clearly need to read more and open your eyes before its to late, unless of course, you are or have benificted from the "cash in" operations that followed, money tends to mold opinions everywhere and everyone as a price.

Smaller parties need more power in Portugal and end this bi-partidarism before they become one big elite that swallows everyone.

On my shortlist of Portugal's great leaders I have:

1) Dom João II - The "perfect prince", a worthy rival to the most powerful Castilian monarchs, his age represents from my idealized perspective the golden age of Portugal (not the Manueline era). Centralization of royal power, repression of the Dukes of Bragança, able handling of Castilian pressure and continuation of the Infante Dom Henriques' policy of Atlantic exploration all make him the greatest leader Portugal ever had.

2) Infante Dom Henrique - initiated the modern colonial era (1415) and waged war in Morocco. As Grandmaster of the Ordem de Cristo he was the great sponsor of Atlantic exploration and died heavily in debt as a result, but his vision influenced Dom João II and firmly fixed Portugal's place in global history.

3) Afonso de Albuquerque - The most competent viceroy and powerful administrator of Portugal's Asian possessions during the 'Golden Age'.

Dom Manuel I doesn't make it, as he reaped the benefits of Dom João II and the Infante Henrique plus had an excellent Viceroy (Albuquerque) more than anything else.

And
If only João II had guarded himself and his son better against Isabella's assassins...


Indeed!

(America)
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. John F. Kennedy
4. Teddy Roosevelt

I don't know why anyone would think George Washington was one of our best presidents. He did next to nothing during his presidency, and the only reason he became president in the first place is because he had popular appeal; he had no experience as a statesman at all.

http://www.thirstytheologian.com/President%20Reagan%201982.jpg

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOO! YEAH!!!!!!! REAGAN, REAGAN, REAGAN!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
http://www.malmo.se/images/18.33aee30d103b8f1591680001091/albin.jpg

PER ALBIN HANSSON!
WOOO! YEAH!!!!!!! PER ALBIN, PER ALBIN, PER ALBIN!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, here's mine for America:
1. Washington
2. T. Roosevelt
3. Lincoln
4. Jefferson
5. Either Reagan or Truman

I won't give a full list for Canada, but add one glaring omission (IMO anyways).

At number one I'd definitly include Tommy Douglas. He may have never been elected Prime Minister, but he may as well have, he gave Canada so much that we hold dear. Obviously, health care is the major one (if you want to lose an election in Canada, promise an American style health-care system, or any other harm to it and I gaurentee you will be crushed), but so many other things like public transportation.
If Canada ever makes it into Civ, Tommy deserves a leader spot without a doubt.

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk
Karel IV
Přemysl II. Otakar

I won't give a full list for Canada, but add one glaring omission (IMO anyways).

At number one I'd definitly include Tommy Douglas. He may have never been elected Prime Minister, but he may as well have, he gave Canada so much that we hold dear. Obviously, health care is the major one (if you want to lose an election in Canada, promise an American style health-care system, or any other harm to it and I gaurentee you will be crushed), but so many other things like public transportation.
If Canada ever makes it into Civ, Tommy deserves a leader spot without a doubt.

I'll bet there are not many in this forum who even know who you're talking
about. Most younger Canadians won't know much about him either.
But I sure do. Like the fact that Saskatchewan had the first universal
heath care system in the world. That the FBI used to infiltrate his
political meetings in the 30's cause J. Edgar Hoover thought they were an
evil "commie" front. That he belongs in a long tradition of democratically
elected socialist politicians in Canada. That we owe him a lot in helping
to shape the liberal enlightened Canadain society we enjoy today.
How do I know? Cause I grew up in a leftwing union town in Canada myself.
You'll have heard of Oshawa, Ontario which always elected socialist MP's
and even had a communist mayor at the end of the war. And I was a
campaign worker for the NDP in the 60's and 70's and was lucky enough
to meet Tommy Douglas in Toronto before he died.
Sorry to bang on about this, but I was going to PM you about this
when I saw your avatar anyway, but why not do it here?:):goodjob:

My country, Philippines although I have also diferrent opinions about the presidents.

President Emilio Aguinaldo - a hero and a president, he led the revolutionary forces to victory.

Pres. Ramon Magsaysay - a great political leader and a master manager. He defeated the "HUKs" in our country.

Pres. Ferdinand Marcos - even though a dictator, he thinks about how to improve philippines. He declared the martial law for the gain of the people. IF he was not overthrown by Corazon Aquino, HE could have built the philippines' first Nuclear Power Plant.

Pres. Estrada - he also cared for the people by lifting the taxes on all aspects of trade. He angered the aristocracy, which is making huge PROFITS.

My Favorite: President Marcos.....

Marcos was an idiot. He reversed years of development and stability for Phillipines. He was the most corrupt goverment in the world at that time aside from Suharto! Aquino did not just overthrow him, she did it with Phillipines.

My nation is Catalonia

http://www.fco.cat/files/imatges/Butlleti%20104/Estelada.png

And our best leaders in my opinion were:

1. Jaume I el Conqueridor (James I the Conqueror)
2. Pere III el Gran (Peter III the Great)
3. Francesc Macià
4. Pau Claris
5. Jordi Pujol

And here we got them:

1.
http://www.cadiradefusta.com/images/jaumeI.jpg

2.
http://www.laketania.com/fets/almogavers/imatges/pere.jpg

3.
http://webs.racocatala.cat/eltalp/macia1.jpg

4.
http://www.libertaddigital.com/fotos/noticias/supauclaris.jpg

5.
http://www.larevistadelcorazon.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/jordi-pujol.jpg

1. Winston Churchill
2. David Lloyd George
3. Elizabeth I
4. Benjamen Disralli (sp?)
5. Mary I

I don't think Churchill should make the list, let alone be at the top. He wanted to make "Keep Britain white!" his party's slogan, and helped create a political climate in which previously marginal extreme racist views and policies became more acceptable and mainstream in the late 1950s. And that's a poisonous legacy we're still dealing with today.

Ireland hasnt had any good leaders since the stone age.

What sort of History where you taught in school?

here's my list of Irish leaders, in chronological order

Brian Boru - Lunatic Irish Leader who fought the Vikings,
Hugh O'Neill - Ulsterman who very, very nearly ended British rule in Ireland.His defeat lead to the Ulster Planations
Daniel O'Connell - Emancipated the Catholics
Charles Stewart Parnell - Lead the Home rule and Land League movments
Michael Collins - Lead Ireland to independence
Seán Lemass - put Ireland on the road from insular agrarian society to a modern western industrialsed country

Marcos was an idiot. He reversed years of development and stability for Phillipines. He was the most corrupt goverment in the world at that time aside from Suharto! Aquino did not just overthrow him, she did it with Phillipines.

No he's not like that. Even though he gave the gov. positions to his relatives, he is a good man. A nuclear plant in the philippines would surely lessen the burden of people...

Unlike what you are saying, you only heard it from news and read it from books, am I right?

Marcos was a classic case of Darth Vaderism - a once brilliant leader who succumbed to the dark side and turned bad. He indeed had grand ideas during the early years, and had they been implemented he might have been remembered as another Lee Kuan Yew now. Instead all we remember him for is as this ailing, corrupt dictator who insisted on hanging on to power despite the handwriting on the wall.

"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones." Filipinos today remember not the Cultural Center, The PICC, the Lung Center, the IRRI, the Heart Center (which saved my aunt's life BTW), the highways and other infrastructure etc. Instead all we remember him for is for the ridiculous amount of corruption, the rampant nepotism, the abusive military and police, the fear of being abducted in the dead of the night (but of course applicable only if you made yourself a target in the first place), and worst of all, the crappy economy as investors started to avoid us in the face of 2 armed insurrections, no safety and security, obsene amounts of grease money necessary before being allowed to do anything, and a generally bad business climate. In the late 1960s we were 2nd only to Japan in Asia. By 1986 not only have we missed out on the chance to tag along with the 4 little dragons, we lag behind even the other Southeast Asian countries. How can he be called a good leader?

U.S., moderate-conservative point of view

1. Washington
2. Eisenhower
3. McKinley
4. T. Roosevelt
5. Lincoln

I'm probably the only person who thinks McKinley was excellent. If I were going to extend the list, I would probably put Monroe and Lyndon B. Johnson up.

You MUST be joking. The guy basically spend 4 years spending EU money and a further 3 inflating a stock and real estate bubble that finally exploded by 2002 (as it happened elsewhere). Because he had already inflated real estate (a consequence of having Portugal join the Euro zone with its low interest rates form the start) the country sunk into an economic depression (or should I say a swamp?) and has been stagnant since then - the current government has given um on waiting for the economy to improve and is simply putting forth some false statistics claiming a little "economic growth".

And that's why I don't see any modern leaders after the 25th of April...

My top 5:
Portugal:

Our 1st King - D. Afonso Henriques (OF COURSE)

Infante D. Henrique (Henry to the CFC club)

The Marquis of Pombal (I know he want absolutism but he was a Great Leader so)

D. Pedro IV AKA Emperor Pedro I (Brazil) - Introduced the Constitution in Portugal, Fought his Brother (which was in favour of an absolutist regime), and Liberated Brazil. (Ok he's more Brazilian than Portuguese, but I considered him as Pt Leader)

The 5th, well it could be Salazar. He had some positive issus but to many negative ones... (Not my favourite, but need to be considered)

In modern times I can't see none so every yet.

BTW how about India?
Who are the top 5 India Leader's?

I'm not Indian, but I'll take a stab at it:

1. Gandhi
2. Asoka
3. Chandragupta
4. Akbar
5. Babar the Tiger

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Teddy Roosevelt
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Ronald Reagan/Richard Nixon/James K. Polk