Top 5 Greatest Statesmen/Emperor/King/Queen/President in History
- Thread starter Transkar
- Start date
Emperor Giulio
King
Augustus
Alexander The Great
Abraham Lincoln
Elizabeth I
Napoleon Bonaparte
Alexander The Great
Abraham Lincoln
Elizabeth I
Napoleon Bonaparte
I think the best expression isn't that he lacked understanding of "grand strategy," but rather as Schroeder famously put it, he never saw a jugular he wouldn't go for.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Plus - he did not fully exploit the support of the Poles, who were perhaps his most devoted allies. For example by restoring the Commonwealth, instead of just creating a starting point, recruiting ground and ammunition storehouse for his invasion of Russia, called "the Duchy of Warsaw", without weakening Prussia and Austria too much. Poles were disappointed with Napoleon. Franciszek Salezy Dmochowski in 1858 in his "Memoirs from 1806 - 1830" wrote:
"People say, that some foreigner who arrived at the Warta and Prosna, asked:
- What country is this?
- Varsovian duchy - they answered
- Who rules here?
- A Saxon king.
- What kind of army is here?
- Polish.
- What laws?
- French.
- And what money?
- Prussian.
- This must be some tower of Babel - said the traveler."
There was even such a popular saying at that time: "Poland needs a Polish Napoleon".
But considering how the real French Napoleon ruined his home country in the end - maybe it's not a good saying.
Emperor Giulio
King
What are you? a history hipster? lol
Emperor Giulio
King
Augustus
First Emperor of Rome, greatly expanded the empire
Alexander The Great
Conquered most of the known world, including Persia which was Hellenistic civilization's greatest rival.
Abraham Lincoln
Re-united the United States, and allowed free-labor to be to surpass slave power, allowing the U.S. expand west unfetter. The U.S. would go on to become an economic and industrial powerhouse as a result of free-labor capitalism.
Elizabeth I
Followed in her father's foot steps to break the Catholic Church off from England, saved it from the Spanish, and the Scottish. Her country would go on to gain super-power status free from papal interference.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Conquered most of Europe, and gave England a run for their money.
Sure, I know these are well known figures in history, but just because people know about them doesn't diminish their greatness, as apparently some of you may think. Overrated by who? Reputable sources? That's an inferior point of view, sorry Hipsters.
First Emperor of Rome, greatly expanded the empire
Alexander The Great
Conquered most of the known world, including Persia which was Hellenistic civilization's greatest rival.
Abraham Lincoln
Re-united the United States, and allowed free-labor to be to surpass slave power, allowing the U.S. expand west unfetter. The U.S. would go on to become an economic and industrial powerhouse as a result of free-labor capitalism.
Elizabeth I
Followed in her father's foot steps to break the Catholic Church off from England, saved it from the Spanish, and the Scottish. Her country would go on to gain super-power status free from papal interference.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Conquered most of Europe, and gave England a run for their money.
Sure, I know these are well known figures in history, but just because people know about them doesn't diminish their greatness, as apparently some of you may think. Overrated by who? Reputable sources? That's an inferior point of view, sorry Hipsters.
Emperor Giulio
King
zero...negative one...negative two...negative three
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
I for once am impaciently waiting for the Dachspwn. (Usually its not the case)
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
I'm going to focus on this one, because it's the easiest. Let's break down the claims:
1) Followed in her father's foot steps to break the Catholic Church off from England.
I suppose, though I'm not really sure what this has to do with running the ship of state. It has a lot more to do with your sympathies for either the Catholic or Protestant churches.
2) saved [England] from the Spanish.
Not really. Elizabeth had next to nothing to do with the defeat of the Armada. Had you read the last few pages of the thread, which has been filled with completely unabashed Elizabethan fanboyism and the counterpoints, you'd know this.
3) saved [England] from the Scottish.
Saved it from them how? Certainly not from military domination, which would have been completely implausible. And lets remember that Elizabeth's successor was, wait for it, Scottish.
4) Her country would go on to gain super-power status free from papal interference.
Sure. But James Buchanan's country would go on to gain super-power status free from slavery as well. You haven't really said what, if anything, Elizabeth had to do with this.
Emperor Giulio
King
1) Breaking off from the Catholic Church allowed England to pursue a more independent path, without having to defer to papal authority.
2) & 3) Sure the storm had destroyed most of the Spanish armada, and the English navy of coarse could be credited more towards the defeat of the Spanish. But as Queen, she acted as a leader, and did not submit to foreign intimidation. Yes, James I was a Scotsman, but Scotland was not the preeminent power in the Britain, in the aftermath of the war, England was. He had become king by birthright, since his mother was Elizabeth’s cousin. Nevertheless, if Scotland had the upper hand, then how could they allow their queen to be decapitated?
4 Figured this one was ipso facto after reading the first point. Without the inference of papal authority, England was able to pursue their own interests. It is my interpretation that this was the catalyst to their success.
BTW, what are your top 5 and why? Seems like everyone here just wants to sh__ on my opinion without opening themselves up to the discussion.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
I just think you're putting far too much weight in Papal authority, at a time when it didn't really mean so much any more. Spain made it to super power status just fine while remaining Catholic, and in return probably exercised just as much authority on the Pope. The other big players, France and Austria, were also Catholic powers.
What exactly was Papal influence preventing them from doing?
As for my top 5, I don't really have any, because it's not a question I've ever stopped to think about, since it's a question with no real answer.
What exactly was Papal influence preventing them from doing?
As for my top 5, I don't really have any, because it's not a question I've ever stopped to think about, since it's a question with no real answer.
Being a political leader during a war isn't a particularly unique or impressive achievement, and Scotland hadn't really been the predominant power in Britain since the battle of Brunanburh during reign of Æþelstan. If Scotland was in a position to majorly threat England, Mary of Scotland likely wouldn't have been imprisoned in the first place, and might have even usurped Elizabeth.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Eh? Mary was in England because she'd been deposed by a rebellion of Scottish Protestants. The Scottish crown was at the time of her execution in the hands of a regency of Protestant lords who were were quite happy to see somebody else do the dirty work of taking her head.
Emperor Giulio
King
I have to say I agree with you on that, what exactly quantifies greatness? I merely did this for fun, my reasoning for my choices were many, though not consistent with one another. Moreover, though I placed them on this list, doesn't mean I particularly like them. Personally, I think Napoleon was a Sh__-heel. The only one on the list I particular like is Lincoln.
My favorite historical leaders goes as follows
1. Andrew Jackson
2. Oliver Cromwell
3. Scipio Africanus
4. General Douglas MacArthur
5. Nat Turner
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Genocidal lunatic, genocidal lunatic, genocidal lunatic, genocidal lunatic, suicidal lunatic. Interesting choices.
