Finishing off from the Greatest Ancient Ruler thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49899) and the Greatest Medieval Ruler thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49879), it has the same purpose. People interested in this time period but with little knowledge about the other two can discuss answers a little better than in a general "greatest ruler thread". It's a multiple vote poll, so feel free to vote for more than one.

Time Period (for purposes of the thread): 1520 - 2000 AD

Some info:

Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) [Ottomans] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_I)

King Philip II (1556-1598) [Spain, Portugal] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain)

King James VI/I (1567-1625) [Scotland, England] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England)

King Gustav II Adolf) (1611-1632) [Sweden] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden)

King Louis XIV (1643-1715) [France] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France)

Tsar Peter I (1682-1725) [Russia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_I_of_Russia)

King Frederick II (1740-1786) [Prussia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II_of_Prussia)

George Washington (1789-97) [United States] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html)

Emperor Napoleon I (1799-1814/5) [France] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Bonaparte)

Camillo Benso di Cavour (1852-1859) [Piedmont] (http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/cavour.htm)

Abraham Lincoln (1861-65) [United States] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html)

Otto von Bismarck (1862-1890) [Prussia] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1917-1922) [Soviet Union] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin)

Josef Stalin (1922-1953) [Soviet Union] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Stalin)

Adolf Hitler (1933-1945) [Nazi Germany] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler)

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45) [United States] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html)

Winston Churchill (1940-45 & 1951-55) [United Kingdom] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill)

Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-1964) [India] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru)

Mao Zedong (Lived: 1893-1976) [China]

I would have voted for Trudeau, he turned a fledgling British colony into a first world country with major economic powers.

I'm an American, big surprise who I voted for.

Although I think you missed Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Muhammad. Even if their reforms were based more on personal charisma and tribalism, respectively, they had the right effects.

The greatest, as in most ethical? Or who made their country change radically of its original path, for better or worse?

Originally posted by andvruss
The greatest, as in most ethical? Or who made their country change radically of its original path, for better or worse?

It's up to you, isn't it !?!

Originally posted by calgacus


It's up to you, isn't it !?!

Ok, I would say then that Otto von Bismark and George Washington did the best for there countries. Adolf Hilter, Napoleon, Lenin and Stalin did the most...radical things for there countries.

I say:
-Washington,because without him there wouldn't be the USA (or only very different from ours,but I fear not at all)
-Bismarck,father of modern Germany,Wilhelm I alone wouldn't have made it
-Lenin,together with Hitler the two most important men in the 20th century (of course Stalin was also very important;without him history would be different,but the rise of the SU could also have happened under Trotzki i.e.;but without Lenin,no SU at all)

You forgot Mohatmas Gandhi, one of the greatest non-violent rulers. I voted for Hitler, Frederick II, Otto von Bismarck, Napoleon and Tsar Peter of Russia.

Originally posted by West German
You forgot Mohatmas Gandhi, one of the greatest non-violent rulers. I voted for Hitler, Frederick II, Otto von Bismarck, Napoleon and Tsar Peter of Russia.

Actually, I didn't. You see, I'm not sure if he actually "ruled" at all. He was on the poll at first, but Nehru ruled for a few decades, and it was a choice. Gandhi was killed just after independence. I had to keep him out. I had a similar problem with Benjamin Franklin, who I really wanted to include, but he didn't actually rule and there was George Washington in the same era. I had to drop him.

But, certainly, you're right. Gandhi and Franklin were more remarkable men than most of those in the poll. :goodjob:

Gustav II, a true general and the inventor of the modern, professional army (according to many historians)

I'd say the greatest, not necessarily the best, or the most worthy of admiration, was Napoleon. But could think twice if Ghandhi was on the poll.

Define: great.

Cavour - He was true leader and contributed a lot to the unification of Italy.

well where does modern age starts for thread purpuses?

Originally posted by stalin006
well where does modern age starts for thread purpuses?

Well, I had 1520, in order to exclude Charles V but include Suleiman.

James the VI was a pygmy compared to Liz 1.

I voted for Bismarck, Churchill, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

James the VI was a pygmy compared to Liz 1

Bah. A cruel generalisation. James was an outstanding monarch in his own right doing much to consolidate the position left to him by Elizabeth. He sponsered an elaborate re-translation of the bible to make it accessible to the masses, kept England out of costly wars against her Catholic enemies and generally cooled all the religious tension going around, as well as being much loved by BOTH English and Scots and writing a treatise against Tobacco!

Any reference to him as a "pygmy", homosexual or boor has been historically rebuked as it came from one source only. Namely, Anthony Weldon, a disgruntled courtier.

The choice of the word pygmy was mine I had no idea it had previously been used as an insult for him. Unless I chose it subconciously having forgotten that i read it somewhere.

Weird.

Anyway James I/VI was competent no more. Liz was remarkable and a woman at time when women were no thought capable of much

You forgot Atatürk or haven't heard about him???

Lee Kuan Yew gets my vote as far as "modern" is concerned (my vision of modern being post World War II) - turned a small island with $500US in per capita when he took over to an economic powerhouse with standards of living comparable (or even some greater) than the average American or Western European.

FDR gets my vote as the worst.

Originally posted by raven
You forgot Atatürk or haven't heard about him???

Of course I've heard of him. It's not a case of forgetting him, rather, there are only 20 options in the poll. But actually, I did intend to put Ataturk in the poll, but I seem to have forgot at the last moment.

Having travelled around Turkey twice, I know how important he is to the Turks; and, indeed, he was most remarkable. He brought his country from the depths, and westernized the country to an extent which seems miraculous in an Islamic state. But Turkey was never like other islamic countries, one has to credit the Turkish people as well as Ataturk

Sorry :eek:

George Washington -- he would not accept the crown he was offered, setting the global precedent for voluntary systematic transfer of power. He was not the greatest US President, but he was the first, and he had the high ideals necessary to get the nation off on a path of democracy.

Winston Churchill stood for us in the Munich Betrayal thing. And managed to help us in WW2 and after. Even if he was not the ultimately greatest, he surely deserves my vote.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Gustav II, a true general and the inventor of the modern, professional army (according to many historians)
Yes, Gustavus Adolphus was without a doubt one of the greatest rulers and military commanders in the 17th century, if not the greatest. But he ruled together with another very competent man, Axel Oxenstierna (pronounced "Oxen-sherna"). While Gustavus was the military commander, Oxenstierna was skilled at leading the nation and creating the resources for the war. Together they turned a small, poor Northern country into the strongest military power in Europe at the time.

But Gustavus was not the greatest Swedish king - Charles XII was IMO a greater man. He ruled alone - and he was both a brilliant military commander and a good ruler. He was an enlightened ruler, altough one would not think so, and especially towards the end of his life some of his ideas where clearly before his time. He totally defeated the several times bigger Russian army twice, and trough brilliant maneuvers - before he was himself defeated in Poltava and was taken to Turkey.

Nehru got my vote with the help of Gandhi. And another person I voted for was Frederik the Great, who made Prussia a superpower.

It surprises me what you consider "great".

And it surprises me, that you put Lincoln, Washington and Hitler in the same poll. Do you think, Hitler is as good as Germans/Austrians get? Or Mao is as good as Chinese get? Or do you know something about Lincoln no one else knows (child molester? ivory collector?)?

This poll is insulting, at least.

I voted for Mao, just because there are no comparable options.

This is a tough one. If you go before and after the Industrial revolution I come down to Gustav II Adolph and Elizabeth I (there seems to be a small omission) before, with a tip of the hat to Fredrick. After I have to go with Lincoln. He was tied to four horses galloping to the compass points and still kept everything together except his own head.

J

Greatest Modern Ruler?

And we get suggestions such as Elizabeth I and Lincoln...how OLD are some of you 15 year old Norweigans :p


The Greatest Modern Ruler? Tony Blair.

Victor of 5 wars (N.Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq), 2 General Elections and the best World Leader for carrying an arguement at home or abroad. A man capable of making extremely tough decisions in the face of massive opposition despite it obviously effecting him greatly on a personal level. He has brought great change to this country in terms of bringing a far greater sum of money to the government treasury to use on public services and by bringing about devolution in Scotland and Wales with apparently good effect.

Flaws: Too likely to inspire false hopes in others and distrusted by many partly due to his brand of conviction politics.



Unlike so many of your SUPPOSEDLY great and SUPPOSEDLY modern leaders, Tony Blair has had to gain power by democracy and cannot rule absolutely, but relies on the support of a party that is not traditionally in support of his brand of politics.

I voted Gustav II, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great.

Originally posted by General Brown
I voted Gustav II, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great.

I applaud the strong reasons that you were able to give to justify that vote :goodjob:

lol :lol: :)

I would have to agree that Tony Blair has done an incredible job as Prime Minister.

I also give John Kennedy credit for avoiding nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

My reasons for voting Gustav II was:
1. He created one of the most efficient military systems.
2. He led that army to great success.
3. He was a popular ruler.

Reasons for voting Peter the Great were:
1. He modernized Russia
2. He defeated a Swedish invasion and took over part of the Crimea from Turkey.
3. He developed the Russian navy.

Reasons for voting Frederick the Great were:
1. He won the Seven's Year War against overwhelming odds.
2. He conquered much land for Prussia.
3. Made Prussia a major power.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Greatest Modern Ruler?

And we get suggestions such as Elizabeth I and Lincoln...how OLD are some of you 15 year old Norweigans :p


The Greatest Modern Ruler? Tony Blair.

Victor of 5 wars (N.Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq), 2 General Elections and the best World Leader for carrying an arguement at home or abroad. A man capable of making extremely tough decisions in the face of massive opposition despite it obviously effecting him greatly on a personal level. He has brought great change to this country in terms of bringing a far greater sum of money to the government treasury to use on public services and by bringing about devolution in Scotland and Wales with apparently good effect.

Flaws: Too likely to inspire false hopes in others and distrusted by many partly due to his brand of conviction politics.



Unlike so many of your SUPPOSEDLY great and SUPPOSEDLY modern leaders, Tony Blair has had to gain power by democracy and cannot rule absolutely, but relies on the support of a party that is not traditionally in support of his brand of politics.

I respect Tony Blair's leadership, but I don't think that there's any possibility that a man in charge of a middling world power for 6 years can be called the "greatest modern ruler".

He did a few bad economic things, but he created the soviet empire that we all hated untill the 1990s.

Originally posted by Irish Caesar

I also give John Kennedy credit for avoiding nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy was the one that STARTED the conflict by trying to invade Cuba and keeping that a-hole McNamara aboard when it failed. If you're going to invade a country, for God's sakes, do it right.

The world would be a lot better off if someone bumped off McNamara before Kennedy's election.

Hitler was an awesome politician too bad he was crazy. Stalin... Winston and Mao were good too

Go Lenin

I'm thinking about putting the leaders of these three threads into a greatest ruler ever thread. Good idea, or not?

Originally posted by XIII
No. Like I've said, no more comparison threads; in these case, there isn't even a common basis for comparison since these ppl are fr different time periods and vastly differently organized states.

I've a mind to shut down these 'who's greatest' threads as well since : -
1) they're comparative again
2) they're old threads and have run their course

Old threads shld be allowed to fade away...


That's not going to be the new philospohy of this forum is it? I sure hope not. There's nothing wrong with comparisons in my opinion.

The common basis for comparison is that they are rulers. You mention differences, but everything in the Universe differs slightly from everything else. Your philosophy would necessitate a revolution in human thinking, and an absolute stagnation of empirical learning. If the differences are large, that makes the job more difficult and interesting, but it's not like we're comparing the "loudness of fox barks" with "mosaics in the Hagia Sophia" in terms of their taste. The points of comparisons fit nicely with our intuition and there are many natural points of comparison. Effect on later history, resourcefulness, etc, etc. The differences you mention are, at worst, factors to be brought into consideration, but certainly not reasons for banning historical comparisons.

ANd old thread? Well, these are hardly old. I would think that the threads should be allowed to die away if no-one wants them, not because they are merely 2 months old. If that was the principle, then why not close all threads older than some arbitrary time point. If no-one wants them, then they will die away anyway. So, you don't need to worry about it ;)

Originally posted by calgacus
That's not going to be the new philospohy of this forum is it? I sure hope not. There's nothing wrong with comparisons in my opinion.On a case by case basis. We'll see... I'm still weighing it - particularly seeing how the present Roman emperors thread went (it was entirely within Rome - one entity!).

Once a long long time ago, we had a Rome vs Han China thread... It turned into some pretty ugly bashing, of both empires, betw supporter(s) of either... So, if a thread is not conductive (in actual or potentially) to maintaining the friendly atmosphere in CFC, it goes, regardless of its academic/philosophical merits. ;)

If that was the principle, then why not close all threads older than some arbitrary time point. If no-one wants them, then they will die away anyway. So, you don't need to worry about it ;) Because that would mean work for me. :p I don't mind an old thread now and then, but try not to call up a host of them all at the same time in future. ;)

It's fine in History I supposed (being less active), but definitely a no no in OT. Anyways, I haven't closed them yet... ;)

End of discussion on this topic.

Originally posted by XIII

(it was entirely within Rome - one entity!).


That's not what some of those id[sic], sorry, people are saying. ;)



Originally posted by XIII

End of discussion on this topic.


Yeah, OK.

No. Like I've said, no more comparison threads; in these case, there isn't even a common basis for comparison since these ppl are fr different time periods and vastly differently organized states.

I've a mind to shut down these 'who's greatest' threads as well since : -
1) they're comparative again
2) they're old threads and have run their course

Old threads shld be allowed to fade away...

Where the hell is Ike? The guy won World War II. This board is biased against America, I swear :D.

If you have a problem with posts and threads, pls PM me or use the 'Report to mod' function. Otherwise, pls don't make comments like these. Thanks - XIII

But he wasn't a ruler when winning WW2

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
The Greatest Modern Ruler? Tony Blair.

Victor of 5 wars (N.Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq)...

N Ireland - still huge numbers of weapons in circulation and a "ceasefire" that still involves punishment beatings, extortion, and rioting.

Kosovo - resulting an a mass wave of refugees that still clog Europe's asylum system. Funny idea of victory (if Kosovo is so great now, why don't they go home chum?)

Sierra Leone - dying down now but could still explode at any time. Unlikely to be peace there in our generation.

Afghanistan - COME ON! NO peace whatsoever outside of Kabul and the occaional bombing and rocket attack inside the city. Afghanistan is one country that cannot be conquered without killing every single Afghani.

Iraq - still daily attacks on coalition forces.

And, you have to admit, NONE of these are actually Tony's idea.

You have some VERY strange ideas on victory. If victory has been won in any of these places, try taking a holiday in any of these destinations to confirm your opinions.

As for my vote, went to FDR. A strong personality but allied with compassion... Potent combination.

If Boney's on the poll, why isn't Nosey? (Napoleon and Wellington).

Karl XI of course!

I voted for Tzar Peter the Great. He was real magnificent caracter from the begining of modern age for Russia!

Also Washington and Bismark were close.


The rest like Napoleon, Hittler..etc were far away.

why?
'Couse for those 3 guys you can see result even in present time!!!

:egypt:

It was just my modest opinion.:worship:

Originally posted by Irish Caesar
I would have to agree that Tony Blair has done an incredible job as Prime Minister.
...............
maybe hes done an incredible job if you look at him from another country. however many many people here beleive that hes lost it, and his positions out the window. He's in a sorry mess now. He may have done some good things in other countries. But back home he has caused many problems in our railways,health service, nursing homes, schools and many more. Hes turning it into the crappy labour government of the 70's.

anyway i voted only one which was napoleon, he did so much and was loved by his people aswell. not only did he conquer other lands, but he also remebered about the people back home and gave them better qualities of life.

napoleon, bismarck, lenin, stalin, churchill, suleiman, peter, louis XIV...

Boris Yeltsin.
Any leader who is pissed out of his skull is cool with me.

Victoria of England, maybe not a ruler precisely, but her influence and the influence of her reign is still with us today in many a way.

Lincoln and Bismarck