Has the same purpose as the Greatest Medieval Ruler thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49879), to encourage a high level of debate of the merits of the rulers of the ancient world, without attention being overly diverted from the many amazing ancient rulers who are not as famous as others.

Time Period (for the purposes of the thread): 4000 BC - AD 476

King David. :)

Pharaoh Khufu (2589 BC-2566) [Egypt] (http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm)

King Sargon of Agade (fl. 2350) [Akkadia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad)

Pharaoh Akhenaton (1350-1334) [Egypt] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaton)

King Wen (circa 1100-1050) [Chou] (http://www.chinatown-online.co.uk/pages/culture/legends/jiang.html)

King David (1006-965) [Israel] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David)

Emperor Cyrus/Kurash I (559-529) [Persia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great)

King Philip II (359-336) [Macedon] (http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Greek/Gn/PhilipII.htm)

King Alexander III (336-323) [Macedon, Persia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great)

King Ptolemy I (311-282) [Egypt] (http://members.aol.com/dkaplan888/ptol.htm)

Emperor Asoka (273-232) [Mauryan Empire] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asoka)

Emperor Qin Shi Huang Di (246-210) [China] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang_Di)

Emperor Han Gao Zu (206-195) [China] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Gaozu)

Dictator Julius Caesar (46-44) [Roman Republic] (http://heraklia.fws1.com/)

Emperor Augustus Caesar (27BC-AD14) [Roman Empire] (http://www.roman-emperors.org/auggie.htm)

Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) [Roman Empire] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02109a.htm)

Emperor Diocletian (284 - 305) [Roman Empire] (http://www.roman-emperors.org/dioclet.htm)

Emperor Constantine I (306 AD-337) [Roman Empire] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm)

Emperor Samudragupta I (335-376) [Gupta India] (http://www.itihaas.com/ancient/samudragupta.html)

Wow! Good list, I ended up going with Alexander the Great. I reckon some of those on your list are over-rated, such as Khufu, and others were just plain awful, such as Akhenaton (don't get me started on him!)

I would have to say Alexander the Great and King David.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Wow! Good list, I ended up going with Alexander the Great. I reckon some of those on your list are over-rated, such as Khufu, and others were just plain awful, such as Akhenaton (don't get me started on him!)

Thanks :)

Khufu and Akhenaton were selected because of their popularity and legacy (the GP and monotheism).

I would be interested to hear you get started about Akhenaton. It's always interesting to hear strong opinions.

BTW, I voted for Augustus and Cyrus the Great

I think I'll go with one that is absent from the list: roman emperor Hadrian.

define Great in this context

I went with Alexander and Other (Pericles)

"I would be interested to hear you get started about Akhenaton. It's always interesting to hear strong opinions."

Tremble with fear then. When I can be bothered, I'll post :evil:

I voted for Julius Caesar. :)

Themistocles is missing in the poll. Without him, Greeks would have been meat and so all today´s Euro-American culture. :-)

Oh it's Augustus, and Pericles, few leaders did more to improve thiere nations then them in any era, let alone ancient times

Originally posted by Xen
Oh it's Augustus, and Pericles, few leaders did more to improve thiere nations then them in any era, let alone ancient times

Pericles brought his little city-state into a war which almost destroyed them, advocated a defensive policy which killed a third of his city in a plague and squandered his country's resources on a supreme act of vanity. Hardly the greatest ruler in antiquity?!

Ptolemaios the First... :king:
that's it

Voted for the Qin Shi Huang/Liu Bang combo, w/o whom China today would be a collection of states much like Europe. Not necessarily bad, but probably leading to more wars.

I have to differ slightly with Calgacus' harsh treatment of Pericles. There are numerous things that have not been taken into account.

First of all Pericles ruled at the head of the wily Athenian democratic assembly. This in itself was a major accomplishment (controlling this body). The war was brought on as a result of successful Athenian expansion at the expense of her so called 'allies'. The Spartans could no longer stand by and allow Athens to dominate her own spheres of interest.

Secondly, the defensive policy was prudent in the face of the superior Spartan phalanx on land. In naval terms however Athens was VERY aggressive, cutting Corinth off and ensuring the island allies stayed on their side. They even launched a massive expedition to Sicily, which failed but not because of Pericles but rather the assembly which vetoed his demands for proper support. Even Thucydides (the highly critical historian of Pericles' policies) says that the Sicilian Expedition would have succeeded had it been properly supported (for anyone who has read Thucyd. they will know this is a big step for him to take such a stand).

Thirdly, the plague was an unfortunate episode which was out of his hands. Medical knowledge of the time was defenceless against it. The plague decimated the Spartans & co also.

Fourthly, the supreme act of vanity (the Parthenon I believe you refer to or is it the war?) is one of the greatest architectural accomplsihments of all time and a lasting cultural landmark. Most of the greatest buildings were built for dubious reasons by our standards (Great Pyramid...the tomb of ONE man...talk about vanity) but that is missing the point and jusging them unfairly. These things are symbols of greatness and an expression of cultural values. We shouldn't judge these things by moral values otherwise we'd be living in a heritage-less world. Pericles sent a message and bestowed something to all his citizens (and as a result to all humanity) so it is hardly vain of him.

As for the war it was bound to occur in the ongoing struggle for hellenic supremacy.

Pericles should also be viewed based on his diplomatic skills (Delian League) and his contributions to the betterment of Athenian life. He was not Alexander the Great nor any other empire building leader but he is much more of a great leader than others on this list.

Depite all this I would not vote for him as the 'Greatest Ruler of Antiquity'.

Akhenaten is always acutely underestimated as a ruler due to the unpopular nature of his reign. As a result his contribution is hard to quantify but certain points can easily be singled out.

1. His conversion to a purely monotheistic faith was a landmark innovation in iteslf and highly contentious (a thing his successors pointed out by destroying everything that had anything remotely to do with him). He faced the combined wrath of the Amun (Amon) priesthood which had grown incredibly powerful and thus influential. His religious policy, in a political sense, was thus aimed at shifting the power balance back into the pharaoh's court. He could only achieve this by ceasing to fund the preisthoods which stood in his way (all rulers were required to contribute to religious buildings and so on). Because of their large nature he chose the revolutionary step of disregarding them in total by raising one god- the Aten- (a minor attribute of Ra till then)above all else. This way he circumvented the need to fund the priesthoods as they were no longer officially recognized. It enabled him to pour the saved resources into other projects. This included the construction of his new capital city of Akhetaten (Tel-el-Amarna) which was another strategic move to distance the court (and people) from the traditional power bases of the dominant priesthoods. Had he lived longer who knows what could have become of this policy. The heirs to the throne were all influenced by his policies but his immediate children died before him. Even the pharaoh who took over after his death (Tutankamun) was influenced by Akhenaton's policies as can be clearly seen by some of the items found in his tomb (the royal chair and walls of the tomb for example display the Aten sun disk). Alas he was too young to be able to resist the powerful priesthoods which, although weakened, had not been destroyed. Akhenaton just didn't live long enough for this to come about. Of course the successors all of which (bar Tut) had no right to the throne (Ay, Horemheb etc) did their best to win over the presthoods influence and power by avenging their closures. Hence the smash up which followed his reign.

In another more important way Akhenaton's reign made a giant leap forward in terms of artistic achievement. Traditional artistic styles (the rigid, lifeless and air-brushed techniques of past) gave way to the natural style. His are the only depictions in which affection between royal members is displayed, or people are shown in their true guises (warts and all). Plants, animals etc all have a new vibarncy and life unseen until the ascendence of the Hellenistic Age and later Renaissance. This in itself is a major achievement which most people dismiss as insignificant. Sure he didn't go out conquering others and building pyramids and so on but is that the only worth of a ruler?

In terms of foreign policy the borders were never safer. His reign is one of incredible stability (precarious but stable nontheless) as Egypt was being threatened by the Hittites in Anatolia. The Amarna letters (another great accomplishment - one of the oldest filing cabinet systems ever and a marvel of beaurocratic development) show the often intimate exchange between Hittite and Egyptian rulers (like the one discussing the gifts sent to Akhenaton). Of course the royal family knew it had no large support outside Akhenaton's immediate circle and was deeply troubled after his death (as the letters of his wife's show). There was no strong ruler who could keep them in check and eventually his legacy collapsed.

As for his image...many have commenetd on his disease like state without satisfactorily answering anything. More than likely his depictions are closely linked with his theology and not some physical malady. His god (Aten) was the male version of the life/fertility god while he himself takes over the qualities of the mother earth (the curvy hips, large lips etc is a common way to depict earth gods/goddesses). His depictions highlight his fertility and as an extension his country's. We must remember that kings/queens were closely tied in with the land (Grail legend anyone?) and from time immemorial (Gilgamesh anyone?). The kings well being was mirrored in the land...if the king was ill so too was the land. Akhenaton annexxed the earth cult features into his person and thus hoped to convince his people that they were bountiful and prosperous (whether they were is not the point as we are talking symbolism).

Just some (lengthy) thoughts...

Pic of Akhenaton with family

And another one...

and one more...with child

Last one of the man himself...

Question: Can you post more than one picture in one thread? And how so?

"Just some (lengthy) thoughts..."

Alright, I'll post some thoughts on him too...

"1. His conversion to a purely monotheistic faith was a landmark innovation in iteslf and highly contentious (a thing his successors pointed out by destroying everything that had anything remotely to do with him). He faced the combined wrath of the Amun (Amon) priesthood which had grown incredibly powerful and thus influential. His religious policy, in a political sense, was thus aimed at shifting the power balance back into the pharaoh's court. He could only achieve this by ceasing to fund the preisthoods which stood in his way (all rulers were required to contribute to religious buildings and so on). Because of their large nature he chose the revolutionary step of disregarding them in total by raising one god- the Aten- (a minor attribute of Ra till then)above all else. This way he circumvented the need to fund the priesthoods as they were no longer officially recognized."

Conversion to monotheism in my opinion is nothing to be proud of. Certainly Judaism, Christianity and Islam are nothing more than differing versions of his bizarre religion he created. You have with a doubt skipped over the part where his people were worse of for it. There was a decrease in construction jobs due to the closure of temples and the barring of construction of more. More on this a bit later. The artisans who used to make small Egyptian religious icons, a thriving business which employed many, many people from those who carved them, to those who sold them, to those who got the materials in the first place, were suddenly out of a job. And the reasons for doing it was less than what you have stated. He was born with a genetic disease making him incredibly ugly (I forgot what it is called, but the body is very distorted) so he was shunned by his father who gave all the important places (mayor of Memphis, mayor of Thebes, high priest of this god, high priestess of this goddess, etc) to his siblings. Akhenaton was kept out of sight to keep him from tainting his fathers reign. He was banned from all religious festivals and temples (which would crush a persons spirit considering how important they were), so he inherited a personal hatred of the gods. When Amenemhet III died, his mother had him crowned pharoah, but he was the last in line to succession as he was the youngest child. Of course in those circumstances you would get rid of the religious institutions.

"It enabled him to pour the saved resources into other projects. This included the construction of his new capital city of Akhetaten (Tel-el-Amarna) which was another strategic move to distance the court (and people) from the traditional power bases of the dominant priesthoods."

So he built an over-rated city on one of the most arid places along the Egyptian Nile. By building this city, he distanced himself from the people and the foreigners because all he saw here was what he wanted to see. There was no plague or war, which was wreaking havoc elsewhere throughout the Egyptian Empire.

"Had he lived longer who knows what could have become of this policy."

The only thing he could accomplish by living longer was to let the rotting of the empire continue.

"The heirs to the throne were all influenced by his policies but his immediate children died before him. Even the pharaoh who took over after his death (Tutankamun) was influenced by Akhenaton's policies as can be clearly seen by some of the items found in his tomb (the royal chair and walls of the tomb for example display the Aten sun disk). Alas he was too young to be able to resist the powerful priesthoods which, although weakened, had not been destroyed. Akhenaton just didn't live long enough for this to come about. Of course the successors all of which (bar Tut) had no right to the throne (Ay, Horemheb etc) did their best to win over the presthoods influence and power by avenging their closures. Hence the smash up which followed his reign."

He was hated by all for a reason, not because the priests didn't like him much. He created his religion for himself, everyone knew it, and he grew complacent and ignorant of what the world really was like. In el-Amarna, he would have to literally buy the people to like him (by throwing gold onto the ground by the gates of the city). Of course you'd see some of those items in his tomb, the whole palace would have been full of the crap he filled it with.

"In another more important way Akhenaton's reign made a giant leap forward in terms of artistic achievement. Traditional artistic styles (the rigid, lifeless and air-brushed techniques of past) gave way to the natural style. His are the only depictions in which affection between royal members is displayed, or people are shown in their true guises (warts and all). Plants, animals etc all have a new vibarncy and life unseen until the ascendence of the Hellenistic Age and later Renaissance. This in itself is a major achievement which most people dismiss as insignificant. Sure he didn't go out conquering others and building pyramids and so on but is that the only worth of a ruler?"

The artistic change is over-looked for the simple reason that it was done only because he wanted it done that way. It didn't live past his death as no one else really liked to look at it. I guess seeing plague-ridden people and the reality of his reign is something everybody really wanted to see... of course not. Most people were disgusted by it, the old art style showed more of the after-life than the real-life, but Akhenaton erased the after-life (so what happened when people died when there was none? What incentive was there to be a good person as opposed to a murderer and a theif?) so all that was left was the world as it was which is all he could have shown.

"In terms of foreign policy the borders were never safer."

You have got to be kidding. You have lost most credability by even saying this. Syria was in revolt, the armies were scared adn could only wait to die if they were in these foreign lands, Nubia to the south was on the war path, the Hittites were mopping up the civilised north of Syria, the tribes in Israel had laid siege to many cities in the delta. And all is safe...

"His reign is one of incredible stability (precarious but stable nontheless) as Egypt was being threatened by the Hittites in Anatolia."

Huh? That is not stable. To lose land to the Hittites would have been an embarrassment as the Hittites were recently all but destroyed. The Mitanni (close Egyptian allies which ruled northeastern Syria, western Iraq and southeastern Turkey) were pleading for Egyptian help which was never to come.

"The Amarna letters (another great accomplishment - one of the oldest filing cabinet systems ever and a marvel of beaurocratic development) show the often intimate exchange between Hittite and Egyptian rulers (like the one discussing the gifts sent to Akhenaton)."

The Amarna letters might have been established the latter years of his reign. Either way, the Mitanni were forver crippled, and the good relations between Egypt and the Hittite Empire would not last beyond his death. The Egyptians were forced to recognise that the Hittite Emperor was more powerful than the pharoah and thus had a greater divine right. King Suppililiumas recieved a letter from an el-Amarna Egyptian queen urging him to send a son to marry her, but he was killed upon arrival in Egypt. That caused the major war to hit Syria since the war between Akkad and Ebla 1000 years previous.

"Of course the royal family knew it had no large support outside Akhenaton's immediate circle and was deeply troubled after his death (as the letters of his wife's show). There was no strong ruler who could keep them in check and eventually his legacy collapsed."

It was hardly a legacy to begin with. Akhenaton was only able to establish his religion with help from his mother, his first wife Nefertiti and his second wife. Without them he would have failed before he even started.

"As for his image...many have commenetd on his disease like state without satisfactorily answering anything. More than likely his depictions are closely linked with his theology and not some physical malady. His god (Aten) was the male version of the life/fertility god while he himself takes over the qualities of the mother earth (the curvy hips, large lips etc is a common way to depict earth gods/goddesses). His depictions highlight his fertility and as an extension his country's. We must remember that kings/queens were closely tied in with the land (Grail legend anyone?) and from time immemorial (Gilgamesh anyone?). The kings well being was mirrored in the land...if the king was ill so too was the land. Akhenaton annexxed the earth cult features into his person and thus hoped to convince his people that they were bountiful and prosperous (whether they were is not the point as we are talking symbolism)."

The fat belly is more Indian than Egyptian. He did have a distorting disease. Aton was the disc which reflected light fromthe sun to Earth and was not a fertility god. And such points you have made never had anything to do with Egypt in the first place. His people weren't prosperous they were suffering their worst since the civil war between the 9th and 11th Dynasties. They would have known that, no one could have convinced them differently, and they all blamed him.

Hail Caesar!

There's a guy with so much popular support that the senators killed him for fear of their jobs.

Nice rebuttal, but if I may offer some more insight.

Changing a nation's religious orientation is not an easy thing, nor something that is of no worth. Religion has played a life-shaping role (socially, culturally, artistically etc) since...well...forever. It was a HUGE step and not something to be taken lightly. His conversion was not a result of a Freudian hang-up caused because of his father's lack of paternal support but rather a carefully thought out plan to shift the power balance back into the court's favour. Pharaohs, just like most monarchs did not spend 'time' with their siblings in the sense that we understand the term today. More often than not, the sons vied for their fathers throne. There was hardly any love in these sorts of relationships. Children were necessary and family morals were practically unheard of (modern standards). There are countless examples of this right down to the present day. We can safely say that Akhenaton tried to reverse this trend (see his depictions). His father, Amenhotep III, furthermore, poured most all of Egypt's wealth into his grandiose building projects (Mortuary temple/Colossi of Memnon etc) all of which strengthened the Amun cult (preisthood). The people of Egypt didn't generally get much out of this bar work as labourers in the agricultural off-seasons (unless of course they were craftsmen or artisans by trade). Akhenaton's closure of temples did not cause the economic drought claimed, as these people found employment in Akhenaton's building projects (building a city from scratch is no simple feat and he built numerous temples so there is no lack of work as such). Unemployment hit the prietshood of Amun (and others) which was what Akhenaton intended to do so as to curtaill their strength and influence. It was shrewd political necessity, akin in many ways to Henry VIII's 'conversion' to Protestantism or Kemal Ataturk's termination of the sultanate/caliphate. These acts were not spurred on by repressed emotions/psychological hang-ups but carried out as part and parcel of an overall scheme to eliminate potential and existing political power bases. Mongoloid Cow (great name by the way) basis his argument on this much like many of Akhenaton's critics, based on his appearance...from which we draw X and Y psychological conclusions. This is often misleading (it reminds me of a children's book I once read on the subject of Akhenaton's oppressive reign - totally fictitious and hyperbolic). I will come back to this.

As for the city of Akhetaten, it was not built in an infertile area. In the 1300's BC that area was actually quite fertile as the excavations of the surrounds have proven (like Ephesus and Ostia, in antiquity they were quite prosperous and harbourside cities at that, now they both lie miles inland). Today it is a different situation as erosion and changing climate conditions have made Akhetaten fairly barren (good for preservation though but almost impossible to get to...had to do lots of bargaining with AK-47 wielding guards). The city, unlike other Egyptian cities, was actually planned (ala Roman style almost). It's eventual decline was due to it's subsequent abandonment by the following rulers, an act spurred on by political consideration rather than land inadequacy. We must also look at it in terms of trade and protection, built as it was mid way between the traditional Egyptian homeland. Also, as stressed before, the city was built to distance it from the other power bases where Akhenaton would have had to put up with stiff resistance (Thebes/Luxor/Karnak). Again political exigensies.

As for the Empire's condition. It was not exactly in its prime prosperity wise (compared to Thutmosis III or Seti I/Ramses II) but that hardly makes it rotting. Cities and temples to new deities do not go up in times of poverty/famine as the successors to Khufu found out (strike anyone?).

Turning to his personal status, he was not the unpopular selfish ruler Mongoloid Cow makes him to be. The Egyptian nobility, led by Nefertiti/Tiye and co lived quite well under his rule, as did his officials (Horemheb and Ay). Official tombs in Amarna resound of this kind of devotion (admittedly not an uncommon practice). The key though here lies in the wife of Amenhotep III, Tiye. She supported her grandson's 'vision/revolution' till the very end. How is this possible seeing as all her life she lived as an adherent to Amun (it was her support and later Nefertiti's which enabled him to make his changes). The answer is lucidly easy to surmise: politics. Like her grandson she saw the threat of the Amun priesthood and so supported it on this basis. In any change of power structures there is bound to be discontent from the dispossessed. So too, it came to pass in Akhenaton's life. Had he lived longer, or begotten a strong successor he may have pulled it off as has happened in other historic instances. As it turned out he didn't and the Amun preisthood re-established control, no doubt by bribing Akhenaton's officials with the throne (Ay, and Horemheb did the most damage as we all know).

Religion: Um...well he didn't do away with the afterlife...where did you get this one Mongoloid Cow? After all, the numerous tombs dotting the ridge behind Akehtaten prove this I would think?
As for his god Aten, he/it was a form of the age old fertility god. Have a look at Frazer's seminal work The Golden Bough, or Jane Harrison's book Themis. Or for the more popular spin on things, any book by Joseph Campbell. The fertility deity was not manifest in any single form but was rather an attribute (we don't say for example that X God was the god of fertility like we say Apollo was the god of music...fertility is a primary attribute). All gods have tried to acquiesce this attribute, right down to Jesus. The depiction of this attribute in early societies is a voluptuous and well-rounded figure. This is also not unique to India though it may have emerged from there. Look at Minoan earth figurines and you may get an idea. On this topic, it was during his father's reign that contact with the Minoans became a common thing. The Amarna art shares many things in common Minoan art (from the voluptuous figures to the naturalistic depictions of nature). Influence? Perhaps. Suffice to say it was not 'disgusting'. People may not like all of its products but you have to give credit where credit is due. I am referring to innovation and execution. If I have time I'll scan some images in so we can see. The above ones are admittedly not the best stuff to come out of Amarna.

As for the notion of fertility lying outside of Egypt's realm, I'm afraid Mongoloid Cow has got it wrong. Once again I refer him to the texts mentioned above. The fertility attribute lay in all Egyptians gods to a greater or lesser extent (Ptah who became Asclepius, Osiris who became Dionysos/Apollo, Isis & Hathor who became Artmemis/Hera/Demeter) all have fertility attributes and were worshipped as such. We must stop thinking of the Egyptian religion in conservative strict religious terms. As with all religions it was highly adaptive and fluid with a vast mythology stemming from notions of fertility (just examine their creation myth or the Osiris/Seth story). This was brought more to the fore with Akhenaton as his reign focused on one god (the sun is the masculine fertility symbol par excellence). Of course the revolution could not exist without the counterpart (the feminine) for it would render his Aten mythology senseless so he himself seems to have taken on those attributes. We must remember that before the sun, the MOTHER and her DARK WOMB reigned supreme. The Aten was a natural trend away from the dominant female powers (in religious terms) to the orderly male ones (I'm not being sexist). It had been tried before in the solar cults which followed the period of pyramid building and reached its apogee in the union of Amun with Ra. The mother was relegated to the position of servant, as she had been in the social sense. Matriarchy gave way to patriarchy in religion as in society. Aten was the male dominant god with Akhenaton playing the subservient 'female' part. A bold religious revolution in many ways then.

Military: The Nubians were always on the war path and the fact that they scored no major victories over Egypt for years after should indicate the adequacy of the southern garrisons set up by Amenhotep III. The Israelites had no conquests in Egypt bar the occasional raid which was soon repelled. The Mittani were used as a shield against the Hittites (albeit a bad one as it turned out). A necessity when dealing with a superior foe (they had iron weapons to name but one advantage). Not even Ramses could defeat the Hittites so I wouldn't expect Akhenaton to try. What he accomplished was peace diplomatically. We must understand that when we are talking peace in antiquity it must be understood in fluid terms. There was never 'peace' in antiquity in our understanding of the term. It was a period of constant camapigns and conquests, re-conquests and so on. The Akhenaton period though is not marked by any major conquest/campaign. The loss of Syria was not a loss to Egypt in geographical terms as that area always lay outside Egypt's boundaries. It was a sphere of influence, ruled by an obedient people (to the Egyptians at least). It is assumed that Nefertiti was a Mittanian princess which would indicate at cordial realtions between Egypt and the Mittani. The Hittite conquest made the two empires geographically neighbours but Akhenaton's diplomacy managed to keep the two in a period of peaceful co-existence (again relative as raids and such continued). And the Hittites were not almost conquered. They were actually at the height of their power with Supililiuma I. Their destruction is a mystery still but more than likely they fell to the combined threat of ascendent Assyria and the Sea Peoples.

The soldiers camped in some far away area hating Akhenaton..well this was not a novel thing. Nobody would have liked these kinds of assignments (the Romans hated north England, Parthia etc) but it doesn't prove much in terms of real populace feeling. All such things are highly figurative and hence of no historic value.

Now, I have forgotten other points mentioned but I'm sure astute people like Mongoloid Cow will bring them up.

PS I'm delighted to know that games like Civ3 can stir historic interest so. Let's hope more people will be willing to share their opinions. I am too haphazard so I may not make sense at times...apologies.

oh...that was what I forgot.

Mongoloid Cow mentioned the suspected disease/ailment Akhenaton may have suffered from but couldn't recall the name.

Well, as far as I know, there are two possible culprits:

1. Froehlich's Syndrome
or
2. Marfan's Syndrome (this one seems to carry the most favour)

For more on these and the theory I stand by see this brief but informative page:
Akhenaton: Genetics or Aesthetics? (http://www.heptune.com/Marfans.html)

Here's another Amarna art pic: (sorry about the quality).

There are also plenty of Akhenaton's famously beautiful wife.

I would have to vote for Emperor Asoka, who has done more for the development of his subjects than any Indian ruler hence, except Akbar, and was also the first ancient ruler, who forsook war as an instrument of foriegn policy.

He was also instrumental in the spread of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, SE Asia and the Far East. It is no wonder, that his symbol is now the symbol of the Indian Govt.

So, MC or Porphyrogenitos, was Akhenaton black?

He was Egyptian - Egyptians weren't black. Why do you ask?

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
He was Egyptian - Egyptians weren't black. Why do you ask?

Yes, in general Egyptians weren't black, but it is often said that Akhenaton in particular is, because representations of him appear to be slightly negroid. And, BTW, African Americans are convinced that the ancient Egyptians were Black:

http://www.globalblacknews.com/history.html

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tiye.html

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html

http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage9.htm

here:

Pre-Hyksos, Egypt would be at best half-Negroid, but after the 13th Dynasty, you could no longer call Egypt 'black' simply because Asiatics had mixed in with the Egyptians. Nubia and Kush to the south, though, is another story.

Hammurabi was the start of many good law systems so he was important.

Hammurabi based his code of law on a much less an eye-for-an-eye set devised by King Lili-Bama, a good hundred years or so before Hammurabi was born. I don't really think Hammurabi should be remembered for those laws as much as his other pursuits.

Pericles brought his little city-state into a war which almost destroyed them, advocated a defensive policy which killed a third of his city in a plague and squandered his country's resources on a supreme act of vanity. Hardly the greatest ruler in antiquity?!

patriotism,no political entity can function on a very good level without it, and pericles showed a love of it far more than most other leaders ever have, not to mention that supreme act of vanity is only one of the most beautiful building in the world, but then look at my sig, i suppose i would be biased...

There are of course merits to every selection, but I voted for David because he took a group of disparate tribesmen and turned them into a nation that became a regional power for a time. Some of the others were more powerful, masterful etc. but David made the most significant progress.

I voted for Qin Shi Huang Di.

Achievement :

-The unifier. Unified China as a nation. There were further conquests, dynasty changes and civil wars, of course, but his rise is generally considered by historians the birth of the Chinesse empire.

Yes, Alexander conquered more. But the Macedonian empire lasted a few years at most before disintegrating never to rise again. The Chinesse empire lasted two milleniums (of course, it was two milleniums with periods of civil war and even some "being conquered" in-between, no one's disputing that, but, unlike Macedonia, China didn't die out in the end) and though it is no longer an empire by name (though the communist party has been called "the new dynasty" before...), China still lives - as a serious world power - with its imperial borders not very different from what they where at the height of Chinesse power (lost a few territories at the fringes, like Korea and Vietnam, but compared to Macedonia...). Qin Shihuangdi, and his successor of the Han dynasty, set the stage for one of the world's greatest nation up to the 1700s and once more today.

-Architecturaly speaking, he sort of ordered the construction of (the original) of a certain Wall (as in, Great Wall)...

-He unified the measuring system, monetary system, writing system, etc (at least, IIRC).

(It's possible that with more time, Alexander may have managed to secure his conquests. Possible, but not certain.)

How about Pericles of the city-state of Athens? He was largely respnsible for the city's democratic institution. He also made Athens what it is today. He rebuilt the Long Walls (Walls that connected Athens to its sea port, Piraeus, about 5 miles away), built the Parthenon, much of the temples on the acropolis, gave Athens an age of intelectual and philosopical flowering, and in genral helped to rebuild the city after the Persian destruction. He aligned Piraeus to a geometric grid, like what would happen in Italy during the rennaisance, about 2000 years later. With his help, Athens grew powerful enough to challenge Sparta. Im not saying that hes the leader I would choose, but why cant Pericles be a choice? Pericles wasnt the cause of the Pelopnesisn War, it was Corithian annoyacne with Athens because it was becoming a rivaling trade center, Sparta was annoyed because it felt Athens was a threat to its power, and the Boetians and other cities probably joined Sparta because the Athenians were demanding sums of money to be a "member" of the Delian League. Thebes only joined the Spartans when they realized that the Athenians would lose. Pericles thought that the other cities were happy to contribute money because he thought that the Greeks would love to donate their money to create the most beautiful city in the world. I guess Pericles was a little naive about that.
As for the defensive strategy, that was largely due to a plague that was spreading in Athens, and eventually it killed Pericles himself. Do you think that Pericles would let his troops go out of the walls and face the Spartan army by themselves?


Id guess I'd pick Alex the Great. He completely changed the way that phalanx warfare was waged, which had been invented by the Greeks. His empire, which split into 3 parts, put Greek culture into the middle east until the rise of Islam. He founded about 60 new cities in the middle east. Btw, Jesus spoke in Aramic, a language that originated from Greek.

Oda Nobunaga--- the reason why the empire didnt last was because he didnt have an heir, so his generals began a struggle for power, in which his wife and son were killed. But all of the lands that had been conquered were under Macedonian leaders (formerly gnerals),---Ptolemy Soter I, Selecus, and Antigonas Gonatas.

Yes id also like to see Assurbanipal, Nebuchadrezzar, and Hannibal (he shaped how the ROman Empire would form). I honestly dont know much about ancient Asian history.

To everyone who picked Caesar: Agustus made more reforms, expanded the empire, and a whole lot of more stuff than Julius did. The main thing that Julius did was he set up a dictatorship. Do you really think that that's reason for electing somebody to be one of the greatest rulers??

What's wrong with a dictatorship if it's well run?

I vote for Trajan - fair, just, brave and wise ruler of the Dying empire. What was Rome like if at least 50% of Roman emperors were as clever as Trajan...

Earendil - so? If the empire wasn't able to survive his death (regardless of the why), doesn't that sort of mean he failed to plan ahead, which is sort of a weakness when it comes to being called "great ruler"?

It's impossible to plan ahead for a major disaster the like of an earthquake or a plague. It is, however, very possible to make plans ahead of time for your death. A ruler who fails to do so does not deserve the title of "great ruler".

Plus, what has Alexander done that Qin Shi Huangdi did not achieve? Carve out a sizeable empire? Yes, they both did that (China might have been smaller, but OTOH most of Alexander's empire was the already-existing Persian empire, which Alexander took by force the throne to - and without having to fight all that much for it) . Attempt to bring some unity to the empire? They both did that - Qin Shi Huangdi by unifying their measures and monetary system, Alexander through attempted cultural integration. Great building project? Yes, they both did that. Alexander built any number of cities to his own glory (Alexandria this and Alexandria that), and Shi Huangdi had a wall built - the first incarnation of the famous "Wonder of the World #8" - The Great Wall of China.

So, in the end, what can we compare them over? How much land each conquered? Not a very fair comparison system, that - when you get right down to it, what did Alexander accomplish with the Persian Empire that, say, William the Conqueror didn't accomplish with England - or the later Qing dynasty in China.

QSH built himself an empire. Alexander stole himself one. QSH's empire lasted some while, and in fact its latest incarnation still exists today as a world power. Alexander's didn't, and Macedonia today is pretty much an European backwater. I don't know about you, but I know which of these two I would consider the greater ruler.

I think if you pick the ruler who had the largest impact on history, it has to be Alexander. IT matters not how long the empire existed, but its impact on the world. You seem to have forgotten that the Great Library and the Great Lighthouse were built in Alexandria, which was founded by Alexander. Alexander did not simply conquer Persia and then the whole of the middle east was his- the Persian empire was already in decline, and Egypt and some other vassal states were breaking away. He also built a dike to the ancient island city of Tyre, a dike that exists to this day. He also invented a new type of phalanx warfare, a type that the Romans would later adopt and change. He was only 33. If he was older, you would probably agree with me, because he would have had longer to rule and refine his empire with Greek culture, and he also would have chosen an heir. And while Alexandria and its many archtectual wonders actually had an impact on the world at the time (culture-wise), the Great Wall was not really an adequate defense against anything, and it was really never useful. And, as said before, he brought Greek culture to the East, and he guaranteed the spread of Hellenic culture into future Europe by making it so widespread.

This is why I hate this type of 'who's the greatest' discussions. :rolleyes:

All rulers had their impact on history. Who'd the greatest impact? It's all open to personal intepretation - and personal bias.

Let's just consider each ruler great and leave it at that. :)

Originally posted by earendil
I think if you pick the ruler who had the largest impact on history, it has to be Alexander.Has to? :rolleyes:

IT matters not how long the empire existed, but its impact on the world.Only to the Western world. :p

And China still stands, today. :p That, in and of itself, is a major impact.

And while Alexandria and its many archtectual wonders actually had an impact on the world at the time (culture-wise), the Great Wall was not really an adequate defense against anything, and it was really never useful.The Qin Great Wall was adequate for its purposes. Like customs. And keeping the Chinese in. One of the problems for the Qin imperial govt was that the Chinese kept leaving the empire, and joined the nomads. And bringing their tech knowhow with them.

For defense, the Qin armies invaded the steppes. ;)

You have to realise - there're a few Great Walls in Chinese history. You're probably thinking of the Ming Great Wall - which was rightly a white elephant; the result of a lack of military ideas.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Earendil - so? If the empire wasn't able to survive his death (regardless of the why), doesn't that sort of mean he failed to plan ahead, which is sort of a weakness when it comes to being called "great ruler"?Qin Shihuang didn't plan on his own death either. In fact, he planned on being immortal. ;)

It was during one of his tours out of the capital to pursue the elusive elixir of immortality that he died.

Li Su, the premier, and the leading eunuch (forgot name) then conspired to get the easier second prince to the throne; whilst ordering the crown prince and General Meng Tian to commit suicide, via a false imperial edict. The crown prince had been sent to the northern border for speaking out against the harsh rule of the emperor. General Meng Tian held the command of the Great Wall troops - 400000 of them.

Had the excellent elder prince ascended the throne; the Qin might have grown to be a great dynasty.

Plus, what has Alexander done that Qin Shi Huangdi did not achieve? Carve out a sizeable empire? Yes, they both did that (China might have been smaller, but OTOH most of Alexander's empire was the already-existing Persian empire, which Alexander took by force the throne to - and without having to fight all that much for it) .The Qin empire was carved out by the generals and armies of Qin, and was the result of a historical inevitability. Due to the formidable economic powerhouse-combo of the Wei valley - the Qin heartland, and Shu (modern Sichuan) - one of the earlier Qin conquests.

The King of Qin never took the field. Ever.

Attempt to bring some unity to the empire? They both did that - Qin Shi Huangdi by unifying their measures and monetary system, Alexander through attempted cultural integration.Great building project? Yes, they both did that. Alexander built any number of cities to his own glory (Alexandria this and Alexandria that), and Shi Huangdi had a wall built - the first incarnation of the famous "Wonder of the World #8" - The Great Wall of China.We must realise that Qin Shi Huang and the Qin imperial administration was trying to create a police state here, rather than out of any desire to create a nation to last ten thousand years...

I would say Constantine or Alexander

Constantine Legalized Christianity and brought Rome out of their Decline

Alexander conquered the most land in the shortest amount of time, and at a young age

Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) definitely. :)

Originally posted by Godwynn
I would say Constantine or Alexander

Constantine...brought Rome out of their Decline


That is highly unfair to Diocletian.

Diocletian never legalized the worlds largest religion either...

Godwynn, is legalising Christianity the only prerequisite of being a great ruler?

no, but it did bring some peace to the nation, legalizing Christianity was a good move on his part, if it wasn't for Constantine, Christianity may be a minor religion today

Which still doesn't make one a great ruler...

And "legalizing one of the world's greatest religion" is a serious misnomer...he legalized a minor religion (at the time). That religion eventually grew into something much bigger, but that took a long time.

Gotcha ;)

Constantine IMO was capable of bringing about some peace regardless of whether he legalised it. I guess it was a lot easier though.

Although, there is a theory that the rise of Christianity was linked to the fall of the Roman empire.

In that sense, Constantine may have made a bad move...although he himself was Christian, and it would be awkward for the emperor to practice an illegal religion.

if the question was greatest RULER than how much you conquerored isn't the only thing to base it on. caesar plunged his country into cival war, alexander conquerored 1/2 the world than lost it, stipped his homeland of men and materials and left it a second class power, constantine spent most of his reign in cival war,ect... maybe this guys would do better in the " greatest generals or conquerors thread"

You must remember Constantine brought Rome back into one Empire after Diocletian split it...

Originally posted by Godwynn
You must remember Constantine brought Rome back into one Empire after Diocletian split it...

Diocletian split the Empire for a good reason, and Constantine was a fool for ignoring this. Actually, Dio's achievement was in reuniting it after a fifty year period of civil war, and his wisdom in creating the tetrarchic system to preserve its new unity.

yes but it took 30 of civil war to do so THAN he divided in 3 between his sons so than could fight each other for 20 years till constans ( i think ) won out then proceded to war on his nephew julian the aposite and lost

Originally posted by calgacus


Diocletian split the Empire for a good reason, and Constantine was a fool for ignoring this. Actually, Dio's achievement was in reuniting it after a fifty year period of civil war, and his wisdom in creating the tetrarchic system to preserve its new unity.

So he re-united the empire, then split it again, doesn't make much sense to me. 1 empire, with 1 ruler, and 1 army is much better than 2 empires and 4 rulers. Then look what happened, he idea of preserving its unity didn't last did it? No, it was plunged into another battle for power and civil war and Constantine won...

So Diocletian Was The Fool!

actually diocletian's model work for him because HE was strong enough to inforce it, 2 empires with co-caesars for each, the cost of 4 imperial courts bankrupt the empire, its when diocletian stepped down that all h*ll broke loose with constantine finally winning. and yes constantine was a fool to divide up what he spent his life reuniting

Originally posted by pawpaw
actually diocletian's model work for him because HE was strong enough to inforce it, 2 empires with co-caesars for each, the cost of 4 imperial courts bankrupt the empire, its when diocletian stepped down that all h*ll broke loose with constantine finally winning. and yes constantine was a fool to divide up what he spent his life reuniting

Don't you mean Diocletian?!

no constantine, diocletian "retired" and made his co-emperor too, its when their replacements ( and people who thought they should of been replacesments) took over that it broke done and constantine won out. he at his death bed split it up between his 3 sons

The Roman Empire needed to be split up, Diocletian IMO was rather intelligent to make it work. Constantine reunited it, broke it up and all hell broke loose. The Valentinians eventually took control of both sides and worked to try and keep Rome together although they stilled ruled it separately. The last emperor to rule both halves was Theodosius the Great in 394 - 395AD when he died and his rather pathetic sons took over.

one man could no longer rule it, if the emperor was in persia at war some idiot in gaul would revolt and declare himself emperor, once generals became emperors any general thought he had just as much right to do so

How about Hatshepsut? Sure she was an evil cow to Thutmoses but she was a good ruler and Egypt was prosperous under her.
And...
Cleopatra VII?

I've just noticed how few votes Cyrus the Great had. It is kind of farcical that Alexander has almost 3 times the vote of Cyrus. But, hey, I didn't expect the poll to be fair :p

Oh no, not THAT discussion again... ;)

id say augustus and julius caesar are good candidates.

Originally posted by calgacus
I've just noticed how few votes Cyrus the Great had. It is kind of farcical that Alexander has almost 3 times the vote of Cyrus. But, hey, I didn't expect the poll to be fair What do you expect from a society that looks to Rome as its heritage?

J