I'd say Napoleon, he was, in my mind, the smartest leader that ever lived. he wasent killed by a weapon, like choice 1 and 2 were... :)

I would say Hitler.
Driving people into such fanatism to make them do things like the concentration camp and getting germany into war preperations so shortly after the defeat in WW1 makes him stand out of the other listed persons. Also the way he handled the other nations.
Even though Hitler's reign was nothing to be proud about his ability as a leader was definitly very strong.

hmmm Why did you chose Caesar af the Roman representative???
He was "only" a dictator in the last years of the Roman republic, the later Roman Emperors were much more powerfull, my guess would be Trajan or Hadrian, I can't remember which had the large Empire.

:sniper:

Man, Ceasar died 44 BC! Perhaps you should've enter Augustus, because he really
got the dictatorship system underway, and then 0 would've also been appropiavpeaire. :crazyeyes

I voted mr. Genghis, if you're interested (propably not, but anyway)

By sheer land area - it is actually Queen victoria

Hmmm suprised Whasington hasnt gotten more votes...

(BTW w_r stop with all the polls all redy your driving me:crazyeyes )

From the choices, the Roman Empire was clearly the most dominate of their era. Caesar, however, was killed long before Rome reached it's zenith. Emperor Augustus (for whome the month of August is named!) was the ruler in 0AD. Later emperors expanded Rome rule, then divided it.

The Vikings of AD 800-AD1100 ruled and "tamed" more of the world than even the Romans. The very name "Russia" derives from the Viking term "Russ", which refers to the viking military on the shallow draft boats used to navigate the waterways of modern Russia, Ukraine, etc.... from Kiev to Constantinople. The Vikings colonized from North America to the far reaches of Russia and the far east... they ruled the seas in their era, too.

Hitler's scope was too limited, and he was defeated by the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.

Napolean accomplished more than Hitler, in his era.

Washington did more with less than any of the others, and against longer odds. However, his army was nowhere near the most powerful of it's era. Britain, France, Spain plus likely Japan, China, and arguably some native associations of tribes in the Americas were all more powerful.

Khan was impressive, as were some of the otehrs listed.

But Rome was the bull in the chinacloset, of its era.

I can't speak for the poller but the question is about the leader not his empire. The question is who was the best leader of all time. Who was the best strategist, thinker, morale booster, etc. We are talkin' about the man (or woman but that's unlikely) who could talk a 500 men armed with rifles to fight 1000 men with machine guns and somehow be able to kill half the enemy. We are talking about someone who by sheer will would be able to bring enemies to there kneees. We are talkin' about a person who's leadership abilities were so good he could take 1% of the world's population and lead them all to their certain deaths, and have only minor deserting even though they all knew what was going to happen.

Obviously such a man hasn't came, but the closest is either Napolean, or Hitler

KHAAAAAN!!!!!!

they kicked ass and only their customs of stopping conquest when their leader died gave the world enough breeathing space to survive their deadly onslaught.

The most powerfull leader in history?
Definitly möngke khan, son of djenhis.djenhis would come second.
When djenhis died ,the Mongels hadden yet counquered regions like East europe & mesopotamia.kubilai was theoreticaly the ruler of the biggest mongel empire ,but he had no control over some Khanates like the Golden horde.Under the rule of môngke the biggest amout of territory was under the control of one person.

You can say that some nations in their time were almost as powerfull as the Mongels in their time.But the Mongel ruler was a tiran ,and thus had more power over his nation than a monarch or president had.

It come's close between America in 1945-50,england in post colonial times and the mongels under möngke in term's of the power of a nation.But the Mongel ruler had more power over his nation than the american president had in that time or the english king.

The question is the most powerfull ruler.

Therefor, I shall quote Captain Kirk and go "Khaaaaaaaaannnnnn!!!":D

His Mongol hordes roamed from China to the mideast to Europe. (And they would have taken Europe too if he hadn't died.) Definetly the most powerful empire, it just didn't last long.

And Khan II, the last of the great dicatators, starter of the Eugenics wars, ruler of 1/3rd of the Earth, foe of the Great Captain Kirk, he belongs on the list too.

I know, I'm a trekkie. :scan:

I *think* i voted Napolean.

But i think that Hitler was one of the most significant leaders ever.
Me and my mate got in an arguement with the rest of the class about it, we were argueing, that apart from killing all those jews, hitler was a really good guy.

People instantly think that hitler was really bad and **** like that because he killed all the jews. Sure, i agree, hitler was wrong there. But i think that if he wasn't killing the jews, he would be the man. Sure he tried taking over the world, it just proves that he was a Civ Fanatics :D.
Think of all the cool things he did, Germany was fastly approaching Third World status. I think that that allies were wrong in what they did at the end of WWI, they made that Pact thinggy, that didn't allow Germany 2 do anything, as a result, germany plunged into Hyperinflation and starvation. Surely you understand a few germans (like hitler) being bitter about it. See what hitler did, he brought germany from a puny country, 2 one of the most powerful in the world at the time. I think hitler may have even won the war, or atlest done some cool damage if he had listened 2 his advisors and not raided russia. I look up 2 hitler because of the way he didn't accept how germany was being treated, and changed everything.

he brought germany from a puny country, 2 one of the most powerful in the world at the time.

yes ,but partly by onorthodox ways.in that time ,jews were in general financialy very resourcefull.Confescating all money from the jews was financialy a very interresting move.And germany wasn't that puny at that time ,it had not been that war torn like france.And all econnomy's in europe suffered a lot from world war one and the 1929 Wall Street crash.Infrastructually germany was still strong after ww1.Only the super-high war reperation imposed on them after ww1 were a very big restrain on the economy.Hitler just stoped paying those reperations ,and that was a big factor for the speeding growth of the german economy in that time.And Germany had the potential to fastly grow in that time.It had acces to a lot of seconomical very interresting resources.

hitler wasn't that great.
On the other hand i find that there is too much (boring) ant-3reich propaganda in this world.
I mean ,They have tutored me so much about the holocaust in school that it is realy coming out of my ears.

Scorch? From wannabe commie to fascist sympathizer?
Apart from the matter of killing Jews, Hitler was "a really good guy"?:rolleyes:
Maybe you need to look at a bit more history,as he did a lot of other things other than attempting to exterminate the Jews that were equally reprehensible, just smaller in scale...
Communists, even "Communist hopefuls", were persecuted and liquidated, so this "looking up" to Hitler is incongrous with stated positions elsewhere, and is concerning, when taken in various contexts.
But you are young, from New Zealand, and in your own words, "have a room temperature IQ", so I will not read too much into this;)

It can be argued that Hitler had a big impact, and was an extremely powerful leader, and even had some degree of greatness, but this last point must be qualified by stating that greatness is by no means a precursor for goodness. Indeed, history is littered with great men and women who were most certainly not "good" from contemporary moral perspectives.

Me, I query as to why Stalin is not on the list. His may not have been the most powerful country in the world, but his hold on power was arguably all his (Beria was a help, but always a nefarious, paedophilic henchman rather than a power behind the throne).
In this sense of not answering to any oversight, as must a US President, the totalitarian and despotic leaders can be said to fill the top positions. Their will and whim was law.

Thus I cannot bring myself to split Napoleon and Hitler, as both were powerful in this respect, in slightly differing ways.

Originally posted by Magnus
KHAAAAAN!!!!!!

they kicked ass and only their customs of stopping conquest when their leader died gave the world enough breeathing space to survive their deadly onslaught.

I agree :)

uh oh, i think my popularity points just went down.... :D

Moved to our new History forum!!!

Now I could vote what I wanted! Frederick!!!

My choice would go to the roman emperors in the I and II centuries, but the one that caused the greatest impact is lacking in that list: Alexander, the great.

Mcdread, u r so right, alexander the great is THE best counqueror of all time, at a battle BC 333 he with only 15000 men beat the persian army of 250 000 men. Rock hard, dude:spank: :spank:

I disagree, the best conquerer was Gheghis Khan, he rode down with his cavalry and no one could stop him.

Hitler, definently.

But of my own personal opinion, I'd say Reagan had the most power of anyone. He basically crushed the Soviet Union, and could have toasted the rest of the world at the push of a button.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Hitler, definently.

But of my own personal opinion, I'd say Reagan had the most power of anyone. He basically crushed the Soviet Union, and could have toasted the rest of the world at the push of a button.

CCCP wouldn't gone down without the assistance of Gorba.

Stalin...anyone who could be so nasty to his own people and get away with it gets my vote.

My vote was for Genghis Khan. In his time he had no enemy who could stop him. His armies had conquered the mighty Chinese Song dynasty, Persia, Central Asia, and after his death his armies would ride forth to conquer nearly all who stood in their way. His armies overran the Russian states, blew into Poland and massacred a combined Polish-German army at Leignitz/Legnica, ripped through Bohemia and quickly destroyed the Hungarian forces at Mohi. Most historians today believe there was no force or combination of forces in Europe at that time that could have stopped a continuation of the Mongol invasion; luckily for us they didn't continue westward, withdrawing mysteriously two years after occupying the Hungarian Plain. The only armies to defeat them openly in battle (during their heighth) were the Mameluk-slave armies of Islamic Egypt - and that with extensive Turkish equestrian help.

No ruler ever built a more effective empire that was able to incorporate all the conquered cultures from the China Sea to the Mediterranean. When Subatai showed up to besiege Rjazan or Suzdal in Russia, he didn't just have Mongol horsemen; he had Chinese engineers, Indian siege machines, Persian sappers, etc. All bowed before the Khan, and he needed fear no one. Stalin had to wrestle with Washington, Hitler and Napoleon were confined almost exclusively to Continental Europe but Genghis Khan's power was only limited by the range of horse, with no one in Eurasia safe. I'm not saying he was likable, but he was the boss in ways others could only dream of.

Henrey VIII {in his era} I was trying to remember my history. Was king Henry VIII before or after King Henry the Seventh? I'm really bad at numbers, and always get that mixed up. ;) But Henry VIII was very powerful... he even was able to defeat several wives, right?

:)

"My vote was for Genghis Khan. In his time he had no enemy who could stop him. His armies had conquered the mighty Chinese Song dynasty, Persia, Central Asia, and after his death his armies would ride forth to conquer nearly all who stood in their way. His armies overran the Russian states, blew into Poland and massacred a combined Polish-German army at Leignitz/Legnica, ripped through Bohemia and quickly destroyed the Hungarian forces at Mohi."

Genghis Khan first took out the Tangut Xixia kingdom in modern Gansu. After securing his flank, he launched all-out attacks on the Jurchen Jin Empire in northern China. Then after a diplomatic humiliation by the Turkic Khorezm Sultanate in Central Asia (the Sultan sent back the heads of the Khan's emissaries), the Khan invaded the far west and destroyed the forces of the Sultan. In the meantime, his subordinates continued raiding and subduing the Jin. He died while beseiging and taking a fortified city somewhere after that.

At his death in accordance with Mongol custom, the empire was split among his four sons. Mongolia and northern China became the Yuan Dynasty and nominally the overlord of the 4 realms. Central Asia became the Caghatai Khanate. Persia and the Middle East holdings became the Ilkhan. Russia became the Golden Horde. The links betw the 4 realms held until after Kublai's death although the other 3 realms were really independent after Ogodei's death (the 2nd Great Khan).

It was left to his descendants and followers to continue the conquests. Kublai Khan commanded the forces that invaded the Chinese Southern Song Dynasty in southern China. Batu led the forces invading Russia and Eastern Europe. Tuolei (I think or maybe Arghun) brought another army into Persia and the Mid-East.

In an interesting side-note, the Ilkhan Mongols spent a few years flushing out and destroying an Islamic sect - known as the Assassins (or Hassassins, not sure here). This sect or organisation was feared thru out the Middle East cos their main specialty was assassination. Hence our modern word, assassin. I have forgotten what was their agenda but in modern parlance, they would be terrorists.
The Assassins hid out in their mountain stronghold somewhere in Persia and were led by someone called the Old Man of the Mountain. The Mongols brought in Chinese explosive specialists and flushed out and destroyed the entire organisation after a few hard years of campaigning in hostile territory.
Sounds familiar? ;)

(this ties in nicely with the WW2 thread)

http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm

"Josef Stalin said that his best generals were "January and February." Indeed, the great invasions of Russia by Napoleon and Hitler came to grief in great measure because of the harsh Russian winter. Napoleon lost much of his Grand Army in 1812 in a retreat from Moscow in the cold and the snow. Hitler was aware of Napoleon's failure, but he expected to conquer Russia before winter set in. However, Hitler got delayed by a campaign against Yugoslavia and then launched forces, not only towards Moscow, but against Leningrad and the Ukraine also. Thus, as the snow began to fall in 1941, the Germans had barely come within sight of Moscow. They weren't even prepared for winter. The men did not have winter clothing and the summer oil in the tanks actually froze.

In light of these events, it is chilling (as it were) to remember that the Mongols conquered Russia during the winter. The Mongols liked winter. Frozen rivers and marshes meant that they could ride right over barriers that in the spring or summer would have slowed them down. Their tough Central Asian ponies knew how to dig down through the snow to eat the frozen grass beneath. This all made for a terror unknown to the Russians before or since. What the Russians then called their Mongol conquers was the "Tartars" -- invaders come from Tartarus, the deepest part of Hell. However, this was a deliberate modification of the Persian word tâtâr, which just meant a kind of Turk, though the Mongols, of course, were not Turks. But then, as the Mongols appeared out of nowhere from the Steppe, arriving from origins far beyond the knowledge of Russians or Persians, no one really knew who they were or where they were from. To Europeans, they seemed like the Scourge of God."

Khan for sure, he was just too powerful

:ripper: :rocket2: :rocket: :rocket3: [plasma] :tank: :sniper: :soldier:

Saladin. The Muslims were by far the most advanced and powerful people of the time. He retook the Holy Land from the Crusaders and defeated Richard I in the Third Crusade. Unlike most powerful leaders, Saladin actually had a good reputation. He was one of the few leaders in history to prove that you can be both powerful and civilized at the same time.

This may be a bit of home-spun wisdom but have you heard the saying "It is the first who usually is the greatest". If you apply this to the question then surely you missed out the greatest ruler of all time. I am of couse talking about the one and only Alexander The Great. He conquered for more than the Romans ever did and was the first person ever to create an empire. And he did this all by the tender age of 32. When Caesar visited Spain to serve as its governor, he visited a statue of Alexander and wept because he knew how much Alexander had done by the time he was 32 and in contrast how little Caesar had done.

well, as jc011 points out with his smilies, Khan was a great General, so was Alex the great, a great General, and so were many of the other people you pointed out. the question was NOT who was the best General, however. its who was the best leader. after Alexander died, greece was dimished back to almost what it was before he lived. yes they gained land, but he was no nation-builder like Washington was. Khan's empire fractured into obsessivley smaller peices, and there was never order in any of it. This is why I voted for Napoleon, he invented Celcius, Kilometers, and brought order to France, PLUS being a great general. {He also invented a new calander, and other things...}

so maybe I should start a best general thread, but try to keep the social and economic situation in mind when answering

actually, I'll ask a MOD to close this thread, and I'll start 2 new ones, another 'who was the best leader' which will refer to this thread in the opening message, and a second, who was the best general, that will also refer to this thread. all voted, however, will not be carried.

as soon as this thread is closed, I will do this.

Originally posted by Karl Marx the Penguin
I can't speak for the poller but the question is about the leader not his empire. The question is who was the best leader of all time. Who was the best strategist, thinker, morale booster, etc. We are talkin' about the man (or woman but that's unlikely) who could talk a 500 men armed with rifles to fight 1000 men with machine guns and somehow be able to kill half the enemy. We are talking about someone who by sheer will would be able to bring enemies to there kneees. We are talkin' about a person who's leadership abilities were so good he could take 1% of the world's population and lead them all to their certain deaths, and have only minor deserting even though they all knew what was going to happen.

Obviously such a man hasn't came, but the closest is either Napolean, or Hitler

What about Shaka Zulu then?

Noone have mentioned some of the most powerful rulers ever. None of them really were military men, but who needs to be general if you can order others to be?

The popes. And to name the most powerful pope: Innocentius III. When he lived he basicly ruled the whole Europe.

again, I am not talking about the best general...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9001

direct all comments about military leadership ALONE to this thread.

Pfft. You guys are both sexist and suffering from military tunnel vision. :)

The most powerful ruler of all time would probably have to be:


Queen Victoria.

The sun never set on her empire.

/bruce

Yeah, but Queen Victoria was only a figurehead; and the Brit empire came about thru the efforts of thousands of officials and military officers, nothing much to do with her. When we mean powerful ruler, we mean like you order it in Karakoram, and it happens in Baghdad. We aren't talking about the greatest empire on earth - that's another thread. ;)

Okay, I voted for Adolf, but NOT for any of those popularity-scorching, twisted reasons that Scorch did, but because of how I took the question - who had the most power, not who used it best.

"Power" is obviously relative. Queen Victoria might have ruled a large empire, and had a cool title. Yeah, she was Empress of India. But what actual POWER to do things did she actually have? Could she pick up the phone and say "expropriate the company!" or "shoot Gertrude Manstein's child" or "invade that country" and expect it to happen on a moment's notice?

What is unusual about Hitler on the list is the combination of his government's power to instantly influence the lives of individual citizens inside and outside Germany, and Hitler's PERSONAL ability to direct every action of that government. Compared to, say, Caesar's ability to influence the life of a Roman citizen in Central Spain, Hitler was infinitely more powerful for real people in real terms.

And for that record, that's why governments shouldn't be run like civs, obviously.

I voted Ghengis Khan, He is waaaay cool!

Hey, in my arms brother :d
Yeah you're right. This is the best ruler ever. How such a perfection in one man can exist? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/icons/icon22.gif ;)
No really that's the wisest choice a man can ever ever do. Great. Hey wannabe my right hand? ;)

Originally posted by Richard III

What is unusual about Hitler on the list is the combination of his government's power to instantly influence the lives of individual citizens inside and outside Germany, and Hitler's PERSONAL ability to direct every action of that government. Compared to, say, Caesar's ability to influence the life of a Roman citizen in Central Spain, Hitler was infinitely more powerful for real people in real terms.

And for that record, that's why governments shouldn't be run like civs, obviously.

Not really instantly, took him several years with a bit of luck:p

And his influence has both a positive(from German's stand point) and negative(from German's stand point) to Germany.



GenghisK: not to bust your balls, but my source once informed that Genghis K.'s origin isn't ..........

How shall I put this? Ummm...... His mother was raped by his father, hehe. Actually his father stolen the daughter of a tribe leader. She was taken away unwillingly, of course, but then after a while they lived together

Can someone confirm this? Although I believe my source is quite accurate

BTW, I also voted for Genghis cause his superior believe of "all grassland should be the feeding ground of Mongolian horses" :p

Originally posted by cataclysm
GenghisK: not to bust your balls, but my source once informed that Genghis K.'s origin isn't ..........

How shall I put this? Ummm...... His mother was raped by his father, hehe. Actually his father stolen the daughter of a tribe leader. She was taken away unwillingly, of course, but then after a while they lived together

Can someone confirm this? Although I believe my source is quite accurate That was a common 'custom' in Mongolia at that time, stealing of women, betw tribes. I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Even Bortei, Genghis K's wife (real historical one, not present :p ) got stolen in his early days (by the Merkits I think). When GK got her back, Bortei gave birth to their firstborn about a yr or so later. So no one was even sure if the son was really, you know, of GK's bloodline. One major reason why he lost out to Ogodei (the third son) when the time came to choose a new Great Khan.

GenghisK: not to bust your balls, but my source once informed that Genghis K.'s origin isn't ..........

How shall I put this? Ummm...... His mother was raped by his father, hehe. Actually his father stolen the daughter of a tribe leader. She was taken away unwillingly, of course, but then after a while they lived together


Yep that's quite true. But that didn't prevent him to be the most famous conqueror ever... Apparently the poll results won't deny that :p

It has to be Genghis Khan because he was the ruler to have ruled the most people directly then anyother ruler.

ok, as i think most of us are talking generals, i would like to review for a sec the ones who have the most public opinion...

genghis Kahn was very influential, obviously, to his men. they all obeyed him, all that stuff, but i think the amazing thing about him was all the land he took. they must have been awesome in battle, with their great war horses and hun steel... like if you've ever seen the movie mulan :D but seriously, that is pretty much how i picture them.

then theres good old julius Caesar. most people dont know that much about his battles, but from what ive heard and belive, his men loved him and were very loyal, and he was a brilliant stratigist. he did actually take a lot of europe himself (most famously gaul, spain, and britain) and he didnt get famous for nothing. plus he could do politics pretty good to, for the day, after all he killed pompey and that other moron and took over the triumviate...

alexander the great: i really dont know that much about this bloke, other than he beat the persion (sp) army of 25000 with like 15000 men or something like that (which is very cool) up spartan warmongers! :D and i know he also took a lot of land, all the way to india to fight the elephants:D

napolean is another obvious choice, he did take all of europe after all. his brilliance on the battle field cannot be dismissed.
(i would like him a lot more if i liked the way battles were fought in his time. the mongolians, romans, and spartans are all very cool, but men walking toward each other on and open field, standing in a line shooting and dieing isnt battle or combat, its a useless massacare, like in the patriot :D )

then theirs hitler. he could definatly infuince those around him, the practically talked the whole country into war. all the germans did: their blitzenkreig (sp, "lightning war") their advanced weapons, the SS paranormal, the nazis, all that, he is, at least in part, responsible. but he was an @$$ hole. (sorry mods, its true though)

so, you take your pick. i think that pretty much sums it up...

my vote would have to go to genghis and the huns or julius and his invicible roman legions. because their both pretty darn cool.

Originally posted by scorch
People instantly think that hitler was really bad and **** like that because he killed all the jews. . . . I look up 2 hitler because of the way he didn't accept how germany was being treated, and changed everything.

Yes, he was bad. He was also a very poor military commander. His ideology blinded him to the truth and left him unable to make important decisions. The "Jewish question" alone cost him vast and significant resources. Also, the empire would not have lasted as most people were excluded from its benefits and would have revolted at some point. He left Germany in ruins, and the world determined to never let it happen again. Hitler's greatest legacy is Israel.

Genghis Khan took a warring band of small nations, without a significant agricultural infrastructure, united them, and conquered the world. His accomplishment as a military commander was preeminent.

Rather than Ceasar, I would say Augustus.

Ceasar died (war murdered) just as he became truly powerful. Agustus was the one that actually managed to consolidate all the power. After the civil wars, there wasn't anyone willing to resist Augustus.

/bruce

Three pages and only one post for Stalin?!!?!

Stalin wielded more power than any human being has ever wielded in human history. He could make a call from Moscow and within an hour someone in Vladivostok could be arrested and never heard from again. He could get away with things Hitler never could have. Hitler never broke the back of his officers like Stalin did. I have read many, many stories on Stalin, Hitler, and not so many on Genghis Khan, but it was the sheer size and scale of Stalin's absolute rule of the USSR that gets him my vote.
Stalin's power in the post-war period was far greater than Hitler's when he occupied virtually the entirety of Europe. He had his tendrils in everything.

Quite a bunch of people is lacking in this poll. There should at least be an "other, please explain"-option. And Louis XVI is not Louis IVX...

I'd go for Gengis btw...

Peppy II has Chariots????

David of the Islearl has ??? warrior??? Fanatics???

Alaxander the Great has the Phalanx (Heavy Infantry)

but the Phalanx was outdated when Roman Legionary crushed the Macedonian army in The Battle of Cynoscephalae

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html

Ceasar has the Legionary (Heavy Infantry + Horsemen)

but the Legionary was oudated when the barbarian (similar to the Mongels) crushed the Roman army in The Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis)

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/adrianople.html

Genghis Khan has the Whore (Heavy Horsemen: Horsemen with heavy armor)

Henry the 8th has the Knights (Horsemen with heavy armor)

Louis IVX has the Musketeers (Infantry with Muskets)

George Washington has the Riflemen (Infantry with Guns)

Queen Victoria has the Infantry( Infantry with Guns) + Little bit of tanks+ some Man-O-War

Frederick, of Prussia has the Infantry (Infantry with Guns) + Draft

Nepoleon has the Cavalry (Horsemen with guns)

Hitler has the Panzar (Tank with Cannon)

If military power is the way to determine the outcome :D

George W Bush is the most powerful man in the world and the history until he lost the position as the president of United States

If economical power is the way to determine the outcome :D

George W Bush is still the most powerful man in the world and the history until he lost the position as the president of United States

One famous man said "Political powers come from guns", let's said it's true.:rolleyes:

Then, George W Bush can declare Genghis Khan as the most wanted terrorist, and send in his armies as "police action" and catch Genghis Khan alive!!!!

Or he can have congress spend few Billion dollars to catch Genghis Khan.

Also if the 911 incident did not occur, George W Bush can still proclaim Genghis Khan as a terrorist, since he slughtered millions of people.

George W Bush can also declare war on Germany if Austria tries to take over the Balkans (WWI):nuke:

George W Bush can also send troops to Europes and defeat both Nepoleon and Hitler for an alliance with the English

George W Bush can also defeat the English by have MacDonalds (America's most Cultural place) to conqer the english culturally
:goodjob:

George W Bush Can replace Greenspan from the board and have some one replace the head of George Washington's head (hint: the dollar bills):king:

see, i have proved that George W Bush is and was indeed the most powerful man ever

:lol:

maybe the second to George W Bush is Ben Franklin:lol:

This is uncomparable:D

if Hitler asked or asking his advisors now about America when he is trying to negotiate with George W Bush.

The Advisor will say

"The Americans have 1 million ICBM+ Stealth + Modern Armor"
"Our people are afraid of American's ICBMs"
"Our people are bewildered by American culture"

Like I said before

if George Bush wants to he only needs one ICBM to defeat the German, the Greek, the England and etc in the time and the reign of those leaders.

One ICBM is enough to defeat any nations that doesn't and didn't have nuclear weapon

If comparing right now, US is the most powerful comparing culturally, economically, militaristically.

See how MacDonalds conqer the world :lol:

This Golden Era has never been experienced before in the history of man kind

:king:

:) What about Rammases[dance] :beer: [dance]

Well, I understand what you're saying Headline, but Bush is straightjacketed laws and public opinion. When I think of "most powerful" I think of who has the power to do whatever he wants and get away with it.
That's real power.:king:

The election of the leaders in this poll seems surrealistic. George Washington? Henry VIII? David? I do not think that they were specially powerful in his time

On the other hand there are absent leaders as Carlos V or Philip II that they were the most powerful in his epochs, without any doubt.

if Hitler asked or asking his advisors now about America when he is trying to negotiate with George W Bush.

The Advisor will say

"The Americans have 1 million ICBM+ Stealth + Modern Armor"
"Our people are afraid of American's ICBMs"
"Our people are bewildered by American culture"

Like I said before

if George Bush wants to he only needs one ICBM to defeat the German, the Greek, the England and etc in the time and the reign of those leaders.

One ICBM is enough to defeat any nations that doesn't and didn't have nuclear weapon
of those leaders.

One ICBM is enough to defeat any nations that doesn't and didn't have nuclear weapon

If comparing right now, US is the most powerful comparing culturally, economically, militaristically.

See how MacDonalds conqer the world

This Golden Era has never been experienced before in the history of man kind

Any thing that USA can do any European country has done it yet, better, before and during much more time. Besides USA can not use ICBMs against anybody because in the same moment would be burst By Chinesse, Russians, French, english... ICBMs

About yours "culture" do you refer Burgers and Hollywood pictures? ... :lol: :lol: :lol: Comparing the American culture with the European is like to compare the Partenon with a supermarket or Venice with Las Vegas.

You have the own stupidity of the new rich one.

You have the own stupidity of the new rich one.

And you have the snottiness of a run down old one.

I'm not American but I'm sick of people putting down "new" nations. A country is made up of people alive in it right now. History is fascinating, instructive, but America is not some baby in the cradle. And trust me, as a Canadian, when I say American culture is a very powerful real force (even if it annoys me on occasion). Not as long, but then how far back do any people look to define itself?

Heh, what kills me is people claiming their historical and cultural legacy as if they created it themselves.

/bruce

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg


Any thing that USA can do any European country has done it yet, better, before and during much more time. Besides USA can not use ICBMs against anybody because in the same moment would be burst By Chinesse, Russians, French, english... ICBMs

About yours "culture" do you refer Burgers and Hollywood pictures? ... :lol: :lol: :lol: Comparing the American culture with the European is like to compare the Partenon with a supermarket or Venice with Las Vegas.

You have the own stupidity of the new rich one.

Comprende el inglesia?

Did I ever say the America "now" can defeat any nations "now" using ICBMs?

I said American "now" can defeat any nations in the time and reign of those leaders

Or nations that doesn't and didn't have nuclear power

admit that hollywood is a wonder!!!!

+2000 cultural points for propaganda Hollywood brings,,,,,

+500 cultural points for a replica of EIFFEL in Las Vegas +500 golds each year for the Casino part

+500 cultural points for a fake Pyramid hotel in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

+500 cultural points for a fake Ceaser's palace in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

what else?????
too many
I won't go into detail

US is building SDI now,,,,,,,mmm,,,,,spain has???:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Headline


Comprende el inglesia?

Did I ever say the America "now" can defeat any nations "now" using ICBMs?

I said American "now" can defeat any nations in the time and reign of those leaders

Or nations that doesn't and didn't have nuclear power

admit that hollywood is a wonder!!!!

+2000 cultural points for propaganda Hollywood brings,,,,,

+500 cultural points for a replica of EIFFEL in Las Vegas +500 golds each year for the Casino part

+500 cultural points for a fake Pyramid hotel in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

+500 cultural points for a fake Ceaser's palace in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

what else?????
too many
I won't go into detail

US is building SDI now,,,,,,,mmm,,,,,spain has???:rolleyes:

Headline, what are you on about? Who gives a monkey about Las Vegas?

The Hollywood propaganda works only on you. G W Bush the most powerfull ... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Back to the thread. Given the choice above, I'll go for Genghis Khan but otherwise - Stalin.

Comprende el inglesia?


Totally illegible.


admit that hollywood is a wonder!!!!

+2000 cultural points for propaganda Hollywood brings,,,,,

+500 cultural points for a replica of EIFFEL in Las Vegas +500 golds each year for the Casino part

+500 cultural points for a fake Pyramid hotel in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

+500 cultural points for a fake Ceaser's palace in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

what else?????
too many
I won't go into detail

US is building SDI now,,,,,,,mmm,,,,,spain has???


how old are you? Not if I am speaking with a child or it is that in USA you all are so puerile. (Maybe it is the effect of Holliwood's movies :lol: )

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg


Totally illegible.



how old are you? Not if I am speaking with a child or it is that in USA you all are so puerile. (Maybe it is the effect of Holliwood's movies :lol: )

Calm down kiddie:goodjob:

u don't have to do the labeling when ur nation doesn't have anything to offer to the world:D

Originally posted by Bulgar


Headline, what are you on about? Who gives a monkey about Las Vegas?

The Hollywood propaganda works only on you. G W Bush the most powerfull ... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Back to the thread. Given the choice above, I'll go for Genghis Khan but otherwise - Stalin.


Let me know when u decided not to watch any Hollywood movies again:lol:

New movie the Lord Of Ring's pretty good,,,,,,,,u don't want to miss it

Originally posted by Headline


Comprende el inglesia?

Did I ever say the America "now" can defeat any nations "now" using ICBMs?

I said American "now" can defeat any nations in the time and reign of those leaders

Or nations that doesn't and didn't have nuclear power

admit that hollywood is a wonder!!!!

+2000 cultural points for propaganda Hollywood brings,,,,,

+500 cultural points for a replica of EIFFEL in Las Vegas +500 golds each year for the Casino part

+500 cultural points for a fake Pyramid hotel in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

+500 cultural points for a fake Ceaser's palace in Las Vegas +500 golds each year

what else?????
too many
I won't go into detail

US is building SDI now,,,,,,,mmm,,,,,spain has???:rolleyes:

Let me reaffirm again

Las Vegas is a city of gambling, everyone know that

That means it has a pretty good culture.

Comparing to some unknown Spanish city, it is more famous.

There is reason why Las Vegas is famous

The reason is that a lot of money are used to build these fabulous hotels. There are also a lot of tourist activities. These tourist activities turn into casino money and government tax.

the Casino in Las Vegas is an example of American culture.

Hollywood is a wonder just like Shakespeare's theather. In the film, u can see the portrait of American Life. American Beauty for example, shows the life of midage American suburban man. American Pie for example, shows the life of young American suburban young men. In fact, all American movies contain certain elements of American culture. When one watch them, one absorbs these cultures. Unless you quit any Hollywood movies, or u will ended up absorbing some of the American cultures.

I recommand watching Tom Hank's Cast Away
you can see a lot of Fedex ads, which help u absorb some American cultures.

Originally posted by Headline
The reason is that a lot of money are used to build these fabulous hotels.

Las Vegas was build by gangsters. Bugsy -- cultural icon. :crazyeyes

u don't have to do the labeling when ur nation doesn't have anything to offer to the world


my friend, your blunder was remarkable, considering that thorgalaeg is Spanish. Spain has given to the world more than USA will never be able to offer: the land on that you tread, for example. I think that it is more than a few movies. Dont you agree?. ;)

God knows why Stalin isn't up. Possibly the most influential and powerful man of the twentieth century save for Hitler, and you have David of Israel up.

/me taps on your head to see if there's anything going on.

Mhm, I think it was Tokugawa.

I voted Genghis,because geographically it was big,but it was no unity or stabileand fell apart after his death.So I say Trajan,Roman Emperor in the 2nd century AD.Hadrian conquered things like Dacia,but Trajan kept it and romanized it (at least partly)